Ghost Guns Amended to SB 190 in House Committee

LeadSled1 · Apr 7, 2021

Maryland: We want universal federal background checks on every gun transaction and also buying ammo.

Also Maryland: We want people on pot to be able to buy firearms.

:lol2:

euler357 · Apr 7, 2021

We need to start holding individuals responsible (i.e. "bad actors" as defined by Del Lopez) for their actions. Banning inanimate objects from law-abiding citizens is just stupid!!!

Matlack · Apr 7, 2021

Norton said:
Single subject rule?

I'd like to see the mental gymnastics to conflate these two subjects.

Allen65 said:
Everyone on MDS probably agrees this shouldn't be allowed. But we're not on the Rules Committee. Dem Leadership is.

Its not a MGA rule, its in the Maryland State Constitution. This should be grounds to toss the whole damn law via the courts.

The MD. CONST. art. III, § 29, provides:
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

Nickberg500 · Apr 7, 2021

LeadSled1 said:
Maryland: We want universal federal background checks on every gun transaction and also buying ammo.

Also Maryland: We want people on pot to be able to buy firearms.

2:

I honestly don't see a problem - alcohol is objectively worse.

euler357 · Apr 7, 2021

Nickberg500 said:
I honestly don't see a problem - alcohol is objectively worse.

Yup - I agree on alcohol vs cannabis. Partaking in a legal substance shouldn't remove other rights.

euler357 · Apr 7, 2021

Del Lopez "good faith effort" ... "addiction" etc..... WAKE UP --- it's already illegal for felons / prohibited persons to have guns. Making it "more illegal" and making felons out of law-abiding people isn't a good-faith effort. Please stop ratcheting down the rights of law abiding citizens to appease your base voters.

euler357 · Apr 7, 2021

Del Griffiths "Why were we just notified of this an hour ago?" Good question...

Occam · Apr 7, 2021

euler357 said:
Yup - I agree on alcohol vs cannabis. Partaking in a legal substance shouldn't remove other rights.

Which is academic in the case of federal firearm background checks right now, because weed is NOT a legal substance under federal law. Agree or not on the appropriateness of that, it’s just a simple fact, and NICS runs headlong into it.

CanDoEZ · Apr 7, 2021

passed 13-7. Make your choices on whether smoking dope or stopping 80% builds is more important to you. And without a change to federal law and NICS, the medical marijuana issue means absolutely nothing

Norton · Apr 7, 2021

Allen65 said:
Everyone on MDS probably agrees this shouldn't be allowed. But we're not on the Rules Committee. Dem Leadership is.

Matlack said:
Its not a MGA rule, its in the Maryland State Constitution. This should be grounds to toss the whole damn law via the courts.

The MD. CONST. art. III, § 29, provides:
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

This is the point. This is not some custom or organizational principle, it's a basic precept of our legislative process. You simply cannot take unrelated sections of the code/law and conflate them together in a bill.

This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

MJD438 · Apr 7, 2021

Per a communication from one of the Delegates, the AG opined that this does not violate "single subject".

Norton · Apr 7, 2021

MJD438 said:
Per a communication from one of the Delegates, the AG opined that this does not violate "single subject".

Shocking revelation, given whom is opining on the subject. It doesn't mean he's right though.

rbird7282 · Apr 7, 2021

MJD438 said:
Per a communication from one of the Delegates, the AG opined that this does not violate "single subject".

And we all know that AG is a giant POS.
That response is f'ing laughable, a third grader could tell you it does.

Kharn · Apr 7, 2021

Norton said:
Shocking revelation, given whom is opining on the subject. It doesn't mean he's right though.

He was probably high on his own supply when he gave that opinion.

Occam · Apr 7, 2021

Norton said:
Shocking revelation, given whom is opining on the subject. It doesn't mean he's right though.

Nickberg500 · Apr 7, 2021

Occam said:
Which is academic in the case of federal firearm background checks right now, because weed is NOT a legal substance under federal law. Agree or not on the appropriateness of that, it’s just a simple fact, and NICS runs headlong into it.

Ok but removing local law enforcement's ability to pursue dumbass charges on possessing a plant is a plus in my book. Anything to give the feds a run for their money.

BeoBill · Apr 7, 2021

Matlack said:
Its not a MGA rule, its in the Maryland State Constitution. This should be grounds to toss the whole damn law via the courts.

The MD. CONST. art. III, § 29, provides:
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

In this Colony, the Ruling Class is not bound by your mere trifling laws. Those are for the Common People...

The MGA just wants to pass Bidet's EO before Bidet signs it, so they can get an attaboy from his owners. And my State Senator is Doug Peters, so I'm not going to waste my time complaining to him.

PowPow · Apr 7, 2021

BeoBill said:
The MGA just wants to pass Bidet's EO before Bidet signs it, so they can get an attaboy from his owners.

You nailed it in one sentence. Attaboy, Luther.

sygata · Apr 7, 2021

(J) (1) "UNFINISHED FRAME OR RECEIVER" MEANS A PRODUCT THAT IS INTENDED OR DESIGNED TO SERVE AS THE FRAME OR RECEIVER, INCLUDING THE LOWER RECEIVER, OF A FIREARM, BUT IS IN AN UNFINISHED STATE OF MANUFACTURE.
(2) "UNFINISHED FRAME OR RECEIVER" INCLUDES A BLANK, CASTING, OR MACHINED BODY THAT REQUIRES MODIFICATION, SUCH AS MACHINING, DRILLING, FILING, OR MOLDING, TO BE USED AS PART OF A FUNCTIONAL FIREARM, IF IT DOES NOT INCLUDE A
PIECE OF MATERIAL THAT HAS:
(I) BEEN ALTERED IN SIZE OR EXTERNAL SHAPE SOLELY TO FACILITATE TRANSPORTATION OR STORAGE; OR
(II) UNDERGONE AN ALTERATION IN CHEMICAL COMPOSITION.

Can somebody explain to me, does a brick of aluminum fits this description? Or a 2x4 from home depot? (I have seen lowers made of it). How is this even enforceable?

euler357 · Apr 7, 2021

What if we only buy 80% lowers that are advertised as being intended for use as paperweights? This is a binary thing - it's either a firearm it it isn't. The BATFE after many years settled on 80% being the number. I'm waiting for 79% lowers to come out.... Just like the 189 proof everclear because they made 190 illegal. At some point they will realize that nearly anyone can make guns since they are a simple mechanical device.

Chris

Ghost Guns Amended to SB 190 in House Committee

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

,

Scribe

Ultimate Member

,

,

,

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman

Ultimate Member

NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

Where's the beef?

Active Member

,

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics