Status of HBAR ban (HB0612)?

[Malleovic]

The HBAR bill is likely dead in committee at this point. It has not moved at all since the hearing and we are coming to the end of session.

 

[Ranchero50]

I tried to draft this three times now so as not to give the other side many hints/ammo, but I could not get it done. We can talk in person about the logic, or lack thereof, of the proposed HBAR ban.

For the other side...

I'm pretty sure the criminals in B-more aren't knocking one another off with legally owned guns and definitely not HBAR's or their lighter brethren.

But then criminals don't care about laws...

 

[rbird7282]

For what its worth, a bit earlier this week I received a reply to one of my letters to Mike Miller. Sounds promising (he is fairly influential), but I will believe it when I see it.



Click for larger.

Considering he played a huge part in getting FSA2013 passed, I don’t believe a fvcking word he says.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fabsroman]

For the other side...

I'm pretty sure the criminals in B-more aren't knocking one another off with legally owned guns and definitely not HBAR's or their lighter brethren.

But then criminals don't care about laws...

I am pretty sure that nobody in Maryland is killing people in Maryland with an AR-15 since the number of deaths for the year via a long gun is usually 10 or less. Even if all 10 of those were with an AR-15, it is still only 10 versus hundreds. Then, what is the likelihood that ALL 10 homicides were with an AR-15, much less an HBAR?

 

[Malleovic]

It doesn't matter. Miller can say that all he wants because at this point the HBAR bill is a distraction. It's not going anywhere so he won't need to vote on it.

We should be more interested in HB740 (3d gun bill) and HB786 (private sales). Those have been amended and passed through the house and are now being looked at by a senate committee. If they are amended further in the senate the house will need to vote on them again. The senate doesn't just get to amend the bill the house sent over and call it a day.

 

[mac1_131]

It doesn't matter. Miller can say that all he wants because at this point the HBAR bill is a distraction. It's not going anywhere so he won't need to vote on it.

We should be more interested in HB740 (3d gun bill) and HB786 (private sales). Those have been amended and passed through the house and are now being looked at by a senate committee. If they are amended further in the senate the house will need to vote on them again. The senate doesn't just get to amend the bill the house sent over and call it a day.

^^^^
This

 

[Sirex]

I am hopeful the Hbar bill dies, over, and over, and over......as it will be introduced, over, and over, and over.

That said, I have been thinking of creative ideas to legally get around it, so to speak, should it ever pass. I think I have found one, although, not ideal.

 

[mrbob1000]

I am hopeful the Hbar bill dies, over, and over, and over......as it will be introduced, over, and over, and over.

That said, I have been thinking of creative ideas to legally get around it, so to speak, should it ever pass. I think I have found one, although, not ideal.

I'm sure our collective creative minds will come up with solutions if worse comes to worse. But overall, the "common use" argument is stronger than ever, I feel like in coming years "America's Rifle" will only get more and more common in peoples safes.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Considering he played a huge part in getting FSA2013 passed, I don’t believe a fvcking word he says.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mike is on our side Yeah right.

 

[BeoBill]

Considering he played a huge part in getting FSA2013 passed, I don’t believe a fvcking word he says.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. His letter, translated from politician-speak, says "FOAD."

 

[Robertjeter]

Got this today in response from Delegate Shelly Hettleman to an email dated 21 Feb:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding your concern for the proposed gun bills for this session. The proposed legislations are meant to make Maryland a safer state for everyone while not impeding on our Second Amendment right.

HB612-Public Safety - Regulated Firearms - Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR Rifle- simply alter the definition of "regulated firearm" to include the previously excepted Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR rifle, making sure we are keeping dangerous firearms out of the hands of high-risk people.

I am a co-sponsor on this bill because as a State we need sensible gun safety policies to ensure that we are preventing instead of reacting to gun violence incidents. Though we may disagree about this particular issue, I am certain there are other issues upon which we will agree.
Thank you again for contacting me, and please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance on this or any other issue.
Sincerely,
Shelly

Entertaining she actually said while not impeding on our Second Amendment rights. Common sense just ain’t that common.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MigraineMan]

Entertaining she actually said while not impeding on our Second Amendment rights. Common sense just ain’t that common.

Sooo, she is sponsoring a bill that clearly infringes on the Second Amendment, while claiming that she is not "impeding on" our Second Amendment right.

I believe the expected response is "thank you sir, may I have another?"

WWNC, my friends.

 

[rbird7282]

Entertaining she actually said while not impeding on our Second Amendment rights. Common sense just ain’t that common.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol, these people need to learn what the definitions of impede and infringe are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[teratos]

Whenever they use “common sense” in front of ANYTHING” you know it isn’t.

 

[1841DNG]

Whenever they use “common sense” in front of ANYTHING” you know it isn’t.

Funny how people who hate guns and those who enjoy them have completely different ideas on what counts as "common sense."

 

[buellsfurn]

Funny how people who hate guns and those who enjoy them have completely different ideas on what counts as "common sense."

common sense manufacturing = haters

 

[danb]

Suppressors are a common sense idea to save people's hearing.

 

[jrh0341]

Entertaining she actually said while not impeding on our Second Amendment rights. Common sense just ain’t that common.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HB612-Public Safety - Regulated Firearms - Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR Rifle- simply alter the definition of "regulated firearm" to include the previously excepted Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR rifle, making sure we are keeping dangerous firearms out of the hands of high-risk people.

Reply - Respectfully, I find this reply confusing if not outright disingenuous. See below with my concerns.

*HB612-Public Safety - Regulated Firearms - Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR Rifle- simply alter the definition of "regulated firearm" to include the previously excepted Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR rifle,

Truthfully phrased as alter the terms of the original agreement, to remove the ONE exception that was deliberately included as a justified exception.

*out of the hands of high-risk people.

This legislation is not directed at or addressing "high risk" people. You've addressed it to ALL people, complete and inclusive. Nothing in this is targeted or attempts to address categories or risk, or evaluations of people.

You are taking a firearm which was explicitly exempted from the prior bill, specifically because of its sporting and hunting applications and the nature of the compromise that was necessary for you to press the rest of the bill through, and now retracting that compromise, in order to keep said same rifle out of the hands of ALL LAWFUL CITIZENS regardless of any supposed (but non-existent) risk assessment.

If you can truthfully explain how this is not the case, I would sincerely appreciate your non-boilerplate response to those two specific points.

 

[schnauzr]

Reply - Respectfully, I find this reply confusing if not outright disingenuous. See below with my concerns.

*HB612-Public Safety - Regulated Firearms - Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR Rifle- simply alter the definition of "regulated firearm" to include the previously excepted Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR rifle,

Truthfully phrased as alter the terms of the original agreement, to remove the ONE exception that was deliberately included as a justified exception.

*out of the hands of high-risk people.

This legislation is not directed at or addressing "high risk" people. You've addressed it to ALL people, complete and inclusive. Nothing in this is targeted or attempts to address categories or risk, or evaluations of people.

You are taking a firearm which was explicitly exempted from the prior bill, specifically because of its sporting and hunting applications and the nature of the compromise that was necessary for you to press the rest of the bill through, and now retracting that compromise, in order to keep said same rifle out of the hands of ALL LAWFUL CITIZENS regardless of any supposed (but non-existent) risk assessment.

If you can truthfully explain how this is not the case, I would sincerely appreciate your non-boilerplate response to those two specific points.

 

[BeoBill]

Reply - Respectfully, I find this reply confusing if not outright disingenuous. See below with my concerns.

*HB612-Public Safety - Regulated Firearms - Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR Rifle- simply alter the definition of "regulated firearm" to include the previously excepted Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR rifle,

Truthfully phrased as alter the terms of the original agreement, to remove the ONE exception that was deliberately included as a justified exception.

*out of the hands of high-risk people.

This legislation is not directed at or addressing "high risk" people. You've addressed it to ALL people, complete and inclusive. Nothing in this is targeted or attempts to address categories or risk, or evaluations of people.

You are taking a firearm which was explicitly exempted from the prior bill, specifically because of its sporting and hunting applications and the nature of the compromise that was necessary for you to press the rest of the bill through, and now retracting that compromise, in order to keep said same rifle out of the hands of ALL LAWFUL CITIZENS regardless of any supposed (but non-existent) risk assessment.

If you can truthfully explain how this is not the case, I would sincerely appreciate your non-boilerplate response to those two specific points.