Gun -- Bills

1/22/2010

SENATE BILL 274

Entitled: Criminal Law - Violation of Restriction Against Possession of Firearms - Penalties

Synopsis: Expanding a prohibition against the possession of regulated firearms by a person convicted of a crime of violence or specified drug-related crime to apply to all firearms; increasing the maximum penalty for a violation of the Act; creating an exception regarding eligibility of a specified person for parole; etc.

glockmaster84 said:

y

Click to expand...

WTF?
http://www.mdshooters.com/search.php?searchid=2414226

krucam said:

WTF?
http://www.mdshooters.com/search.php?searchid=2414226

Click to expand...

All 50 of his posts are that way.

Sent the following to my 3 delegates:

In association with many other responsible sportsmen and gun owners, I urge you to support HB52 and to oppose HB119 and HB157.
The first bill would allow responsible gun owners permitted by their state of residence to legally carry a gun within Maryland. This would not endanger MD residents. The second two bills would do nothing to improve life for MD residents.
Thank you for your time.

From Del. Ron George:
I agree w/ you. Thank you for contacting me ~

From Del. Mike Busch:
Thank you for your e-mail regarding HB 52, HB 119, and HB 157. Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on HB 52 and HB 119; a public hearing on HB 157 is scheduled for February 2, at 2 pm. The Committee will consider the merits of the bills in the coming weeks. I will keep your thoughts in mind, should the bills come to the floor of the House of Delegates for a final vote.

FYI.

What I sent to the delegates and one delegates response

** update: I've finally gotten all the e-mails to go through, three responses back, and it appears I was correct with my statement below. The House mailing system will only take one address per message. So if you want to mail all of your delegates make 3 separate messages.
Its kind of crappy if they did this so that we, the constituents, would be more inconvenienced and maybe wouldn't send as much mail. Or, it was the only way to stop SPAM, either way, its a pain.

I'm wondering if the Delegate's e-mail system has a function that doesn't let you send mass e-mails, you might have to send an individual e-mail to each Delegate or you only get the first one. That has been my experience anyway.

Trapper

*********** The E-mail I sent ****************

From: John *******
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:37 AM
To: Pena-Melnyk, Joseline Delegate; Barnes, Ben Delegate
Cc: Smigiel, Michael Delegate
Subject: Current Bills

Dear Delegates,
I would like to register support and opposition as follows:

HB52 - Support. While this bill does not remove the unconstitutional conditions on our own citizenry, it will establish full-faith-and-credit for those persons designated. Thank you for this bill Delegate Smigiel.

As for the rest of us, the Supreme court may just fix this states unconstitutional behavior in June. Please have your pens ready to repeal the unconstitutional laws we have now.

HB119 - Oppose. While this bill could be used to speed up the application process, and make it easier on the MSP and the dealer, the language is not clear enough. The bill needs to list what the "other" means would be. This bill could allow the MSP to put restrictions on how and where filing may occur that would be more difficult instead of more expeditious.

HB157 - Oppose. It is already illegal to commit violence or felonies (if it wasn't a crime it wouldn't be a FELONY), it is also illegal to do so with a firearm. This is feel-good legislation with no purpose, these things are already illegal, you can't really make them "more" illegal.

HB158 - Support. This is almost a great bill. This bill should be expanded to include our U.S. Representatives as well. The requirement for the governor to select a temporary Senator/Representative should also be removed, at least remove the partisan reference.

HB207 - Support. We've tried for years to get this common sense bill passed. Please, on behalf of all the residents of Maryland, someone talk to Sen. Frosh and Rep. Vallario and get them to see the light. It boggles the mind how Sen. Frosh can say this legislation isn't needed, while he attempts to pass bills that do nothing but make illegal things more illegal. Representative Vallario should allow a vote on this bill, whether Frosh will allow it in the Senate or not.

Delegates, I am an avid supporter of the People's rights, I am not a "nut", I believe in our Constitution. If Massachusetts has taught us anything, it is that the climate of the country is changing. "The People" have come together to hold Government responsible. There are many more groups and individuals becoming active. Within those individuals and groups are the thousands of new MD gun owners, and soon these new gun owners will go to the polls, and they will know who upholds their rights, and who calls them names for wanting the ability to defend themselves and their families. While it may not be the same reason Massachusetts went Republican, it will be one of the substantial reasons that incumbents are replaced.

I do realize that these bills, and others are not all about "guns", but the defense of my family in these troubled times is what has drawn myself and others into the realm of politics.

Thank you for your time and attention,
John ********

*********** Delegate Joseline Peña-Melnyk's response ********
Thank you for your email about these bills.
Here is our response to your Support/Oppose:

1. HB 52 Oppose: DE, PA and VA have every right to issue concealed weapons permits in ways that its legislators and citizens see fit. So does MD; she sees no need for reciprocity on this.

2. HB 119 No position at this time: The term “other” might be vague, but it could be clarified in regulations or policy guidelines; not everything gets into COMAR.

3. HB 157 Likely Support: The purpose seems to clarify the definition of the term firearm to include antique guns and others whether they are capable of being fired or not and if the City of Baltimore requested legislation to do this, it has some justification (whether you agree with it or not) that goes beyond some “feel good” motive. If the Baltimore delegation supports it, the full House is likely to support it – at least that’s the normal protocol here.

4. HB 158 No position at this time: Special elections are great in the abstract, but they are incredibly expensive to do for a single seat. The Board of Elections has to do special mailings; machines have to be set up and calibrated for a single race or ballot question; election judges have to be paid; special arrangements have to be made if it’s a single district seat to set up limited polling places (usually schools) or all schools have to close for an additional day statewide for a statewide seat like U.S. Senate; and the state has to count the ballots and certify the election. This may be worth it for a Senate seat where the vacancy occurs early in the six-year term, but with U.S. House members who are up for re-election every two years, it might not very practical from a fiscal standpoint. As far as taking out the partisan requirement that a seat be filled with the party that vacated it, be careful what you wish for. Delegate Rich Weldon was elected to the MD House of Delegates a few years ago as an R. He changed affiliation and became an Independent in the middle of his term but just resigned from his seat. Because he was elected as an R, Gov. O’Malley had to replace him with an R. It was the wish of the electorate in 2006.

5. HB 207 No position at this time.

Mary Lehman
Legislative Aide
Delegate Joseline Peña-Melnyk
(301) 858-3502 (w)
(301) 538-0436 (cell)

************* Delegate Frush's response ****(it got through to her first) *******
From: Frush, Barbara Delegate (Laptop)
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 9:19 PM
To: John *******
Subject: RE: Current Bills


I very much appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me. I will keep them in mind as this legislation comes before the Maryland House of Delegates. Delegate Barbara Frush

************* Delegate Barnes' response ***********************
From: Barnes, Ben Delegate
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 9:09 AM
To: John *******
Subject: RE: Current Bills

Dear Mr. *******,

Thank you for contacting our office with your concerns. Delegate Barnes will keep them in mind as these bills continue to come before him during this Session as they are important to him as well.

Once again, we appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us and if we can be of any assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Gigi Schwab
Legislative Aide
Delegate Ben Barnes
District 21
410-841-3046
410-841-3346 (fax)
ben.barnes.@house.state.md.us

Delegate Joseline Peña-Melnyk sees "no need for this?" What the hell does that mean? Does she even understand what the bill does? No one disputes MD's "right to issue" permits (no matter how unconstitutional the practice is). The legislation merely extends that right for neighboring states citizens to carry here as they do there. How is there "no need for this?" MD does not issue non-resident permits (save the time God orders the MSP directly) so those who can carry here are the elite few.

Are these people really this stupid?

Abacab said:

Are these people really this stupid?

Click to expand...

If it looks like a duck... .

Information current as of January 29, 2010 - 1:07 a.m.

Jim, i thought i read somewhere there was an amendment to HB52 to allow Fl permits also.

Papi4baby said:

Jim, i thought i read somewhere there was an amendment to HB52 to allow Fl permits also.

Click to expand...

2010 Regular Session bill information current as of January 30, 2010 - 1:00 a.m.

HB52
Amendments:None offered

Papi4baby said:

Jim, i thought i read somewhere there was an amendment to HB52 to allow Fl permits also.

Click to expand...

No....that was a suggestion from the floor. Any amendment of that nature will doom what is already a long shot of a bill. There's no way in the world to package the inclusion of the FL permit in terms that any legislator would understand. The ones that are on our side already? Sure.

The ones we need to convince? Not a chance.

We might....just might....have a chance if we base the argument on recognition of contiguous states because of commerce, etc but to try to conflate Florida in there is poison, plain and simple.

Does that mean the WV amendment is not going in as well?

Drmsparks said:

Does that mean the WV amendment is not going in as well?

Click to expand...

That one is supposed to. That was an oversight when considering the contiguous states idea.

2010 REGULAR SESSION subject information current as of January 30, 2010 - 1:32 a.m.

HB 502 Status as of February 1, 2010: Bill is in the House - First Reading Environmental Matters
Calvert, Charles, and St. Mary's Counties - Deer Hunting
House: Environmental Matters

Bill Text (Displayed in PDF Format): Not available at this time
Fiscal and Policy Note: Not available at this time
Amendments: None offered

Norton said:

No....that was a suggestion from the floor. Any amendment of that nature will doom what is already a long shot of a bill. There's no way in the world to package the inclusion of the FL permit in terms that any legislator would understand. The ones that are on our side already? Sure.

The ones we need to convince? Not a chance.

We might....just might....have a chance if we base the argument on recognition of contiguous states because of commerce, etc but to try to conflate Florida in there is poison, plain and simple.

Click to expand...