Proposals for next legislative session

dblas · Nov 16, 2014

montoya32 said:
I think we need to approach this from a different angle.

1.) Shell cases have been sitting in 55 gal drums for years. MDSP no longer possesses the equipment to handle the cases and this dept needs to go. Tax $ savings

2.) Background checks to be turned back to the dealers. Do away with this dept at the MDSP. Tax $ savings

3.) Handgun roster to be done away with. Dept to be done away with. Tax $ savings

Turn the resources who were employed in these departments into street patrols in the city of Baltimore. Have them work with the City department to curtail the drug trafficking off of I-70, I-83 and I-95.

Senate Appropriation is attacking it from this direction. They requested a report by the end of this year (?) from MSP on the entire program to include the disposition of the machine, and the disposition of the shell casings (I believe).

montoya32 · Nov 16, 2014

dblas said:
Senate Appropriation is attacking it from this direction. They requested a report by the end of this year (?) from MSP on the entire program to include the disposition of the machine, and the disposition of the shell casings (I believe).

MJD438 · Nov 16, 2014

ShallNotInfringe said:
McDermott submitted the following amendment to the 2015 budget and it was rejected: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014rs/amds/bil_0000/SB0170_34322901.pdf

Floor discussion is here: http://mgaweb3.maryland.gov/Segments/HLS_TS/prior_house/HSE_03262014_1.mp4-20140326-151421.m3u8
Amendment discussion Starts at 2:29:20.

If it's not being funded, why would McDermott put in an amendment? It may be subsumed by a line item in the MSP budget at the state level, and dumais supported leaving it in, "since it is being wisely spent as discretionary funds", but the mdga was not willing to insert that language to the budget bill, so at some budgetary level, the funding is still being allocated to the program.

Clovis said:
I thought I remembered DuMais debating for this, thanks for reminding me SNI.

I cannot speak for Del. McDermott, but having spent some time researching some issues on the budget, here are my thoughts:

The MGA does not create the budget.
The Governor (really, his staff) creates the budget.
The MGA only has the authority to restrict the budget. This can be done via amendments to remove items in the budget or via amendments to restrict the use of budgeted money for specific tasks (case in point).

ras_oscar · Nov 17, 2014

ShallNotInfringe said:
2. Add self defense as G&S. Windfall state income for carry permits. The fiscal notes for this legislative proposal last year showed approximately $6M of state incomeif this passed.

Self defence is already a G&S. What needs to change is the documentation required and the discretion of the board that does the approvals. Publish a standard in the code and remove the board review. Transparency and tax savings.

PJDiesel · Nov 17, 2014

ras_oscar said:
Self defence is already a G&S. What needs to change is the documentation required and the discretion of the board that does the approvals. Publish a standard in the code and remove the board review. Transparency and tax savings.

This is incorrect.

Jack McCauley · Nov 17, 2014

PJDiesel said:
This is incorrect.

Under, "Self defense," the term, "Personal Protection," is instead used.

Personal Protection. There must be documented evidence of recent threats, robberies, and/or assaults, supported by official police reports or notarized statements from witnesses.
The Department of State Police applies a court decision to base their justification for meeting this requirement; You must have an apprehended fear of danger to obtain a Handgun Permit for personal safety.

“An apprehended fear of danger is more than one’s personal anxiety.” (See Carl Snowden v. Handgun Permit Review Board, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. April 17, 1980)

The State Police also uses the court decision of Scherr v. State of Maryland, the Department of State Police denied the applicant’s permit to carry a handgun because the applicant’s “level of threat and/or danger” was not any greater than that of an ordinary citizen. (See Robert Scherr v. State of Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board, in the Court of Special Appeals for Maryland, 2004)

This requirement can be met in several ways;

1)Maryland law does not require that you have to be threatened or assaulted before having an apprehended fear of danger. This requirement is made up by the Maryland State Police and is not supported in COMAR. So simply eliminate the need for an applicant to provide evidence of "recent" threats.
2) Consider the location where the person is requesting to carry his/her permit. Does the average person feel a greater risk to their personal safety in one area of Maryland over another?

The bottom line is the, "Good and Substantial," requirement has never truly been defined. It must be defined either in COMAR or Maryland law. However, even Anthony Brown admitted during his campaign, that the Superintendent of the State Police CAN make a determination of what is considered Good and Substantial. While this is great if a new Superintendent, with the proper mindset and courage is appointed, it does not protect Marylanders for the long term. This needs to be fixed!

PJDiesel · Nov 17, 2014

Man I like this guy.....

Thank you again Sir for the utmost of accuracy.

mxrider · Nov 17, 2014

Jack McCauley said:
Under, "Self defense," the term, "Personal Protection," is instead used.

Personal Protection. There must be documented evidence of recent threats, robberies, and/or assaults, supported by official police reports or notarized statements from witnesses.
The Department of State Police applies a court decision to base their justification for meeting this requirement; You must have an apprehended fear of danger to obtain a Handgun Permit for personal safety.

“An apprehended fear of danger is more than one’s personal anxiety.” (See Carl Snowden v. Handgun Permit Review Board, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. April 17, 1980)

The State Police also uses the court decision of Scherr v. State of Maryland, the Department of State Police denied the applicant’s permit to carry a handgun because the applicant’s “level of threat and/or danger” was not any greater than that of an ordinary citizen. (See Robert Scherr v. State of Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board, in the Court of Special Appeals for Maryland, 2004)

This requirement can be met in several ways;

1)Maryland law does not require that you have to be threatened or assaulted before having an apprehended fear of danger. This requirement is made up by the Maryland State Police and is not supported in COMAR. So simply eliminate the need for an applicant to provide evidence of "recent" threats.
2) Consider the location where the person is requesting to carry his/her permit. Does the average person feel a greater risk to their personal safety in one area of Maryland over another?

The bottom line is the, "Good and Substantial," requirement has never truly been defined. It must be defined either in COMAR or Maryland law. However, even Anthony Brown admitted during his campaign, that the Superintendent of the State Police CAN make a determination of what is considered Good and Substantial. While this is great if a new Superintendent, with the proper mindset and courage is appointed, it does not protect Marylanders for the long term. This needs to be fixed!

I am hoping that IF you are called upon by Gov. Elect Hogan to be the new MSP Superintendant that you will SERIOUSLY CONSIDER the position.

PJDiesel · Nov 17, 2014

mxrider said:
I am hoping that IF you are called upon by Gov. Elect Hogan to be the new MSP Superintendant that you will SERIOUSLY CONSIDER the position.

I'd be thoroughly surprised if there's someone MORE qualified in the pipeline.

Jack McCauley · Nov 17, 2014

PJDiesel said:
I'd be thoroughly surprised if there's someone MORE qualified in the pipeline.

Thank you for the compliment. I am very proud of the accomplishments in my career. I truly enjoy sharing information with Maryland's firearm and hunting communities. I believe these are the men and women that understand our State, the challenges we face and the rights we have fought so hard to hang onto. We have lost so much ground and I am determined to be a part of restoring those rights.

mxrider · Nov 17, 2014

Jack McCauley said:
Thank you for the compliment. I am very proud of the accomplishments in my career. I truly enjoy sharing information with Maryland's firearm and hunting communities. I believe these are the men and women that understand our State, the challenges we face and the rights we have fought so hard to hang onto. We have lost so much ground and I am determined to be a part of restoring those rights.

And this is exactly why I posted what I did! Would love to see some responsibility back in our leadership positions within this state and you would be a great one to have there.

RavensChick · Nov 17, 2014

Jack McCauley said:
Under, "Self defense," the term, "Personal Protection," is instead used.

Personal Protection. There must be documented evidence of recent threats, robberies, and/or assaults, supported by official police reports or notarized statements from witnesses.
The Department of State Police applies a court decision to base their justification for meeting this requirement; You must have an apprehended fear of danger to obtain a Handgun Permit for personal safety.

“An apprehended fear of danger is more than one’s personal anxiety.” (See Carl Snowden v. Handgun Permit Review Board, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. April 17, 1980)

The State Police also uses the court decision of Scherr v. State of Maryland, the Department of State Police denied the applicant’s permit to carry a handgun because the applicant’s “level of threat and/or danger” was not any greater than that of an ordinary citizen. (See Robert Scherr v. State of Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board, in the Court of Special Appeals for Maryland, 2004)

This requirement can be met in several ways;

1)Maryland law does not require that you have to be threatened or assaulted before having an apprehended fear of danger. This requirement is made up by the Maryland State Police and is not supported in COMAR. So simply eliminate the need for an applicant to provide evidence of "recent" threats.
2) Consider the location where the person is requesting to carry his/her permit. Does the average person feel a greater risk to their personal safety in one area of Maryland over another?

The bottom line is the, "Good and Substantial," requirement has never truly been defined. It must be defined either in COMAR or Maryland law. However, even Anthony Brown admitted during his campaign, that the Superintendent of the State Police CAN make a determination of what is considered Good and Substantial. While this is great if a new Superintendent, with the proper mindset and courage is appointed, it does not protect Marylanders for the long term. This needs to be fixed!

Thanks for the information, Jack. So, in my case, I've been robbed at gunpoint in the past (probably 8 - 10 years ago) and have the police reports to document it. If ONLY the "recent" language was dropped from the application, in your opinion, would I qualify under the Personal Protection qualification?

BTW, thank you for your service to Maryland. Good luck with your future endeavors (which will hopefully include an appointment under Hogan's administration).

mxrider · Nov 17, 2014

RavensChick said:
snip.

/off topic- ABSOLUTELY LOVE YOUR CUSTOM TITLE! /on topic

Jack McCauley · Nov 17, 2014

RavensChick said:
Thanks for the information, Jack. So, in my case, I've been robbed at gunpoint in the past (probably 8 - 10 years ago) and have the police reports to document it. If ONLY the "recent" language was dropped from the application, in your opinion, would I qualify under the Personal Protection qualification?

BTW, thank you for your service to Maryland. Good luck with your future endeavors (which will hopefully include an appointment under Hogan's administration).

Remember, my opinion is based upon one person's view. If changes to these provisions were to ever be instituted, it would require roundtable discussion and input from several sources. However, yes, this has always been MY opinion. I have overruled denials because the argument alone by personnel was that the threat was not, "recent." How does a person determine the recency of a threat? Police officers are given Handgun Permits when they retire, based solely on the assumption that they are threatened. While this is true for most police officers, it is more than likely the threats are not recent in terms of three to four years. Should we really even have to argue that a person has been threatened? We need to fix the entire requirement of G and S so the requirements are clear and easy to evaluate.

trickg · Nov 17, 2014

MrNiceGuy said:
Nah, only way you get this done is to go the old Democrat path: redirect the monies and resources to something everybody loves and supports. For example, propose doing all those things and using the funds saved to buy new safety equipment for police officers and to fund better benefits for the widows/widowers of officers who've been killed. Then paint any opposition as wanting cops dead and their families left homeless.

As I said, classic Democrat path.

This is genius, and a great way to go with it.

Any proposal that we as gun owners are looking for has to have a few factors going for it in order for it to get past the GA:

1.) Lower taxes/lower budget spending
2.) Safety
3.) It's for the children!

Particularly #2 and #3 though. All of the BS we are currently dealing with was passed with the idea that the laws would make all of us safer. As erroneous as that all might have been, that's the selling point. "Think of the children!"

Good ways to go would be to talk about officer safety (and MrNiceGuy's idea is brilliant) or talk about how additional moneys from what was saved by cutting out the fatty programs such as the spent shell casing program can go toward things such as funding Pre-K programs. Wasn't that one of the pillars of Brown's campaign? How can they say no if it's presented that way?

I also agree with those who say that none of this is going to happen quickly, even under the best-case scenario - it's going to take time to get the new administration in place and start dealing with some of the more serious budgetary issues before we can think about working to dismantle the decades worth of ******** that has accumulated under democratic rule.

dblas · Nov 17, 2014

RavensChick said:
Thanks for the information, Jack. So, in my case, I've been robbed at gunpoint in the past (probably 8 - 10 years ago) and have the police reports to document it. If ONLY the "recent" language was dropped from the application, in your opinion, would I qualify under the Personal Protection qualification?

BTW, thank you for your service to Maryland. Good luck with your future endeavors (which will hopefully include an appointment under Hogan's administration).

Where have you been hiding, haven't seen you post in a while.

Raineman · Nov 19, 2014

I have some information about the shell casing program that I think I probably should not post on a public forum including a 9 page budget report.

I'm not sure who it should go to, dblas, Mr H, Mr. McCauley??? If one of you want to PM me your email, I will forward the information to you.

mxrider · Nov 19, 2014

Raineman said:
I have some information about the shell casing program that I think I probably should not post on a public forum including a 9 page budget report.

I'm not sure who it should go to, dblas, Mr H, Mr. McCauley??? If one of you want to PM me your email, I will forward the information to you.

pm inbound

ras_oscar · Nov 19, 2014

warning... Threadjack in progress...... As we enter the lame duck session, it's traditional for outgoing politicians to slip pet projects/provisions/rewards into the budget. Is there anywhere online I can go to monitor said activities? { hey, wait this is MY thread... is it possible to jack my own thrread? ... never mind}

Mark75H · Nov 19, 2014

ras_oscar said:
warning... Threadjack in progress...... As we enter the lame duck session, it's traditional for outgoing politicians to slip pet projects/provisions/rewards into the budget. Is there anywhere online I can go to monitor said activities? { hey, wait this is MY thread... is it possible to jack my own thrread? ... never mind}

MD Board of Public Works ... its the real budget control device in MD anyway ... but I don't think there is much MOM will get past Neat Pete

Proposals for next legislative session

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Active Member

Banned

Former MSI Treasurer

Banned

Active Member

Former MSI Treasurer

Gun Loving Bitch

Former MSI Treasurer

Active Member

Guns 'n Drums

Past President, MSI

On the 3rd box

Former MSI Treasurer

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics