HB1302-"The Neighborhood Bag Lady Can Take Your Guns" bill

[fidelity]

I don't know how widespread this is, but the ACLU doesn't like the red flag legislation that is being considered in Rhode Island and sounds very similar to the MD legislation (i.e. written by Bloomberg paid lobbyists) ...

http://www.riaclu.org/news/post/aclu-of-rhode-island-raises-red-flags-over-red-flag-gun-legislation

For them, it's mostly about due process violations, but they also realize that it's also going to be used as a cudgal against gun owners first amendment rights.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[Squaregrouper]

I got through a few minutes ago calling 410-974-3901

 

[FGT1958]

Here’s the email I just sent to the Gov. please correct me if anything I stated was inaccurate.

Dear Governor Hogan,

I am writing from beautiful Garrett County to request you veto HB 1302. This red flag bill, contains egregious language that goes against our rights granted to us by the US Constitution. Not only can it be used to unfairly target anyone who owns a gun, but also used to target anyonethat someone disagrees with. The accuser faces little to no recourse if they are found to be caught being less than truthful.

The nature of this type of bill is to prevent those with mental health issues, that may be a threat to themselves or others, from temporarily being able to have a firearm legally in their possession. But that is not how this bill is written.

As it stands, this bill is nothing short of a weapon to attack lawful gun owners. On top of being used to target certain a group of people (gun owners), it also begins to put limitations on free speech. A gun owner who would normally exercise their 1A rights to offer a dissenting opinion, would now have to live in fear of retribution for their words, or would be silenced completely because of this fear.

I am a father of two children, ages 11 and 8 and a husband of 14 years to my beautiful wife and it worries me, at how aggressively those in our legislature are working, to enact laws that clearly infringe on the rights of those they are supposed to represent.

Please veto this bill.

Sincerely,
Jefflac
Friendsville, MD


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Made a few edits for your approval.

Frank

 

[Jim12]

Republican excuses trickling in via e-mail.

"Other states have adopted HB1302 style legislation. It's therefore acceptable for Maryland to adopt a Red Flag law too."

I didn't know Republicans were so fond of cliffs and playing leaping lemming.

Well, then, let's dissolve the Maryland General ASSembly and just let other states make all our laws for us!

We could send the money we save on funding the ASSes to the Baltimore City public school system instead, so they can afford to bus more children to the Left's political rallies instead of freezing in unheated classrooms.

 

[ddeanjohnson]

some sobering thoughts on a "veto strategy"

Far be it from my intent, to discourage anyone from expressing their views to Governor Hogan. But for my own part, since at least a theoretical possibility still exists of improving some of the aspects of the bill that invite abuse, I believe that is where the focus of activity should remain-- specifics of which I have already discussed in a post earlier today, here.

Some of those who have shifted their focus to encouraging a veto, seem to be assuming that a veto would kill HB 1302, at least until after the next election. It seems to me that this assumption is unwarranted. My reasoning follows:

Under Article II, Section 17 of the Maryland Constitution, the General Assembly has the power to call a special session by demand of a majority in both houses. As I understand it, such special sessions may be and have been called specifically to consider veto overrides. If HB 1302 were vetoed and the General Assembly leadership responded by calling a special session (with much fanfare, no doubt), the bill would be returned to the House of Delegates, where the party ratio is 91 Democrats and 50 Republicans. The Maryland Constitution provides that a veto may be overridden by a vote of "three-fifths of the members elected to that House. . ." The House of Delegates contains 141 seats, and the Speaker's office says that there are currently no vacancies, so the required number of affirmative votes to override a veto would be 85.

Recall, if you will, that HB 1302 passed the House on March 15 by a vote of 116-17, with a couple dozen of the affirmative votes provided by Republicans. Yes, I understand that some of the aye-voting delegates now understand the matter better and are prepared to reverse themselves -- but to sustain a veto in the House, it would be necessary for about 32 delegates who voted aye on March 15 to vote no on an override. Given those numbers, there is little doubt that the House would vote to override.

Following that House vote to override, HB 1302 would return to the Maryland Senate, where the party ratio is currently 32 Democrats and 14 Republicans. There is one seat vacant, which I believe has the effect of lowering the veto-override threshold to 28 votes (with every seat full, it would be 29). That means that if every Republican voted to sustain a veto, the veto would still be overridden, unless a solid bloc of Republicans were joined by at least five Democrats. To say it another way, if all 14 Republicans plus five Democrats voted to sustain, then and only then the veto would be sustained, barely, by a vote of 27-19. That is a scenario that seems far-fetched, to put it mildly.

Given these unpalatable facts, the only scenario under which a veto would be efficacious is a scenario in which the Democratic leadership decides not to call a special session to deal with such a veto (and/or with other vetoes). But, why would they not? This is not a rhetorical question -- I'd really like to know if there is any rational basis for such an expectation.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Please pardon the thread jack: Californian's have voted to tear down the statue of another U.S. tyrant. A statue of President McKinley will be removed in eight months. Tards.

 

[Rack&Roll]

ddeanjohnson:

There is little chance that amendments to make the bill "more just" will happen going forward because the body where the best hopes for justice existed--the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committeee--is now in the rear view mirror. They kicked away your "Voluntary Detention & Evaluation" idea by a pure party line vote!

As to the future, calling a special session brings up issues of wasteful spending and gets the media focused on just one bill, where political bullying and gamesmanship on the part of the Democraps is on full display with nothing else to cover.

To provide minimal news coverage, though, they will provide spokespeople from our side some opportunity to point out the unlawful aspects of the bill--and that counts for something.

Anyway, like a football team trying to score enough to get to overtime (where each team starts "from scratch"), we should not stand down on efforts to get traction with the Governor on a VETO now.

 

[ddeanjohnson]

Maryland ACLU asleep on the Fourth Amendment?

I don't know how widespread this is, but the ACLU doesn't like the red flag legislation that is being considered in Rhode Island and sounds very similar to the MD legislation (i.e. written by Bloomberg paid lobbyists) ...
http://www.riaclu.org/news/post/aclu-of-rhode-island-raises-red-flags-over-red-flag-gun-legislation For them, it's mostly about due process violations, but they also realize that it's also going to be used as a cudgal against gun owners first amendment rights

I cited the recent Rhode Island ACLU memo in my March 23 testimony against HB 1302 before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee -- and also the California ACLU objections to a bill to expand California's "red flag" law in 2016 -- a bill then vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown (D), who is no friend of "gun rights." (Testimony attached.)

Sadly, however, I believe that I am correct in saying that the Maryland ACLU has been silent regarding HB 1302, even though the version passed by the House of Delegates on March 15 contained provisions more abuse-inviting and constitutionally suspect than those to which the Rhode Island and California ACLU affiliates had objected, and I believe this characterization can fairly be applied to the Senate committee bill as well. It appears that the Maryland ACLU has had its hands full with much more weighty matters, such as Gov. Hogan's Facebook policies.

 

[Rack&Roll]

To that end:

WE WILL BE BREAKING OUT OUR RED FLAG SIGNS THIS AFTERNOON BECAUSE THE HOUSE HAS ANNOUNCED THEY WILL CROSS THE STREET FOR A SECOND TIME TODAY ON THEIR WAY TO A 5PM SESSION IN THE STATEHOUSE.

Plan #1: If you can join us in less than 2 hours at Lawyer's Mall (by 4:20pm but earlier is better!), we will have our stack of RED FLAG signs to show to House Delegates.

Plan #2: If you can join us in about 4 hours at Lawyer's Mall, (by 6:45pm but earlier is better!) we can intercept the House Delegates on the way BACK to their offices after the voting session is over.

At the same time, we will be making a racket outside the Governor's window to give our STREET TESTIMONY to the Gov. that this is a BAD BILL that should be VETOED!

We are down to the metal on this issue, and with this 2018 session. NOW OR NEVER PATRIOTS!

After 6pm there is free parking in the State Govt garage next to the House Office Building, and usually plenty of open 2 hours spaces on College Avenue.

 

[j_h_smith]

I got through a few minutes ago calling 410-974-3901

I've been calling for the last 20 minutes. It seems to ring and then transfer to another phone where it continues to ring. I've let it ring for 2 minutes and no one is answering the line. I will keep on trying. This is the first time I've every had this happen. Usually they answer within 3-5 rings.

Maybe we are making a difference. I hope so!

 

[HRDWRK]

Contact the Governor’s Office
Whether you’re a citizen of Maryland or just visiting our great state, your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Mail:
100 State Circle
Annapolis, Maryland
21401-1925
Phone:
410-974-3901
1-800-811-8336
MD Relay 1-800-735-2258
Email Governor Hogan (General Inquiries or Comments)
http://governor.maryland.gov/mail/default.asp

Bump for the folks getting off work.

 

[j_h_smith]

Jeff, can we get one of friends in the senate to raise a Point of Order once this Bill makes it to the floor for a vote? That point of order would be that no law can be written without consideration of the Constitution. How can a Bill be allowed to become a law when it is written in a way that violates the Constitution. This Bill denies the accused the Due Process explained in the 4th Amendment.

We need someone to raise a Point of Order to this Bill. I don't know how they can pass it if this is discussed on the floor. It would also help in the proceeding litigation against the new law.

Just a thought.

BTW, I've mentioned this to Senator Jennings.

 

[smkranz]

New signs about to debut calling for Gov. Hogan to put the kebash on this turd of a bill.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Brilliant!

 

[frogman68]

To that end:

WE WILL BE BREAKING OUT OUR RED FLAG SIGNS THIS AFTERNOON BECAUSE THE HOUSE HAS ANNOUNCED THEY WILL CROSS THE STREET FOR A SECOND TIME TODAY ON THEIR WAY TO A 5PM SESSION IN THE STATEHOUSE.

Plan #1: If you can join us in less than 2 hours at Lawyer's Mall (by 4:20pm but earlier is better!), we will have our stack of RED FLAG signs to show to House Delegates.

Plan #2: If you can join us in about 4 hours at Lawyer's Mall, (by 6:45pm but earlier is better!) we can intercept the House Delegates on the way BACK to their offices after the voting session is over.

At the same time, we will be making a racket outside the Governor's window to give our STREET TESTIMONY to the Gov. that this is a BAD BILL that should be VETOED!

We are down to the metal on this issue, and with this 2018 session. NOW OR NEVER PATRIOTS!

After 6pm there is free parking in the State Govt garage next to the House Office Building, and usually plenty of open 2 hours spaces on College Avenue.

Plan 3 overnight vigil this weekend? ??

 

[danb]

current language/amendment posted: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=02&id=hb1302&tab=subject3&ys=2018RS

 

[ddeanjohnson]

current Senate bill language

I am attaching the amendments to HB 1302 as approved yesterday by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, and a short time ago on Second Reading by the full Senate.

 

[F8L_Funnel]

oh, god, my head hurts after reading though most of that! If most or all bills are written this way, how can any politician make a vote in good conscious. it is so twisted - the legal jargon.

 

[esqappellate]

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=03&id=HB1302&tab=subject3&ys=2018rs


Will this become law now?
Favorable amendment as of 4-5-2018

Thanks for the link. The Senate JPR Committee makes it less onerous, but it still makes gun owners a unique class in the law, e.g., a person who can be proceeded against and whose property can be seized simply because of his status as a gun owner.

5–602.
(A) (1) A PETITION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTIVE ORDER SHALL:
(* * *
(II) INCLUDE ANY INFORMATION KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER THAT THE RESPONDENT POSES AN IMMEDIATE AND PRESENT DANGER OF CAUSING PERSONAL INJURY TO THE RESPONDENT, THE PETITIONER, OR ANOTHER BY POSSESSING A FIREARM;

A person who is dangerous or who "POSES AN IMMEDIATE AND PRESENT DANGER" but who does NOT possess guns is NOT covered by this bill. So gun owners are the new "suspect class" in the law, except that they are a targeted class rather than a class protected under the 14th Amendment. I know of no other circumstance in which the exercise of a constitutional right serves a basis for singling out that class of persons for special, discriminatory treatment under the law. What's next, legislation that provides that a "Scarlet G" shall be branded on the forehead of every gun owner? Let the harassment and debasement begin. Gun owners will now go underground and be silent about possessing firearms for fear of being subjected to this harassment. And I can't blame them. It is just one more step in de-legitimatizing gun ownership. I can't believe that the NRA is OK (neutral) with this concept. I am totally disgusted. And yes, the odds are good that Gov. Hogan will sign this abomination, if it passes the House and the Senate.

 

[NoMoreTreadingOnUs]

current language/amendment posted: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=02&id=hb1302&tab=subject3&ys=2018RS

Thanks. Do you know if a markup exists and is available to the public. Would be much easier to comprehend than an amendment.

Also, interested in what the group considers the most egregious points in the bill. I plan to call Hogan's office to voice my concerns, highlighting particular provisions that should trigger his veto.

 

[danb]

Thanks. Do you know if a markup exists and is available to the public. Would be much easier to comprehend than an amendment.

It wont be public until third reader is posted.

Big thing that changed is "any interested party" got narrowed to a very granular list of people who can petition.