Referendum

[6-Pack]

Introduce legislation favorable to 2A next year. Work to dial things back.

If we believe that the law is unconstitutional, why would we give it credibility as something that a voting majority can decide by referendum, particularly in this political climate? A referendum is not an option for an illegal law.

The first and only fight should be the courts. The law is illegal. If the courts don't agree, then the upheld law becomes something that has to be modified with new legislation. That's when public education comes in.

A referendum would be a distraction to the legal effort. Loosing the referendum would cement the "people's will"

I don't think the public will vote to un-ring this bell. Here's just a few reasons:

It's 2A vs. " for the children".

It's a group of 2A supporters that just had our asses handed to us vs. lobbyists, political machines, media bias and unlimited cash from out of state.

It's a group of 2A supporters that have taken the time learn and understand the constitution vs. a bunch of voters that will not give this issue the level of scrutiny that is needed to reverse it.

The largest populated areas in MD are the hardest to get on our side. All politics is local. The largely populated areas have gun problems. We loose purely on the numbers.

I just can't see how we can call the law unconstitutional but then ask the public to vote on it.

No offense, but if we couldn't defeat this bill (it was weakened - thank God, the MSI and NRA), why do you think pro-2A legislation would pass? Even if it did pass, it would be vetoed by the governor.

 

[MDFF2008]

1. Well if we are the minority, writing the question poorly will gain us votes for those thinking they are voting for the law it!

Why would a man appointed by O'malley "Write the question poorly?"

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Truly, a referendum is a non-starter for anyone looking beyond October 1. Let's see the big picture and act accordingly.

Sorry, thats just not true. It all depends on your goals and your position. For me I am looking forward at a state where there is a very real likelihood that fun ARs and other Assault rifles are banned in the future. I am thinking towards what I want to be able to pass on to my kids. The extra time buys us time to really stock up. Thats the Major reason, yes. However I would also say this. MD's ban is probably not as bad as several others. Those other bans will be better for the courts to hear than MD's ban. This will give them a good start and allow us to enjoy our freedom while they pave a path. The future is just uncertain. Their are some really good reasons to take it to referendum. I personal thing the disadvantages assuming a loss at referendum are fairly insignificant. Frankly its just how you see the scale... I see it in favor or referendum. That does not mean I am short sighted.

Why would a man appointed by O'malley "Write the question poorly?"

I guess it depends on how you look at poorly written. I was thinking in a way to trick those against the gun law to vote for it. If thats the case, then they would have those for the law voting against it. However, now I think I see what you are saying where they will have it ask "do you support this bill to save millions of children from being murdered." Yeah that would suck if they write it like that but we will just have to take that chance. Actually if we are going to lose anyway, its better the wording me bad so we can blame that on our loss.

 

[MDFF2008]

I guess it depends on how you look at poorly written. I was thinking in a way to trick those against the gun law to vote for it. If thats the case, then they would have those for the law voting against it. However, now I think I see what you are saying where they will have it ask "do you support this bill to save millions of children from being murdered." Yeah that would suck if they write it like that but we will just have to take that chance. Actually if we are going to lose anyway, its better the wording me bad so we can blame that on our loss.

"Do You Support a Ban on High Power Military Style Assault Rifles?"

I'm willing to bet that would be the wording.

 

[Boondock Saint]

Sorry, thats just not true. It all depends on your goals and your position. For me I am looking forward at a state where there is a very real likelihood that fun ARs and other Assault rifles are banned in the future. I am thinking towards what I want to be able to pass on to my kids. The extra time buys us time to really stock up. Thats the Major reason, yes. However I would also say this. MD's ban is probably not as bad as several others. Those other bans will be better for the courts to hear than MD's ban. This will give them a good start and allow us to enjoy our freedom while they pave a path. The future is just uncertain. Their are some really good reasons to take it to referendum. I personal thing the disadvantages assuming a loss at referendum are fairly insignificant. Frankly its just how you see the scale... I see it in favor or referendum. That does not mean I am short sighted.

Why is a referendum likely to win?

 

[Gbh]

No offense, but if we couldn't defeat this bill (it was weakened - thank God, the MSI and NRA), why do you think pro-2A legislation would pass?

Existing laws are ratcheted back or modified with a different purpose from time to time. I didn't say it would be easy. It will take a while.

We got hit during one of the worst political climates for constitutional rights. Political Ideology has gone too far off the center. It will return to center in time.

It starts with efforts to throw out the incumbent gun grabbing politicians. Supporting instead, those more conservative who believe in less government intrusion.

The public will become fed up with government overreaching as they experience the negative impact for themselves. They can be empowered to vote for their rights, not just 2A.

We also got hit due to a media frenzy causing a panic /overreaction in the legislature. The expiration of the federal assault weapons ban demonstrates how an issue can change over time.

Even if it did pass, it would be vetoed by the governor.

There will be a new Governor by then.

I wish I had better answers. We lost our fight with the legislature. If we loose in court, we will need to work on the things I mentioned above to gain back some of our rights. We really don't have many choices.

 

[aireyc]

It certainly won't be that long for a cert petition to be granted/denied, but that isn't the point.

A loss means that:

1. There is now a state wide mandate to support gun control. Political capital to spend out the ass on looney tunes measures that will further trample our rights.

2. Any litigation we would want to pursue against SB281 goes on hold.

3. When we finally do have the opportunity to sue, the courts can look to the fact that we lost a referendum on gun control and say "this is what the people want." It unquestionably will influence the case, and you had better believe that our AG, whoever he/she might be, will jump up and down on that point.

So let me get this straight, you're saying that the same people who ignored the pleas of 1000+ testimonies and who have already admitted they want to rid the world of guns wouldn't attempt to pass that legislation at some point in the future, even if we don't vote on a referendum? You mean to tell me that inaction on a referendum is somehow more advantageous because the people who would flood the state don't have to spend any money to ensure the law goes into effect? Do you mean to tell me that litigation going on hold is a bad thing? Those people who are just getting into the sport and haven't had the ability to build up a collection should forfeit their rights because of your assumption that putting legislation on hold a year is a bad thing? And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't California vote against same-sex marriage in referendum and that's still going through the courts?

You're a shill.

 

[Boondock Saint]

You're a shill.

I didn't have a good laugh today until I read the above. Thanks.

 

[teratos]

So let me get this straight, you're saying that the same people who ignored the pleas of 1000+ testimonies and who have already admitted they want to rid the world of guns wouldn't attempt to pass that legislation at some point in the future, even if we don't vote on a referendum? You mean to tell me that inaction on a referendum is somehow more advantageous because the people who would flood the state don't have to spend any money to ensure the law goes into effect? Do you mean to tell me that litigation going on hold is a bad thing? Those people who are just getting into the sport and haven't had the ability to build up a collection should forfeit their rights because of your assumption that putting legislation on hold a year is a bad thing? And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't California vote against same-sex marriage in referendum and that's still going through the courts?

You're a shill.

The shill part is pretty funny.

Keep in mind that the people who ignored the thousands of us there are the people who will write the question. The people who elected the people who ignored the thousands if us will be voting on the question. They outnumber us significantly in the State. People who know (attorneys who do nothing but 2A cases - who gave us "unofficial" opinions on a referendum because giving an official opinion drags their organization into it) say that a loss can most certainly harm us once we lose the referendum (and we will lose) once we get this to the courts.

 

[swinokur]

I agree with your assessment Tertatos.

 

[Truthlesshero81]

it seems to me that both sides of this argument on referendum break down into two different mindsets: those that think "the system" can be reformed versus those that think "the system" CANNOT be reformed.

Not sure which is right but I definitely have a bias.

I think if we begin to recognize this pattern the talk begins to make a lot more sense as to what people are actually saying.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

...

You're a shill.

While I agree with you on the first part of what you said, there is no need to call names. He has good points. I don't agree with complete but good none the less. He could very well be correct. Either way, we are having a good conversation, name calling is not helpful in anyway. Respectfully disagreeing is what we are doing here.

 

[MDFF2008]

So let me get this straight, you're saying that the same people who ignored the pleas of 1000+ testimonies and who have already admitted they want to rid the world of guns wouldn't attempt to pass that legislation at some point in the future, even if we don't vote on a referendum? You mean to tell me that inaction on a referendum is somehow more advantageous because the people who would flood the state don't have to spend any money to ensure the law goes into effect? Do you mean to tell me that litigation going on hold is a bad thing? Those people who are just getting into the sport and haven't had the ability to build up a collection should forfeit their rights because of your assumption that putting legislation on hold a year is a bad thing? And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't California vote against same-sex marriage in referendum and that's still going through the courts?

You're a shill.

You have 81 posts and your telling the vice president of the largest pro-2a group in Maryland he's a shill.

Calm down. No need to resort to name calling.

 

[teratos]

it seems to me that both sides of this argument on referendum break down into two different mindsets: those that think "the system" can be reformed versus those that think "the system" CANNOT be reformed.

Not sure which is right but I definitely have a bias.

I think if we begin to recognize this pattern the talk begins to make a lot more sense as to what people are actually saying.

It is also about the respect we give to a fundamental Right. I think it is disrespectful to put it up for a vote. These Rights existed before they were written down. People have no business "voting" about whether or not it applies.

 

[MDFF2008]

it seems to me that both sides of this argument on referendum break down into two different mindsets: those that think "the system" can be reformed versus those that think "the system" CANNOT be reformed.

Not sure which is right but I definitely have a bias.

I think if we begin to recognize this pattern the talk begins to make a lot more sense as to what people are actually saying.

What I am curious about is how many want the referendum just because it buys them more time to buy toys/just because it will piss off O'malley vs. how many are committed to giving up weekends for the next 17 months to attend events, stand out in front of gun shops, in front of MVAs, deal with people day and night educating them, and making weekly large donations?

 

[Haides]

...You're a shill.

It amazes me that someone who just showed up here in January can speak like that to someone who's been here for almost 4 1/2 years, has over 12k posts and is an Executive Member of MSI (and the VP too, as I just learned above).

Show some respect please.

 

[MDFF2008]

It amazes me how people who bitched for 4 months about making rash emotional decisions about gun control are now bitching about a decision based on logic and facts.

 

[swinokur]

It amazes me that someone who just showed up here in January can speak like that to someone who's been here for almost 4 1/2 years, has over 12k posts and is an Executive Member of MSI (and the VP too, as I just learned above).

Show some respect please.

Shows some people's ignorance doesn't it?

He's owed an apology big time IMO.

 

[teratos]

It amazes me that someone who just showed up here in January can speak like that to someone who's been here for almost 4 1/2 years, has over 12k posts and is an Executive Member of MSI (and the VP too, as I just learned above).

Show some respect please.

I know Boondock Saint. He's only in it for the money and the glory.....

 

[Haides]