SB1 (2023) - Criminal Law - Wearing, Carrying, or Transporting Firearms - Restrictions (Gun Safety Act of 2023)

[elwojo]

How would that strategy have worked out in 2013 when we were fighting it out with the AWB?

In all honesty: the original SB281 would have been a lot easier to challenge in the courts, but we can't really look into an alternate universe here. If the courts wouldn't have been involved: we'd be stuck with thicker, more annoying bans. But then again: the oppression of the Democrats would have turned some to vote otherwise and potentially undo parts of that bill. The work we did made it more workable - but it also made it harder to remove.

The difference here is that Bruen clearly defines a right to bear arms beyond the house. They are ignoring that ruling, so let them get bit by the courts. There were and are no real SCOTUS protections for assault weapons - but a more-infringing bill would be more likely to be addressed quickly and decisively by the courts. The same goes here for the right to bear arms.

I encourage Mark Pennak to do his due diligence in telling the legislators that he will sue them and that he will win. I encourage us to continue funding that effort: MSI does amazing and great work. It seems that a few Senators understand and respect Mark and his approach.

However, I think it is bad form for us to detail every problem in the bill that makes it impossible to comply so that they can fix it. Trust me: they're here browsing and learning how to improve their bills so they stay in line with the courts. Don't do their heavy lifting for them.

 

[Bob A]

How would that strategy have worked out in 2013 when we were fighting it out with the AWB?

With due respect, the circumstances have altered dramatically, thanks to the Bruen decision.

In 2013, we were fighting for any scraps that could be salvaged from the tyrants; now we have the Federal judiciary already invalidating the current spate of BS from MD, NY et al. These bills are a childish tantrum, and will be made to disappear. The more ridiculous the excesses, the more likely that the counter-arguments will be stronger.

 

[King Chicken]

This was asked before and I don't think it was answered.

The video is 9 hours long and I couldn't find our guys after a while trying. Anyone have an estimate or time stamp?


3hrs 19 min I read in other thread. Ty

Thank you!

 

[lazarus]

Howdy Doody attacks Straw Man!

“You have a choice. If you believe that anyone should have any gun anywhere, at any time, then I imagine that you’ll be voting no on this bill,” Waldstreicher said at Tuesday’s hearing. “But if you’re like me and have kids… If you’re like me and want them to live safely… If you’re like me and want to go to a concert, or [Baltimore] Ravens game or children’s playground and know that the guy sitting next to you is not carrying an automatic weapon, [then] you’ll join me in voting for the Gun Safety Act of 2023.”

I’d vote no. Now watcha got there? MAC10? uzi? MP-5k?

 

[rbird7282]

I think the Chair spoke in the imperative and said something like "That's it, you're outta here." or "...you're gone." At that point the Trooper walked over to the person and escorted him out. I think the Speaker also prefaced the command by saying that people would be told to leave if they engaged in specific kinds of speech activities. If not preface for sure he said something like that after the person was ejected.

I believe the person was told to leave, not asked. It happened pretty quickly and I was surprised by it to be honest.

Correct, I’m going to edit my comment. My only point was that he agreed to leave instead of being dragged out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rbird7282]

How would that strategy have worked out in 2013 when we were fighting it out with the AWB?

Different times now with more courts making proper rulings since Bruen. The two aren’t even close to the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MigraineMan]

Correct, I’m going to edit my comment. My only point was that he agreed to leave instead of being dragged out.

I'm sure you could argue that Smith politely asked E to leave, and E chose to. Can't see on the video if E was escorted out.

But Smith really sealed the deal with the directive to those in attendance - “If you have something like that on and it is a Holocaust reference, take it off or leave.” Ceased to be a choice at that point.

 

[erwos]

Different times now with more courts making proper rulings since Bruen. The two aren’t even close to the same thing.

The point I was trying to make was that a bunch of people at the time were assuring us that it was super unconstitutional and would totally be tossed at SCOTUS. A decade later, that fight is still going on, and zero AWBs have been overturned. Would you have enjoyed living for the past decade with version 1 of that AWB? I certainly would not.

Bruen certainly changes the landscape, but not everyone is young. Some people may not have a decade to wait to enjoy their civil rights. I'd rather fight it out now and have a less onerous law to fight further in court than just ignore it and spend a decade getting bent over to MAYBE get judicial relief.

 

[rbird7282]

I'm sure you could argue that Smith politely asked E to leave, and E chose to. Can't see on the video if E was escorted out.

But Smith really sealed the deal with the directive to those in attendance - “If you have something like that on and it is a Holocaust reference, take it off or leave.” Ceased to be a choice at that point.

Agreed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Raineman]

FYI - I would definitely enroll as a person who supported the bill. Not even sarcastically. I want this stuff. Daddy step harder on me. TRO's and 1983s incoming, public perception will show these guys as tyrants (even among progressives as minorities get hit with violations way more than others) and then our overlord Democrats will tear each other apart in the fall out of this and other clearly Bruen-denying bills.

I've tried to explain (here and in the hearing) that I was NOT being sarcastic. The Chair could not get that concept, even though I said it right to him.

 

[rbird7282]

The point I was trying to make was that a bunch of people at the time were assuring us that it was super unconstitutional and would totally be tossed at SCOTUS. A decade later, that fight is still going on, and zero AWBs have been overturned.

Bruen certainly changes the landscape, but not everyone is young. Some people may not have a decade to wait to enjoy their civil rights. I'd rather fight it out now and have a less onerous law to fight further in court than just ignore it and spend a decade getting bent over to MAYBE get judicial relief.

While I agree with some of that, the MGA is going to pass whatever it wants. There are a very few legislators that will actually listen to facts/reason, but at the end of the day the more egregious the legislation is, the quicker it will get smacked down. If it’s watered down it’s more likely to survive a TRO or injunction and actually restrict your rights for a longer period of time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Raineman]

Can't see on the video if E was escorted out.

He was not as far as I saw, but a jackboot moved from his wallflower position to the front of the gallery in preparation to do so and both of us walked right in front of him. As far as I know (and I was right there) E went to get his jacket from where he was sitting as I exited. I waited for a short bit and never saw E come out, with or without an escort.

 

[erwos]

While I agree with some of that, the MGA is going to pass whatever it wants. There are a very few legislators that will actually listen to facts/reason, but at the end of the day the more egregious the legislation is, the quicker it will get smacked down. If it’s watered down it’s more likely to survive a TRO or injunction and actually restrict your rights for a longer period of time.

That's kind of a tautology. The MGA will pass what they pass, because that's sorta how the MGA works. However, the AWB in 2013 was softened tremendously as a result of our actions.

I live in Montgomery County. We have a worse law than SB01 here, and I've yet to see a TRO or injunction for that "easy" win. Again: relying on judicial relief, no matter how much it seems like a no-brainer to you, is a very risky move on its own, especially given how new THT as a standard is.

 

[Some Guy]

Correct, I’m going to edit my comment. My only point was that he agreed to leave instead of being dragged out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We agree he agreed to leave, because he's an amenable and peaceable gentleman.

It was really bad form for the Chair to act the way he did and eject our man like that. I think our man is at least owed an apology from the Chair. Smith is a young man, and frankly I think it's an opportunity for him to learn. He'll be in this game for many years and if he's asked about this we'll learn a lot about what we can expect from him for the next three or more decades.

 

[Slackdaddy]

Thanks Bro, missed ya yesterday

Thanks rbird, enjoyed the bricks with ya

Smith said as much indirectly while I was sitting at the witness table. Folks may not have heard me after the beration of E, but I rebutted his remarks from the table and said "Do not misunderstand me" to which he replied he was not speaking to me and I told him, "I am dead serious about my position on this". I then asked if they had any questions, and they did not. Its a sad statement that they had to wait until I was outside the hearing room to insult me, just like a coward. Just because my favorable position on the bill was not the kind he wanted, he chose to negate my testimony. After I found out later in this thread by your post, it bothered the everlovin' shyt out of me. Then I realized he doesn't give a rat crap about anything I say anyway no matter how I testified, so now it doesn't. But I will say, hey Chairman, FVCK YOU.

Thanks Derek for posting that lickety split last night. I was able to listen all the way home and then at home with some bourbon to get the stink of that town off of me.

I'm glad I went, but man I forgot how much I hate that place and the jackfvcks who run it.

They were really pissed about feeling like they were played
I was thinking he should have slapped the Mommies down,, as all their testimony had ZERO to do with the bill,,

 

[thomfantomas]

So when passed,it goes into effect immediately or in october?

 

[SigNerd]

I live in Montgomery County. We have a worse law than SB01 here, and I've yet to see a TRO or injunction for that "easy" win. Again: relying on judicial relief, no matter how much it seems like a no-brainer to you, is a very risky move on its own, especially given how new THT as a standard is.

Yep, I doubt many of us that live in Montgomery County want to go the route of "let them pass it so we can crush them in court." We're seeing first hand how that goes.

Judges in the 4th Circuit so far aren't moving with any sense of urgency. SB1, if passed, will almost certainly be allowed to go into effect because of feet dragging and time extensions, followed by the courts refusing to issue injunctions so as to protect the status quo -- even though their obligation is to protect the status quo ante. It will be in effect for months and with appeals court stays it could be years.

 

[SigNerd]

So when passed,it goes into effect immediately or in october?

The current draft has it set for October. They'd have to change that and pass it as an emergency bill with 60% of both houses to make it immediate.

 

[thomfantomas]

The current draft has it set for October. They'd have to change that and pass it as an emergency bill with 60% of both houses to make it immediate.

In which they likely have that 60%!?

 

[racer79]

I wonder what each county sheriff has to say about this, not that it matters

Harford Sheriff Gahler opposes it