cap6888
Ultimate Member
Do they have to vote on this? Or is there a chance it may go away? We will have to hit Hogan hard to veto this if it passes.
HB1302-"The Neighborhood Bag Lady Can Take Your Guns" bill
- Thread starter zoostation
- Start date
-
- Tags
- due process red flag
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
rob b
c@r collecting
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=01&id=HB1302&tab=subject3&ys=2018RS
I see an affective date of October 1 2018 did this pass ?
I see an affective date of October 1 2018 did this pass ?
daNattyFatty
Ultimate Member
No, that’s just the effective date if it becomes law. Still no disposition on the vote that I can find.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee has it and no vote has been taken because this Red Flag bill is rife with so many violations of due process.
I can tell you that our protests, both inside and outside the building, have traction:
I can tell you that our protests, both inside and outside the building, have traction:
Attachments
It's kind of remarkable how suspicion of a threat to "public safety" which has been used (repeatedly) to weaken the 2nd Amendment is now being employed to potentially work around both 5th and 14th Amendments.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Because our
"Hey GI! Me love you long time..."
GREAT NEWS! They tried the same lack of due process last year with the #MeToo No Fly List prohibition from CA and NY. Still too dumb/lazy to come up with their own infringements.
I would take this to also mean that there are some key Democrats that care about civil liberties (not necessarily including the 2A) that aren't subject to the whims of the mob. At least I hope there are pending final outcome of this legislation.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Apparently zirkin didn’t like it from the getgo.
Hopefully this disappears forever
And good riddance if it does.
If this does because it’s bad, which it is, and the dems kill it, what does that say about the republicans who voted for it?
whistlersmother
Peace through strength
(R)'s get shafted either way - vote for it means lost 2A supporters, vote against it means fear, uncertainty, doubt about campaign funding and votes.
I've been completely cynical about this whole thing, but I do wish to thank the PP and others who testified against this abomination.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Indeed
Thank you, but as you can see above, our testimony does NOT end when the gavel comes down in the hearing room.
As you can see, we had 2 DOZEN PATRIOTS testifying On The Bricks against HB1302 this past Monday night as the legislators crossed from their offices to the Statehouse.
We have two more "Man Up Mondays" left in MGA 2018. Join us for this effort!
rob b
c@r collecting
if it passes I see some serious money getting paid out by the state to folks and some nasty lawsuits
Yep...our money.
HortusQ
Active Member
the cat part scares me
Here is where we are: The Democrats have pushed an "Everytown For Gun Safety" lobbyist into the driver's seat to shape this gun-hating, man-hating, Constitution-hating Red Flag Bill, HB1302, as the legislature deadlines loom.
I have met and interacted with this lobbyist.
Our side is trying like hell to invalidate this abomination of a bill by reminding the Progressive extremists in the MGA that a little "smidge" of Due Process violation here, and a little dollop of Constitutional side-step there does not an American law make!
Yes, there are some Democrats that remember the history of Democrat party going to the mat for Civil Rights, but we are not hearing the bold and loud pronouncements this week that "safety" issues demand STRICT adherence to Due Process. What happened to the wing of the Democrat Party that ALWAYS had a torch lit.... to watch for Governmental over-reach and State power crushing the lives of individual Americans?
Well, it seems the Democrat Torch is there as long as those Americans aren't Marylanders.
Like a hot fashion trend racing cross-country, 2018 is the year of the Red Flag Bill in Democrat-led legislatures nationwide and MD Dems don't want to be left behind, even if what they pass infringes on citizen rights just an IDDITY BIDDY WIDDLE BIT. That's right, in their fervor to ring the Red Flag bell, Democrats here think the old notions of Due Process are quaint and OPTIONAL when there are men with firearms living among us.
Let's call this effort for what it is: the Red Flag Bills are Gun Control bills dressed-up by hysterical Democrat House delegates as Domestic Violence mitigation programs. Except that the only "Respondents" the Democrats are interested in targeting are....wait for it....firearm owners. That's right, the pushers of HB1302 can't stop talking about firearms. This, despite the fact that Maryland households are filled with kitchen knives, hammers, baseball bats, tire irons, scissors, heavy iron fire pokers, machetes, screwdrivers, torque wrenches, breaker bars, and on and on and on, except this bill says "GET THE GUNS", because "we are agitated and to Hell with your Civil Rights"!
You should see the lobby when this bill is being discussed or in a mark-up--nothing but "Moms Demand Action" regulars and "Everytown For Gun Safety" reps in fevered discussion groups with every participant being a female. At the head of this parade, two more women with a history of animus toward Maryland traditions and our 400 years of of firearm ownership: MoCo (need we say more) House Delegate Kathleen Dumais and Prince-George's-by-way-of Brooklyn-NY House Delegate Geraldine Valentino-Smith. In hearings, the seats next to them are filled with females wanting police raids on men who own firearms when there's the least little whiff that they are agitated.
This is the New Reality in the Culture Wars: women chief sponsors (and only women) pushing legislation targeting ONLY MEN, and only targeting male firearm owners--but not those firearm-fearful (but agitated) men in homes with kitchen knives, hammers, baseball bats, tire irons, scissors, heavy iron fire pokers, machetes, screwdrivers, torque wrenches, breaker bars, and on and on and on.
This whole process smells of a war on half the population using the power of the State as a bully. It is disgraceful.
For years, though, Maryland has had a template to deal with people who threaten harm or mayhem. It's what's called the "Health General" regulations.
Communicate to legislators any way you can that Maryland's time-tested "Health General" regs are a firm foundation that can be amended to provide a 24/7 pathway for those truly threatened, while preserving each man's Due Process rights when the great weight of the State comes swooping down because gun-hating women feel endangered by this legal, constitutionally-protected property .
As for timing: more "mark-up" discussion takes place tomorrow and/or Monday at the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, which is feeling the pressure from the Hysterical Wing of the Maryland Democrat Party to "produce a Red Flag Bill!, ANY Red Flag Bill!" before Tuesday.
I have met and interacted with this lobbyist.
Our side is trying like hell to invalidate this abomination of a bill by reminding the Progressive extremists in the MGA that a little "smidge" of Due Process violation here, and a little dollop of Constitutional side-step there does not an American law make!
Yes, there are some Democrats that remember the history of Democrat party going to the mat for Civil Rights, but we are not hearing the bold and loud pronouncements this week that "safety" issues demand STRICT adherence to Due Process. What happened to the wing of the Democrat Party that ALWAYS had a torch lit.... to watch for Governmental over-reach and State power crushing the lives of individual Americans?
Well, it seems the Democrat Torch is there as long as those Americans aren't Marylanders.
Like a hot fashion trend racing cross-country, 2018 is the year of the Red Flag Bill in Democrat-led legislatures nationwide and MD Dems don't want to be left behind, even if what they pass infringes on citizen rights just an IDDITY BIDDY WIDDLE BIT. That's right, in their fervor to ring the Red Flag bell, Democrats here think the old notions of Due Process are quaint and OPTIONAL when there are men with firearms living among us.
Let's call this effort for what it is: the Red Flag Bills are Gun Control bills dressed-up by hysterical Democrat House delegates as Domestic Violence mitigation programs. Except that the only "Respondents" the Democrats are interested in targeting are....wait for it....firearm owners. That's right, the pushers of HB1302 can't stop talking about firearms. This, despite the fact that Maryland households are filled with kitchen knives, hammers, baseball bats, tire irons, scissors, heavy iron fire pokers, machetes, screwdrivers, torque wrenches, breaker bars, and on and on and on, except this bill says "GET THE GUNS", because "we are agitated and to Hell with your Civil Rights"!
You should see the lobby when this bill is being discussed or in a mark-up--nothing but "Moms Demand Action" regulars and "Everytown For Gun Safety" reps in fevered discussion groups with every participant being a female. At the head of this parade, two more women with a history of animus toward Maryland traditions and our 400 years of of firearm ownership: MoCo (need we say more) House Delegate Kathleen Dumais and Prince-George's-by-way-of Brooklyn-NY House Delegate Geraldine Valentino-Smith. In hearings, the seats next to them are filled with females wanting police raids on men who own firearms when there's the least little whiff that they are agitated.
This is the New Reality in the Culture Wars: women chief sponsors (and only women) pushing legislation targeting ONLY MEN, and only targeting male firearm owners--but not those firearm-fearful (but agitated) men in homes with kitchen knives, hammers, baseball bats, tire irons, scissors, heavy iron fire pokers, machetes, screwdrivers, torque wrenches, breaker bars, and on and on and on.
This whole process smells of a war on half the population using the power of the State as a bully. It is disgraceful.
For years, though, Maryland has had a template to deal with people who threaten harm or mayhem. It's what's called the "Health General" regulations.
Communicate to legislators any way you can that Maryland's time-tested "Health General" regs are a firm foundation that can be amended to provide a 24/7 pathway for those truly threatened, while preserving each man's Due Process rights when the great weight of the State comes swooping down because gun-hating women feel endangered by this legal, constitutionally-protected property .
As for timing: more "mark-up" discussion takes place tomorrow and/or Monday at the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, which is feeling the pressure from the Hysterical Wing of the Maryland Democrat Party to "produce a Red Flag Bill!, ANY Red Flag Bill!" before Tuesday.
Last edited:
j_h_smith
Ultimate Member
- Jul 28, 2007
- 28,516
Is there anyone who we should key in on? Who would give us the best bang for the buck? I will make calls tomorrow.
Our people are in contact with the Democrat and Republican members of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.
Please target Democrat and Republican Senators OUTSIDE this committee, please, and tell them that supporting a Red Flag Law that violates Due Process and trespasses on every Marylander's Civil Rights is a STAIN on the "Free State".
Urge them to seek enhanced and timely protections within the proven "Health General" regulations that won't criminalize firearm ownership.
Here are the Senators on the JPR Committee that DO NOT need our input because they are hearing from our inside people, so focus on ANY Senators other than these below, please:
Sen. Will Smith
Sen. Justin Ready
Sen. Anthony Muse
Sen. Michael Hough
Sen. Robert Zirkin
Sen. Dolores Kelly
Sen. James Brochin
Sen. Linda Norman
Sen. Robert Cassily
Please target Democrat and Republican Senators OUTSIDE this committee, please, and tell them that supporting a Red Flag Law that violates Due Process and trespasses on every Marylander's Civil Rights is a STAIN on the "Free State".
Urge them to seek enhanced and timely protections within the proven "Health General" regulations that won't criminalize firearm ownership.
Here are the Senators on the JPR Committee that DO NOT need our input because they are hearing from our inside people, so focus on ANY Senators other than these below, please:
Sen. Will Smith
Sen. Justin Ready
Sen. Anthony Muse
Sen. Michael Hough
Sen. Robert Zirkin
Sen. Dolores Kelly
Sen. James Brochin
Sen. Linda Norman
Sen. Robert Cassily
R&R, thanks for the list.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Last edited:
ddeanjohnson
autodidact
- Aug 21, 2010
- 801
a modest suggestion
I testified against the House-passed HB 1302 [it's not HB 1032] at the March 23 Senate hearing. I agree that the "emergency evaluation" process established in Health--General Title 10 works well, where there is clear evidence of a substantial mental disturbance. However, supporters of HB 1302 point out that there are cases in which grave mental disturbance does not exist or is not demonstrable, but in which there is other substantial evidence of grave risk (genuine threats of violence, for example). Moreover, the dynamic is such that I believe it is highly likely that a firearms-specific bill is going to be enacted.
Therefore, I think that there would be much merit to an amendment to give a gun owner who is targeted with an "interim extreme risk prevention order" the optional right to immediately submit himself to the Title 10 "emergency evaluation" confinement, on a "voluntary" basis, until he gets an adversarial (both sides) hearing before a judge, with his guns staying undisturbed at home in the meantime. At the hearing, the judge would be presented not just with a petitioner's claims -- which might be malicious, subjective, deluded, or mistaken -- but with evidence put forward by the gun owner and his counsel. The judge would have the benefit of the emergency evaluation, but would be able to consider all other evidence as well -- including the respondent's history and demeanor, evidence that the petitioner is deluded or malicious, etc.
Yes, even with such an option added, there would remain substantial potential for abuse, and constitutional problems. But giving the targeted gun own such an option would reduce the incentive for abuse, and the amount of abuse, and the damage done to persons targeted by petitioners who are deluded or malicious.
This revision "ought to" be acceptable to supporters of the bill, because the targeted gun owner who chooses to submit to the evaluation-confinement process would be separated from all guns (not just the seized guns) until a judge sorts it out. This revision "ought to" be acceptable to the mental-health groups, because the gun owner would be submitting to evaluation on a "voluntary" basis (no long-term firearms disability would be triggered merely by choosing this option), and gun seizure would remain the outcome if the applicable standard of proof is met at the adversarial hearing, regardless of the respondent's mental-health status. I say "ought to," because logic may not always prevail on these matters.
I proposed such an amendment in my testimony before the Senate committee on March 23 (which is attached), and I have legislative amendment language that I believe would accomplish the purposes which I have described.
I testified against the House-passed HB 1302 [it's not HB 1032] at the March 23 Senate hearing. I agree that the "emergency evaluation" process established in Health--General Title 10 works well, where there is clear evidence of a substantial mental disturbance. However, supporters of HB 1302 point out that there are cases in which grave mental disturbance does not exist or is not demonstrable, but in which there is other substantial evidence of grave risk (genuine threats of violence, for example). Moreover, the dynamic is such that I believe it is highly likely that a firearms-specific bill is going to be enacted.
Therefore, I think that there would be much merit to an amendment to give a gun owner who is targeted with an "interim extreme risk prevention order" the optional right to immediately submit himself to the Title 10 "emergency evaluation" confinement, on a "voluntary" basis, until he gets an adversarial (both sides) hearing before a judge, with his guns staying undisturbed at home in the meantime. At the hearing, the judge would be presented not just with a petitioner's claims -- which might be malicious, subjective, deluded, or mistaken -- but with evidence put forward by the gun owner and his counsel. The judge would have the benefit of the emergency evaluation, but would be able to consider all other evidence as well -- including the respondent's history and demeanor, evidence that the petitioner is deluded or malicious, etc.
Yes, even with such an option added, there would remain substantial potential for abuse, and constitutional problems. But giving the targeted gun own such an option would reduce the incentive for abuse, and the amount of abuse, and the damage done to persons targeted by petitioners who are deluded or malicious.
This revision "ought to" be acceptable to supporters of the bill, because the targeted gun owner who chooses to submit to the evaluation-confinement process would be separated from all guns (not just the seized guns) until a judge sorts it out. This revision "ought to" be acceptable to the mental-health groups, because the gun owner would be submitting to evaluation on a "voluntary" basis (no long-term firearms disability would be triggered merely by choosing this option), and gun seizure would remain the outcome if the applicable standard of proof is met at the adversarial hearing, regardless of the respondent's mental-health status. I say "ought to," because logic may not always prevail on these matters.
I proposed such an amendment in my testimony before the Senate committee on March 23 (which is attached), and I have legislative amendment language that I believe would accomplish the purposes which I have described.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
Hair-trigger posting... please include more than just the "headline" (6 Viewers)- Started by Mr H
- Replies: 13
-
-
