2015 General Assembly Bills

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    Just curious but why do you mark HB0338 as being bad for us?

    Is SWAT team abuse happening? Suppose a threat suddenly turns into something that requires SWAT. Is red-tape going to save lives?

    I'm all for accountability and responsible policing, but this seems unnecessary. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

    AS FOR TODAY

    -------------------------------

    We may have our first anti bill.

    Senator Raskin has introduced SB0530 Criminal Procedure - Firearms - Transfer
    http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=01&id=sb0530&tab=subject3&ys=2015RS

    Requiring a court to inform a person convicted of a specified offense that the person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under specified provisions of law; providing that if a person commits a specified offense and the offense is a domestically related crime, the court shall order the person to transfer all firearms owned by the person or in the person's possession; providing for the procedure to transfer firearms; authorizing the disposal of a firearm under specified circumstances; etc.

    .pdf isn't available for it yet.
     

    Abacab

    Member
    Sep 10, 2009
    2,644
    MD
    Benedict's bill's text is up. Just imposes a formal time limit and requires a written explanation.
     

    Raineman

    On the 3rd box
    Dec 27, 2008
    3,551
    Eldersburg
    SB100 is worded wrong. It leaves room for "them" to decide again.

    "Clarifying that self-defense can qualify as a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun for purposes of the issuance by the Secretary of State Police of a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun"


    It should read:

    Clarifying that self-defense does qualify as a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun for purposes of the issuance by the Secretary of State Police of a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun
     

    Applehd

    Throbbing Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 26, 2012
    5,292
    SB100 is worded wrong. It leaves room for "them" to decide again.

    "Clarifying that self-defense can qualify as a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun for purposes of the issuance by the Secretary of State Police of a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun"


    It should read:

    Clarifying that self-defense does qualify as a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun for purposes of the issuance by the Secretary of State Police of a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun

    Good catch...:thumbsup: (or simply... "self-defense qualifies...")
     

    vgplayer

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 17, 2013
    1,069
    King George, VA
    From the Text of SB100
    (ii)
    has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as SELF-DEFENSE OR a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger

    BTW a hearing is scheduled 3/12 1pm
     

    DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    Put in those Time Off requests now!

    Senate Gun Bill Day 3/12/15
    House Gun Bill Day 3/10/15

    :)
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    276,036
    Messages
    7,305,783
    Members
    33,561
    Latest member
    Davidbanner

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom