SB1 (2023) - Criminal Law - Wearing, Carrying, or Transporting Firearms - Restrictions (Gun Safety Act of 2023)

[Lafayette]

After listening to the testimony today (thanks @Deep Lurker !!) I thought Mr. Pennak represented us well!

I’m concerned by some of the ideas floated by Webster and Levy including stiffer disqualifiers, tighter storage requirements out of the home, and others.

Basically “Maryland W&C requirements were good but now that anyone can meet them we need more restrictions that make it onerous, expensive, and overly complicated to comply with the law.”

Levy was very disingenuous when he suggested there was English law from prior to 1791 that could be applied in terms of analogues…

 

[hdatontodo]

MD politics: Senate panel weighs Supreme Court's effect on gun control bills

A Senate panel will soon consider controversial gun control legislation aimed at promoting public safety while trying to comply with a Supreme Court ruling.

thedailyrecord.com

Senate panel weighs high court decision’s effect on gun control bills



Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Allen65]

Here is a link to a briefing on Bruen at which I spoke. Reactions?

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebs...te=jpr&clip=JPR_1_17_2023_meeting_1&ys=2023rs

I noted that Smith engaged you rather than passively listening. He was paying attention, and his sarcastic commentd about the size of your brief I think shows he was surprised, and maybe a bit disturbed, by how thorougly your arguments were backstopped .

Your one omission, that Levy capitalized on, was about the stay following the Antonyuk TRO/PI win at District. He implied 2CA's stay, and SCOTUS' failure to lift, shows a win for NY. 20/20 hindsight, but maybe if you had preemptively mentioned the stay and Alito's statement about the failure to lift not showing lack of merit, you would have short-circuited Levy"s subsequent attempt to impeach your statements about post-Bruen court wins. In a way, he insulted Smith's intellugence because Smith certainly understands that the fact NY appealed a loss is not the same as them prevailing, and that SCOTUS made it pretty clear the stay was not lifted because of a process technicality, not due to any lack of merit.

 

[eruby]

.... Levy ....

Based on the name, I'm stereotypicaly presuming Jewish

As I've said many times, any Jew in favor of gun control is either ignorant of the Holocaust, or an absolute moron

 

[Allen65]

Levy was very disingenuous when he suggested there was English law from prior to 1791 that could be applied in terms of analogues…

The Antis love exhuming the Statute of Northampton. They take extracts of its language out of context, ignore the history of its (lack of) enforcement and subsequent laws that effectively negated it in England, and conveniently forget that while US jurisprudence is based on Common Law, quite a few acts of the Crown were specifically repudiated with enactment of the BoR in 1791.

 

[Some Guy]

Here is a link to a briefing on Bruen at which I spoke. Reactions?

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebs...te=jpr&clip=JPR_1_17_2023_meeting_1&ys=2023rs

I thought your briefing was excellent. THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT BRIEFING. My reaction follows. I'm a layperson.

I think your qualification of the five types of places that may be restricted was very good. Especially in how you demonstrated that those five categories are the limit unless there's a widely implemented historical regulation, or historical analog that can demonstrate why additional types of places could also be restricted. On the topic of places, I think one thing that could be added into this is to show how each of these five types of places commonly or always have law enforcement officers present. Not only do most of these five types of places serve as core to government function, but they are usually if not always protected by police. I think one of the SCOTUS justices raised this issue in the Bruen decision.

You were very clear that the government can't quash civil rights to control crime (in general.) I'm glad you didn't reference Alameda Books, but were able to articulate the logic just the same. One other argument I thought might be interesting is referencing how the Bruen decision states that interest balancing was already done when the amendment was adopted. That might be too much in the weeds, though.

I also liked that you were clear that the legislature can't pass restrictive laws based on historical regulations that are outliers, territorial law or other laws that weren't mainstream. And you were clear that when they are looking at laws the only relevant time period is the time of the founding, with some possible emphasis on the reconstruction period, but it gets shaky after the founding.

Excellent job yesterday. I was very impressed. Each of the elements about which you spoke informed the committee, and the viewers. I think they were paying attention. I sure was. Your arguments were coherently organized, clearly stated and you were able to answer all questions posed. You were also very thorough in describing how the Bruen decision sets new parameters in defense of the second amendment. And you were civil, personable and engaging.

THANK YOU FOR DEFENDING CIVIL RIGHTS AND FOR WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS.

 

[ChannelCat]

Based on the name, I'm stereotypicaly presuming Jewish

As I've said many times, any Jew in favor of gun control is either ignorant of the Holocaust, or an absolute moron

This is why the story of Jews in Nazi occupied Europe getting ahold of small arms and resisting the Nazis, especially the SS goons, should be taught in schools

 

[Allen65]

This is why the story of Jews in Nazi occupied Europe getting ahold of small arms and resisting the Nazis, especially the SS goons, should be taught in schools

So should the Ukrainian Holodomor by Stalin, the Ottoman genocide against Armenians, and innumerable other instances throughout human history of people being murderous bastards to groups they perceived as "Other". There is a meme among antis that somehow humanity has matured beyond that sort of thing, so mitigating the "threat" of firearms ownership is more important than possessing the ability to defend one's self, family, and community against those intent on committing violence. It's a view that I simply can't comprehend, seeing all the intercommunal violence that's going on across the world.

 

[motorcoachdoug]

A legal doctrine created by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, qualified immunity started as a way to protect officers — and all public officials — acting in good faith from being liable for their actions that violate constitutional rights. At the time, Black Americans were suing officers for excessive use of force under a long ignored 1871 law.

In 1982, the court expanded the doctrine, stating that public officials have immunity unless the official knew — or should have known — their actions violated the person’s constitutional rights.

In some way could it be argued before a court that since the officials of both montgomery county and the state MGA know what they are doing is not constitutional could that be used to take away their immunity and thus subject to a 1983 action? If SCOTUS says since they knew their action are not constitutional thus they lose all immunity could that be done?

 

[esqappellate]

I thought your briefing was excellent. THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT BRIEFING. My reaction follows. I'm a layperson.

I think your qualification of the five types of places that may be restricted was very good. Especially in how you demonstrated that those five categories are the limit unless there's a widely implemented historical regulation, or historical analog that can demonstrate why additional types of places could also be restricted. On the topic of places, I think one thing that could be added into this is to show how each of these five types of places commonly or always have law enforcement officers present. Not only do most of these five types of places serve as core to government function, but they are usually if not always protected by police. I think one of the SCOTUS justices raised this issue in the Bruen decision.

You were very clear that the government can't quash civil rights to control crime (in general.) I'm glad you didn't reference Alameda Books, but were able to articulate the logic just the same. One other argument I thought might be interesting is referencing how the Bruen decision states that interest balancing was already done when the amendment was adopted. That might be too much in the weeds, though.

I also liked that you were clear that the legislature can't pass restrictive laws based on historical regulations that are outliers, territorial law or other laws that weren't mainstream. And you were clear that when they are looking at laws the only relevant time period is the time of the founding, with some possible emphasis on the reconstruction period, but it gets shaky after the founding.

Excellent job yesterday. I was very impressed. Each of the elements about which you spoke informed the committee, and the viewers. I think they were paying attention. I sure was. Your arguments were coherently organized, clearly stated and you were able to answer all questions posed. You were also very thorough in describing how the Bruen decision sets new parameters in defense of the second amendment. And you were civil, personable and engaging.

THANK YOU FOR DEFENDING CIVIL RIGHTS AND FOR WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS.

Wow, thank you!

 

[esqappellate]

A legal doctrine created by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, qualified immunity started as a way to protect officers — and all public officials — acting in good faith from being liable for their actions that violate constitutional rights. At the time, Black Americans were suing officers for excessive use of force under a long ignored 1871 law.

In 1982, the court expanded the doctrine, stating that public officials have immunity unless the official knew — or should have known — their actions violated the person’s constitutional rights.

In some way could it be argued before a court that since the officials of both montgomery county and the state MGA know what they are doing is not constitutional could that be used to take away their immunity and thus subject to a 1983 action? If SCOTUS says since they knew their action are not constitutional thus they lose all immunity could that be done?

legislative immunity is even broader than qualified immunity. I can get actual damages and nominal damages from the County, neither from the State, and I can get declaratory and injunctive relief from both. That's about it.

 

[esqappellate]

I noted that Smith engaged you rather than passively listening. He was paying attention, and his sarcastic commentd about the size of your brief I think shows he was surprised, and maybe a bit disturbed, by how thorougly your arguments were backstopped .

Your one omission, that Levy capitalized on, was about the stay following the Antonyuk TRO/PI win at District. He implied 2CA's stay, and SCOTUS' failure to lift, shows a win for NY. 20/20 hindsight, but maybe if you had preemptively mentioned the stay and Alito's statement about the failure to lift not showing lack of merit, you would have short-circuited Levy"s subsequent attempt to impeach your statements about post-Bruen court wins. In a way, he insulted Smith's intellugence because Smith certainly understands that the fact NY appealed a loss is not the same as them prevailing, and that SCOTUS made it pretty clear the stay was not lifted because of a process technicality, not due to any lack of merit.

Smith and I have a good working and very civil relationship going back multiple Sessions. And he does listen. He did not have to invite me to speak to the Committee. For purposes of what Maryland will do the stay by the 2d Circuit is pretty far down in the weeds. My written testimony given to the committee notes that NY cases were up on appeal and that the cases were not final. So Levy's point was really a nothing. The NJ case, in contrast is not on appeal if only because a TRO can't be appealed. What will matter is the merits ruling and that will come after the Session is over. The point is to get them to read the DCT opinions. The 2d Circuit stay pending appeal in the NY cases (not the NJ case) was not explained, as the SCT Justices Alito and Thompson noted.

 

[Jimgoespewpew]

This really pisses me off. I've been stewing on it for days. Do you want to know how I've calmed down about it? Because fúck them, I'm still going to carry wherever the fúck I want. Concealed is concealed.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Mark, I think you did a great job!
During the live testimony their was a link to download your and websters written testimony. I did not download at the time. Now O want both. I didn’t see your written testimony on the MSI site. Where can i get Websters?

 

[Bertfish]

Mark, I think you did a great job!
During the live testimony their was a link to download your and websters written testimony. I did not download at the time. Now O want both. I didn’t see your written testimony on the MSI site. Where can i get Websters?

Go to the MGA Gun Control 2023 thread. Both are linked there I know

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Go to the MGA Gun Control 2023 thread. Both are linked there I know

Marks was there, didn’t find Websters.

 

[eruby]

This really pisses me off. I've been stewing on it for days. Do you want to know how I've calmed down about it? Because fúck them, I'm still going to carry wherever the fúck I want. Concealed is concealed.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Found Websters testimony attached

 

[Lafayette]

I wish Aaron Brown would testify to the MGA about this idiocy of most gun control studies. After reading Webster’s testimony again I’m reminded of how much BAD SCIENCE there is regarding guns and violence.

This Reason.com video is worth the 15 minutes of your time (apologies if you’ve seen it…)

“Do Studies Show Gun Control Works?”



Liars, Damned Liars, and Statistics indeed.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

The FBI warning about using UCR data. https://ucr.fbi.gov/ucr-statistics-their-proper-use
in part, "UCR data are sometimes used to compile rankings of individual jurisdictions and institutions of higher learning. These incomplete analyses have often created misleading perceptions which adversely affect geographic entities and their residents. For this reason, the FBI has a longstanding policy against ranking participating law enforcement agencies on the basis of crime data alone. Despite repeated warnings against these practices, some data users continue to challenge and misunderstand this position."