S446 Senate National Reciprocity Act

swinokur · Dec 7, 2017

Frosh Press Release on HR 38
.

GlocksAndPatriots · Dec 7, 2017

swamplynx said:
Agree. Even if totally watered down and tied to the fix NICS bill, and maybe a bump stock ban, this would be a huge step forward for 2A right in the country as whole, not to mention would be the largest win since the expiration of the AWB, and sadly probably the only legislative win for the foreseeable future.

Agreed. If the worst that someone needs to do to get a compliant permit is to send away for one from Florida or Utah, it's not the end of the world.

GlocksAndPatriots · Dec 7, 2017

swinokur said:
Frosh Press Release on HR 38
.

If a state gives a permit to people "convicted of violent crimes," it must be a "violent" misdemeanor. In any case, does ANY state give a permit to people who are prohibited from possessing by 18 USC 922(g)? I tend to doubt it.

DontTreadOnMe · Dec 7, 2017

Same old Frosh nonsense, lies, and misdirected statistics.

lemmdus · Dec 7, 2017

GolfR said:
I'm not holding my breath that this will get through the senate. Actually, I don't believe that it will get a single democrat vote unless it also combines the background check strengthening from the house and possibly a bump stock ban. I actually don't care about the background check change.

I'm still concerned that national reciprocity would cause MD to pass additional laws restricting where you can carry and possibly increasing or changing liability for carrying. Basically that could make it highly undesirable to carry in the state for everyone.

If they can get this passed, Frosh will try to sue everyone in Washington with our tax dollars. MSI and other groups should sue the state of MD for equal protection. We will be waiting a long time until it all gets sorted out.

Yeah, and So what?! Why should we back away from a fight? This is the problem. Frosh is willing to fight and so should we!

Brychan · Dec 7, 2017

Need a bill board "Frosh makes up his shite as he goes along to keep you serfs as victims"

eruby · Dec 7, 2017

I am NOT making ANY threats, but if I were to develop terminal cancer, there are several liars that would not outlive me.

lemmdus · Dec 7, 2017

This is already settled law. The SCOTUS ruled that states MUST recognize gay marriage per Federal law regardless of state laws to the contrary. Well, the same applies here. You can't have it both ways. Will it end up in court, yes it will. Will the Frosh sue the minute after Trump signs it, you bet. If you think they are going to give us our freedoms back without a fight you are sadly mistaken.

GlocksAndPatriots · Dec 7, 2017

lemmdus said:
This is already settled law. The SCOTUS ruled that states MUST recognize gay marriage per Federal law regardless of state laws to the contrary. Well, the same applies here. You can't have it both ways. Will it end up in court, yes it will. Will the Frosh sue the minute after Trump signs it, you bet. If you think they are going to give us our freedoms back without a fight you are sadly mistaken.

To liberals, killing babies and buttsex are holy grails. That's not true for gun rights.

lemmdus · Dec 7, 2017

Brychan said:
Need a bill board "Frosh makes up his shite as he goes along to keep you serfs as victims"

Gryphon · Dec 7, 2017

I like it it. It means he is worried. But I'd still love to see his references for those bulsh*t statistics. Lawyers are supposed to cite their references. The absent of citation alone makes these statistical assertions questionable.

MDFF2008 · Dec 7, 2017

He's worried because he knows the SCOTUS can't just say "guns are bad mmkay" and that any attempt to say that these licenses are invalid complicates gay marriage.

BeoBill · Dec 7, 2017

GlocksAndPatriots said:
To liberals, killing babies and buttsex are holy grails. That's not true for gun rights.

I don't know about all that, but I DO know that Frosh the Coward will get a warm, fuzzy feeling and instantly hop right on to any Liberal state lawsuit that comes to his attention. Remember how quickly he churned through the mil-and-a-half that he didn't need for #MeToo lawsuits and Amicus Briefs against Trump?

Mr H · Dec 7, 2017

Violent criminals, both from Maryland and other states, ALREADY carry here!

Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE CRIMINALS!!!

redeemed.man · Dec 7, 2017

GlocksAndPatriots said:
To liberals, killing babies and buttsex are holy grails. That's not true for gun rights.

Exactly!

gruntz03 · Dec 7, 2017

BeoBill said:
I don't know about all that, but I DO know that Frosh the Coward will get a warm, fuzzy feeling and instantly hop right on to any Liberal state lawsuit that comes to his attention. Remember how quickly he churned through the mil-and-a-half that he didn't need for #MeToo lawsuits and Amicus Briefs against Trump?

Would they really want to file a lawsuit? They were afraid of D.C. taking their carry case to SCOTUS.

Stoveman · Dec 7, 2017

These Never Get Old

kcbrown · Dec 7, 2017

GlocksAndPatriots said:
Not so sure about that. Remember, any rules they put in place apply to the "special" people too.

No they don't. "Special" people will get Super Duper permits, and those will be exempt.

MigraineMan · Dec 7, 2017

Gryphon said:
I like it it. It means he is worried. But I'd still love to see his references for those bulsh*t statistics. Lawyers are supposed to cite their references. The absent of citation alone makes these statistical assertions questionable.

Found the homicide study. (Posted this in the Hudson CC Reciprocity thread, but seems worthy of re-posting here.)

Found the study he's citing for the LEO homicide rates (attached.) It's a bad study. They "proxy" firearm ownership numbers using firearm-suicides as a percent of all suicides as an annual measure of firearm ownership rates. They have a divide-by-zero problem with Iowa, Maine, Vermont and Wyoming - these states have ZERO LEO homicides during the 15-year measurement window. (To counter this, they lump a bunch of states together so the group-denominator isn't zero.) And they come right out and say "Hey, not all states support a positive correlation between citizen firearm ownership and LEO homicides." Wyoming had the highest ownership rate (52%) and ZERO LEO homicides. DC, by comparison, has a 4.8% ownership rate and one of the highest LEO homicide rates. Amusingly, they lumped DC into the "low ownership" pool which skews the result toward the desired conclusion.

Finally, they admit that their study is "limited" (aka "severely flawed") right before proclaiming the conclusion "Officers in the high-gun states had 3 times the likelihood of being killed compared with low-gun states. Higher levels of civilian gun ownership appeared to be a significant risk factor for the homicide of LEOs."

rob-cubed · Dec 7, 2017

I've known people capable of cognitive dissonance. In Frosh's case he only want guns to disappear so he is consistent with intent even if he wants to pretend that it's safety that actually concerns him.

If safety was really important, the Firearms Safety Act never would have passed. 300+ in murders in Baltimore per year since then, too bad all those criminals have to rely on the black market for handguns vs getting fingerprinted like law-abiding citizens.

I'm curious to see where national reciprocity goes. In the end it's the best legal defense for shall issue in MD we've seen. Frosh knows it.

S446 Senate National Reciprocity Act

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

In a State of Bliss

Attachments

Banned

Banned

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Confederate Jew

Active Member

Banned

Active Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

Banana'd

Ultimate Member

Active Member

TV Personality

Super Genius

Defenestration Specialist

Attachments

In need of moderation

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics