SB0281 - Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (aka, AWB)

[JAY1234]

I read where I am not supposed to say I will move out of the state. I have emailed and called every political official opposing additional gun restrictions on law abiding legal gun owners. I have the option to move out of this state if these bills are passed and would recommend that every other person that does not have a reason for staying to move to a more gun friendly state. ONLY if these bills are passed. I am 71 and I will reside where I can have and enjoy my firearms in a legal manner without Government officials attempting to restrict my firearm usage. FREEDOM is still one of the American rights that I served 26 years in the U S Navy supporting.

 

[JAY1234]

I should have stated a "firearm friendly and tax friendly" state for a retiree. I am currently paying state income tax on my retirement income (except Social Security). I served quite a few years in Virginia and it is a very nice place but their tax law is heavy on a retiree. The southern states have, generally speaking, very supportive pro gun laws and lenient tax obligations for retirees (some no income tax at all). I like Maryland but my freedom comes before paying a penalty for owning legally purchased and owned firearms. I am too old to hunt (bad knees) but I do enjoy target shooting and my 20 round magazine (could be 30 in most southern states) eases the pain of having to reload the magazines an exorbitant number of times. The politicians can't seem to grasp the fact that legal gun owners are comprised of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and members of all races. Everyone needs to get on the same page and OPPOSE further restrictions to legal gun ownership and legal use. I chose to have target shooting as my hobby and it is relaxing to shoot a few rounds or a few hundred rounds at targets. Other people have other hobby interest.
All of these associated gun ownership fees seem to indicate it is more about money than reducing crime. Legal gun owners abide by laws, criminals don't, the problem is as simple as that. Personally, I don't care if my neighbor has a 50 cal. machine gun, so long as he is safe in the operation of it and legally possesses it. Me, I don't want a machine gun but I don't feel I have the right to tell anyone that is a legal law abiding American citizen what firearm he/she should be allowed to own. The attack on gun ownership will continue until the final death knoll for legal gun owners. It probably won't be achieved during my lifetime but it will happen unless a concerted effort on the part of legal gun owners and future legal gun owners oppose any further control on gun ownership. The efforts of politicians and law enforcement should be to enforce current laws; target violent gangs, drug addicts/dealers, and identify criminally mentally ill people.

 

[vette97]

Mailed my written testimony Saturday, and USPS Priority Tracking said it arrived Monday. It was a one page testimony so it should get some attention. Unfortunately, I won't be able to make the rally/hearing so this was the only way I could get my testimony in. Looking forward to the updates on the hearing.

 

[Sonofagun]

See above...

But again, this bill is so inconsistent as to be ludicrous, and I cannot see how it passes Constitutional muster.

Not to get off subject but lots of people had the same thought about Obama Care. Let's make sure this legiislation is stopped.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

God forbid, if this goes into law, is it effective immediately? What kind of grace period would there be?

 

[outlaw]

thanks for all your work and good luck tomorrow!

 

[ESMDHokie77]

God forbid, if this goes into law, is it effective immediately? What kind of grace period would there be?

October 1st / Nov 1 of 2013.

 

[dieter]

(b) (1) A person who lawfully possessed an assault pistol before June 1, 1994 and who registered the assault pistol with the Secretary of State Police before August 1, 1994, may:

[(1)] (I) continue to possess the assault pistol; or

[(2)] (II) while carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the assault pistol, transport the assault pistol directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station if the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the person is transporting the assault pistol in accordance with a court order and the assault pistol is unloaded.

(moves on to say the same for "ASSAULT LONG 14 GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON")

Above is from SB 281

What really worries me about this statement in the bill, is that it does not definitively state that after registering an "assault weapon" the owner is allowed to keep it. It states that two things could happen after registration, the person may be allowed to keep it, or they will be allowed to transport their now registered "assault weapon" directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station (meaning court ordered confiscation.)

Am I reading this wrong?

 

[wade234]

Are they voting on the bill tomorrow of just hearing testimony?

October 1st / Nov 1 of 2013.

 

[erwos]

See above...

Again, the bill does not replace all assault pistol language. It modifies most of it, not all of it.

Besides, you're behind the times... SB281 appears to be on its way out, in favor of a more narrowly targeted (and much more badly-written) AWB.

 

[Mr H]

Again, the bill does not replace all assault pistol language. It modifies most of it, not all of it.

Agree... I intended to convey as much, but might have missed the mark

Besides, you're behind the times... SB281 appears to be on its way out, in favor of a more narrowly targeted (and much more badly-written) AWB.

We know 281 is in trouble... and that's the whole point. But, it does us no good to slack off fighting it, even after tomorrow, until it's withdrawn or voted down.

With all the "gun bills" on both sides (most 'anti'), we're in for a VERY busy next 2 months.

 

[MDFF2008]

We know 281 is in trouble... and that's the whole point. But, it does us no good to slack off fighting it, even after tomorrow, ant until it's withdrawn or voted down.

With all the "gun bills" on both sides (most 'anti'), we're in for a VERY busy next 2 months.

WE FIGHT UNTIL 12:01AM APRIL 9TH 2013.

 

[SomeGuy]

"If you have to get a license to drive a car on the street or a motorcycle on the street I think most Marylanders -- Democrats, Republicans, and Independents -- agree that you should have to be license in order to operate a firearm,"
Gov O' Malley

Never understood this logic, I look at it the other way.

If you do need a license to have a baby, why do you need a license for a firearm?

 

[vette97]

It's been posted on here already, but...

A license is permission to do something that is otherwise unlawful. Constitutional protected rights cannot be made unlawful by definition. So saying you need a license to exercise a constitutional right is very un-constitutional. Many scotus rulings on this.

"No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor." --Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court. (1943)

The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573. (1944)

 

[Markp]

I should have stated a "firearm friendly and tax friendly" state for a retiree. I am currently paying state income tax on my retirement income (except Social Security). I served quite a few years in Virginia and it is a very nice place but their tax law is heavy on a retiree. The southern states have, generally speaking, very supportive pro gun laws and lenient tax obligations for retirees (some no income tax at all). I like Maryland but my freedom comes before paying a penalty for owning legally purchased and owned firearms. I am too old to hunt (bad knees) but I do enjoy target shooting and my 20 round magazine (could be 30 in most southern states) eases the pain of having to reload the magazines an exorbitant number of times. The politicians can't seem to grasp the fact that legal gun owners are comprised of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and members of all races. Everyone needs to get on the same page and OPPOSE further restrictions to legal gun ownership and legal use. I chose to have target shooting as my hobby and it is relaxing to shoot a few rounds or a few hundred rounds at targets. Other people have other hobby interest.
All of these associated gun ownership fees seem to indicate it is more about money than reducing crime. Legal gun owners abide by laws, criminals don't, the problem is as simple as that. Personally, I don't care if my neighbor has a 50 cal. machine gun, so long as he is safe in the operation of it and legally possesses it. Me, I don't want a machine gun but I don't feel I have the right to tell anyone that is a legal law abiding American citizen what firearm he/she should be allowed to own. The attack on gun ownership will continue until the final death knoll for legal gun owners. It probably won't be achieved during my lifetime but it will happen unless a concerted effort on the part of legal gun owners and future legal gun owners oppose any further control on gun ownership. The efforts of politicians and law enforcement should be to enforce current laws; target violent gangs, drug addicts/dealers, and identify criminally mentally ill people.

Texas or Florida. Pick one!

 

[julyccc]

(b) (1) A person who lawfully possessed an assault pistol before June 1, 1994 and who registered the assault pistol with the Secretary of State Police before August 1, 1994, may:

[(1)] (I) continue to possess the assault pistol; or

[(2)] (II) while carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the assault pistol, transport the assault pistol directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station if the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the person is transporting the assault pistol in accordance with a court order and the assault pistol is unloaded.

(moves on to say the same for "ASSAULT LONG 14 GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON")

Above is from SB 281

What really worries me about this statement in the bill, is that it does not definitively state that after registering an "assault weapon" the owner is allowed to keep it. It states that two things could happen after registration, the person may be allowed to keep it, or they will be allowed to transport their now registered "assault weapon" directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station (meaning court ordered confiscation.)

Am I reading this wrong?

I was wondering the same thing. The way I am reading is I get to keep the "assault weapon" and that's it. I can't even take it to a range to shoot. that is pretty messed up.

 

[Mr H]

There is potential confiscation in that language, IMO

 

[Kimerazor]

We cannot assume anything. It clearly allows for confiscation.


NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member
GRRN Supporter

 

[Mr H]

Actually, I'm going to say what I really think instead of playing nice with the wording. I take back my prior comment.

This bill PRESUMES confiscation.

The person(s) who wrote it should turn in their passport.

 

[trbon8r]

I think it bears repeating that when emailing the General Assembly, tell them you are opposed to ANY further gun control measures, and that there are already enough laws on the books to enforce.

Don't try and debate the specific aspects of each of these bills in an email. They aren't going to read it. Just tell them HELL NO with respect to all of it.