SB346 (Loans): favorable with amendments

[esqappellate]

Score card is a wonderful idea, but you still have no idea what worked and what did not.

Was it the white shirts with blue lettering that got them to change their minds, the deluge of e-mails and phone calls from all constituents, the deluge of e-mails and calls from registered Democrats, the testimony, some expert's opinions, the well couched opinion of reps from the NRA/MSI/MSRPA, or just sheet common sense after they thought long and hard about things?

Maybe it was the guy pleading for them not to pass the law because he would not comply and thus they would be signing his death sentence. They all laughed after Zirkin said "Good luck with that", but after thinking long and hard about it, maybe that was the turning point.

No doubt that something gets them thinking about all this stuff, but what exactly is it? Are they worried about losing in the primary?

Well, I have a pretty good idea. It was the hearing where the parade of unintended consequences was laid out in oral and written testimony plus the the willingness of the committee members to listen and not impose criminal liability on innocent possessions. At the hearing, this very amendment to 5-134 was specifically mentioned as a solution by us. They simply had not realized that 5-134 could be amended to address this need, instead of reversing Chow's interpretation of 5-124. The committee vote was 11-0 The prosecutors got a new tool that they said they needed and innocent people are not being criminalized. Everyone is happy. Classic win win

 

[Batt816]

Well, I have a pretty good idea. It was the hearing where the parade of unintended consequences was laid out in oral and written testimony plus the the willingness of the committee members to listen and not impose criminal liability on innocent possessions. At the hearing, this very amendment to 5-134 was specifically mentioned as a solution by us. They simply had not realized that 5-134 could be amended to address this need, instead of reversing Chow's interpretation of 5-124. The committee vote was 11-0 The prosecutors got a new tool that they said they needed and innocent people are not being criminalized. Everyone is happy. Classic win win

Thank you sir for all you have done, and I agree it seems everyone wins on this one.

 

[fabsroman]

So if I am reading it correctly, that means a loan (temporary and without gratuitious exchange) of a regulated firearm to someone 21 and over is not illegal so long as the loaner does not have reason to believe the recipient of the loan is prohibited.

(Loans to those under 21 so long as it is for instruction and supervised by an adult instructor is okay per relevant subsection)?

Yeah, you and I should be alright. Esqappellate also summed it up pretty good. This isn't anywhere as terrible as it started out, and I am completely fine with this change, especially based upon what those "scumbag defense attorneys" were using the Chow case for.

 

[danb]

Senate passed third reader of SB346 from conference committee 41-0 http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=03&id=sb0346&tab=subject3&ys=2019RS

Senate version was adopted:

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2019RS/amds/bil_0006/sb0346_89392001.pdf

(1) That the House Judiciary Committee Amendments (SB0346/652811/1) be rejected.
(2) That the attached Conference Committee Amendments (SB0346/243726/1) be adopted.

 

[fabsroman]

Well, I have a pretty good idea. It was the hearing where the parade of unintended consequences was laid out in oral and written testimony plus the the willingness of the committee members to listen and not impose criminal liability on innocent possessions. At the hearing, this very amendment to 5-134 was specifically mentioned as a solution by us. They simply had not realized that 5-134 could be amended to address this need, instead of reversing Chow's interpretation of 5-124. The committee vote was 11-0 The prosecutors got a new tool that they said they needed and innocent people are not being criminalized. Everyone is happy. Classic win win

I missed this. That is definitely some good work.

As I have already said, if they really wanted to screw gun owners, they could. However, it appears they are willing to listen to reason and not put all their normally law abiding neighbors in prison over stupidity.

Great job Mark.

 

[Raineman]

Special ordered in House

 

[Raineman]

Passed

 

[rob b]

Passed

this now means what

 

[Bertfish]

Dont loan a handgun to a prohibited person

 

[Malleovic]

this now means what

It's a much defanged version of the bill. Basically prohibits you from loaning a gun to someone who you might reasonably believe is prohibited.

At least that was the last version I read.

 

[rob b]

Dont loan a handgun to a prohibited person

that's a no brainer and they are now making this a law unreal

 

[Malleovic]

that's a no brainer and they are now making this a law unreal

Be thankful. That's not what the bill originally said.

 

[govwontletmebuycoolguns]

Um....isn't possession by a disallowed person already illegal?

Shame that isn't enforced propper.....

 

[fabsroman]

Be thankful. That's not what the bill originally said.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is a no brainer, but there was no avenue of prosecution when a thug loaned a handgun to another thug. Then again, maybe the thugs believe that the 2nd Amendment should apply to every free person, so maybe not as much of a no brainer as one would think. They have just been practicing WWNC well before it became mainstream.

I mean, if you were released from prison into Baltimore City, the only place you really know, wouldn't you want a gun for self defense right away?

 

[rob b]

Um....isn't possession by a disallowed person already illegal?

Shame that isn't enforced propper.....

well now it seems it will be super illegal

 

[3paul10]

nice, thank you guys!

 

[fabsroman]

Um....isn't possession by a disallowed person already illegal?

Shame that isn't enforced propper.....

Yes, possession by a prohibited person is already illegal. However, what do you do to the person that loaned the prohibited person the gun? Maybe a "straw purchase" that really isn't a straw purchase because hey, it was merely a loaner like in Chow. The loaner never intended for the loanee to keep it.

 

[govwontletmebuycoolguns]

The state's burden just got shifted to the citizenry.

 

[Kicken Wing]

well now it seems it will be super illegal

super illegal... that get you an extra few years in the pokey doesn't it?

 

[Malleovic]

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is a no brainer, but there was no avenue of prosecution when a thug loaned a handgun to another thug.

This is not true. I refer you to Mark Pennak's testimony during the bill's original hearing in JPC. Prosecutorial discretion is to blame.