Shall Issue being hijacked. YOU MUST ACT NOW!
- Thread starter MDFF2008
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
I stand corrected. Also note the bill as being shown in the MLIS system is in an incomplete form and does not show the amendments in the pdf of either reading. First time I've ever seen that happen.
Yes this is very bad. They can't win on "good and substantial" in the courts so they're going to make it difficult to pass
a required course to carry or even just to purchase.
X-Factor
I don't say please
Emailed and called Sen Dyson. Talked a staffer. "Is that the gun bill?" She seemed happy that I was calling to voice displeasure ....not sure what to make of that.
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
I emailed Frederick 2 delegates and Senator Young.
Stand by....
Stand by....
With no course in place there can be no applications. Tada! Carry is now banned for anyone without a permit.
X-Factor
I don't say please
It already passed the house, right? So talking to Delegates won't help. Focus on Senate. Talked to my wifes aunt and told her to get Dyson to do something to kill it...she knows him.
Chrscott22
Member
- Apr 6, 2012
- 27
Is there a good template to use to email them??
I am curious as to what happens with applications that were sent in to the system before the effective date of the law (01OCT2012, if passed by both houses and signed by our lovely governor) but are being held for processing pending the stay/appeals process for Woollard.
Need to get the Delegates prepped for when the amended bill (if passed) comes back from the Senate for their rubber-stamp approval.
kjp1231
Member
Forgive my ignorance, but since Legg's ruling are they now trying to legislate Good and Substantial reason?
"has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.”.
Why would they put that in the bill if it's already on the books and currently ruled to be unconstitutional, pending stay and appeal?
"has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.”.
Why would they put that in the bill if it's already on the books and currently ruled to be unconstitutional, pending stay and appeal?
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.
It has to go back to the house.
The emails tools allow you to easily email both.
Do the senate first, then the house then call the senate and call the house.
- Nov 14, 2010
- 20,274
E-mailed four delegates ... three in 30, one in 6 (personal freind)
that threw me at first as well.
they are just moving it within the existing law. From 5 (ii) to 6 (ii) to make room for the training requirement. That way they won't have to renumber again when the 4th circuit throws it our for good.
That is already existing in the law, which will likely not be changed until the appeals process is worn out.
When reading bills:
- Text in bold is being added to the code in the designated sections
- Text in [ ] or strike-through is being removed from the designated sections
jmcgonig
Active Member
Sent my first email ever to MD politicians... 
BigCity
retired undertaker
Hopefully I emailed everyone. The system was really backed up and took forever to go through.
If I don't get any responses from delegates, I will do it again later.
drmsparks,
What if you previously had carry permits in the past from 2 different jobs. Would that count "towards training"?
If I don't get any responses from delegates, I will do it again later.
drmsparks,
What if you previously had carry permits in the past from 2 different jobs. Would that count "towards training"?
Just note you guys that you need to see the amendments posted in the attachments here to see the amendments they are trying to put with this bill. The MLIS system does not have the updated version (at least at the time of this writing) and still makes the bill look harmless. I just went back and looked again and neither the first nor the third reading pdf's have the amendments tacked onto them.
Have never seen that happen before. Really makes one wonder if they "forgot" about doing it.
Have never seen that happen before. Really makes one wonder if they "forgot" about doing it.
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
If I read this right...seems it is unconstitutional based on the Legg decision.....
But then I know not about such things....
R
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
Convicted For Building Guns; Judge says, “Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom” (1 Viewer)- Started by Harrys
- Replies: 1
-
-
