Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 1st, 2014, 09:45 PM #171
Norton's Avatar
Norton Norton is offline



NRA Endowment Member
Rifleman
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 78,338
Images: 6
Norton Norton is offline



NRA Endowment Member
Rifleman
Norton's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 78,338
Images: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by teratos View Post
I have no doubt that they will do just that.
I just don't think that I would want to be the one assisting in the beta testing of it, but that's just me.
Norton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2014, 09:45 PM #172
ericoak's Avatar
ericoak ericoak is offline
don't drop Aboma on me
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,129
ericoak ericoak is offline
don't drop Aboma on me
ericoak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by teratos View Post
You aren't listening. The existence of the technology is enough for them to start mandating the use of the technology. It doesn't matter what any FFLs or consumers buy, sell or boycott.
Wasn't availability a concern in the Heller and McDonald cases?
__________________
Too many people on the cart, not enough people pulling it.
ericoak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2014, 09:46 PM #173
teratos's Avatar
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 23,486
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
teratos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 23,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericoak View Post
Wasn't availability a concern in the Heller and McDonald cases?

I mentioned the common use test earlier. I think it is a valid argument.
__________________
MSI Executive Member
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member
MSRPA BOD
I touched Heller.....
teratos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2014, 09:47 PM #174
clandestine's Avatar
clandestine clandestine is offline
AR15 Technical Instructor
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cecil County, MD
Posts: 33,604
clandestine clandestine is offline
AR15 Technical Instructor
clandestine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cecil County, MD
Posts: 33,604
Andy is to blame if Smart Gun Tech is adopted in MD even though it was already set in motion before Andy decided to sell a smart gun.

Chad is to blame for FSA2013 and the MSP making up rulings that the forum does not agree with.


Nutty...
clandestine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2014, 09:47 PM #175
Metaterra's Avatar
Metaterra Metaterra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Annapolis, MD
Posts: 324
Metaterra Metaterra is offline
Member
Metaterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Annapolis, MD
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton View Post
The language is already in place for it to be implemented here.

From there, it's a simple step to mandate that all firearms be so equipped once the technology is readily available and proven.
I don't doubt that MD legislators will introduce legislation like that in time. I would anticipate an extremely strong negative legal reaction to that. Granted we don't really need yet another legal battle. But given the life and death stakes, I think (hope?) the courts would be pretty skeptical of adding unproven and fragile technology into the exercise of a constitutional right. Maybe skeptical of adding any technology constraint to a fundamental right.

And it will remain unproven technology until it is has been widely used on a large variety of platforms for many years. And again, if it is a matter of life and death but neither law enforcement or the military will consider adopting it (and they won't) how is that reasonable to force that risk on a citizen?
Metaterra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2014, 09:47 PM #176
NateIU10's Avatar
NateIU10 NateIU10 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southport, CT
Posts: 4,420
Images: 9
NateIU10 NateIU10 is offline
Senior Member
NateIU10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southport, CT
Posts: 4,420
Images: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by teratos View Post
You aren't listening. The existence of the technology is enough for them to start mandating the use of the technology. It doesn't matter what any FFLs or consumers buy, sell or boycott.
As evidenced by the fact that the legislatures of multiple states passed laws regarding such devices far before anything was even developed. Gun grabbers will do what gun grabbers do, regardless of what one shop in one state does.
__________________
Disclaimer

My posts are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. These posts do not constitute, nor do they create, an attorney-client relationship. The information provided in this post is general only, and you should not act upon this information without consulting with a licensed attorney.

The opinions expressed are those of the individual author and not the opinions of any firm or organization.
NateIU10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2014, 09:49 PM #177
teratos's Avatar
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 23,486
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
teratos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 23,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaterra View Post
I don't doubt that MD legislators will introduce legislation like that in time. I would anticipate an extremely strong negative legal reaction to that. Granted we don't really need yet another legal battle. But given the life and death stakes, I think (hope?) the courts would be pretty skeptical of adding unproven and fragile technology into the exercise of a constitutional right. Maybe skeptical of adding and technology constraint to a fundamental right.



And it will remain unproven technology until it is has been widely used on a large variety of platforms for many years. And again, if it is a matter of life and death but neither law enforcement or the military will consider adopting it (and they won't) how is that reasonable to force that risk on a citizen?

The police need to adopt it. If they won't use it, then it isn't acceptable to require us to use it.
__________________
MSI Executive Member
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member
MSRPA BOD
I touched Heller.....
teratos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2014, 09:50 PM #178
Metaterra's Avatar
Metaterra Metaterra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Annapolis, MD
Posts: 324
Metaterra Metaterra is offline
Member
Metaterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Annapolis, MD
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by teratos View Post
The police need to adopt it. If they won't use it, then it isn't acceptable to require us to use it.
That seems like a pretty significant barrier to me. I just can't see the police adopting this for exactly the same reasons none of us would bet our lives on it.
Metaterra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2014, 09:52 PM #179
ThisGuy918 ThisGuy918 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 233
ThisGuy918 ThisGuy918 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by teratos View Post
You aren't listening. The existence of the technology is enough for them to start mandating the use of the technology. It doesn't matter what any FFLs or consumers buy, sell or boycott.
Let me spell this out for you. No, one dealer selling a gun isn't going to influence legislation. However, one dealer, who is a well known strong supporter of the second amendment, going out of his way to showcase that his company is going to carry this technology does nothing but harm to our cause. Now they have one of us to use to further their agenda. This isn't bush league politics, the left is pushing this hard and engage accepted it like a glock 42. Do you se what I am saying now?
ThisGuy918 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2014, 09:53 PM #180
occbrian's Avatar
occbrian occbrian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: in a cave
Posts: 4,790
occbrian occbrian is offline
Senior Member
occbrian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: in a cave
Posts: 4,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by clandestine View Post
Andy is to blame if Smart Gun Tech is adopted in MD even though it was already set in motion before Andy decided to sell a smart gun.

Chad is to blame for FSA2013 and the MSP making up rulings that the forum does not agree with.


Nutty...
I'm not convinced that you aren't somehow solely responsible for the nj smart gun law, the 94 awb, the NFA and obamacare.

Holster
occbrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
2018, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service