MSI written testimony on Campus Carry Ban

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!
  • Not_an_outlaw

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 26, 2013
    4,679
    Prince Frederick, MD
    Am I reading this correctly? Currently, if you are on public school grounds with a gun (K-12) and you are caught, without any intent to due harm, you can be permanenttly banned from owning a forearm forever?

    Also, I'm not sure I agree with the premise that an acceptable amendment to this law is a mens rea. I can think of many situations where you may know the law, and have no choice. In Frostburg, I think there are privately owned homes that need to access roads owned by Frostburg to get to and from their houses. Also, in one situation, I was detoured from the beltway to Washington DC due to an accident. If I had a gun in the car and was caught for activity that was supposed to be legal, but am now a prohibited person. Lastly, I own a 4 unit apartment building. There was a time when I only rented to college students. Would this law then apply to me if I only rented to college students.
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    I was playing this in the background earlier. I think Mark meant that he didn't want "illegal" guns on campus because he quickly made the point that the legislation would prevent people legally allowed to carry (law enforcement officers, federal agents off duty, CCP holders, etc) on campus and thus endanger students in case there was a rampage killer.

    He left off the word "illegal" but I think it's what he meant based on the rest of his statement. He did however acknowledge that there are existing campus policies in MD that forbid students from bringing guns on campus - just none that are this broad and that result in federal penalties.

    As a side note, aren't there shooting teams on various college campuses? How would this legislation affect these sports?
     

    Norton

    NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman
    Staff member
    Admin
    Moderator
    May 22, 2005
    122,856
    \As a side note, aren't there shooting teams on various college campus? How would this legislation affect these sports?

    It does pose a particular problem for the Naval Academy since they have two active indoor ranges on the Yard proper and firearms come and go through the gate to those ranges as well as are stored on location on the Yard.
     

    Mdeng

    Ultimate Member
    Industry Partner
    Nov 13, 2009
    8,568
    Virginia
    It does pose a particular problem for the Naval Academy since they have two active indoor ranges on the Yard proper and firearms come and go through the gate to those ranges as well as are stored on location on the Yard.

    Isn't the Naval Academy a Military instalation? Would expect them to be exempt.

    Several community colleges offer firearms courses.
     

    Jaybeez

    Ultimate Member
    Industry Partner
    Patriot Picket
    May 30, 2006
    6,392
    Darlington MD
    It was a good round of testimony by all involved. Mark is expert in technical aspects of the law, and his testimony centered around that. Others contributed their expertise. This is an example of a coordinated attack.
     

    Norton

    NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman
    Staff member
    Admin
    Moderator
    May 22, 2005
    122,856
    Isn't the Naval Academy a Military instalation? Would expect them to be exempt.

    Several community colleges offer firearms courses.

    Its first and foremost a college. Unless there were a carve out just for USNA i cant imagine it jot applying.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    I was playing this in the background earlier. I think Mark meant that he didn't want "illegal" guns on campus because he quickly made the point that the legislation would prevent people legally allowed to carry (law enforcement officers, federal agents off duty, CCP holders, etc) on campus and thus endanger students in case there was a rampage killer.

    He left off the word "illegal" but I think it's what he meant based on the rest of his statement. He did however acknowledge that there are existing campus policies in MD that forbid students from bringing guns on campus - just none that are this broad and that result in federal penalties.

    As a side note, aren't there shooting teams on various college campuses? How would this legislation affect these sports?

    Correct. Barnes (the bill's sponsor) was playing games. The question is not whether guns should be on campus as all MD colleges bar unauthorized possession. The question is whether you criminalize it and whether you also bar possession by LEOs and permit holders. Here is the letter I just sent to the Committee along those lines. I had to restrain myself.
     

    Attachments

    • Letter MSI committee Final.pdf
      99.8 KB · Views: 110

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Its first and foremost a college. Unless there were a carve out just for USNA i cant imagine it jot applying.

    The Bill allows possession if "authorized" by the college. That covers rifle teams, ROTC and, of course, the USNA. Of course, every midshipman in the USNA is, by definition, a member of the military and the State does not get to regulate military affairs on military bases. I get a kick out this gun paranoia. My son graduated from VMI in 2015 (he's a 2d Lt. Marine now, field artillery officer). Every cadet at VMI is issued a M-14 with a bayonet and that M-14 is kept in his room at all times. The only thing missing is the firing pin which is easily replaced. Never been an issue at VMI.
     

    Not_an_outlaw

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 26, 2013
    4,679
    Prince Frederick, MD
    I understand that when writing legislators, shorter is better than longer. I would like the emphasis to be on the "innocent possession" or traveling to and from your home to conduct legal activity (shooting, hunting, and gunsmithing). Maybe that argument is more suited to those organizations that are not CCW centered (MSI). There are far more of those individuals innocently affected than the CCW holder or law enforcement personnel. This is anecdotal, but I would bet that if a non-CCW holder, retired law enforcement officer, or other active law enforcement officer would get more leeway (benefit of the doubt) from the state's attorney than someone not in this category. I don't think the MDA cares about that category and thinks/assumes those will just get a pass.
     

    montoya32

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jun 16, 2010
    11,311
    Harford Co
    This is not criticism aimed at anyone here, but this is why creating bills to solve a problem that does not exist is an issue. They inevitably have conflicts and cannot possible cover every scenario. Illegally possessing a firearm(prohibited person) is already a crime. Committing a crime with a firearm already carries an additional penalty. Colleges already have policy regarding the possession of firearms on their campuses.

    If I tell you that you are not allowed to carry in my store and post it, you must leave or be charged with trespassing. Why do we need a law that states the same? Just to create another class of prohibited people?
     

    MJD438

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 28, 2012
    5,849
    Somewhere in MD
    This is not criticism aimed at anyone here, but this is why creating bills to solve a problem that does not exist is an issue. They inevitably have conflicts and cannot possible cover every scenario. Illegally possessing a firearm(prohibited person) is already a crime. Committing a crime with a firearm already carries an additional penalty. Colleges already have policy regarding the possession of firearms on their campuses.

    If I tell you that you are not allowed to carry in my store and post it, you must leave or be charged with trespassing. Why do we need a law that states the same? Just to create another class of prohibited people?
    Simple answer from my time in dealing with the MGA, per the current majority leadership, yes...the goal is to criminalize firearms possession in any way possible, thereby assuring that no one is allowed to have firearms.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,465
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom