GUN BILL HEARINGS SCHEDULED - 2A MARYLAND - 2018 SESSION INFORMATION

lazarus · Jan 11, 2018

Lucca1 said:
So Zirkin believes that you should lose your ability to own firearms if you are convicted of seriously annoyingly another person? Am I reading this correctly?

SB0123
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&tab=subject3&id=sb0123&stab=01&ys=2018RS

I didn't even know that this was a law.

§3–803
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/f...on=3-803&ext=html&session=2017RS&tab=subject5

I have to ask, why? I mean, I get it, to disarm us. But it’s a maximum of 90 days. That is about as low as you can go in Maryland and still have prison as a possible result. And there you’d probably need to be doing something REAL bad to get it, have a bunch of priors or it’s your 4th time in front of the judge for it.

Screw Zirkin. Only violent offenses (I’d consider domestic abuse violent) should ever result in losing your right to bear arms. Harassment isn’t violent and if it is, it is assault or battery, not harassment.

Stoveman · Jan 11, 2018

Lucca1 said:
So Zirkin believes that you should lose your ability to own firearms if you are convicted of seriously annoyingly another person? Am I reading this correctly?

SB0123
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&tab=subject3&id=sb0123&stab=01&ys=2018RS

I didn't even know that this was a law.

§3–803
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/f...on=3-803&ext=html&session=2017RS&tab=subject5

Paintrd a sign for the good Senator tonight.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

pcfixer · Jan 12, 2018

The democratic left wing progressives in GA all fit the description. Will MSI file charges??

§3–803.
(a) A person may not follow another in or about a public place or maliciously engage in a course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys the other:
(1) with the intent to harass, alarm, or annoy the other;
(2) after receiving a reasonable warning or request to stop by or on behalf of the other; and
(3) without a legal purpose.

eruby · Jan 12, 2018

I will annoy you.

If that does not work, I will seriously annoy you. Seriously!!

cantstop · Jan 12, 2018

Abacab said:
They cancelled the hearing for the bump stock bill. Hm.

Bob A said:
Someone probably realised it was a stupid unenforceable nightmare of a bill, that they'd be made to look like fools over. Showboat bills that make the legislators look bad are not beloved by the powers that be.

We can probably attribute some of their reluctance to our annual testimony on Gun Bill Day. It's always fun to bring a ray of sunshine into the dark chambers of the General Assembly.

DC-W said:
Make no mistake: expect it to come back. If the bill were dead, it would have been labeled as "withdrawn". That hasn't happened.

My fear is that it will show up as an 11th hour amendment to a totally unrelated budget bill.

Schipperke · Jan 12, 2018

§3–803.
(a) A person may not follow another in or about a public place or maliciously engage in a course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys the other:
(1) with the intent to harass, alarm, or annoy the other;
(2) after receiving a reasonable warning or request to stop by or on behalf of the other; and
(3) without a legal purpose

I assume the carve out at the end is so the Press can dog people? Carry a Press Pass..

DC-W · Jan 12, 2018

cantstop said:
My fear is that it will show up as an 11th hour amendment to a totally unrelated budget bill.

MD Constitution, Article III, Section 29
http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/03art3.html

The style of all Laws of this State shall be, "Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland:" and all Laws shall be passed by original bill; and every Law enacted by the General Assembly shall embrace but one subject, and that shall be described in its title; and no Law, nor section of Law, shall be revived, or amended by reference to its title, or section only; nor shall any Law be construed by reason of its title, to grant powers, or confer rights which are not expressly contained in the body of the Act; and it shall be the duty of the General Assembly, in amending any article, or section of the Code of Laws of this State, to enact the same, as the said article, or section would read when amended. And whenever the General Assembly shall enact any Public General Law, not amendatory of any section, or article in the said Code, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to enact the same, in articles and sections, in the same manner, as the Code is arranged, and to provide for the publication of all additions and alterations, which may be made to the said Code.

Emphasis mine

Allen65 · Jan 12, 2018

DC-W said:
MD Constitution, Article III, Section 29
http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/03art3.html

Emphasis mine

It's a right w/o redress for us. The MGA is expected to police itself and adhere to this, and punish themselves if they don't. If there's no mechanism to adjudicate and nullify a bill post-passage (as if the MGA leadership would rule it out of order before it passes), the rules aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Anyone here think the Maryland Court of Appeals would actually nullify a law passed by the MGA that contained multiple, unrelated issues? Really?

lazarus · Jan 12, 2018

Allen65 said:
It's a right w/o redress for us. The MGA is expected to police itself and adhere to this, and punish themselves if they don't. If there's no mechanism to adjudicate and nullify a bill post-passage (as if the MGA leadership would rule it out of order before it passes), the rules aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Anyone here think the Maryland Court of Appeals would actually nullify a law passed by the MGA that contained multiple, unrelated issues? Really?

Yes. It has happened before.

Like, as in it the most commonly litigated section of the MD constitution before MD courts.
https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1687&context=ublr

I’d assume since it is the most common, that people are successful in their suits from time to time.

Many states have similar language (federal does not). Same deal.

Also see the section on mandatory 3 readings. That said, on the later requirement, they absolutely DO cram in the required readings at the 11th hour sometimes. Which is also sometimes why a law fails to pass because they don’t get the readings done in time before Sine Die.

Mark75H · Jan 12, 2018

Allen65 said:
It's a right w/o redress for us. The MGA is expected to police itself and adhere to this, and punish themselves if they don't. If there's no mechanism to adjudicate and nullify a bill post-passage (as if the MGA leadership would rule it out of order before it passes), the rules aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Anyone here think the Maryland Court of Appeals would actually nullify a law passed by the MGA that contained multiple, unrelated issues? Really?

lazarus said:
Yes. It has happened before.

Like, as in it the most commonly litigated section of the MD constitution before MD courts.
https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1687&context=ublr

I’d assume since it is the most common, that people are successful in their suits from time to time.

Many states have similar language (federal does not). Same deal.

Also see the section on mandatory 3 readings. That said, on the later requirement, they absolutely DO cram in the required readings at the 11th hour sometimes. Which is also sometimes why a law fails to pass because they don’t get the readings done in time before Sine Die.

The MGA is about the most lawless legislature of the 51, a decided penchant for not following either constitution.

Blaster229 · Jan 12, 2018

eruby said:
I will annoy you.

If that does not work, I will seriously annoy you. Seriously!!

Allen65 · Jan 12, 2018

lazarus said:
Yes. It has happened before.

Like, as in it the most commonly litigated section of the MD constitution before MD courts.
https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1687&context=ublr

I’d assume since it is the most common, that people are successful in their suits from time to time.

Many states have similar language (federal does not). Same deal.

Also see the section on mandatory 3 readings. That said, on the later requirement, they absolutely DO cram in the required readings at the 11th hour sometimes. Which is also sometimes why a law fails to pass because they don’t get the readings done in time before Sine Die.

Very interesting read, thanks for the link. The paper does emphasize that:

"Accordingly, Maryland courts liberally construe
statutes and their titles when faced with a litigant challenging
the applicable statute under the one-subject rule. This method of
construing legislation challenged under the one-subject rule caused scholars to observe that "only a very small proportion of the laws so attacked have been held invalid."
Deference to legislative will, despite
mandatory constitutional provisions, has received bitter dissenting
rebukeY This deference to the legislature might even explain
the dearth of recent precedent supporting challenges asserted
under the descriptive-title prong of the one-subject rule.

and

The one-subject rule forbids an illicit amalgamation of disparate items. However, it does not forbid joinder that can be justified under a convenient umbrella of items which do not cause one to choke when the claim of incongruity is made.

Of the three cases cited, one found against the law, the second found against another substantially similar law, and in the third case, the statue was upheld. Those two all-encompassing words "public safety" are applied to many bills, and could easily justify rolling firearms legislation into pretty much any public safety bill as a matter of "public safety".
M&M have been doing their thing for a very long time, and know how to get just to the edge of what's sustainable against a court challenge.

smokey · Jan 12, 2018

Abacab said:
They cancelled the hearing for the bump stock bill. Hm.

Allen65 said:
Probably couldn't get enough TV coverage lined up on that short notice.

They see how fiercely we fight amongst ourselves and are scared we'll finally figure out how to direct a concerted effort towards them.

lazarus · Jan 13, 2018

Allen65 said:
Very interesting read, thanks for the link. The paper does emphasize that:

"Accordingly, Maryland courts liberally construe
statutes and their titles when faced with a litigant challenging
the applicable statute under the one-subject rule. This method of
construing legislation challenged under the one-subject rule caused scholars to observe that "only a very small proportion of the laws so attacked have been held invalid."
Deference to legislative will, despite
mandatory constitutional provisions, has received bitter dissenting
rebukeY This deference to the legislature might even explain
the dearth of recent precedent supporting challenges asserted
under the descriptive-title prong of the one-subject rule.

and

The one-subject rule forbids an illicit amalgamation of disparate items. However, it does not forbid joinder that can be justified under a convenient umbrella of items which do not cause one to choke when the claim of incongruity is made.

Of the three cases cited, one found against the law, the second found against another substantially similar law, and in the third case, the statue was upheld. Those two all-encompassing words "public safety" are applied to many bills, and could easily justify rolling firearms legislation into pretty much any public safety bill as a matter of "public safety".
M&M have been doing their thing for a very long time, and know how to get just to the edge of what's sustainable against a court challenge.

Absolutely. However trying to put it in the budget, or wrapping it in to a transportation bill would almost certainly fail before the courts.

And they’d still need to hold the three hearings on it. I am not sure what the hearing requirement is if a bill is changed in regards to amendments. I think amendments also need to have a public hearing (but the requirement may only be one hearing or something).

So it isn’t impossible to slip something in, but it takes a bit of doing and a lot of members have to be on board to get it done.

dblas · Jan 13, 2018

lazarus said:
Absolutely. However trying to put it in the budget, or wrapping it in to a transportation bill would almost certainly fail before the courts.

And they’d still need to hold the three hearings on it. I am not sure what the hearing requirement is if a bill is changed in regards to amendments. I think amendments also need to have a public hearing (but the requirement may only be one hearing or something).

So it isn’t impossible to slip something in, but it takes a bit of doing and a lot of members have to be on board to get it done.

If a bill is added to another bill as an amendment, there is no requirement for further public hearings. This applies to both committee amendments and floor amendments in both chambers. As such, the amended bill does not need to start over again and have a 1st, and subsiquent reading in either chamber.

As we saw last year, with the delayed CCW training bill that was well on it's way to passing (It passed the House, and made it out of Judicial Proceedings in the Senate), Senator Madaleno added his HPRB removal bill to this one as a floor amendment, that was approved. The bill then had to go back to the House for their consent, which they did not give, and it went to conference committee, only to die entirely. No new readings, no new public hearings or comments.

motorcoachdoug · Jan 14, 2018

And to believe it or not I have Jury duty that day in Monkey County in Rocking :party29:

Rockville... I would really be shocked :shocked:

if it involved a firearm in anyway

Schipperke · Jan 16, 2018

Has anyone laid eyes on the "Definition of Transfer" Bill yet? Rumor Dumais is dropping one, which could make a loan a transfer. Luckily NRA range is in Virginia.

rockstarr · Jan 16, 2018

Schipperke said:
Has anyone laid eyes on the "Definition of Transfer" Bill yet? Rumor Dumais is dropping one, which could make a loan a transfer. Luckily NRA range is in Virginia.

ive been waiting for something like this to come along

danb · Jan 16, 2018

Zirkin has filed 4 or 5 gun bills that I saw. Expanding penalties, right of the state to appeal a dismissal, electronic surveillance for gun ~~crimes~~ owners....

Seemed like a lot of legislative masturbation - feels good to him, does not produce anything - since as far as I could tell, the state can already do most of the things proposed.

mrgnstrn · Jan 16, 2018

rwbow1969 said:
Makes me wonder what the hell they're up to.

I suspect it’s because the mothers demanding actions crowd couldn’t schedule their facials on a different day, so they moved the bill to a day they could be there.

Expect a surprise announcement of a new date.....a date they picked a while ago and kept to themselves.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GUN BILL HEARINGS SCHEDULED - 2A MARYLAND - 2018 SESSION INFORMATION

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

TV Personality

Ultimate Member

Confederate Jew

Pentultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

God loves you, I don't.

Ultimate Member

2A TEACHER

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Major Deplorable

dont be a dumbass

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics