20190314 - HB786 JUD Amendments

SW686 · Mar 15, 2019

Done.

fabsroman · Mar 15, 2019

Malleovic said:
This question is only as simple as your definition of "mentally ill", and by extension who else gets to define the term and when.

It isn't my definition of "mentally ill" but the legal definition of mentally ill that is currently in place that prevents mentally ill people from possessing firearms, or at least it should prevent mentally ill people from possessing firearms.

I am shocked that you do not know the current definition of "mentally ill" that would prevent a person from possessing a firearm.

KIBarrister · Mar 15, 2019

fabsroman said:
Alright, duly noted that you are alright with convicted felons and mentally ill people owning firearms. Of course, like me you are an attorney and you know where I am headed with those two questions and I would bet that neither of those answers would pass a polygraph.

Personally, I cannot support mentally ill people having firearms. I'm alright with convicted felons having firearms once they are released from prison. I'm fine with them having firearms even if they are on probation/parole.

If it were up to me, we would make NICS only report on those that have psychiatric problems and there would be universal background checks throughout the nation. We would also shore up NICS such that all states would keep good data on the mentally ill and report that data to NICS. Other than that, firearms for everybody.

It’s an exercise in hypothetical only. Too many on this side are conditioned to say no. The reality is if a person is that bloody dangerous the gun remains only a potential tool, no different from renting a truck (or buying a jerrycan of gas, etc). If someone is *that dangerous* they should be locked up. All gun control is wrong.

Btw, who decides what is mental illness? APA? Those asshats have began trotting the line of defending pedophiles. Trump is labeled as crazy. I am labeled as crazy by folks on the left. Mental health is a farce. There are crazy people who are boba dude crazy and literally poop in their hand to throw at you, and then there is everyone else. But your definition of crazy, would it included someone diagnosed as bipolar? Major depression? Generalized anxiety?

Malleovic · Mar 15, 2019

fabsroman said:
It isn't my definition of "mentally ill" but the legal definition of mentally ill that is currently in place that prevents mentally ill people from possessing firearms, or at least it should prevent mentally ill people from possessing firearms.

I am shocked that you do not know the current definition of "mentally ill" that would prevent a person from possessing a firearm.

Slow down, man. I do know it already. My point is that some people understandably have a problem with an arguably opaque process being used as a catch-all for denying someone's natural rights, as governments have shown themselves willing to do in the past. It's a valid concern.

fabsroman · Mar 15, 2019

dblas said:
So....

How many people that have posted in this thread have started to contact their Delegate(s)?

How many have shared with on any social media platform at all to get their friends to do the same??

So far, I haven't seen one post saying "Done".

What I have seen, is a bunch of supposedly grown adults acting like kindergardeners. So let me ask, in mt best House Judiciary voice....ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR EVERLOVIN' FREAKIN MINDS. You ALL NEED A FREAKIN' TIME OUT. KNOCK IT OFF AND GET ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF MAKING THE DELEGATES IN ANNAPOLIS LIVES MISERABLE.

If you want to make each other miserable, then wait the frack until after the session is over and I will happily rent a tactical air sift location and you can take it out on each other until your hearts contenet. Until then, knock off the petty BS and get to work helping to work to prevent these bills from passing.

Took care of mine last night. Thing is, I'm not really opposed to this bill in its current form. About the only issue I have with this the way it is, is with loaning a firearm to a friend so he can use it at the range or while hunting, and there is nothing that covers him transporting it from my house to the range/hunting ground. If he gets into a severe auto accident between my house and the range/blind, he might be in some serious legal trouble because of the gun and I might be too. That is really my only gripe with this bill. The more I think about it, the more I am alright with universal background checks.

Either NICS is good or it is bad. If everybody should be able to buy a firearm without a a background check, then this is a bad law. If NICS is good, then with a tweak here and there, this is a good thing in my eyes.

Maybe we just need more FFL's out there to handle the additional demand for transfers, making it more convenient and lower cost for the transferor/transferee.

I am all ears and eyes as to why this bill, in its current form, is bad. Give me a good argument to send to my legislators on this bill other than what I already mentioned about going to and from the range/blind and I will send it to my legislators, my family, and my friends.

rbird7282 · Mar 15, 2019

fabsroman said:
Took care of mine last night. Thing is, I'm not really opposed to this bill in its current form. About the only issue I have with this the way it is, is with loaning a firearm to a friend so he can use it at the range or while hunting, and there is nothing that covers him transporting it from my house to the range/hunting ground. If he gets into a severe auto accident between my house and the range/blind, he might be in some serious legal trouble because of the gun and I might be too. That is really my only gripe with this bill. The more I think about it, the more I am alright with universal background checks.

Either NICS is good or it is bad. If everybody should be able to buy a firearm without a a background check, then this is a bad law. If NICS is good, then with a tweak here and there, this is a good thing in my eyes.

Maybe we just need more FFL's out there to handle the additional demand for transfers, making it more convenient and lower cost for the transferor/transferee.

I am all ears and eyes as to why this bill, in its current form, is bad. Give me a good argument to send to my legislators on this bill other than what I already mentioned about going to and from the range/blind and I will send it to my legislators, my family, and my friends.

Why don’t you start your own thread on how much you like this bill and why, but please for the love of God stop crapping in this one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

teratos · Mar 15, 2019

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

That’ll be fun.

fabsroman said:
Two simple yes/no questions for you and we can go from there.

Are you alright with the mentally ill having firearms?

Are you alright with convicted felons having firearms?

Answer those two questions, and then we can continue the discussion.

Yes and yes.

I have a mental illness. Want to take my guns?

fabsroman · Mar 15, 2019

dblas said:
So....

How many people that have posted in this thread have started to contact their Delegate(s)?

How many have shared with on any social media platform at all to get their friends to do the same??

So far, I haven't seen one post saying "Done".

What I have seen, is a bunch of supposedly grown adults acting like kindergardeners. So let me ask, in mt best House Judiciary voice....ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR EVERLOVIN' FREAKIN MINDS. You ALL NEED A FREAKIN' TIME OUT. KNOCK IT OFF AND GET ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF MAKING THE DELEGATES IN ANNAPOLIS LIVES MISERABLE.

If you want to make each other miserable, then wait the frack until after the session is over and I will happily rent a tactical air sift location and you can take it out on each other until your hearts contenet. Until then, knock off the petty BS and get to work helping to work to prevent these bills from passing.

Thought of something else. Just like we never hear about the robberies and murders prevented because somebody has a gun on them and the perpetrator backs down, we would NEVER hear any mass murder prevented because somebody failed a NICS check. We would never even know that the person failed a NICS check unless he/she obtains a firearm in a different manner and commits the deed, and then the failed NICS check comes up later on.

Are we for the NICS system or not? If we aren't we should try scrapping it at the national level. If we are for it, which at this very moment I am, I would like to see the definition of prohibited person dealt with a little better. If people still believe that convicted felons should not have access to firearms, then maybe we should narrow the list down to convicted VIOLENT felons. Granted, this is a discussion for another day and on a national level, but I just don't see how somebody caught in a check kiting fraud, that amounts to a felony, would be any more dangerous because they own a firearm.

KIBarrister · Mar 15, 2019

fabsroman said:
Thought of something else. Just like we never hear about the robberies and murders prevented because somebody has a gun on them and the perpetrator backs down, we would NEVER hear any mass murder prevented because somebody failed a NICS check. We would never even know that the person failed a NICS check unless he/she obtains a firearm in a different manner and commits the deed, and then the failed NICS check comes up later on.

Are we for the NICS system or not? If we aren't we should try scrapping it at the national level. If we are for it, which at this very moment I am, I would like to see the definition of prohibited person dealt with a little better. If people still believe that convicted felons should not have access to firearms, then maybe we should narrow the list down to convicted VIOLENT felons. Granted, this is a discussion for another day and on a national level, but I just don't see how somebody caught in a check kiting fraud, that amounts to a felony, would be any more dangerous because they own a firearm.

The Moms Demand Action folks are on Everytown’s board. I think you’re lost...

NoMoreTreadingOnUs · Mar 15, 2019

Am I correct that we have no way to know when this will be brought to the House floor for a vote?

MJD438 · Mar 15, 2019

The Minority Leader (Del Nic Kipke) asked for more time to review the changed bill and to allow time for potential amendments (which occur during 2nd Reader debate). Hence the bill has been placed on the "Special Order" calendar for tomorrow.

Keep communicating your concerns with your Delegates, folks.

Rack&Roll · Mar 15, 2019

fabsroman said:
...Either NICS is good or it is bad. If everybody should be able to buy a firearm without a a background check, then this is a bad law. If NICS is good, then with a tweak here and there, this is a good thing in my eyes.

Maybe we just need more FFL's out there to handle the additional demand for transfers, making it more convenient and lower cost for the transferor/transferee.

Oh FFS, can’t we get some relief from these fuddly airy fairy Fab musings? (“Either NICS is good or it is bad”).

Trying to discern what is factual about the bills while The Philosopher King waxes poetic about the meaning of Fudd Life is making this thread almost impossible to navigate for info.

Rbird has it right:

rbird7282 said:
Why don’t you start your own thread on how much you like this bill and why, but please for the love of God stop crapping in this one.

Raise your hand if you are on edge of your seat waiting for Fabs’ next Muse Fest.

Rack&Roll · Mar 15, 2019

Please Mods, any blessed relief from this jazz hands stuff?

fabsroman said:
Thought of something else. Just like we never hear about the robberies and murders prevented because somebody has a gun on them and the perpetrator backs down, we would NEVER hear any mass murder prevented because somebody failed a NICS check. We would never even know that the person failed a NICS check unless he/she obtains a firearm in a different manner and commits the deed, and then the failed NICS check comes up later on.

Are we for the NICS system or not?....

KIBarrister said:
The Moms Demand Action folks are on Everytown’s board. I think you’re lost...

Meanwhile we are at the Statehouse and the Democrats have reserved a whole section of the House gallery for the 15-20 MOMs Demanding Action attending...

Our side cannot let up!

fabsroman · Mar 15, 2019

Rack&Roll said:
Please Mods, any blessed relief from this jazz hands stuff?

Meanwhile we are at the Statehouse and the Democrats have reserved a whole section of the House gallery for the 15-20 MOMs Demanding Action attending...

Our side cannot let up!

Good luck Jeff.

fabsroman · Mar 15, 2019

MJD438 said:
The Minority Leader (Del Nic Kipke) asked for more time to review the changed bill and to allow time for potential amendments (which occur during 2nd Reader debate). Hence the bill has been placed on the "Special Order" calendar for tomorrow.

Keep communicating your concerns with your Delegates, folks.

Other than my concern regarding transporting to and from the range/blind when I loan a gun to a friend for one of those purposes, what other concerns should I have regarding this bill as it is right now? Do we have any proposed amendments to alleviate any concerns?

Thanks Mike.

AssMan · Mar 15, 2019

Rack&Roll said:
Please Mods, any blessed relief from this jazz hands stuff?

Meanwhile we are at the Statehouse and the Democrats have reserved a whole section of the House gallery for the 15-20 MOMs Demanding Action attending...

Our side cannot let up!

Is reserving that even legit?

TexDefender · Mar 15, 2019

Rack&Roll said:
Please Mods, any blessed relief from this jazz hands stuff?

Meanwhile we are at the Statehouse and the Democrats have reserved a whole section of the House gallery for the 15-20 MOMs Demanding Action attending...

Our side cannot let up!

Can believe that is legal, did you check with the police or security.

Stoveman · Mar 15, 2019

rbird7282 said:
Why don’t you start your own thread on how much you like this bill and why, but please for the love of God stop crapping in this one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure that Emo Jen and the rest of the gals would value his missives over on the Marylanders to Prevent Gun Ownership forum.

clandestine · Mar 15, 2019

I thought I was on the Mom's Demand Action Facebook group for a second.

It's unbelievable.

ComeGet · Mar 15, 2019

Stoveman said:
I'm sure that Emo Jen and the rest of the gals would value his missives over on the Marylanders to Prevent Gun Ownership forum.

clandestine said:
I thought I was on the Mom's Demand Action Facebook group for a second.

It's unbelievable.

There were several plops of his nonsense that I was inclined to respond to before I stopped reading his posts. I decided against replies so I didn't spread the manure any more.

20190314 - HB786 JUD Amendments

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Opinionated Libertarian

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Opinionated Libertarian

Active Member

Ultimate Member

R.I.P

R.I.P

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Meh...

Ultimate Member

TV Personality

AR-15 Savant

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics