Welcome aboard Sir. Thank you for not kowtowing to the big wigs and speaking the truth. I look forward to reading more from you. I say beware the malcontents here but i trust you have a lot of practice weeding out the malarkey.
Hi Jack. Always fun to say, except on airplanes.
I do not take offense to the question. If you ask anyone who knows me, they would find it hard to believe I let that happen. I don't back down from anyone and I speak out on a regular basis. As I sat and listened to the many arguments, I seethed at their ignorance. I had passing thoughts of taking over the podium an spilling my guts on everything I knew and didn't know. But, the fact is that the Office of the Governor holds a ruling authority over the Department of State Police. When a member of the Governor's Office gave an order, unless it was unlawful, I was to follow it. Before you say it, the First Amendment Right does not apply to an officer in uniform while holding an official position. I could have answered the question, yes. But in 23 years of service, I had never been charged with any violation of agency rules. I can promise you if I gave an answer in that room, I would have been punished, both formally and informally. I did not plan to retire that year. In fact, I had no plans to retire any time soon. I just hoped to get the hell out of the Licensing Division if I'm being perfectly honest. I hoped at the end of the session I would be set free from that assignment. So, I tried to behave. I have a family and they are first. A demotion would have meant less income and a lot of hassle for my family. No easier way of saying it. Do I think my testimony would have changed the outcome of the bill? I don't know if answering that question would have had any affect. That's a big what if. But I do believe the Office of the Governor purposefully withheld information from members of the legislative committee.
I'd like to ask a favor of everyone...
Can we PLEASE stop calling it "SB281"??
That was good in 2013, but in 2014 that was the number of something completely different, and next year something else entirely.
At this point, it's the Firearms Safety Act of 2013. So FSA2013 or FSA13 is more accurate.
I'd like to ask a favor of everyone...
Can we PLEASE stop calling it "SB281"??
That was good in 2013, but in 2014 that was the number of something completely different, and next year something else entirely.
At this point, it's the Firearms Safety Act of 2013. So FSA2013 or FSA13 is more accurate.
Fabs - most folks here know it; the problem comes when trying to educate the public or deal with the General Assembly. The former don't know what the term means, while the latter use the convenient excuse of looking at the current SB281 and automatically discounting the opinions/comments (witnessed this happening too many times to count while working at the MGA this session).I completely understand what you are saying and understand that there is probably a new SB281 introduced in the General Assembly every year. Thing is, I think everybody here knows what SB281 refers to when somebody uses it, unless there is some other horrendous gun bill in the future also titled SB281.
Politicians intentionally name bills to lend credibility and good feelings to their often-misplaced efforts. When we adopt the Left's language, we lend credibility to them. This has been going on for a long, long time. At a very minimum, whenever that "Act" is referred to, it should be the prefaced with "so-called," "mis-named," "anything but," or the like Firearms Safety Act, in quotation marks, or otherwise shown to be misleading or ill-conceived in its title and content. You will thus signal your disapproval and possibly start a conversation about it. Not as dramatic as a sign-toting, hazmat suited R&R in front of the White House, but we can't all be rock stars.
Question: Are the applications for hunting licenses through the DNR being used by MSP to find disqualified firearms owners, since the DNR now requires a SSN# for the hunting licenses?
I hope I worded that right....
Rob
I kinda like Sling's inadvertent renaming of it to the "Firearm Shitsandwich Act of 2013"
Mr H does have a point though. When I was down in Annapolis on opening day of session last year and inquiries made as to the purpose of my presence, I mentioned "SB281" and it was met with quizzical expressions, as soon as I restated it as the "Firearm Safety Act", people knew what I was referring to.
Yes, in fact, there was a new "SB281" last year and is every year.
Fabs - most folks here know it; the problem comes when trying to educate the public or deal with the General Assembly. The former don't know what the term means, while the latter use the convenient excuse of looking at the current SB281 and automatically discounting the opinions/comments (witnessed this happening too many times to count while working at the MGA this session).
Many of the proponents of the Firearm Suppression Act of 2013 were paid to be there, too.
It's funny, if you look at editorials on this topic, the people that write in favor of gun control are people like Vinnie Demarco (paid). The people that show up to protest "gun violence" are folks like Moms Demand Action (funded by Bloomberg). They can't get anyone out without some money being spent somewhere.
The people who write editorials against more gun control are people like Captain McCauley. He does it on his own time and his own dime. The folks who protest gun control are people like you and me. Again, our own time and our own dime. In fact. It costs most of us money to go to Annapolis, since we have to take time off work, drive, park, eat etc. I think it is very telling.
We (the 2A community) should own the gun violence and gun safety arguments. We should own the term "common sense gun laws", because if any of the gun laws in Maryland had a shred of common sense injected into them, the landscape would be a dramatically different one. I would like to see us own those arguments. It would inject confusion into the other side and likely get the attention of people on the fence.
I do not take offense to the question.......
Convicted felons may hunt. Hunting and prohibited persons are apples and oranges.
Prohibited persons can use either bow or muzzloaders (considered antiques, not firearms). MD DNR has airguns for prohibited persons to take hunter education.
Some of the modern muzzloaders are scary accurate.
Many of the proponents of the Firearm Suppression Act of 2013 were paid to be there, too.
It's funny, if you look at editorials on this topic, the people that write in favor of gun control are people like Vinnie Demarco (paid). The people that show up to protest "gun violence" are folks like Moms Demand Action (funded by Bloomberg). They can't get anyone out without some money being spent somewhere.
The people who write editorials against more gun control are people like Captain McCauley. He does it on his own time and his own dime. The folks who protest gun control are people like you and me. Again, our own time and our own dime. In fact. It costs most of us money to go to Annapolis, since we have to take time off work, drive, park, eat etc. I think it is very telling.
We (the 2A community) should own the gun violence and gun safety arguments. We should own the term "common sense gun laws", because if any of the gun laws in Maryland had a shred of common sense injected into them, the landscape would be a dramatically different one. I would like to see us own those arguments. It would inject confusion into the other side and likely get the attention of people on the fence.