FINALLY - Hogans letter concerning HB1302

j_h_smith · Apr 14, 2018

ericahls said:
That makes it even worse. She was Ok with "any interested party" clause.

If she even read the Bill. I have my doubts. I think she just glanced over it and said yeah, this is good. Lets get the firearms away from those who are dangerous. Little did she know the Dems managed to word this Bill to read one way, but had a more devious underlying intention.

I have little doubt this original Bill wouldn't have passed if not for those of us on MDS who actually read the Bill and understood it's true meaning. To those folks I want to thank you.

When the R's started with the excuse that since no organization opposed the Bill, they decided to vote YES. However, if they would have read the Bill thoroughly, they would have seen the errors of their ways.

So, it would seem that unless someone opposes a Bill, the R's are going to vote for it. So, in my mind's eye, it would seem that unless the R's are told what to do, they can't think for themselves.

I will continue this opinion, until such time that the R's can prove me wrong.

ddeanjohnson · Apr 14, 2018

ericahls said:
That makes it even worse. She was Ok with "any interested party" clause.

It appears that you may not have reviewed the actual history of this legislation, which is available here (including all versions of the bill), before formulating that comment.

House Bill 1302, as introduced on February 9, did not contain the clause directly empowering "any other interested person." The House Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on the bill on March 1; the memo from the governor's office to the committee was transmitted on that date. The gist of the memo is to express support for the purposes of the legislation while urging certain types of revisions based on "due process considerations."

Later, on March 12, the committee made extensive revisions to the bill, including the addition of "any other interested person." That bill was brought to the floor of the House of Delegates the very next day, and passed.

At the hearing on the House-passed bill in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, on March 23, representatives of several pro-bill organizations recommended dropping the clause -- one of them candidly pointing out that, after all, any person can simply ask local law enforcement to file a petition. The Senate committee later made its own revisions, including the deletion of "any other interested person." As I have written elsewhere, not too much should be made of that revision, because we can expect that, at least in some of the urban jurisdictions, law enforcement officers will adopt a practice of routinely filing petitions based on complaints from individual citizens, without doing any independent investigation of the merits.

dreadpirate · Apr 14, 2018

Here is something I found VERY interesting; I received a letter yesterday from my state Senator bragging about all the great things this legislative session did for us. It discussed money for, money for that, banning bump stocks, but not a word about HB1302. Not even a hint. You would think the socialists (oops, I mean democrats) would boast about this. I found that interesting that they don't want to draw attention to it.

ericahls · Apr 14, 2018

ddeanjohnson said:
It appears that you may not have reviewed the actual history of this legislation, which is available here (including all versions of the bill), before formulating that comment.

House Bill 1302, as introduced on February 9, did not contain the clause directly empowering "any other interested person." The House Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on the bill on March 1; the memo from the governor's office to the committee was transmitted on that date. The gist of the memo is to express support for the purposes of the legislation while urging certain types of revisions based on "due process considerations."

Later, on March 12, the committee made extensive revisions to the bill, including the addition of "any other interested person." That bill was brought to the floor of the House of Delegates the very next day, and passed.

At the hearing on the House-passed bill in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, on March 23, representatives of several pro-bill organizations recommended dropping the clause -- one of them candidly pointing out that, after all, any person can simply ask local law enforcement to file a petition. The Senate committee later made its own revisions, including the deletion of "any other interested person." As I have written elsewhere, not too much should be made of that revision, because we can expect that, at least in some of the urban jurisdictions, law enforcement officers will adopt a practice of routinely filing petitions based on complaints from individual citizens, without doing any independent investigation of the merits.

Thanks for the clarification. All in all this bill is one hot mess.

rob b · Apr 14, 2018

dreadpirate said:
Here is something I found VERY interesting; I received a letter yesterday from my state Senator bragging about all the great things this legislative session did for us. It discussed money for, money for that, banning bump stocks, but not a word about HB1302. Not even a hint. You would think the socialists (oops, I mean democrats) would boast about this. I found that interesting that they don't want to draw attention to it.

fly it under the radar and use it as a catch all when neeeded

dist1646 · Apr 14, 2018

j_h_smith said:
First attempt, she voted YES. Once she was called out and shamed for her actions, she voted no. According to other R representatives, she was one of the leaders of pushing this Bill through the first time. It was said that the R leadership okayed this Bill and that's why most of the R's voted for it in the House. Since she is the R Whip, she okayed this Bill.

Then she went into hiding. Wouldn't answer her phones (both office and cell phones)and she would not return emails either.

Most of the Republicans only voted NO during the second attempt due to public outcry. And that's the shameful part of this entire process.

Look at how Krebs and Rose voted. Neither are really on our side unless they already know the anti stuff is a shoe in.

BeoBill · Apr 14, 2018

FrankZ said:
"Governor Hogan has long said that more must be done to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill and people with violent ~~criminal~~ backgrounds."

That now sounds like a lot of our state and county "lawmakers." And they get a W&C just for the asking. :mad54:

BeoBill · Apr 14, 2018

dreadpirate said:
Here is something I found VERY interesting; I received a letter yesterday from my state Senator bragging about all the great things this legislative session did for us. It discussed money for, money for that, banning bump stocks, but not a word about HB1302. Not even a hint. You would think the socialists (oops, I mean democrats) would boast about this. I found that interesting that they don't want to draw attention to it.

They seem afraid that voters will find out about the pile o'dung they voted for.

Jim12 · Apr 14, 2018

ddeanjohnson said:
It appears that you may not have reviewed the actual history of this legislation, which is available here (including all versions of the bill), before formulating that comment.

House Bill 1302, as introduced on February 9, did not contain the clause directly empowering "any other interested person." The House Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on the bill on March 1; the memo from the governor's office to the committee was transmitted on that date. The gist of the memo is to express support for the purposes of the legislation while urging certain types of revisions based on "due process considerations."

Later, on March 12, the committee made extensive revisions to the bill, including the addition of "any other interested person." That bill was brought to the floor of the House of Delegates the very next day, and passed.

At the hearing on the House-passed bill in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, on March 23, representatives of several pro-bill organizations recommended dropping the clause -- one of them candidly pointing out that, after all, any person can simply ask local law enforcement to file a petition. The Senate committee later made its own revisions, including the deletion of "any other interested person." As I have written elsewhere, not too much should be made of that revision, because we can expect that, at least in some of the urban jurisdictions, law enforcement officers will adopt a practice of routinely filing petitions based on complaints from individual citizens, without doing any independent investigation of the merits.

Interesting. Material, highly objectionable changes made at the last minute before the House Bill was first voted on. Were those changes brought to delegates' attention, or were they "slipped in," in the hope that nobody would notice or think they were material?

dblas · Apr 15, 2018

Jim12 said:
Interesting. Material, highly objectionable changes made at the last minute before the House Bill was first voted on. Were those changes brought to delegates' attention, or were they "slipped in," in the hope that nobody would notice or think they were material?

They were made by the committee and they were available for EVERY Delegate to read before they voted on it on the House floor.

Jim12 · Apr 15, 2018

dblas said:
They were made by the committee and they were available for EVERY Delegate to read before they voted on it on the House floor.

OK. How many other Bills were thrown at them to read, at the same time? Did somebody on our side call their attention to it?

Not looking to pick a fight and I don't know. Really just trying to understand how this slipped through and got to the point it did, so it doesn't happen again. Miscommunication? Information overload? Something else?

dist1646 · Apr 15, 2018

Jim12 said:
OK. How many other Bills were thrown at them to read, at the same time? Did somebody on our side call their attention to it?

Not looking to pick a fight and I don't know. Really just trying to understand how this slipped through and got to the point it did, so it doesn't happen again. Miscommunication? Information overload? Something else?

They get no pass here. It is their job to read and make sure what is in every bill before voting for it. They get paid to do this job. They have paid staff members to help them. Their name is not "Nancy we have to pass this bill so that we can find out what is in it Pelosi"! Remember Justice Robert's comment about elections having consequences? Well, votes have consequences too!

dblas · Apr 15, 2018

Jim12 said:
OK. How many other Bills were thrown at them to read, at the same time? Did somebody on our side call their attention to it?

Not looking to pick a fight and I don't know. Really just trying to understand how this slipped through and got to the point it did, so it doesn't happen again. Miscommunication? Information overload? Something else?

No clue, I didn't look at the legislative calendar for the day, but it is public record on the MGA website and easy for anyone to look at. But given some of the replies that we have seen from the Republicans in the House, they were told it was OK by their leadership, so the question needs to be posed to the Republican leadership, did they read it and then persuade the rest to vote for it as well?

j_h_smith · Apr 15, 2018

Jim12 said:
OK. How many other Bills were thrown at them to read, at the same time? Did somebody on our side call their attention to it?

Not looking to pick a fight and I don't know. Really just trying to understand how this slipped through and got to the point it did, so it doesn't happen again. Miscommunication? Information overload? Something else?

Can't that be expected when they had more than 3000 Bills submitted this session? Stop overloading the system and the delegates could possibly do a better job on the Bills that make it to the floor.

The wholesaling of Bills is just an attempt to throw anything and everything against the wall and see what sticks.

More than 3000 Bills? There's no state in the union that should have to delve into more than 3000 Bills in 1 session.

dblas · Apr 15, 2018

j_h_smith said:
Can't that be expected when they had more than 3000 Bills submitted this session? Stop overloading the system and the delegates could possibly do a better job on the Bills that make it to the floor.

The wholesaling of Bills is just an attempt to throw anything and everything against the wall and see what sticks.

More than 3000 Bills? There's no state in the union that should have to delve into more than 3000 Bills in 1 session.

But not all of those bills came across their desk as favorable out of the various committees.

Rack&Roll · Apr 15, 2018

I’m kind of amazed that the Baltimore Sun story that puts pressure on Gov. Hogan to “clarify” his understanding of RED FLAG Due Process—which is at ODDS with us—- has not been discussed yet in conjunction with his March 1st “testimony”

Go here for a recap of the Sun story and its implications:

https://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=5181726&postcount=89

j_h_smith · Apr 15, 2018

dblas said:
But not all of those bills came across their desk as favorable out of the various committees.

But they still took some time even if they never made it passed the first reading in committee. It's the entire process to deal with more than 3000 Bills.

dblas · Apr 15, 2018

j_h_smith said:
But they still took some time even if they never made it passed the first reading in committee. It's the entire process to deal with more than 3000 Bills.

Not every Delegate has to read every bill, only those that come across their desk for their committee and then those that come across their desk that come out of the various committees with a favorable finding, not all 3000 bills (Combined from both the House and Senate).

j_h_smith · Apr 15, 2018

dblas said:
Not every Delegate has to read every bill, only those that come across their desk for their committee and then those that come across their desk that come out of the various committees with a favorable finding, not all 3000 bills (Combined from both the House and Senate).

I'm just saying that with that many Bills there is time and energy wasted on that many Bills. The fact that the system has to deal with more than 3000 Bills is what I'm talking about.

dblas · Apr 15, 2018

j_h_smith said:
I'm just saying that with that many Bills there is time and energy wasted on that many Bill. The fact that the system has to deal with more than 3000 Bills is what I'm talking about.

And yet, when I worked for Delegate Smiegel, we covered every bill that he had to directly deal with, it is really no different that any other state legislature and their legislative sessions.

FINALLY - Hogans letter concerning HB1302

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

autodidact

Ultimate Member

Active Member

c@r collecting

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

Crank in the Third Row

Let Freedom Ring

Past President, MSI

Let Freedom Ring

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

R.I.P

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics