Status of HBAR ban (HB0612)?

[buellsfurn]

Reply - Respectfully, I find this reply confusing if not outright disingenuous. See below with my concerns.

*HB612-Public Safety - Regulated Firearms - Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR Rifle- simply alter the definition of "regulated firearm" to include the previously excepted Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR rifle,

Truthfully phrased as alter the terms of the original agreement, to remove the ONE exception that was deliberately included as a justified exception.

*out of the hands of high-risk people.

This legislation is not directed at or addressing "high risk" people. You've addressed it to ALL people, complete and inclusive. Nothing in this is targeted or attempts to address categories or risk, or evaluations of people.

You are taking a firearm which was explicitly exempted from the prior bill, specifically because of its sporting and hunting applications and the nature of the compromise that was necessary for you to press the rest of the bill through, and now retracting that compromise, in order to keep said same rifle out of the hands of ALL LAWFUL CITIZENS regardless of any supposed (but non-existent) risk assessment.

If you can truthfully explain how this is not the case, I would sincerely appreciate your non-boilerplate response to those two specific points.

great job

 

[ironpony]

They know what they are doing.

 

[rseymorejr]

That's easy to answer. They think all people are "high risk"

 

[BeoBill]

That's easy to answer. They think all people are "high risk"

Actually I think in their delusional minds they see the vast herd of NPC voters as non-threatening, and low risk. As soon as they voice an opinion contrary to theirs their risk level rises directly to the risk to re-election. And of course, anyone radical enough to enjoy shooting is definitely high risk.

 

[WeaponsCollector]

Ex Post Facto laws are against my religion and against the constitution, therefore automatically null and void.

 

[fabsroman]

That's easy to answer. They think all people are "high risk"

I think you have it wrong. They only think that gun owners are high risk. Our problem is that we think "gun owner" and equate it with people we know on this board and in life. To the contrary, the antis think "gun owner" and think about thugs in Baltimore City, drug dealers, child killers, etc.

It would be interesting to have pro 2A and anti 2A on a game show where they have to describe what comes to their mind after hearing a word or phrase, and have "gun owner" be one of them.

 

[fabsroman]

Ex Post Facto laws are against my religion and against the constitution, therefore automatically null and void.

Please, just do a search on "ex post facto" and you will find plenty of posts describing why this is NOT an ex post facto law. I really do not have it in me to explain it for the 4th time.

The ex post facto argument on the HBAR ban will be about as successful as the Takings Clause argument in the Rapid Fire Trigger Device Litigation (i.e., MSI/Brockman v. Hogan). Next, ask yourself why wasn't the ex post facto issue raised in the MSI/Brockman litigation at the US District Court level. The Rapid Fire Trigger Device statute bans the possession of any "Rapid Fire Trigger Device" and the grandfathering provision in that bill cannot be complied with. So, why wasn't it argued that if people cannot comply with the grandfathering provision in the statute, it would be an ex post facto law since they bought and possessed their trigger devices well before the statute was passed? Probably because the ex post facto argument was a complete loser.

Now, you need to do a search to read why the ex post facto argument is a loser when it comes to this bill.

I hope this bill does not pass. However, if it does pass as initially written, do not think that holding on to an HBAR will be alright because of your ex post facto law argument. You had better come up with a better argument than that. With that said, having a criminal defendant in a HBAR ban lawsuit would be awesome because then we can really test the application of 2A toward the most popular rifle in the country. Just make sure you will be a good plaintiff (e.g., no prior criminal record, good looking, well dressed, well spoken, and more).

 

[Malleovic]

This bill is going nowhere. Why are we still arguing about it.

 

[fabsroman]

This bill is going nowhere. Why are we still arguing about it.

More like debating and educating. Not really worried about it passing. Putting my "HBAR" funds toward a .25-06 bolt gun.

Then, there are people worried that this bill will continue to come up year after year after year, until it is finally passed.

 

[dblas]

Ex Post Facto laws are against my religion and against the constitution, therefore automatically null and void.

It's not an ex post facto law....

 

[Mark75H]

Much ex post facto talk began with the clause in SB281 that retroactively affected those under 30 years old.

 

[fabsroman]

Much ex post facto talk began with the clause in SB281 that retroactively affected those under 30 years old.

Putting an age limitation on something would not make it ex post facto either. For instance, if the General Assembly passes a bill now that is signed into law on May 1, 2019 and it takes effect on October 1, 2019, stating that it is illegal for anybody under the age of 30 to possess an assault weapon without being supervised by somebody above the age of 29, that would not be an ex post facto law either. It would require anybody under the age of 30 that currently owns an assault weapon, to get rid of that assault weapon. Kind of like this HBAR bill would do to anybody, of any age, that currently owns an HBAR purchased between October 1, 2013 and October 1, 2019.

An exp post facto law criminalizes prior conduct. Anyway, I cannot even remember what the issue was with age and assault weapons in FSA2013. Refresh my recollection and let's see if ex post facto would have even applied there.

 

[PowPow]

An ex post facto law penalizes an action that was performed in the past (when it was legal), or makes penalties harsher for an illegal action that was performed in the past, when the penalties were not as harsh.

 

[fabsroman]

An ex post facto law penalizes an action that was performed in the past (when it was legal), or makes penalties harsher for an illegal action that was performed in the past, when the penalties were not as harsh.

And there you have it in a nutshell.

I think the ex post facto issue in 2013 was that they were making additional crimes, or receiving a PBJ, apply as "violent crimes" and therefore making them a disqualifying crime. So, somebody would have committed a crime in the past that was not a disqualifying crime at the time, but after FSA2013 took effect it became a disqualifying crime. That would possibly be an ex post facto law.

 

[calicojack]

This bill is going nowhere. Why are we still arguing about it.

I hope you are right.

 

[Mark75H]

Putting an age limitation on something would not make it ex post facto either. For instance, if the General Assembly passes a bill now that is signed into law on May 1, 2019 and it takes effect on October 1, 2019, stating that it is illegal for anybody under the age of 30 to possess an assault weapon without being supervised by somebody above the age of 29, that would not be an ex post facto law either. It would require anybody under the age of 30 that currently owns an assault weapon, to get rid of that assault weapon. Kind of like this HBAR bill would do to anybody, of any age, that currently owns an HBAR purchased between October 1, 2013 and October 1, 2019.

An exp post facto law criminalizes prior conduct. Anyway, I cannot even remember what the issue was with age and assault weapons in FSA2013. Refresh my recollection and let's see if ex post facto would have even applied there.

An ex post facto law penalizes an action that was performed in the past (when it was legal), or makes penalties harsher for an illegal action that was performed in the past, when the penalties were not as harsh.

Exactly. The status of those previously punished was increased.

 

[BeoBill]

It ain't over 'till they all pack their carpetbags and go back home. To the cheers and adulation of their owners donors.

 

[Kharn]

It ain't over 'till they all pack their carpetbags and go back home. To the cheers and adulation of their owners donors.

And the worse-for-wear barriers on Rt 50 and I97...

 

[Mark75H]

And the worse-for-wear barriers on Rt 50 and I97...

 

[Joe Marino]

Here is my take on this. It will be back next year in same form but their plan will be to amend it, ban all HBARs but not confiscate any HBARs before 2020. I know this state is run by Marxists and a RINO governor, but attempting to take back all rifles before 2020 is a step to far for them right now. In a few more years that will be another story.