House Bill 159 Weapon-Free Higher Education Zone - Floor Debate Tomorrow the 8th

2A Maryland · Feb 7, 2017

This bill is being fast-tracked. Immediate action is needed.

Click here for the 2A Maryland Action Alert

Click here to join 2A Maryland Legislative Email Lis[/INDENT]t

zoostation · Feb 8, 2017

A very important point I don't see being mentioned.

No exemption for domestic violence victims who have been given permits (and I don't know if any have, but that's not the point). They need to know that by passing this bill they are denying domestic violence victims the ability to educate themselves and get out of their bad life situations!

An amendment like that might be enough of a poison pill to kill this abortion of a bill altogether.

dblas · Feb 8, 2017

zoostation said:
A very important point I don't see being mentioned.

No exemption for domestic violence victims who have been given permits (and I don't know if any have, but that's not the point). They need to know that by passing this bill they are denying domestic violence victims the ability to educate themselves and get out of their bad life situations!

An amendment like that might be enough of a poison pill to kill this abortion of a bill altogether.

If you watch the committee hearing testimony from last week, I hammered them on this issue. I got rebuffed by several Delegates that believe the koolaid that female victims of DV should never be armed as they will become a statistic.

iH8DemLibz · Feb 8, 2017

When they refused the scenario of a one armed Veteran needing a high capacity pistol magazine because he wouldn't be able to facilitate a magazine change if he were in danger, I knew there was no hope of ever getting through to any of them.

zoostation · Feb 8, 2017

dblas said:
If you watch the committee hearing testimony from last week, I hammered them on this issue. I got rebuffed by several Delegates that believe the koolaid that female victims of DV should never be armed as they will become a statistic.

Yep, no matter what, "adding a gun to the equation" will always make things worsein their minds. It doesn't help that the feminists who masquerade as victim advocates repeat the lie down there as well.

And after all, why do we kid ourselves that a bunch of wealthy McMansion-living elitists in the GA ever really cared about victims anyway.

These are the same kind of people who say "violence never solved anything" and then become flustered and unable to respond when you mention WW2.

DC-W · Feb 8, 2017

I encourage everyone to keep up to date with r/dgu on Reddit.
It's a constantly-updated list of news reports on defensive uses of guns from around the country.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/

Applehd · Feb 8, 2017

Delegate Hill,

In rapid fashion, Delegate Ebersole replied to my email regarding House Bill 159 requesting thoughtful analysis of my opposition to this legislation. The following was my response to Delegate Ebersole.

Delegate Ebersole,

Thank you for your rapid response to my email.

Contrary to the belief of the General Assembly, self-defense is a God-given right and not a privilege to be rationed by a myriad of restrictive laws.
As I had mentioned to you in a previous conversation, I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and for other lawful purposes.

House Bill 159 would ban the possession or carrying of firearms on college campuses. Those with wear and carry permits do not present a threat to public safety, as they are one of the most law abiding segments of the population. Current law already allows each university to set its own policy regarding the carrying or possession of firearms. This legislation is a blanket prohibition that disallows schools from using discretion on their campus.

Not only does this legislation attempt to dictate the rules that universities must abide by, it also imposes extreme penalties, including fines, up to 3 years in prison, as well as the potential loss of your Second Amendment rights. A simple mistake in transiting a college campus, or property owned by the university, could lead to the lifetime loss of a Constitutional right. Maryland citizens who are otherwise authorized to carry a firearm for self-defense will be prohibited from doing so and must make the choice between defending their lives and risking the loss of their firearms rights entirely in order to attend classes or events on campus.

Respectfully submitted,
Applehd

Delegate Hill's reply...

Dear Applehd,

Thank you for contacting me about your concerns regarding HB159: Weapon-Free Higher Education Zones. The bill restricts possession of a gun on the property of public institutions of higher education. These restrictions are already in place through the Maryland Univerity System in the form of policy guidelines. The bill would make these guidelines into law, which is referred to as codifying. These policies are already law for public schools, grades K through 12. The results of these restrictions in the public schools are considered to have been successful in reducing gun violence.
I support this bill and am a co-sponsor. However, even though we disagee on the issues addressed in the bill, I appreciate you contacting me about your concerns.

Terri L. Hill, M.D.
Maryland State Delegate
District 12, Baltimore & Howard Counties
House Office Building Room 215
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
410 – 841 - 3378

I contacted Delegate Lam's office as well and got no response. There's no hope in District 12 until these 3 anti-gun legislators are removed from office.

DC-W · Feb 8, 2017

Pro Self-Defense amendments are getting overwhelmingly shot-down.
Rey's amendment would require campus security to be armed -- that was killed 84-52
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/f...hse-proceed-21&stab=05&tab=subject2&ys=2017RS

zoostation · Feb 8, 2017

DC-W said:
Pro Self-Defense amendments are getting overwhelmingly shot-down.
Rey's amendment would require campus security to be armed -- that was killed 84-52
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/f...hse-proceed-21&stab=05&tab=subject2&ys=2017RS

The only silver lining I could possibly see is they'll make it so unpalatably extreme before ramming it through that Hogan won't be scared to veto it.

Probably kidding myself, but just looking for a positive here.

zoostation · Feb 9, 2017

The other thing I can see worrying about this bill is when you stop and think about how many offsite educational facilities there are now, it's incredible. All of these places back in industrial parks and malls and similar, plus the research facilities and farms. Just think, under this bill a person could buy a shotgun at the Arundel Mills Bass Bass Pro, inadvertently drive across the parking lot of the UMUC/AACC classroom building on his way out, and have just committed a three year misdemeanor.

The other question that comes up, is will this include the UM hospital system now too. I mean those are teaching hospitals, one could make that argument that they are part of the UM educational system, as they are.

MJD438 · Feb 9, 2017

zoostation said:
A very important point I don't see being mentioned.

No exemption for domestic violence victims who have been given permits (and I don't know if any have, but that's not the point). They need to know that by passing this bill they are denying domestic violence victims the ability to educate themselves and get out of their bad life situations!

An amendment like that might be enough of a poison pill to kill this abortion of a bill altogether.

Those very same points were mentioned, and more, in the floor debate in the House for the same bill last year. The sponsor and floor leader were vehement in their opposition to the issues being raised and defeated every amendment this community would see as "friendly". If anyone wants an education, it can be researched on the MGALEG website -

The bill from last year: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&tab=subject3&id=hb1002&stab=01&ys=2016RS

Click on the "Documents" tab to see the attempted amendments and the vote tally sheets.

zoostation · Feb 9, 2017

MJD438 said:
Those very same points were mentioned, and more, in the floor debate in the House for the same bill last year. The sponsor and floor leader were vehement in their opposition to the issues being raised and defeated every amendment this community would see as "friendly". If anyone wants an education, it can be researched on the MGALEG website -

The bill from last year: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&tab=subject3&id=hb1002&stab=01&ys=2016RS

Click on the "Documents" tab to see the attempted amendments and the vote tally sheets.

I'm glad to hear they were raised. Too bad the legislature will never allow reality to overcome ideology. And as I mentioned before, it doesn't help that the domestic violence "advocates," many of whom I worked with as a PD representative on committees, are often (not always but often, there are a few good ones) shrieking, moronic, liberal, hysterical feminists who want all guns banned from homes everywhere, period. And will more or less say the same to the legislature with their completely unsustainable "professional" :lol2:

opinions that a woman who gets a gun for self defense will just have it used against her because apparently they think women just can't handle guns. In their minds women are equal in all things only so long as it fits the liberal mantra.

montoya32 · Feb 9, 2017

So off duty LEOs who are required to carry are not allowed to take college courses?

DC-W · Feb 9, 2017

montoya32 said:
So off duty LEOs who are required to carry are not allowed to take college courses?

They're exempt.
Here's the version that's going to third-reader.
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2017RS/bills/hb/hb0159t.pdf

montoya32 · Feb 9, 2017

DC-W said:
They're exempt.
Here's the version that's going to third-reader.
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2017RS/bills/hb/hb0159t.pdf

Nice. Carve outs.

BeoBill · Feb 9, 2017

zoostation said:
Yep, no matter what, "adding a gun to the equation" will always make things worsein their minds. It doesn't help that the feminists who masquerade as victim advocates repeat the lie down there as well.

And after all, why do we kid ourselves that a bunch of wealthy McMansion-living elitists in the GA ever really cared about victims anyway.

These are the same kind of people who say "violence never solved anything" and then become flustered and unable to respond when you mention WW2.

These could be a potentially large portion of the {UNREPORTED} DV perpetrators. Is self interest a factor in their actions?

BeoBill · Feb 9, 2017

zoostation said:
I'm glad to hear they were raised. Too bad the legislature will never allow reality to overcome ideology. And as I mentioned before, it doesn't help that the domestic violence "advocates," many of whom I worked with as a PD representative on committees, are often (not always but often, there are a few good ones) shrieking, moronic, liberal, hysterical feminists who want all guns banned from homes everywhere, period. And will more or less say the same to the legislature with their completely unsustainable "professional" opinions that a woman who gets a gun for self defense will just have it used against her because apparently they think women just can't handle guns. In their minds women are equal in all things only so long as it fits the liberal mantra.

If they did that their out of state re-election money would mysteriously disappear. And there could even be a D challenger. :innocent0

fabsroman · Feb 10, 2017

I knew I was preaching to the choir when I contacted my representatives:

Dear Mr. FabsRoman,

I am in complete agreement with your comments on this bill. This same legislation was introduced during the 2016 session; I spoke against it and voted against it.

I opposed the bill this year for precisely the same reasons you note, including (1) it dictates a blanket set of rules for all universities, (2) it prohibits individuals with wear and carry permits from carrying on campus, and (3) the penalties imposed by this bill are extreme – and unconstitutional.

I’m not sure everyone understands the far-reaching nature of the penalty portion of this bill. Although positioned as a misdemeanor, a conviction under this law carries the possibility of a three-year jail term. But even if you receive no jail time upon conviction, you will still permanently lose your right to own a firearm, simply because the law allows for a penalty of more than two years!

What is significantly unfair -- and, I believe, unconstitutional -- is that you can violate this potential law accidentally. Because the firearm prohibition extends to “all university property,” it includes far more than the actual campus of a college. The University of Maryland owns property all over the state. Anyone with a firearm in the trunk of the car to go hunting or skeet shooting, or anyone with the right to carry may enter upon a university property unaware that it is included in the ban. Apartment complexes that house students are also covered by the ban, even if the property is not owned by the university.

The state must have a compelling reason to take away a Constitutionally protected right, and to permit the state to permanently ban our right “to keep and bear arms” for committing a misdemeanor without any intent to do so, cannot be allowed.

This year, I offered an amendment that would have made any unintentional violation a civil matter, subject only to a fine. Even that minor change was defeated by the legislature.
The bill will likely be coming up for a vote in the House fairly quickly. We will fight hard against it; unfortunately, we will lose.

If the bill then passes the Senate, it will become law, unless the governor vetoes it. Even if he does veto the bill, the majority party in the House and Senate has the votes to override any veto.

I wish there was more we could do; but we have been and continue to try very hard to stop this bill.

Sincerely,

Trent Kittleman
District 9A
Judiciary Committee
202 Lowe House Office Building | Annapolis, MD 21401

fabsroman · Feb 10, 2017

Applehd said:
Delegate Hill,

In rapid fashion, Delegate Ebersole replied to my email regarding House Bill 159 requesting thoughtful analysis of my opposition to this legislation. The following was my response to Delegate Ebersole.

Delegate Ebersole,

Thank you for your rapid response to my email.

Contrary to the belief of the General Assembly, self-defense is a God-given right and not a privilege to be rationed by a myriad of restrictive laws.
As I had mentioned to you in a previous conversation, I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and for other lawful purposes.

House Bill 159 would ban the possession or carrying of firearms on college campuses. Those with wear and carry permits do not present a threat to public safety, as they are one of the most law abiding segments of the population. Current law already allows each university to set its own policy regarding the carrying or possession of firearms. This legislation is a blanket prohibition that disallows schools from using discretion on their campus.

Not only does this legislation attempt to dictate the rules that universities must abide by, it also imposes extreme penalties, including fines, up to 3 years in prison, as well as the potential loss of your Second Amendment rights. A simple mistake in transiting a college campus, or property owned by the university, could lead to the lifetime loss of a Constitutional right. Maryland citizens who are otherwise authorized to carry a firearm for self-defense will be prohibited from doing so and must make the choice between defending their lives and risking the loss of their firearms rights entirely in order to attend classes or events on campus.

Respectfully submitted,
Applehd

Delegate Hill's reply...

Dear Applehd,

Thank you for contacting me about your concerns regarding HB159: Weapon-Free Higher Education Zones. The bill restricts possession of a gun on the property of public institutions of higher education. These restrictions are already in place through the Maryland Univerity System in the form of policy guidelines. The bill would make these guidelines into law, which is referred to as codifying. These policies are already law for public schools, grades K through 12. The results of these restrictions in the public schools are considered to have been successful in reducing gun violence.
I support this bill and am a co-sponsor. However, even though we disagee on the issues addressed in the bill, I appreciate you contacting me about your concerns.

Terri L. Hill, M.D.
Maryland State Delegate
District 12, Baltimore & Howard Counties
House Office Building Room 215
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
410 – 841 - 3378

I contacted Delegate Lam's office as well and got no response. There's no hope in District 12 until these 3 anti-gun legislators are removed from office.

Huge difference between it being campus policy and it being a statute that makes it a criminal offense that carries a possible 3 year prison sentence. Again, the law enforcement supporters will say, "But police and the State's Attorney have charging discretion." Yep, and God help you if you are on the wrong side of that discretion when you unknowingly violate this proposed law.

zoostation · Feb 10, 2017

These restrictions are already in place through the Maryland Univerity System in the form of policy guidelines. The bill would make these guidelines into law, which is referred to as codifying. These policies are already law for public schools, grades K through 12. The results of these restrictions in the public schools are considered to have been successful in reducing gun violence.
I support this bill and am a co-sponsor. However, even though we disagee on the issues addressed in the bill, I appreciate you contacting me about your concerns.

Terri L. Hill, M.D.
Maryland State Delegate
District 12, Baltimore & Howard Counties
House Office Building Room 215
6 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401

I'd love to see the good doctor produce some clinical evidence of his bogus claim that these measure have been successful in reducing public school violence. He could also be a good bit more honest and admit that the bill affects far more institutions than the University of Maryland System. And as fabs pointed out, he quite downplays the difference between a school policy violation and three years in the klink.

House Bill 159 Weapon-Free Higher Education Zone - Floor Debate Tomorrow the 8th

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

, ,

Past President, MSI

When All Else Fails.

, ,

Ultimate Member

Throbbing Member

Ultimate Member

, ,

, ,

Ultimate Member

, ,

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

Crank in the Third Row

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

, ,

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics