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

danimalw · Mar 19, 2018

Rack&Roll said:
Go back and read about the FSA2013 the Infringers really wanted. You joined in 2014 and may have missed the opposition from our side to cauterize the damage against a 2/3 Infringer Govt.

Repeat: against a 2/1 Infringer majority.

The FSA2013 was, and remains, an unconstitutional attack on us.

I agree that the original fsa2013 was worse than what passed. I was only commenting (miserably) that the fact that FSA2013 passed at all.

I went to a town meeting in Westminster where Krebs was adamant about protecting our rights and she caved on HB1302. I know i am using House behavior and assuming Senate behavior will be similar.

Rack&Roll · Mar 19, 2018

danimalw said:
I agree that the original fsa2013 was worse than what passed. I was only commenting (miserably) that the fact that FSA2013 passed at all.

I went to a town meeting in Westminster where Krebs was adamant about protecting our rights and she caved on HB1302. I know i am using House behavior and assuming Senate behavior will be similar.

Totally, with you, bro.

Here is what I can tell you from spending considerable time Behind Enemy Lines.

The politicians on our side have other jobs-related bills they are trying to get through against the wishes of environmental wackos from MoCo and Howard, who think the only legit manufacturing, business activity or production is wind turbines and solar panels.

I have been told directly that legislators who call out the Infringers on 2A violations are retaliated with shunning of ALL of their bills that help their constituents with economic imperatives.

And the Democrat Deathstar is happy to see their opposition voted out by their angry 2A constituents because they will simply do the shunning on the next Republican that arrives.

44man · Mar 19, 2018

At least 7 reps had balls and backbone enough to stand up for their party, their constituents, their oath and the constitution. The rest are dead to me.

Now let’s see who in the senate has balls and a backbone.

pcfixer · Mar 19, 2018

44man said:
At least 7 reps had balls and backbone enough to stand up for their party, their constituents, their oath and the constitution. The rest are dead to me.

Now let’s see who in the senate has balls and a backbone.

Is this supposed to be funny or sarcastic? :lol2:

44man · Mar 19, 2018

pcfixer said:
Is this supposed to be funny or sarcastic?

Sad really, I would like to see better results in the senate but I have doubts

This whole mess is gonna give me a stroke

j_h_smith · Mar 19, 2018

44man said:
At least 7 reps had balls and backbone enough to stand up for their party, their constituents, their oath and the constitution. The rest are dead to me.

Now let’s see who in the senate has balls and a backbone.

You don't really expect any different outcome in the Senate do you? This Bill is as good as passed and will be on the governor's desk within the next 7-10 days.

44man · Mar 19, 2018

j_h_smith said:
You don't really expect any different outcome in the Senate do you? This Bill is as good as passed and will be on the governor's desk within the next 7-10 days.

A man can hope can’t he?

Fvcking traitors

pcfixer · Mar 19, 2018

44man said:
Sad really, I would like to see better results in the senate but I have doubts

This whole mess is gonna give me a stroke

yes. Agreed, this is a sad moment in Maryland history. Worse than FSA 2013.
This bill to me is akin to Gen Gage a redcoat against the colonists.
Just short of sayin' like "The "shot heard 'round the world" was the first shot of the American Revolution, at the battles of Lexington and Concord, on April 19, 1775." JMHO

j_h_smith · Mar 19, 2018

Is it rare that Kathy Szlega isn't answering her phone or at least having an aid answering her phone? I've called 3 times today and each time all I've got was an answering machine.

I have her cell phone number, should I call her using that number or do it through her office? I'm pissed that she would sign this bill. I've sent an email already, but you know how they can get lost in the hundreds she probably gets ever day.

44man · Mar 19, 2018

j_h_smith said:
Is it rare that Kathy Szlega isn't answering her phone or at least having an aid answering her phone? I've called 3 times today and each time all I've got was an answering machine.

I have her cell phone number, should I call her using that number or do it through her office? I'm pissed that she would sign this bill. I've sent an email already, but you know how they can get lost in the hundreds she probably gets ever day.

Call her and see what she says.

I would feel better if my reps called back and told me to suck it, at least it would be a response

I just don’t get the turn coat spinelessness pf the whole bunch of them, save the 7.

And how do the reps even look the 7 patriotic reps in the eye from now on? I hope shame eats gem alive until they lose this election

Tomcat · Mar 19, 2018

OK, might need a civics lesson here. Is there a companion Senate bill or does this just transfer to the Senate?

ironpony · Mar 19, 2018

j_h_smith said:
Is it rare that Kathy Szlega isn't answering her phone or at least having an aid answering her phone? I've called 3 times today and each time all I've got was an answering machine.

I have her cell phone number, should I call her using that number or do it through her office? I'm pissed that she would sign this bill. I've sent an email already, but you know how they can get lost in the hundreds she probably gets ever day.

A call could be in her best interest as she is probably losing a vote every time someone reads the bill she approves of. ?

KevinK · Mar 19, 2018

44man said:
Call her and see what she says.

I would feel better if my reps called back and told me to suck it, at least it would be a response

I just don’t get the turn coat spinelessness pf the whole bunch of them, save the 7.

And how do the reps even look the 7 patriotic reps in the eye from now on? I hope shame eats gem alive until they lose this election

Not that it matters much, but the 7 were on the bump stock bill. This one had 17 against.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/votes/House/0458.pdf

hitwtom said:
OK, might need a civics lesson here. Is there a companion Senate bill or does this just transfer to the Senate?

No companion AFAIK. Just transferred to the Senate.

MJD438 · Mar 19, 2018

hitwtom said:
OK, might need a civics lesson here. Is there a companion Senate bill or does this just transfer to the Senate?

There is no companion bill filed on this one. It goes to the Senate, where it will receive a sponsor-only hearing in front of the Judicial Proceedings Committee. In there, one of four things can happen:

Chairman Zirkin desk-drawers it until midnight on Sine Die (bill dies)
The committee votes it Unfavorable (bill dies)
The committee votes it to the Senate Floor (where it would be debated, possibly amended, possibly voted on)
The committee applies amendments, votes it out to the Senate Floor (see #3 for additional parenthetical comments)

If it gets to the Senate Floor:

It is read in what is called Second Reader, where it may be amended and is then voted one (failure means bill dies, approval means it moves to Third Reader...very few bills die on Second Reader).
If it gets to Third Reader, it is debated, amended, and voted on again (failure means it dies, approval means it goes back to the House of Delegates unless it was amended differently than how it came over).

If it passes Third Reader in a form that is different than the form in which the House of Delegates transmitted it, a Conference Committee (3 Senators and 3 Delegates, chosen by the respective leader (President / Speaker)) is appointed to determine if a bill agreement can be reached. This committee has the ability to completely rewrite the contents of the bill and acceptance by this committee is final and binding to both Houses.

44man · Mar 19, 2018

KevinK said:
Not that it matters much, but the 7 were on the bump stock bill. This one had 17 against.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/votes/House/0458.pdf

No companion AFAIK. Just transferred to the Senate.

Then 17 patriots, my mistake, but mine still voted yes, sad

eruby · Mar 19, 2018

hitwtom said:
OK, might need a civics lesson here. Is there a companion Senate bill or does this just transfer to the Senate?

Had a first reading in Judicial Proceeding last Friday.

If it goes anything like the bumpstock bill, Ready and Hough will vote nay, and the maggots will vote harumph.

Cruacious · Mar 19, 2018

After reading this bill and seeing 4-537, Subsection A, part 4, reading

"(4) THE RESPONDENT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE
RESPONDENT DOES NOT POSE A DANGER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH
(3) OF THIS SUBSECTION."

I can clearly say this is a serious ethical violation, supported by the Supreme Court case Coffin Versus United States, as linked here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States

From that precedent, at the Federal level, innocent until proven guilty is the normal means of treating all cases before a court. This is the Achilles Heel of this bill and what will likely bring it down if it passes. Personally, I don't mind seeking protective orders against a potentially violent person IF AND ONLY IF they are summoned under criminal law and presented before a jury for criminal offenses. Making this a civil issue is, to me, a clear infringement. Please, PLEASE, to every reader of every affiliation possible, strike this down lest you risk allowing Maryland to become even more of a Police State.

danb · Mar 19, 2018

Cruacious said:
After reading this bill and seeing 4-537, Subsection A, part 4, reading

"(4) THE RESPONDENT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE
RESPONDENT DOES NOT POSE A DANGER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH
(3) OF THIS SUBSECTION."

I can clearly say this is a serious ethical violation, supported by the Supreme Court case Coffin Versus United States, as linked here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States

From that precedent, at the Federal level, innocent until proven guilty is the normal means of treating all cases before a court. This is the Achilles Heel of this bill and what will likely bring it down if it passes. Personally, I don't mind seeking protective orders against a potentially violent person IF AND ONLY IF they are summoned under criminal law and presented before a jury for criminal offenses. Making this a civil issue is, to me, a clear infringement. Please, PLEASE, to every reader of every affiliation possible, strike this down lest you risk allowing Maryland to become even more of a Police State.

That is struck in third reader. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/bills/hb/hb1302t.pdf

mac1_131 · Mar 19, 2018

Heard back from Zirkin's office today. We are being heard. Whether or not they will change anything remains to be seen.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

zoostation · Mar 19, 2018

danb said:
Untrue. He said hed sign it. Ill try to find the article from last week.

The fact that the house bill passed by a wide margin is an indication the fix is in.

Honestly I am not sure we are doing ourselves any favors with the wild paranoid conspiracy theories about neighbors getting neighbors guns confiscated. Due process concerns are valid. I know that divorces are messy and all kinds of shit flies to get custody. People are having other people SWATed. However the statistics from CT are not impressive. They did not stop Adam Lanza. Over a 20 period they have not had what I would consider a lot of these. The solution to the due process concerns in my mind is to get Justices to treat the 2nd amendment like a normal enumerated right. Without justices who treat the 2nd as a normal right, anything is possible. I am not even sure this law is necessary to confiscate guns when its not a normal right. In other words, antis dont need the facade of this law to get neighbors guns taken now. I dont think this law adds anything to the equation.

You seem to like the bill, we get it . They aren't "wild paranoid conspiracy theories." And I don't appreciate the characterization. I went to a lot of time and trouble to pick through this bill and write a concise account of the dangers it presents to gun owners. We are talking about distinct and realistic possibilities. And some of us have actually seen how other laws like this are used and know what we are talking about. Not sure why you seem to want to short circuit the efforts here to defeat at least some provisions in this bill by telling people what a reasonable idea it is and telling them that the fix is already in because of the House vote, as if you really know. If you want people with a grudge to be able to go down to district court, tell a lie, and take away your rights and your guns , you be my guest but you're not going to find it welcome here methinks. I've had a relative with nothing to lose and a grudge lie and try to use the legal system to come after me, and I thank God that they didn't have a law like this at their disposal at that time

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

R.I.P

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Formerly Known As HITWTOM

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Confederate Jew

C&R Farmer

dont be a dumbass

MSI Executive Member

, ,

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics