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

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!
  • SigNerd

    Active Member
    Feb 24, 2015
    161
    In which they likely have that 60%!?
    I honestly don't think they do. That's the same threshold as a veto override, which they no longer have to worry about (unless they go really off the rails). Trying to get to that threshold means compromising with other members of the Democratic caucus to water it way down. Waldstreicher's arguments are 100% emotion-based with some cherry-picked factoids sprinkled on top. I don't think he'd be interested in compromising with even his own party.

    From what I saw, there was only one Democrat in the hearing really supporting the bill (other than Waldstreicher). And even that was only with a single softball question to the sponsor panel. Beyond that, you had Democratic senators James clearly against it and Sydnor asking some interesting questions that made him seem more on the fence (I'm guessing he's not happy about Bruen, but not looking to tilt at windmills).

    On a 7-3 committee it's very possible the vote ends up 5-5 or better in our favor. We're presumably starting at 4 against and I'm thinking Smith and/or Sydnor don't get on board with SB1. So with perhaps a bit of luck it doesn't even make it to the floor in the first place.

    But that's just my take, very well could be wrong. But I'm a bit optimistic about it after yesterday.
     
    Last edited:

    thomfantomas

    Crna Ovca
    Feb 15, 2013
    8,875
    Дундак ex Florida Keys
    I honestly don't think they do. That's the same threshold as a veto override, which they no longer have to worry about (unless they go really off the rails). Trying to get to that threshold means compromising with other members of the Democratic caucus to water it way down. Waldstreicher's arguments are 100% emotion-based with some cherry-picked factoids sprinkled on top. I don't think he'd be interested in compromising with even his own party.

    From what I saw, there was only one Democrat in the hearing really supporting the bill (other than Waldstreicher). And even that was only with a single softball question to the sponsor panel. Beyond that, you had Democratic senators James clearly against it and Sydnor asking some interesting questions that made him seem more on the fence (I'm guessing he's not happy about Bruen, but not looking to tilt at windmills).

    On a 7-3 committee it's very possible the vote ends up 5-5 or better in our favor. We're presumably starting at 4 against and I'm thinking Smith and/or Sydnor don't get on board with SB1. So with perhaps a bit of luck it doesn't even make it to the floor in the first place.

    But that's just my take, very well could be wrong. But I'm a bit optimistic about it after yesterday.
    I hope You're right!
     

    rambling_one

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 19, 2007
    6,714
    Bowie, MD
    The re-write of SB1 bans carry in any restaurant that serves
    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.
    He may be young relatively speaking, but is an attorney and a LCDR in the naval reserve. He should have known better.
     

    Tower43

    USMC - 0311
    Jul 6, 2010
    3,883
    Lusby, MD
    He may be young relatively speaking, but is an attorney and a LCDR in the naval reserve. He should have known better.
    I've met plenty of military officers O5 and above that shouldn't be because of their immaturity. Just because someone was in the military doesn't automatically make them better... IMO
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,585
    I honestly don't think they do. That's the same threshold as a veto override, which they no longer have to worry about (unless they go really off the rails). Trying to get to that threshold means compromising with other members of the Democratic caucus to water it way down. Waldstreicher's arguments are 100% emotion-based with some cherry-picked factoids sprinkled on top. I don't think he'd be interested in compromising with even his own party.

    From what I saw, there was only one Democrat in the hearing really supporting the bill (other than Waldstreicher). And even that was only with a single softball question to the sponsor panel. Beyond that, you had Democratic senators James clearly against it and Sydnor asking some interesting questions that made him seem more on the fence (I'm guessing he's not happy about Bruen, but not looking to tilt at windmills).

    On a 7-3 committee it's very possible the vote ends up 5-5 or better in our favor. We're presumably starting at 4 against and I'm thinking Smith and/or Sydnor don't get on board with SB1. So with perhaps a bit of luck it doesn't even make it to the floor in the first place.

    But that's just my take, very well could be wrong. But I'm a bit optimistic about it after yesterday.
    All this ^^^ supports the idea that any effort toward watering down the original bill by our side was a mistake.

    The more outrageous, the better, and the more the Supremes will hate it. It is, after all, a direct slap in their collective face, followed by the spittle of spite.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,585
    I've met plenty of military officers O5 and above that shouldn't be because of their immaturity. Just because someone was in the military doesn't automatically make them better... IMO
    REMF, and a mere lawyer to boot, firing off salvos of stern memoranda.
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    13,060
    I honestly don't think they do. That's the same threshold as a veto override, which they no longer have to worry about (unless they go really off the rails). Trying to get to that threshold means compromising with other members of the Democratic caucus to water it way down. Waldstreicher's arguments are 100% emotion-based with some cherry-picked factoids sprinkled on top. I don't think he'd be interested in compromising with even his own party.

    From what I saw, there was only one Democrat in the hearing really supporting the bill (other than Waldstreicher). And even that was only with a single softball question to the sponsor panel. Beyond that, you had Democratic senators James clearly against it and Sydnor asking some interesting questions that made him seem more on the fence (I'm guessing he's not happy about Bruen, but not looking to tilt at windmills).

    On a 7-3 committee it's very possible the vote ends up 5-5 or better in our favor. We're presumably starting at 4 against and I'm thinking Smith and/or Sydnor don't get on board with SB1. So with perhaps a bit of luck it doesn't even make it to the floor in the first place.

    But that's just my take, very well could be wrong. But I'm a bit optimistic about it after yesterday.
    That's a fair read
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,658
    In which they likely have that 60%!?
    shaky. Did you listen to the hearing? They’ll need to make a lot of changes just to get to a majority if democratic questions during the hearing is any indication. 60% they can only afford to lose a small number of votes.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,658
    I honestly don't think they do. That's the same threshold as a veto override, which they no longer have to worry about (unless they go really off the rails). Trying to get to that threshold means compromising with other members of the Democratic caucus to water it way down. Waldstreicher's arguments are 100% emotion-based with some cherry-picked factoids sprinkled on top. I don't think he'd be interested in compromising with even his own party.

    From what I saw, there was only one Democrat in the hearing really supporting the bill (other than Waldstreicher). And even that was only with a single softball question to the sponsor panel. Beyond that, you had Democratic senators James clearly against it and Sydnor asking some interesting questions that made him seem more on the fence (I'm guessing he's not happy about Bruen, but not looking to tilt at windmills).

    On a 7-3 committee it's very possible the vote ends up 5-5 or better in our favor. We're presumably starting at 4 against and I'm thinking Smith and/or Sydnor don't get on board with SB1. So with perhaps a bit of luck it doesn't even make it to the floor in the first place.

    But that's just my take, very well could be wrong. But I'm a bit optimistic about it after yesterday.
    Smith himself asked some questions in a way that makes me think he isn’t onboard with everything in there. I don’t see it voted out as is. They’ll make some sausage with it and I think it will move forward. Probably.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,751
    Bel Air
    Smith himself asked some questions in a way that makes me think he isn’t onboard with everything in there. I don’t see it voted out as is. They’ll make some sausage with it and I think it will move forward. Probably.
    It’s gotta be embarrassing to get behind a bill only to have the courts say “this is horrible and even an amoeba knows it’s unconstitutional”. That’s what SB1 is.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,658
    It’s gotta be embarrassing to get behind a bill only to have the courts say “this is horrible and even an amoeba knows it’s unconstitutional”. That’s what SB1 is.
    Yup. I don’t think Smith is that kind of guy. I don’t know him other than listening to him some. I think we’d strongly disagree on constitutionality. But I think he knows not even very deep down but at the surface, that this bill has no chance. Probably no bill restricting carry does. I think at the very least he wants it to seem like something reasonable and that SCOTUS and the courts are the unreasonable ones.
     

    Bertfish

    Throw bread on me
    Mar 13, 2013
    17,586
    White Marsh, MD
    You all give them too much credit

    The Dems fall in line when they are told to do so. Smith may be a professional moreso than others there but he's a leftist in the end. If Moore (haven't heard much from him have we?) or Ferguson lean hard enough he will cave. If not he will just be replaced at JPR.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,751
    Bel Air
    Yup. I don’t think Smith is that kind of guy. I don’t know him other than listening to him some. I think we’d strongly disagree on constitutionality. But I think he knows not even very deep down but at the surface, that this bill has no chance. Probably no bill restricting carry does. I think at the very least he wants it to seem like something reasonable and that SCOTUS and the courts are the unreasonable ones.
    Agree. Though restricting carry in public areas flies in the face of Bruen. The 2A could care less if Waldstreicher gets Koro from wondering if the guy next to his family at a restaurant has a gun….because THAT guy has a right to defend HIS family. Bruen said as much. They can’t pass anything that isn’t repugnant to the Constitution.

    Koro is my favorite psychiatric disorder….
     

    Bertfish

    Throw bread on me
    Mar 13, 2013
    17,586
    White Marsh, MD
    Agree. Though restricting carry in public areas flies in the face of Bruen. The 2A could care less if Waldstreicher gets Koro from wondering if the guy next to his family at a restaurant has a gun….because THAT guy has a right to defend HIS family. Bruen said as much. They can’t pass anything that isn’t repugnant to the Constitution.

    Koro is my favorite psychiatric disorder….
    Googled it. What a disorder.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,702
    Messages
    7,248,989
    Members
    33,310
    Latest member
    Skarface

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom