281 Fudd Impact?

[occbrian]

I'm looking over the amended bill again and I noticed something. I'm not in Smigiel's office, so I can't verify what the current statute says... so I might not be interpreting this correctly.

BUT...

Bill page 26, line 9... "A firearm application shall contain"
then skip to Bill page 28, line 1. "A COPY OF THE APPLICANT'S HANDGUN QUALIFICATION LICENCE."

Appears that our fudd friends might have to get fingerprinted if they want to purchase a firearm.

I'm speaking to Andi and she is sending everything to Smigiel on the floor. I'm trying to get it amended, but if not.... at least it will piss off all of the fudds. eventually. maybe.

ETA-- I guess you don't have to submit an app for a non-regulated firearm, so maybe this doesn't apply.

 

[occbrian]

OTOH...

If it is only for regulated purchases, I don't think you should need a HANDGUN Qualification license to purchase a RIFLE.

 

[plinkerton]

OTOH...

If it is only for regulated purchases, I don't think you should need a HANDGUN Qualification license to purchase a RIFLE.

Let's call it the PITA amendment.

 

[occbrian]

... waiting for a response from Del. Mike.

 

[Raineman]

An amendment was proposed last night that would have allowed the hunters safety course to be an acceptable criteria. I believe that amendment failed (verify?).

I would also reiterate how important it is to not use the term fudd. It doesn't tick me off, but there are many that it does. Many that we would like to recruit.

I (and a few others) have been keeping a large number of hunters informed, and have even been successful in having some of them take action. I can assure you, if you want their help, terminology such as that will not be tolerated and in fact, push them away.

By the way, I hunt a lot with a pistol, as do many others, so this applies. Hunters (proper term) have already been crapped on in western MD with the "carry while bowhunting" bill that went nowhere.

occ, I am in Eldersburg, so any time you want to have a pow wow and "strategize", I'm in.

 

[occbrian]

An amendment was proposed last night that would have allowed the hunters safety course to be an acceptable criteria. I believe that amendment failed (verify?).

I would also reiterate how important it is to not use the term fudd. It doesn't tick me off, but there are many that it does. Many that we would like to recruit.

I (and a few others) have been keeping a large number of hunters informed, and have even been successful in having some of them take action. I can assure you, if you want their help, terminology such as that will not be tolerated and in fact, push them away.

By the way, I hunt a lot with a pistol, as do many others, so this applies. Hunters (proper term) have already been crapped on in western MD with the "carry while bowhunting" bill that went nowhere.

occ, I am in Eldersburg, so any time you want to have a pow wow and "strategize", I'm in.

Hunter's safety course counts for the qualification portion of the license.

I apologize for the term, but I do NOT equate Fudd=Hunter.

My dad is a hunter, but not a fudd. To me, a fudd is someone who only cares about their bolt gun and their bird gun and could care less if other firearms are heavily regulated.

But I definitely understand what you are saying and will strike the term from my vocabulary.

 

[fabsroman]

OTOH...

If it is only for regulated purchases, I don't think you should need a HANDGUN Qualification license to purchase a RIFLE.

If SB281 passes, handguns will be the only regulated firearms because assault weapons will be banned.

 

[Raineman]

I learn something new every day.

Taste of my shoe is getting old though.

 

[occbrian]

If SB281 passes, handguns will be the only regulated firearms because assault weapons will be banned.

True enough.

So do you read the licensing portion of the amended bill to only apply to handgun purchasers or ALL purchasers?

 

[occbrian]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5gNf6qXtSyqS3d6aDU0bGZBQnM/edit?usp=sharing


I saved the bill to Drive in case anyone doesn't have a copy. It does not include amendments from last night.

 

[fabsroman]

True enough.

So do you read the licensing portion of the amended bill to only apply to handgun purchasers or ALL purchasers?

Which version of the amended bill? Are we talking about the fax version of the proposed amendments? If somebody wants to e-mail or pm me the specific language, or even post it in this thread, I'll look it over. Otherwise, I have been working off of the faxed amendments. Actually, I might have downloaded something recently, but have no idea if it was before or after the fax amendments.

 

[occbrian]

Which version of the amended bill? Are we talking about the fax version of the proposed amendments? If somebody wants to e-mail or pm me the specific language, or even post it in this thread, I'll look it over. Otherwise, I have been working off of the faxed amendments. Actually, I might have downloaded something recently, but have no idea if it was before or after the fax amendments.

Post above yours, link to the specific copy I'm referring to.

That's the bill they started with last night.

 

[danb]

you might be right about this. I say leave it alone. The more people they piss off at this point the better.

 

[fabsroman]

Post above yours, link to the specific copy I'm referring to.

That's the bill they started with last night.

I just went over the fax amendment and you are reading it correctly. Guess they assume that since it is in Pub Safety 5-1xx that it only applies to regulated firearms, but that is not the way it reads based upon the definition of "firearm" and "firearm applicant". This bill is so screwed up it isn't even funny.

 

[fabsroman]

you might be right about this. I say leave it alone. The more people they piss off at this point the better.

Yep, let them piss off as many people as possible. Too many people are sitting on the sidelines on this one thinking that they will never be coming for the shotguns and bolt action rifles they own. Up next, all semi automatic firearms, that can fire more than 2 rounds. Nobody needs more than a double barrel for hunting. Where is my sarcasm button?

 

[occbrian]

I just went over the fax amendment and you are reading it correctly. Guess they assume that since it is in Pub Safety 5-1xx that it only applies to regulated firearms, but that is not the way it reads based upon the definition of "firearm" and "firearm applicant". This bill is so screwed up it isn't even funny.

Thanks for the confirmation... I've already notified Andi Morony and she has notified Del. Smigiel.

If it passes, GOOD.

If it fails, GOOD... we'll have a vote on the board to restrict the rights of hunters.

 

[danb]

i dont think that they can vote to amend this. If they insert "regulated," then doesn't that mean that long guns and other unregulated guns need no application?


hahahahahaha. this bill is so ****ed up. i DEMAND that they enforce this provision too.

 

[occbrian]

i dont think that they can vote to amend this. If they insert "regulated," then doesn't that mean that long guns and other unregulated guns need no application?


hahahahahaha. this bill is so ****ed up. i DEMAND that they enforce this provision too.

They could amend it to say, "a HANDGUN firearm application"

ETA--- I see your point. Either way, this bill is F'd and the hunting community will riot if they try to make them submit fingerprints.

 

[Jaybeez]

I want to see an up or down vote on long gun open carry amendment. it gets them on record, either good for us or good for the woollard case.

 

[danb]

They could amend it to say, "a HANDGUN firearm application"

but my point is, that section deals with all firearms applications right. if they insert "handgun" at the top, doesn't that mean that shotguns and other guns need NO application, the way that section reads?