HB1302-"The Neighborhood Bag Lady Can Take Your Guns" bill

[j_h_smith]

current language/amendment posted: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=02&id=hb1302&tab=subject3&ys=2018RS

I may be a 3rd grade graduate from West Virginia, but this Bill still sucks. How many open ended possibilities are included in this Bill? It's nice to know that I MAY request my firearms after it's found that I am of sane mind. Wanna bet how long it takes for the police department to recognize my request, act on it, find my firearms and ammo and then I bet there will have to be paperwork done on every firearm they have in their possession.

If this doesn't get vetoed by the governor or made unconstitutional by litigation I'd be surprised. Even the courts can see how unlawful this Bill is and will be a travesty as a law.

 

[HRDWRK]

To that end:

WE WILL BE BREAKING OUT OUR RED FLAG SIGNS THIS AFTERNOON BECAUSE THE HOUSE HAS ANNOUNCED THEY WILL CROSS THE STREET FOR A SECOND TIME TODAY ON THEIR WAY TO A 5PM SESSION IN THE STATEHOUSE.

Plan #1: If you can join us in less than 2 hours at Lawyer's Mall (by 4:20pm but earlier is better!), we will have our stack of RED FLAG signs to show to House Delegates.

Plan #2: If you can join us in about 4 hours at Lawyer's Mall, (by 6:45pm but earlier is better!) we can intercept the House Delegates on the way BACK to their offices after the voting session is over.

At the same time, we will be making a racket outside the Governor's window to give our STREET TESTIMONY to the Gov. that this is a BAD BILL that should be VETOED!

We are down to the metal on this issue, and with this 2018 session. NOW OR NEVER PATRIOTS!

After 6pm there is free parking in the State Govt garage next to the House Office Building, and usually plenty of open 2 hours spaces on College Avenue.

On my way.

 

[danb]

I may be a 3rd grade graduate from West Virginia, but this Bill still sucks. How many open ended possibilities are included in this Bill? It's nice to know that I MAY request my firearms after it's found that I am of sane mind. Wanna bet how long it takes for the police department to recognize my request, act on it, find my firearms and ammo and then I bet there will have to be paperwork done on every firearm they have in their possession.

p27. In this version, Law enforcement has to return property in 2 weeks. Yes, they have to re-do a background check. What happens to NFA items and pre-2013 goodies is anyones guess.

 

[esqappellate]

Far be it from my intent, to discourage anyone from expressing their views to Governor Hogan. But for my own part, since at least a theoretical possibility still exists of improving some of the aspects of the bill that invite abuse, I believe that is where the focus of activity should remain-- specifics of which I have already discussed in a post earlier today, here.

Some of those who have shifted their focus to encouraging a veto, seem to be assuming that a veto would kill HB 1302, at least until after the next election. It seems to me that this assumption is unwarranted. My reasoning follows:

Under Article II, Section 17 of the Maryland Constitution, the General Assembly has the power to call a special session by demand of a majority in both houses. As I understand it, such special sessions may be and have been called specifically to consider veto overrides. If HB 1302 were vetoed and the General Assembly leadership responded by calling a special session (with much fanfare, no doubt), the bill would be returned to the House of Delegates, where the party ratio is 91 Democrats and 50 Republicans. The Maryland Constitution provides that a veto may be overridden by a vote of "three-fifths of the members elected to that House. . ." The House of Delegates contains 141 seats, and the Speaker's office says that there are currently no vacancies, so the required number of affirmative votes to override a veto would be 85.

Recall, if you will, that HB 1302 passed the House on March 15 by a vote of 116-17, with a couple dozen of the affirmative votes provided by Republicans. Yes, I understand that some of the aye-voting delegates now understand the matter better and are prepared to reverse themselves -- but to sustain a veto in the House, it would be necessary for about 32 delegates who voted aye on March 15 to vote no on an override. Given those numbers, there is little doubt that the House would vote to override.

Following that House vote to override, HB 1302 would return to the Maryland Senate, where the party ratio is currently 32 Democrats and 14 Republicans. There is one seat vacant, which I believe has the effect of lowering the veto-override threshold to 28 votes (with every seat full, it would be 29). That means that if every Republican voted to sustain a veto, the veto would still be overridden, unless a solid bloc of Republicans were joined by at least five Democrats. To say it another way, if all 14 Republicans plus five Democrats voted to sustain, then and only then the veto would be sustained, barely, by a vote of 27-19. That is a scenario that seems far-fetched, to put it mildly.

Given these unpalatable facts, the only scenario under which a veto would be efficacious is a scenario in which the Democratic leadership decides not to call a special session to deal with such a veto (and/or with other vetoes). But, why would they not? This is not a rhetorical question -- I'd really like to know if there is any rational basis for such an expectation.

That's all true. But, these legislators will be loath to convene a special session in an election year. They can't get contributions while the GA is in session, and they want to campaign. The primary election is in June. Naa, they would just use a veto against Hogan. This is all about politics and that's all they really care about.

 

[esqappellate]

Thanks. Do you know if a markup exists and is available to the public. Would be much easier to comprehend than an amendment.

Also, interested in what the group considers the most egregious points in the bill. I plan to call Hogan's office to voice my concerns, highlighting particular provisions that should trigger his veto.

The Senate JPR bill basically crosses out the House bill and rewrites it in new language. So the JPR bill is, for all important respects, the entire bill in the Senate.

 

[fidelity]

I cited the recent Rhode Island ACLU memo in my March 23 testimony against HB 1302 before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee -- and also the California ACLU objections to a bill to expand California's "red flag" law in 2016 -- a bill then vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown (D), who is no friend of "gun rights." (Testimony attached.)

Sadly, however, I believe that I am correct in saying that the Maryland ACLU has been silent regarding HB 1302, even though the version passed by the House of Delegates on March 15 contained provisions more abuse-inviting and constitutionally suspect than those to which the Rhode Island and California ACLU affiliates had objected, and I believe this characterization can fairly be applied to the Senate committee bill as well. It appears that the Maryland ACLU has had its hands full with much more weighty matters, such as Gov. Hogan's Facebook policies.

That's disappointing. Even though the ACLU tends to completely ignore 2A protections, I've had grudging respect for their tenacity on other civil rights. The MD ACLU not caring about due process (protections in two distinct amendments) suggests to me that they are more politicized than other chapters and seeking to not twice upset the Democratic Party machine here (as they probably did when supporting the 1A rights of the PP).

I wonder, if like O'Malley, the MD chapter has now done a turnaround when it comes to voting rights in the state.


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[fidelity]

To that end:

WE WILL BE BREAKING OUT OUR RED FLAG SIGNS THIS AFTERNOON BECAUSE THE HOUSE HAS ANNOUNCED THEY WILL CROSS THE STREET FOR A SECOND TIME TODAY ON THEIR WAY TO A 5PM SESSION IN THE STATEHOUSE.

Plan #1: If you can join us in less than 2 hours at Lawyer's Mall (by 4:20pm but earlier is better!), we will have our stack of RED FLAG signs to show to House Delegates.

Plan #2: If you can join us in about 4 hours at Lawyer's Mall, (by 6:45pm but earlier is better!) we can intercept the House Delegates on the way BACK to their offices after the voting session is over.

At the same time, we will be making a racket outside the Governor's window to give our STREET TESTIMONY to the Gov. that this is a BAD BILL that should be VETOED!

We are down to the metal on this issue, and with this 2018 session. NOW OR NEVER PATRIOTS!

After 6pm there is free parking in the State Govt garage next to the House Office Building, and usually plenty of open 2 hours spaces on College Avenue.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

p27. In this version, Law enforcement has to return property in 2 weeks. Yes, they have to re-do a background check. What happens to NFA items and pre-2013 goodies is anyones guess.

They'll re-do a background check and disapprove you based on the fact that there was a court order put in place to take your guns in the first place.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

They'll re-do a background check and disapprove you based on the fact that there was a court order put in place to take your guns in the first place.

Yea, because it was involuntary!

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Yea, because it was involuntary!

Will the state honor Collector Letters and release all handguns at once or will the state demand 4473s and 77rs for every handgun and spaced out every 32 days?

 

[Jim12]

In the current version of the bill, who has standing to complain? Any interested person, household members, or other?

From the sound of it, this bill would force a behavioral and lifestyle change of many if not most, or all gun owners.

Conform to "their" standards of behavior, don't let anyone know that you own guns, don't rock the boat, don't be controversial or piss off anybody, because now even the exercise of your First Amendment rights might result in the loss of your Second Amendment rights.

 

[danb]

In the current version of the bill, who has standing to complain? Any interested person, household members, or other?

No, they narrowed it. Here is the list:

“PETITIONER” INCLUDES:
(I)A PHYSICIAN,PSYCHOLOGIST,CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER,LICENSED CLINICAL PROFESSIONAL COUNSELOR,CLINICAL NURSE SPECIALIST IN PSYCHIATRIC AND MENTAL HEALTH NURSING,PSYCHIATRIC NURSE PRACTITIONER,LICENSED CLINICAL MARRIAGE OR FAMILY THERAPIST,OR HEALTH OFFICER OR DESIGNEE OF A HEALTH OFFICER WHO HAS EXAMINED THE INDIVIDUAL;

(II)A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER;

(III)THE SPOUSE OF THE RESPONDENT;

(IV)A COHABITANT OF THE RESPONDENT;

(V)A PERSON RELATED TO THE RESPONDENT BY BLOOD,MARRIAGE,OR ADOPTION;

(VI)AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS A CHILD IN COMMON WITH THE RESPONDENT;

(VII)A CURRENT DATING OR INTIMATE PARTNER OF THE RESPONDENT;OR

(VIII)A CURRENT OR FORMER LEGAL GUARDIAN OF THE RESPONDENT

 

[iH8DemLibz]

That's still one hell of a long list.

No more talking about guns. No more gun related t-shirts. No more gun related vehicle decals and stickers. No more answering questions on doctor and dentist forms.

Bye-Bye First Amendment. Was nice knowing you.

 

[tmd99]

No, they narrowed it. Here is the list:

Whew!!!! Glad "Banned MDS Member" or "MDS Lurker" didn't make the list!!!!

 

[Jimboy]

VI means it could be an ex.

 

[NoMoreTreadingOnUs]

No, they narrowed it. Here is the list:

Do you think (I) means that any of those people must have examined the Respondent? I’d rather that last clause be moved to the beginning of the section.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

VI means it could be an ex.

You're not supposed to notice that.

 

[ironpony]

"I never dated that girl!" ... now transfer my mags back! Got VII covered.

 

[Rack&Roll]

Join the Patriot Night Out with Deep Lurker, Bob A, HRDWRK and me on a sunny sidewalk at the Statehouse.!

 

[K3LAG]

(VI) could be a lot of people for some folks. The guy that has 34 kids with 17 different women might have to worry. He doesn't ever have to have been married to any of them.

Maybe the ACLU should argue that the bill is biased against inner city folk.