SB136 - Sen. Brochin's staff called my house

[peckmv]

Screw us once, shame on you......screw us twice shame on us.

 

[Minuteman]

Screw us once, shame on you......screw us twice shame on us.

Man, there's always someone who can say in a sentence, what take me paragraphs to say.

Now, on to more pressing issues. Maybe MSI can reverse their position on this as well?

 

[Mr H]

I think my person opinion on this has become a bit different...

I do not oppose some of the goals of this bill. But, I will likely become more pragmatic in it.

It is sponsored by Brochin, and the mixed support has had my attention from the start.

For strictly political reasons, and because not having this bill isn't the end of the world, I will oppose it... just to poke a political stick in Benedict Brochin's eye.

 

[DC-W]

I think my person opinion on this has become a bit different...

I do not oppose some of the goals of this bill. But, I will likely become more pragmatic in it.

It is sponsored by Brochin, and the mixed support has had my attention from the start.

For strictly political reasons, and because not having this bill isn't the end of the world, I will oppose it... just to poke a political stick in Benedict Brochin's eye.

I'm looking forward to it... He and his staffers are expecting me to submit supporting testimony

 

[fabsroman]

Man, there's always someone who can say in a sentence, what take me paragraphs to say.

Now, on to more pressing issues. Maybe MSI can reverse their position on this as well?

I don't think MSI should take any position on this one way or another.

The more I think about it, the more I oppose it. Just more legislation/regulation for no good reason. Either we trust our judges to do the right thing, or we replace them.

 

[Minuteman]

I don't think MSI should take any position on this one way or another.

The more I think about it, the more I oppose it. Just more legislation/regulation for no good reason. Either we trust our judges to do the right thing, or we replace them.

I agree, it's not a 2A issue. Unfortunately MSI is currently supporting, this from the last email received:

SB0136 -- Crimes - Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Crime - Diminution Credits and Sentencing - Support

Prohibiting the earning of diminution credits to reduce the term of confinement of an inmate committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Correction or sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a local correctional facility who is serving a sentence for the use of specified firearms in the commission of specified crimes; prohibiting a court from suspending any part of a mandatory minimum sentence of five years; and applying the Act prospectively.
mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?...b=subject3&ys=2015RS

 

[Minuteman]

MSI (stands for Maryland Shall Issue), which is specifically about people being able to carry firearms for self-defense unless they are otherwise disqualified. That was the organization I joined; then the group changed its mission statement and broadened its goals to include more 2A issues, and considering the politics of the day, I continued to support. Now it appears 'we' are slowly moving further from just diluting ourselves, to trying to address criminal and social issues too.

If anyone wants to start a group focused on making Maryland a Shall Issue state; I'd like to get back on that wagon.

In a conversation with one of you today, I caught myself referring to MSI as sort of an NRA, but just for Maryland. There's a lot that could be better in Maryland, way too much for any one of us to tackle; I think my efforts are best served to support the ultimate goal of defining and seeing Maryland join the vast majority of States that are 'Shall Issue'.

Brochin and his ilk aside, we would all be best served if we focused our attention on what unites us all and local - state politics.

I've never been associated with a non-profit organization better than MSI, and I again applaud each member and all the wonderful work they have done.

 

[Lou45]

Smoke and mirrors bill, for the most part. The judges will sentence people to whatever they want. 95% of the time this charge will be plead out and nolle pros'd as part of the agreement before trial. In the few cases you do see a guilty on it, the judges will just deduct whatever they want off the sentences for the non-related crimes to come up with the same sentence. Personally I doubt this will have much real world effect besides giving Brochin something to brag about. I wouldn't give that whiny rat bastard the time of day if I were standing next to a clock. Just my opinions. No offense meant to anyone else.

And a good opinion it is.

Is there any type of felony that was created in FSA2013 for owning certain types of firearms or any simple felonies that can trip up legal gun owners? 5 years hard time for firearm violations with no parole is a gun grabbers wet dream. Something does not seem right.

From what I am reading (maybe I am confused) it takes on minimum sentencing and locks it at 5 years for a felony if in possession of a firearm, functional or not, used or not. I just have a feeling this guy now has something to go after legal firearms owners on some technicality and plans to hammer people with this. People will then feel the risk of owning a firearm is not worth the chance of running afoul of some technicality.

) [The] NOTWITHSTANDING § 14–102 OF THIS ARTICLE, THE court may not impose less than the MANDATORY minimum sentence of 5 years [and, except as otherwise provided in § 4–305 of the Correctional Services Article, the person is not eligible for parole in less than 5 years].
(III) THE COURT MAY NOT SUSPEND ANY PART OF THE MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE OF 5 YEARS.

I suspect Leadsled might be onto something here.

He is for this bill now because it really has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. The fact that we, the 2nd Amendment crowd, actually give a crap about this bill is because we want to be able to say we are fine with tough penalties for those that commit crimes with guns. However, this gives us NOTHING of our 2nd Amendment rights back. He can support a bill like this right now because he isn't up for re-election anytime soon and it has absolutely nothing to do with 2nd Amendment Rights.

I could care less about the bill because it does not have anything whatsoever to do with the 2nd Amendment. I think the bill is another feel good pile of steaming BS. Judges will know that there is no chance for a reduction of the sentence for good behavior and they will adjust their sentences accordingly. Passing this law is just like passing SB281/FSA2013. It makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside because you are being tough on crime, but end of the day it still comes down to the judge's discretion. I am fine with giving the Judges discretion.

I think Fabs is spot on here.

 

[Brooklyn]

Smoke and mirrors bill, for the most part. The judges will sentence people to whatever they want. 95% of the time this charge will be plead out and nolle pros'd as part of the agreement before trial. In the few cases you do see a guilty on it, the judges will just deduct whatever they want off the sentences for the non-related crimes to come up with the same sentence. Personally I doubt this will have much real world effect besides giving Brochin something to brag about. I wouldn't give that whiny rat bastard the time of day if I were standing next to a clock. Just my opinions. No offense meant to anyone else.

Bingo.

Its a smoke screen. It was intended to flush out the real intent of FSA2013. It did.

Now I am walking away from this issue.. long term it helps our cause if we leave it to the D to clean up their own mess.

And this bill will not come close to even starting to do that.

 

[Brooklyn]

I think my person opinion on this has become a bit different...

I do not oppose some of the goals of this bill. But, I will likely become more pragmatic in it.

It is sponsored by Brochin, and the mixed support has had my attention from the start.

For strictly political reasons, and because not having this bill isn't the end of the world, I will oppose it... just to poke a political stick in Benedict Brochin's eye.

No need to oppose it. Turn your back to it.. its a poly,so let everyone know you know its a ploy...no position.

It speaks volumes...but also puts Brochin on notice that we are not easily placated but also not openly hostile... its the best play and the smartest IMHO.

 

[Brooklyn]

I'm looking forward to it... He and his staffers are expecting me to submit supporting testimony

Seriously. Think long term. Do not go tit for tat..you gain nothing..

And can lose a great deal.

"I support the goal but think that judges will just work around it.. I think a but more staff work could result in a bill I can back without reversation." use zoos points...he knows exactly how they system actually works..

We are not on equal footing with a sitting senator it is not wise to play tit for tat..

 

[Gryphon]

I'm looking forward to it... He and his staffers are expecting me to submit supporting testimony

How ironic that he will be getting a dose of his own medicine!

 

[dogbone]

How ironic that he will be getting a dose of his own medicine!

Yep, it will be almost fun testifying on this bill. "Support with amendments" opens up a nice door to damning with faint praise, especially after stopping by his office on 2A Tuesday and specifically mentioning the bill.

 

[DC-W]

Seriously. Think long term. Do not go tit for tat..you gain nothing..

And can lose a great deal.

"I support the goal but think that judges will just work around it.. I think a but more staff work could result in a bill I can back without reversation." use zoos points...he knows exactly how they system actually works..

We are not on equal footing with a sitting senator it is not wise to play tit for tat..

Emotional written testimony in opposition already submitted. I may/may not speak on it Thursday. Haven't decided yet.

 

[Mr H]

Will be sending some version of this...

-me-
Glen Burnie, MD
Democrat, District 32

re: SB0136


Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,


While I see some good things in this bill that might be incorporated into state law in the future, I cannot at this time consider it good for Maryland.

As the primary sponsor is Sen. Brochin, I must oppose it on general principle.

Sen. Brochin has become unbelievable and untrustworthy, particularly in the firearms community. We have made a point of calling him out on his deceit and treachery, and cannot believe him when he states he now sees the need to put the voice of the people first.

Therefore, I request an unfavorable report.

I know... "Politician"...

 

[MDFF2008]

Brochin knows that even though he won, he faced a newbie to politics and there is another election before the 2020 census.

 

[rambling_one]

I don't think MSI should take any position on this one way or another.

The more I think about it, the more I oppose it. Just more legislation/regulation for no good reason. Either we trust our judges to do the right thing, or we replace them.

I've always had trouble wrapping my head around the people's control over judges. Except for confirming an initial appointment (and not for all judges by the way), I have never been privy to information upon which to make an educated decision as to the worthiness of them continuing in office. Perhaps you can explain how we replace them.

 

[Lou45]

I agree, it's not a 2A issue. Unfortunately MSI is currently supporting, this from the last email received:

SB0136 -- Crimes - Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Crime - Diminution Credits and Sentencing - Support

Prohibiting the earning of diminution credits to reduce the term of confinement of an inmate committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Correction or sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a local correctional facility who is serving a sentence for the use of specified firearms in the commission of specified crimes; prohibiting a court from suspending any part of a mandatory minimum sentence of five years; and applying the Act prospectively.
mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?...b=subject3&ys=2015RS

What are the "'specified firearms' in the commission of 'specified crimes'"??? Does anybody know the complete definitions of those two??? Let me reiterate; what does "specified firearms" and "specified crimes" entail??? Where's the list that this bill is making reference???

Come on Fabs, you're one of those legal dudes......

 

[montoya32]

I can understand the theory that violence in prison could be less controllable with no incentive for prisoners to behave, but they play the same games these politicians play. The fall in line while incarcerated, then revert to their normal activities when released. I don't think this bill is the solution, but it would make the sentencing "true up" if there were no good behavior credits waiting an offender. Why should a victim's family have to constantly keep watch on the behavior of the person who committed a crime against them to see when he/she is going to be released?

 

[fabsroman]

I've always had trouble wrapping my head around the people's control over judges. Except for confirming an initial appointment (and not for all judges by the way), I have never been privy to information upon which to make an educated decision as to the worthiness of them continuing in office. Perhaps you can explain how we replace them.

At the federal level, it is extremely tough to get a judge out other than through impeachment via Congress.

State Judges are a little easier:

http://www.somdnews.com/article/20140912/NEWS/140919549/1043&source=RSS&template=gazette

Here it is for all 50 states:

http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/methods/removal_of_judges.cfm?state

Now, why do you think MADD and SADD sit in on high profile drunk driving cases? They are there to make sure the judge does what is right, or the verdict and sentencing will likely make the 5:00 news and the morning newspaper. If a judge continues to be way out of line in sentencing versus the rest of the judges, the Court of Appeals will take a look at it. If it can be proven that a judge favors a specific attorney or law firm, the Court of Appeals will take a look at it.

Then, there is the issue of re-election in Maryland:

http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/index.cfm?state=MD

Here you go, Mike Miller, one of our favorites, is opposed to contested elections of judges and would propose a simple retention election where people merely vote yea/nay on the sitting judge, just like they do for the Appellate Judges. The last paragraph should make you a little bit sick. This article also explains the process a little better.

http://gavelgrab.org/?p=94181

End of the day, Maryland judges can be replaced, it just isn't a very simple process.