Shall Issue being hijacked. YOU MUST ACT NOW!‏‏

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!
  • backnblack

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 6, 2009
    1,184
    All 4 of us here sent emails....
     

    MJD438

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 28, 2012
    5,849
    Somewhere in MD
    Yes...and Underlining is the amendment...which in this case the old 5ii, is included in the Amendment 5-135, para 6(ii)......G&S all over again.......

    If I read this right...seems it is unconstitutional based on the Legg decision.....

    But then I know not about such things....

    R

    I agree with others, that is simply in there because it is existing law and the number changes due to the amendments. MD GA is not going to do a damn thing about removing G&S until ALL avenues of appeal have been worn out, and even then I am sure they will drag their feet as long as possible. IMO, G&S will still be shown in the code for the foreseeable future, even if both Legg and CA4 deny the state a stay on Legg's injunction.
     

    PJDiesel

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 18, 2011
    17,603
    Look at page 4, (ii). What the f*ck? Unreal......

    Whats with them using the term "Good and substantial" still?

    Nice backdoor, last minute shady schit. When do WE get a chance to voice OUR opinions infront of committee on this?
     

    Robert

    Having Fun Yet?
    May 11, 2011
    4,089
    AA County, MD
    That was nice of Frosh. Take a small bill meant to help retired police out just a hair and totally change it into something to suit his personal gun control agenda. What a prick.

    IMO, that is why introducing pro gun legislation in this State is a waste of resources. What we need to do FIRST is focus all our effort in getting these politicians out of office. Until then, we will continue to be reduced to always "responding" to these kinds of tactics.
     

    Atlasarmory

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 2, 2009
    3,360
    Glen Burnie
    Can anyone share their email so I have something to start with I suck at this sort of thing and want to help PM is fine. Or a link to a form letter or something ?
     

    kjp1231

    Member
    May 17, 2009
    28
    Glen Burnie, MD
    That is already existing in the law, which will likely not be changed until the appeals process is worn out.

    When reading bills:
    1. Text in bold is being added to the code in the designated sections
    2. Text in [ ] or strike-through is being removed from the designated sections

    That makes sense, thank you for the explanation.
     

    STeveZ

    Thank you, Abelard
    Sep 22, 2011
    779
    Aberdeen, MD
    I drafted faxes and sent them to my three reps:

    I have been advised that last minute changes have been made to HB 579 which would add a vague training clause to the MD concealed-carry law. I see this as an underhanded attempt to enact restrictions contrary to the recent Federal Court ruling. It is outrageous and I resent this attempt to restrict my civil rights.
    I encourage you to support the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and oppose a “no limit” training requirement.
     

    zoostation

    , ,
    Moderator
    Jan 28, 2007
    22,857
    Abingdon
    Can anyone share their email so I have something to start with I suck at this sort of thing and want to help PM is fine. Or a link to a form letter or something ?

    My take on it:

    "Dear Sir/Ma'am,

    Please oppose House Bill 579. This was a bill that was designed to exempt retired law enforcement officers from the training commission video course requirement when purchasing a regulated firearm. It has now been molded into something completely different pertaining to requiring potentially costly and lengthy training of all concealed handgun permit applicants. A completely different purpose from what the bill was introduced for.

    The anti-gun agenda of a few members of the Assembly should not be carried on the backs of retired police officers.

    Also note that for some reason, at the time of this writing, the MLIS system is incomplete and is not showing the amendments to the third reading of the bill.

    Thank you"

    It's important to let them know mlis is not up to date because that's the first place they're liable to go look. It also makes proponents of the amendments look shady for it not being up to date.
     

    MJD438

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 28, 2012
    5,849
    Somewhere in MD
    I'm new to this so might be reading it incorrectly, but this link seems to show the third reading and the training amendment.

    http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/amds/bil_0009/HB0579_82887801.pdf

    Here is the link to the tracking page - http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/billfile/hb0579.htm. I have been checking that page fairly regularly today (once I saw the notes) and it was just updated with the information about the Senate actions and the amendments within the past 45 minutes. The amendments did not show on any of my page refreshes prior to 1230 EDT. I should have kept screenshots, but I failed to do so in time.
     

    Brychan

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 24, 2009
    8,391
    Baltimore
    Here is what I sent, also did another one for the house.

    "Honorable Senators

    I strongly ask you oppose HB 579 as amended by the Judicial Proceedings Committee.

    This undefined training is just a move to slow down or block law abiding citizens from their constitutional rights. It of course has no effect on criminals.


    Thank you for your time
    David B
    Maryland Citizen, Taxpayer and voter"

    Common you mugs, you want to live forever lets burn up their servers

    When your done, smokem if you gotem
     

    zoostation

    , ,
    Moderator
    Jan 28, 2007
    22,857
    Abingdon
    I'm new to this so might be reading it incorrectly, but this link seems to show the third reading and the training amendment.

    http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/amds/bil_0009/HB0579_82887801.pdf

    Looks like they just added them.

    We have lots of guest "friends" on the thread here today, who knows, maybe they got wise to the complaint. :cool:

    Unfortunately things are moving so fast down there the next few days any last minute additions are likely to be missed.
     

    mike_in_md

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 13, 2008
    2,282
    Howard County
    I saw the below text in the bill. So, how exactly does one go about drawing a line to determine if one has a propensity for violence or instability when you are already legally allowed to own a gun? They should define "reasonably" with a word more 'substantial" than using the word "propensity". Actually, paragraph 6 should deleted as it is basically the reason that makes Maryland a "May Issue" state in my opinion.

    [(5)] (6) based on an investigation:
    (i) has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may reasonably render the person’s possession of a handgun a danger to the person or to another; and
     

    vector03

    Frustrated Incorporated
    Jan 7, 2009
    2,519
    Columbia
    So...let me make sure I've got this right. The senate votes to approve this Bill at 12:17 today. The updated copy with the training amendment is posted online no earlier than 12:30 today?

    :mad54:
    :tdown:
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,928
    Messages
    7,259,423
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom