20190314 - HB786 JUD Amendments

fabsroman · Mar 14, 2019

zoostation said:
This was probably what they wanted from the beginning. The LQL nonsense was thrown in to make it look so horrible that we should all now thank our Lords and Masters for such a generous bill. They were never serious about the LQL IMHO. That would have alienated the hunters and the general population way too much.

Yeah, but it did not work that way with the HQL. Guess we are lucky that our current reps got them to see the light a lot better than in 2013. If they pass universal background checks on a national level, this will all be moot. Kind of like bumpstocks. Granted, the Rapid Fire Trigger Device legislation addressed items beyond bumpstocks. Luckily, that litigation is under appeal.

fabsroman · Mar 14, 2019

Raineman said:
Fabs, Pre 2013 a then friend who is (and was then) an ICE agent posed the question to me what I would do if he was tasked to knock on my door and seize my legal firearms unconstitutionally.

He too (as you) did and does not understand my resolve, and is no longer a friend (by his choice).

I'll be gone from Maryland long before you.

We can all talk the talk, until it comes time to jump on the grenade. We are all fearless, until our resolve is actually tested. How many men, or women for that matter, will admit they are a pansy. I guess some will.

I guess we shall see who leaves Maryland first. If you leave Maryland before July 1, there is no need for that 4th box. Leave it behind for those that stay for the war.

fabsroman · Mar 14, 2019

gamer_jim said:
Is it not already a felony to be in possession if you are prohibited, regardless if the gun was loaned to you by someone who knew you were or not?

Is this putting the burden on the lender to verify the person they are lending to isnt prohibited?

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

No, this puts the burden on the lender actually going to a FFL and having the firearm transferred to the borrower after a NICS check is performed. So, there will be no ifs, ands, or buts, about whether the borrower is prohibited or not.

Raineman · Mar 14, 2019

I'm good with my maker, and wondering Fabs why you are putting a date on me?

Why do you see it as me enacting the box on that date. Are they going to knock my door down that day?

Are you part of something we don't know about?

Are you that detached that you think I will be the aggressor?

We are seriously not only NOT on the same page, but I think we're reading different books.

Go ahead and make yourself feel better with your intellectual superiority and advanced education. I'm just a dumb high school grad of meager means who believes in his rights, and if you doubt me you don't know me.

Have you ever pointed a loaded firearm at someone in fear of your life, ready to fire?

You lost your own argument with "Adam Lanza". But say some smart shit.

RepublicOfFranklin · Mar 14, 2019

Wanting laws to restrict the rights of parents of autistic kids? Easy answers here, no.

Should we even have a NICS? No

Should crack be legal? Yes

Restricted the rights of a law abiding person bc of their child’s disability is not only morally repugnant but unconstitutional.

Are you currently enough of a danger to society to be locked in prison or swinging from the gallows? Then your rights shouldn’t be restricted either. It’s complete nonsense that someone who is no longer a criminal doesn’t have their full set of rights restored. If they’re that damn dangerous or criminal then hang them, if they aren’t then they did their time.

Federal government was given no authority in the constitution to decide what you can and can’t do to yourself. Want to be an idiot and smoke crack? Fine, just don’t come crying about and looking for handouts. Same crap with any other “greater good” law. Gov’t is meant to enforce contracts, arbitrate interstate disputes and deal with foreign nations, nothing more.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MJD438 · Mar 14, 2019

Fracking Hell...can we stop the infighting for maybe a few days?! This bill needs to be defeated if possible. Focus on that and take care of the long-term issues later.

These threads take on a life of their own, I get it. But the fighting is fruitless and does nothing but embolden the other Gorram side.

Friday, March 15, 2019 - CONTACT YOUR DELEGATES instead of bitching and sniping at each other here. These bills will be talked about on the floor session on Friday (scheduled for 12:30PM) or possibly Saturday (TBD).

If you don't know who to contact, enter your home address at https://mdelect.net to determine their contact information. Send them emails, call their offices, comment on their social media pages. Let them know where you stand.

Raineman · Mar 14, 2019

Sure Mike. Sorry.

May I suggest posting your last 2 paragraghs in your original post.

?

MJD438 · Mar 14, 2019

Raineman said:
Sure Mike. Sorry.

May I suggest posting your last 2 paragraghs in your original post.

?

Done

rbird7282 · Mar 15, 2019

fabsroman said:
Yes, but the straw purchase was illegal. Sadly, law enforcement was not standing right there next to them.

Connecticut should have had a law requiring that all parents of autistic children keep firearms locked up and away from kids suffering from ailments like that.

Just food for thought.

Does a law against murder prevent a lot of murders? I know there has been a person or two that I wanted to punch in the face, but the thought of being in handcuffs, spending time in prison, losing my professional licenses, etc. has deterred me.

So, should there be laws on the books or not. Should we have a law on the books that says people suffering from mental illness cannot possess a firearm? Should we have something on the books saying that convicted felons should not possess a firearm? If your answer is yes to either question, then how do you enforce the law? If you cannot enforce the law, then why even say those types of people cannot have firearms.

Would a seller of a firearm be less likely to sell the firearm FTF after this law passes, or would a law like this make a lot more people go through a NICS check?

Should we have a NICS check in the first place?

Should crack cocaine be illegal?

First off, I know the straw purchase was illegal.
As to the bolded portion, seriously dude?
There are already laws that prohibit that. I'm not in charge of enforcing laws. Go talk to Frosh about it.
I guess it depends on whether the seller of the firearm even knows about the law but if they are selling it to a known prohibited person they won't bother with a NICS check.
WTH is with your other questions? I never said we shouldn't have NICS or that crack should be legal. Do you just sit around coming up with scenarios in your head all day?
You say you're against these laws but then say you're ok with some parts of them, it makes no sense. "Thank you Sir, may I have another" :sad20:

fidelity · Mar 15, 2019

MJD438 said:
Baseline:

They removed the LQL, waiting period, 1 firearm per month.

They left in the background check compelled through an FFL on all transfers, including loans, via NICS. I am still conferring with others for what they think the impacts will be based on these changes.

danb said:
June, 2019, what's up with that??

Seems all designed to get in front of panic buying. No LQL and one per month limit, people might not feel like they need to stock up. Training, finger printing, and paying for a license that limits you to one a month, and people will binge purchase.

And for those that still might be motivated or worried about failing NICS checks, the June deadline shortens the time window to stock up.

Absolute bullsh1t that they're trying to take away the ability of someone to lend a long gun to someone that you have no reason to believe is prohibited without going to a gun store and paying a fee. How does it get transferred back? Another fee? And if the lendee doesn't want to because it's not a temporary loan but a permanent transfer?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

teratos · Mar 15, 2019

#WeWillNotComply.

shootin the breeze · Mar 15, 2019

teratos said:
#WeWillNotComply.

Amen. What are we going to loan each other? We need to get together and peak in each others safes.

swinokur · Mar 15, 2019

I propose a Long Gun exchange on the forum like the bore lock exchange.

danb · Mar 15, 2019

zoostation said:
This was probably exactly what they wanted from the beginning. The LQL nonsense was likely thrown in to make it look so horrible that we should all now thank our Lords and Masters for such a generous bill. They were never serious about the LQL IMHO. That would have alienated the hunters and the general population way too much.

And as a side benefit, or maybe even the point, to troll the community and cause infighting.

MJD438 said:
Fracking Hell...can we stop the infighting for maybe a few days?! This bill needs to be defeated if possible. Focus on that and take care of the long-term issues later.

These threads take on a life of their own, I get it. But the fighting is fruitless and does nothing but embolden the other Gorram side.

Friday, March 15, 2019 - CONTACT YOUR DELEGATES instead of bitching and sniping at each other here. These bills will be talked about on the floor session on Friday (scheduled for 12:30PM) or possibly Saturday (TBD).

If you don't know who to contact, enter your home address at https://mdelect.net to determine their contact information. Send them emails, call their offices, comment on their social media pages. Let them know where you stand.

fidelity said:
Seems all designed to get in front of panic buying. No LQL and one per month limit, people might not feel like they need to stock up. Training, finger printing, and paying for a license that limits you to one a month, and people will binge purchase.

Err, are you reading the marked up version? I dont see that. They took all that out and added June.

gtodave · Mar 15, 2019

zoostation said:
They were never serious about the LQL IMHO.

I disagree. I think they showed their true goals this time, but are happy with another step in their direction. They would totally pass this bill as it was if they had the support.

Raineman said:
MGA asks for "20" and they get the " 5" they originally wanted and people sit and suck on it like its a victory. Next year they'll do the same and get another step.

Very true, but as it is now, it is unenforceable and will not be an issue for me at all, because I will not comply. And if universal background check get passed nationally, this bill will be (even more of) a moot point.

TexDefender · Mar 15, 2019

Racer Doug14 said:
I truly never understand why. Duty weapons are not private property of the officer. Why would they be above the law otherwise? Sorry lawmen. You should not get a carve out.

And when that happens everyone's A2 rights will be gone with no hope of getting them back.

JimB · Mar 15, 2019

So they are afraid we are going to loan our guns to someone and that person is going to commit murder? Murder is illegal already.

TexDefender · Mar 15, 2019

If the submit a 1000's bills and one gets passed they will call it a victory. That is why, I say we fight them and do the same thing. Flood the MGA, with bills calling for withdraw or changing the laws.

TexDefender · Mar 15, 2019

JimB said:
So they are afraid we are going to loan our guns to someone and that person is going to commit murder? Murder is illegal already.

So is aiding and abetting.

JimB · Mar 15, 2019

Now if you have a concern that someone in your house might be having some mental issues you can't take your guns to someone elses house for safe keeping.

20190314 - HB786 JUD Amendments

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

On the 3rd box

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

On the 3rd box

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

piled higher and deeper

My hair is amazing

Missed it by that much

In a State of Bliss

dont be a dumbass

Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics