O'Malley Veto

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!
  • Jim Sr

    R.I.P.
    Jun 18, 2005
    6,898
    Annapolis MD

    (House Passed 138 / 0)

    (Senate Passed 45 - 0)
    -------------------------------------
    SB 497

    Synopsis:
    Authorizing a law enforcement agency to dispose of a handgun owned by the agency by selling, exchanging, or transferring the handgun to a manufacturer; and defining "manufacturer".

    Entitled: Public Safety - Disposal of Handguns Owned by a Law Enforcement Agency

    Fiscal and Policy Note

    ----------------------------------------------
    Sen. Larry E. Haines, a Republican who represents Baltimore and Carroll counties, said he is disappointed that his handgun proposal is not expected to get the governor's backing. Haines said the measure is cost-effective and promotes public safety by returning guns to the manufacturer.

    "The best plan is for the manufacturer to handle the guns and the disposal of them," Haines said. "This bill will save a lot of money."

    Opponents of the measure argue that it recirculates firearms in the marketplace and could make it more difficult to track those guns if they're used in crimes. :sad20:

    The governor said he feared that the gun bill, which passed the Democrat-led Senate and House of Delegates unanimously, would put more weapons on the street. Under current law, police must destroy the guns, transfer them to other agencies or sell them to a current or retired officer.

    "Marylanders are all too familiar with the tragic effects of gun crimes," :puke: O'Malley said in his veto message to legislative leaders. :puke2:
     
    Last edited:

    zoostation

    , ,
    Moderator
    Jan 28, 2007
    22,857
    Abingdon
    Which means, thanks to O'Horny's veto, the "safety of police officers" that the democrats are always so worried about when they want a gun ban, is actually harmed, not helped. Agencies are not able to just sell off their guns to other departments. Not a lot of departments standing in line to buy somebody else's ten or fifteen year old beaters any more than they want someone else's used police cars with 150,000 miles on them. At least the manufacturers would give a fair market price for the weapons, especially if they were trade-ins. They had the facilities to refurbish them. So less money means less opportunity to replace the old guns on schedule. Bad for the police, bad for the public. But I guess it's okay with the O'Horny crowd, they don't like police any more than they do the rest of the servant class.
     
    Last edited:

    Simon Yu

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 12, 2007
    1,357
    Rockville
    Of course he vetoed it, it's something that would have saved the state money and we can't have that if he wants to raise taxes.
     

    Norton

    NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman
    Staff member
    Admin
    Moderator
    May 22, 2005
    122,879
    This should serve as a very vivid lesson to us on just how far out on the fringe O'Mouthy is. Here's a bill that was passed unanimously, it appears, and he is unilaterally vetoing it.

    If a true anti-gun bill ever makes it out of the house and senate we are screwed to the nth degree.

    I wonder what the reaction would have been had Ehrlich vetoed a unanimously passed bill. :innocent0
     

    Spot77

    Ultimate Member
    May 8, 2005
    11,591
    Anne Arundel County
    We should start writing our legislators NOW and demand that they override this veto.

    It was UNANIMOUS - the will of the people was obviously expressed through their representatives.
     

    BenL

    John Galt Speaking.
    Ahhh, O'Malley... my favorite turd.
    He wants a new gas tax, new sales tax and raise property taxes, but let the police sell off stuff to raise money? No, we can't have that. We can't raise money, unless it's on the backs of the citizens.
     

    K31

    "Part of that Ultra MAGA Crowd"
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 15, 2006
    35,674
    AA county
    I remember when Ellen Saurbrey (SP?) was running she said that Maryland could save hundreds of millions just by paying it's bills on time.

    But, I guess we can't expect our government to be a fiscally responsible as any of us have to be, huh?
     

    Spot77

    Ultimate Member
    May 8, 2005
    11,591
    Anne Arundel County
    They can vote to override his veto. but with both sidea of the aisle controlled by Democrats, there's not much chance of them doing anything to embarrass the boy wonder.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,402
    Messages
    7,280,315
    Members
    33,450
    Latest member
    angel45z

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom