Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 8th, 2014, 09:56 PM #1
Knuckle66's Avatar
Knuckle66 Knuckle66 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hagerstown
Posts: 541
Knuckle66 Knuckle66 is offline
Member
Knuckle66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hagerstown
Posts: 541
Larry Hogan 2A

All, I just read on Change Maryland's FB page that he is for 2A and against SB281. If you want to see the comment go here https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...3375900&type=1
Once there under someone else's post Bill Thomas Change Maryland replied to his question about 2A. I've copied and pasted it here for the people that don't have FB.

Quote:
Change Maryland Larry Hogan & Boyd Rutherford are not career politicians and have never held elected office. Larry is a small business owner with over 25 years in the private sector and a proven track record of bringing hundreds of businesses and thousands of jobs to Maryland. Boyd also has a wealth of private sector experience and both have the right public management experience from their respective roles as Maryland Cabinet Secretaries and Boyd as an administrator on the federal level under George W. Bush. Boyd has also been credited with making government more effective and less costly for taxpayers at the same time. In addition Larry Hogan is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and is opposed to SB 281. He will work to keep guns away from criminals and the mentally ill. Hogan supports tougher mandatory sentencing for criminals who commit crimes with a gun, but he is against taking away the rights of law abiding citizens
__________________
I'm not in the Dark I'm in the Shade
Knuckle66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2014, 03:33 PM #2
Straightshooter's Avatar
Straightshooter Straightshooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Baltimore County
Posts: 4,417
Straightshooter Straightshooter is offline
Senior Member
Straightshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Baltimore County
Posts: 4,417
Doesn't sound like any better stance on 2A then we got from Ehrlich.
We need to pin both Hogan and Craig down on a promise to order MSP to accept personal protection as G&S and their willingness to push for repeal of FAS2013, not simply that the stand for 2A.
__________________
SAF Life Member
MSI Member
NRA Member
#250A
Spin Master
Straightshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2014, 08:09 PM #3
oupa's Avatar
oupa oupa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 856
oupa oupa is offline
Member
oupa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 856
"... supports tougher mandatory sentencing..."

Anyone who says this is someone I'd be leery of. The framers put a legal system in place like no other. It's primary goal was protection of the innocent even at the cost of allowing the guilty to go free in the absence of evidence unfitting such protections of basic rights. They did this because THEY saw first hand how a government gone astray can trample the individual who gets in it's way. We can see it today when the full weight of the largest nation on earth is directed at individuals for both good and bad reasons.

Each case was to be judged individually and penalties handed down accordingly.

"Mandatory sentences" is merely a legislator's way of getting around said protections for the purpose of appearing "tough on crime" for the sole purpose of getting elected. The problem is "the law of unintended consequences."
Anyone who embraces mandatory minimums must first believe that government will not turn on it's own citizens.

Most cops and prosecutors are normal working stiffs out to do a good job. Unfortunately, as the founders knew they would, some are not. Our principals are in place to protect us all. Once we pervert the principals to make it easier to penalize the guilty, we also make it easier to penalize the innocent. Mandatory minimums make it impossible to be understanding of a clear, mistake. ...if only life were so clear and easy to navigate.
__________________
"A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs." Judge Lamb
If 1A extends protection to hardcore internet porn, how can 2A not extend protection to my AR?
oupa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2014, 01:01 AM #4
Knuckle66's Avatar
Knuckle66 Knuckle66 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hagerstown
Posts: 541
Knuckle66 Knuckle66 is offline
Member
Knuckle66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hagerstown
Posts: 541
I believe tougher sentencing means the opposite of what MoM is doing now, which is basically letting them go. You can have tougher sentencings like mandatory 5 years for a crime with a gun and no parole. Instead of 1 or 2 years with a chance for parole. I believe that if you make the sentencing more harsh people will think twice about committing the crime in the first place.
(I don't know what the law says now I didn't look it up, I'm just making an example)
__________________
I'm not in the Dark I'm in the Shade
Knuckle66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2014, 01:02 AM #5
Knuckle66's Avatar
Knuckle66 Knuckle66 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hagerstown
Posts: 541
Knuckle66 Knuckle66 is offline
Member
Knuckle66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hagerstown
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Straightshooter View Post
Doesn't sound like any better stance on 2A then we got from Ehrlich.
We need to pin both Hogan and Craig down on a promise to order MSP to accept personal protection as G&S and their willingness to push for repeal of FAS2013, not simply that the stand for 2A.
100% agree. But at least this is a step in the right direction. I was going to make a post on his FB page but you can't, you can only comment on posts they make.
__________________
I'm not in the Dark I'm in the Shade
Knuckle66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2014, 09:32 AM #6
jc1240's Avatar
jc1240 jc1240 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Carroll County
Posts: 4,755
jc1240 jc1240 is offline
Senior Member
jc1240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Carroll County
Posts: 4,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by oupa View Post
"... supports tougher mandatory sentencing..."

Anyone who says this is someone I'd be leery of. The framers put a legal system in place like no other. It's primary goal was protection of the innocent even at the cost of allowing the guilty to go free in the absence of evidence unfitting such protections of basic rights. They did this because THEY saw first hand how a government gone astray can trample the individual who gets in it's way. We can see it today when the full weight of the largest nation on earth is directed at individuals for both good and bad reasons.

Each case was to be judged individually and penalties handed down accordingly.

"Mandatory sentences" is merely a legislator's way of getting around said protections for the purpose of appearing "tough on crime" for the sole purpose of getting elected. The problem is "the law of unintended consequences."
Anyone who embraces mandatory minimums must first believe that government will not turn on it's own citizens.


Most cops and prosecutors are normal working stiffs out to do a good job. Unfortunately, as the founders knew they would, some are not. Our principals are in place to protect us all. Once we pervert the principals to make it easier to penalize the guilty, we also make it easier to penalize the innocent. Mandatory minimums make it impossible to be understanding of a clear, mistake. ...if only life were so clear and easy to navigate.
The other edge of that sword is to balance the judges who impose pathetically weak sentences. I used to be in favor of of mandatory sentences, but I've grown weary of them. Weak judges and politicians are the problem for convicted felons being allowed to continue their evil ways against the public.
__________________
John
jc1240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2014, 12:46 PM #7
BeoBill's Avatar
BeoBill BeoBill is offline
Crank in the Third Row
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 南馬里蘭州鮑伊
Posts: 13,702
BeoBill BeoBill is offline
Crank in the Third Row
BeoBill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 南馬里蘭州鮑伊
Posts: 13,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Straightshooter View Post
Doesn't sound like any better stance on 2A then we got from Ehrlich.
We need to pin both Hogan and Craig down on a promise to order MSP to accept personal protection as G&S and their willingness to push for repeal of FAS2013, not simply that the stand for 2A.
So has anyone been able to pin him down on this issue yet?

Will anyone try?
__________________
Formerly "The Pitbull from OSD Policy"
To err is human. To forgive is not SAC policy.
“Those who beat their arms into plows will plow for those who don’t.”

Clint Eastwood: “I tried being reasonable, I didn’t like it”
BeoBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2014, 12:55 PM #8
Straightshooter's Avatar
Straightshooter Straightshooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Baltimore County
Posts: 4,417
Straightshooter Straightshooter is offline
Senior Member
Straightshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Baltimore County
Posts: 4,417
If I see him again I'll definitely ask him. Had a chance twice but it didn't cross my mind at the time. The best bet would be for MSI or another body to pose the question as that word hold more water than SS standing up later and asking when he's going to keep his promise should he win.
__________________
SAF Life Member
MSI Member
NRA Member
#250A
Spin Master
Straightshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2014, 01:09 PM #9
abean4187's Avatar
abean4187 abean4187 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,287
abean4187 abean4187 is offline
Senior Member
abean4187's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knuckle66 View Post
I believe that if you make the sentencing more harsh people will think twice about committing the crime in the first place.
(I don't know what the law says now I didn't look it up, I'm just making an example)
It won’t make people think twice, criminals rarely have long term goals and ambitions. Rather, this would keep violent offenders behind bars for a longer period of time and keep them off the streets, which is a good thing.

Overall, it would reduce violent crime because most of the violent crime is done by repeat offenders. Granted, concealed carry keeps them off the streets forever, if you catch my drift.
__________________
SAF Life (Defenders Club), NRA Member
abean4187 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2014, 01:11 PM #10
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 36,340
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 36,340
Unless the candidate is willing to issue an official gubernatorial proclamation stating "self-defense is a good and substantial reason", they are blowing smoke up everyone's backside.
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2017, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service