Referendums on Gun Laws

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!
  • Skipjacks

    Ultimate Member
    Maryland would just ignore a referendum anyway

    Like they did with speed cameras

    Speed camera laws were passed with almost no support from the people. The people put it up for referendum. They got well more signatures than required to put it up for referendum.

    Then a judge threw out the referendum petition saying it was invalid....fo no reason.

    The organizers appealed and won, making the petition legal again.

    But by that time the 90 day window (or whatever the time limit was) had expired so the next judge said "Too bad, suckers. You are too late to file for referendum"

    Now over a decade later speed cameras, that are a CLEAR violation of the 6th Amendment, and are overwhelmingly unpopular, are here to stay.

    Maryland politicians make the best government money can buy. Pretty sure they have their own eBay page come general session time.
     
    Maryland is 70% Democrat. You don't stand a snowball's chance in hell. We found out in 1986 when we got the handgun roster. We collected four times as many signatures as required and still lost. Like someone else above posted our rights are not up for a vote. I just wish more people had the cojones to actually fight because this crap of writing sternly worded letters and rallying in Annapolis ain't cuttin it..
     

    sxs

    Senior Member
    MDS Supporter
    Nov 20, 2009
    3,378
    Anne Arundel County, MD
    Maryland is 70% Democrat. You don't stand a snowball's chance in hell. We found out in 1986 when we got the handgun roster. We collected four times as many signatures as required and still lost. Like someone else above posted our rights are not up for a vote. I just wish more people had the cojones to actually fight because this crap of writing sternly worded letters and rallying in Annapolis ain't cuttin it..

    I will say thus, though....polls showed we were winning until the little dirty trick was pulled raiding the NRA headquaters the night before the the election with allegations the NRA was passing out money for votes. It turned out a Dem politician was doing it and claiming to represent the NRA. For those sitting on the fence, but leaning our way through influence of family and friends, it was too much. Of course, by the time the truth came out, the election was in the rearview mirror and, instead of winning a narrow victory, we lost, IIRC, by like 55 to 45 percent.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll

    This horse was beat to death in 2013. Actually think that Neil Parrot tried to do a referendum and he could not get the necessary number of signatures to even get it going. Supposedly, getting the money on the 2A side to actually get the word out about the referendum is impossible. NRA did not want to foot the bill for advertising, etc. So, it was a dead horse without even getting out of the gate.

    Personally, I am for the referendum even if not a single dollar is spent to push the 2A narrative in support of overturning the law at the voting booth.

    I think it is a way for liberal gun owners, who are going to vote for a liberal candidate anyway because they are for every liberal ideal except for gun control, to actually voice their opinion without taking time off to go to Annapolis and fight the actual legislation.

    I am in the vast minority here though. Most here think that we should not leave our "Rights" up to the vote of the people, but to the Courts. What they fail to understand is that our "Rights" are exactly what The People say they are, and the 2nd Amendment can be changed by The People if enough actually desire to do so.

    Of course, I also believe The People are killing this country just like the Romans killed Rome.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    Maryland is 70% Democrat. You don't stand a snowball's chance in hell. We found out in 1986 when we got the handgun roster. We collected four times as many signatures as required and still lost. Like someone else above posted our rights are not up for a vote. I just wish more people had the cojones to actually fight because this crap of writing sternly worded letters and rallying in Annapolis ain't cuttin it..

    What is your definition of "fight" if writing and rallying in Annapolis is not enough? Are you actually proposing a revolution? Somebody needs to fire the first shot, or was that done when Willis was shot to death by Anne Arundel County police?
     

    davsco

    Ultimate Member
    Oct 21, 2010
    8,607
    Loudoun, VA
    I have did this very thing many times. Before I moved to Florida I dated this Jewish girl from Towson, a solid 8/10 but as Liberal as they come. By the 5th date I had convinced her to come to the gun range with me, rented her a 9mm with very low recoil Beretta PX4 so I know she could handle it, and she had the time of her life. Ended up putting over 150 rounds downrange . Now is she out marching for gun rights today, I doubt it. But I also doubt that she is in fear of firearms any longer.

    Things like this can be done, and frankly it's the only way we will get anywhere.

    absolutely, yes! get your kids, and their schoolmates out shooting. neighbors and friends, etc. the more people that enjoy shooting, the more that buy and have firearms for home and self defense, the more that vote for us and not against us. it's just a numbers game.

    why are there zero bills banning alcohol or cell phones despite all the drunk and distracted driving deaths and carnage? because everyone has a phone and most enjoy kicking back a cold one after work.
     

    gtodave

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 14, 2007
    14,176
    Mt Airy
    Don't forget, there was a ballot question that would have forced MGA to fix the gerrymandering here, and voters failed. Not only does the enemy get to word the question (and they never fail to stoop to new lows to misinform voters), but most people are stupid and will just vote "yes" for whatever question there is, figuring it is an improvement.
     

    randomuser

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 12, 2018
    5,778
    Baltimore County
    I don't have the answer, but to repeat an action that has not yet worked expecting a different result sounds insane to me. letters? protest? As long as we keep doing that and they keep doing what they are doing and everyone moves along happily (or disgruntled, but still moving along) then I don't see that they would stop doing what they do.

    What if a bully took your money, so you wrote him a letter to let him know how you feel and then he took your money again and again. Then you had a few friends protest him by telling him it's not nice and then even after that he still took your money over and over. Should you write him another letter or have your friends ask him again? How do you stop him?

    I don't have the answers, but the problem is crystal clear. My letter is as likely to change their position as theirs is to change mine.

    I'm not going to come on here and say to fight/take up arms. I am saying that if people think scotus or lawmakers or courts will change anything I think your wrong. It comes down to 2 sides. Those who receive/take and those who give/have taken. The people who you/we are looking for to help solve our problems (only our problem because they created them or allowed them to happen) all get pay from the same source.

    Let's look at how .gov has changed:

    Aug 1986>>>
    "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

    Ronald Reagan"


    2020
    biden
    https://freebeacon.com/issues/biden-assault-weapons-should-be-illegal-period/
    to those Americans who say that "The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots. We need the protection against the government"
    Biden says "You need an F-15 for that," Biden said, referring to the F-15 fighter jet. "You need something well beyond whether or not you have an assault weapon."


    2018
    Smallwell
    https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1063527635114852352
    "And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities."

    and then followed with:>>>this is the one that gets me>>>>
    "Don’t be so dramatic. You claiming you need a gun to protect yourself against the government is ludicrous. But you seem like a reasonable person. If an assault weapons ban happens, I’m sure you’ll follow law."
    ^^^^^^
    ^^^^^^
    It gets me because I have heard several politicians says this "I’m sure you’ll follow law" I have heard them say it over and over. That right there is why I don't personally like the term "law abiding" because in their mind they just need to change the law and WE THE PEOPLE will want to be "law abiding" and follow the law.

    2019
    Beto
    "People can't fight a Tyrannical Government nor do they have the right to" <that is toward the end of the video
    I can't find the original uncut video, but Colin Noir made this video.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIINmv54O24


    The point I'm making is that you go back just a few decades and see how a politician spoke. Now, look at how they speak, think and make laws today.

    The political terrorist (the ones making these new infringements) need are not following the rules. Hopefully, the elected patriots can stop them .


    I like that term, political terrorist. It describes them perfectly.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,691
    After the 2010 census, then-Governor O'Malley and the GA came up with the current district map, generally considered to be one of the two most egregious current examples of gerrymandering in the nation. It carefully attached large segments of pro-Democratic areas to each area of known Republican strength. A referendum against this made it to the ballot for the next election.

    The text of the referendum was carefully engineered to obscure and hint of its nature or true purpose.

    Here it is:
    Ballot title:

    Referendum Petition

    (Ch. 1 of the 2011 Special Session)

    Congressional Districting Plan

    Establishes the boundaries for the State's eight United States Congressional Districts based on recent census figures, as required by the United States Constitution.

    For the Referred Law

    Against the Referred Law


    Even the WaPo came out strongly against the gerrymander(!) You can see how the typical low-information voter would respond to the ballot question.


    Here's a link to an article regarding the process, and its outcome:

    https://ballotpedia.org/Maryland_Redistricting_Referendum,_Question_5_(2012)
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Right, because they come from a position of fear and ignorance on this issue. Which is why I’m suggesting a PR campaign that presents gun rights in a way that appeals to democrats and helps them understand these policies and the impact they actually have.

    The gun control advocates are not operating from a position of fear or ignorance. It is an internal DNC method to launder charitable or non profit money into politics and political contests. More money is pumped into electioneering and politics through gun control advocacy per year than all "citizens untied" based money.

    No issue is more partisan and party aligned than gun control. And it is not about "assault rifles" or magazines. The entire Democrat national primary slate thinks Heller was wrong. this means they ALL oppose your right even -- if background checked and trained -- to keep even a revolver at home

    I see you describe yourself as generally left wing. Look, I am moderate to even slightly left on a couple of issues. Of our 340 million or so countrymen and countrywomen, none of us agree 100% with any party or candidate.

    But for the Democrat party nothing will change their efforts to kill the Second Amendment completely. It is too lucrative.
     

    Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,174
    Outside the Gates
    Right, because they come from a position of fear and ignorance on this issue. Which is why I’m suggesting a PR campaign that presents gun rights in a way that appeals to democrats and helps them understand these policies and the impact they actually have.

    There is no such angle to present to someone who is going "na na na na na an, I can't hear you" If you followed the MD legislature so far this year, you have seen how willing the Democrat leaders are willing to listen. They don't even want to allow other opinions stated in the hearings, much less even listen.


    The most you can do, is to individually show individuals that guns are not implements of the devil.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,931
    Messages
    7,259,491
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom