Laundry List From SB 281

[Larry Gude]

No Larry, if you heard this guy talk, idiot is the correct word.

Who, Frosh??? I sat and listened to him for over 12 hours. He's no idiot.

Neither are a couple of other folks on the Senate Judiciary committee who were immovably for more gun 'control' with zero criminal interest.

 

[PsyOps]

No Larry, if you heard this guy talk, idiot is the correct word.

This is where I think liberals are brilliant and the GOP fails. I don’t mean to demean the people of MD, but there is a large population of ‘lowest common denominator’ that exists in this state. Not stupid people; just low-information voters. Ill-informed voters. People like Frosh know exactly how to talk to them. Conservatives and republicans have not learned this language yet.

 

[Larry Gude]

I don't agree with you Larry, not on this issue. While I was up in Annapolis and meeting other firearm owners protesting or testifying against this bill, I was amazed by how many were Democrats. They support all the other crap that the Dems put out but are staunchly pro-second amendment. We (pro-2nd people) outnumbered the anti's giving testimony on these bills and protesting them, 100 to 1, and that is a conservative estimate. The people of this State spoke out against this bill and Frosh dismissed them. He did not listen to his constituents, except for the minority that wanted this travesty to pass.

Hopefully when he is up for election again they will remember, but I fear he has been promised something bigger (States AG) for pushing this through and doesn't care about getting re-elected anymore.

If you disagree with me, then, you are saying Frosh, D, 16, Bethesda, MD, will not be re-elected in '14, after winning 75% of the vote in '06 and '10? Or, maybe he is moving on?

Or, that he totally ignored the teeming, unwashed masses of Bethesda crying our for AR 15's?

100 to 1 at Annapolis is not 100-1 in Montgomery County.

:shrug:

 

[Larry Gude]

I would really like to see this on a referendum. I know Mders voted these people in and they feel they are doing their constituents bidding; but my suspicion, in this case, is that they are not representing the people at large. I would really like to see what the people think through their vote. Beyond that I am hearing nothing about whether any of this will end up in court.

The LAST thing we want is a referendum. Just look at California.

 

[Tilted]

The LAST thing we want is a referendum. Just look at California.

How is a referendum going to hurt? It will delay the law going into effect if nothing else.

I suppose it might delay court challenges. But those will take a while to play out anyway and, frankly, most of the stuff in this bill isn't likely to ultimately be struck down by the courts.

 

[PsyOps]

The LAST thing we want is a referendum. Just look at California.

Either way it has to play out in the courts.

Not that he's a big authority on this, but Brian Wilson on WMAL this morning said this version still has to pass in the Senate and he thinks it wont.

 

[Pushrod]

If you disagree with me, then, you are saying Frosh, D, 16, Bethesda, MD, will not be re-elected in '14, after winning 75% of the vote in '06 and '10? Or, maybe he is moving on?

Or, that he totally ignored the teeming, unwashed masses of Bethesda crying our for AR 15's?

100 to 1 at Annapolis is not 100-1 in Montgomery County.

:shrug:

Yes that is my belief, that he has is sights set on another office, specifically Gansler's position. That is how he was able to ignore the outcry against this bill.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes that is my belief, that he has is sights set on another office, specifically Gansler's position. That is how he was able to ignore the outcry against this bill.

You really think Bethesda is opposed to this?

 

[Larry Gude]

Either way it has to play out in the courts.

Not that he's a big authority on this, but Brian Wilson on WMAL this morning said this version still has to pass in the Senate and he thinks it wont.

Some of the testimony I heard on this was that it CAN'T pass constitutional muster, that this is too clearly a poll tax and it won't last five minutes in federal court.

If you look at it from O'Malley's view, doing something, it doesn't matter whether it gets tossed or not, just so long as it's a few years down the road and he is seen as having fought the good fight. If this thing fails now, it's really bad for his higher aspirations.

 

[Larry Gude]

How is a referendum going to hurt? It will delay the law going into effect if nothing else.

I suppose it might delay court challenges. But those will take a while to play out anyway and, frankly, most of the stuff in this bill isn't likely to ultimately be struck down by the courts.

This is your field of expertise so, correct me if I am wrong; my understanding is that the finger printing and licensing fees readily constitute undue burden on exercise of constitutional rights; poll taxes.

In other words, it is one thing to require ID to vote, as another example, but, it is quite another to charge a fee, demand training AND finger printing.

Same thing with exercise of free speech, free assembly, etc.

And any delay in getting this in front of a court is bad from a public interest and intensity standpoint.

 

[Tilted]

This is your field of expertise so, correct me if I am wrong; my understanding is that the finger printing and licensing fees readily constitute undue burden on exercise of constitutional rights; poll taxes.

In other words, it is one thing to require ID to vote, as another example, but, it is quite another to charge a fee, demand training AND finger printing.

Same thing with exercise of free speech, free assembly, etc.

And any delay in getting this in front of a court is bad from a public interest and intensity standpoint.

We're talking now about how far the U.S. Supreme Court will be willing to go in affirming Second Amendment rights, not what the original intent of that amendment (and of the Fourteenth), fairly considered, would allow. The former is what matters practically here. I don't think the high Court is going to go nearly as far as we would like it to in striking down policies that don't effectively amount to bans. Perhaps we have a chance with the fingerprint requirement, but I'd need better than even money to take our side of that bet. The license fee is probably low enough now that we aren't going to have much luck trying to get that thrown out. But even if we did, that wouldn't affect the rest of the law.

I'd like to be more optimistic with regard to our prospects in the courts, but I couldn't justify that optimism. The courts are going to give us big picture victories - e.g., a general right to possess firearms, a general right to carry firearms in public. But I don't think the courts are going to get down into the weeds and start pulling a lot of them out - they are going to defer, to some degree, to the legislatures to establish 'reasonable' policies regulating firearms and firearms ownership. At least, as the Supreme Court is currently constituted, that's what I believe - and I don't see the composition of the Court shifting in our favor in the near term.


EDIT: And it's not my field of expertise, just a field of interest.

 

[Larry Gude]

We're talking now about how far the U.S. Supreme Court will be willing to go in affirming Second Amendment rights...

I'd like to be more optimistic with regard to our prospects in the courts, but I couldn't justify that optimism. The courts are going to give us big picture victories - e.g., a general right to possess firearms, a general right to carry firearms in public. But I don't think the courts are going to get down into the weeds and start pulling a lot of them out - they are going to defer, to some degree, to the legislatures to establish 'reasonable' policies regulating firearms and firearms ownership...

Then we differ on whether this is weeds or the heart of the matter.

I do NOT know statute remotely well enough to make this argument, what to reference but, if we do, in fact, have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and it is NOT reasonable to require licensing and finger printing to vote, to assemble, to claim 5th amendment protections, to engage in commerce, to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, then this law can NOT stand up in federal court.

Add to that provisions that WIPE away a Constitutional right for minor infractions AND other infractions one is not even convicted of or have overturned. I mean, this thing is odious and onerous on several levels IF we are talking about constitutional rights.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I would really like to see this on a referendum. I know Mders voted these people in and they feel they are doing their constituents bidding; but my suspicion, in this case, is that they are not representing the people at large. I would really like to see what the people think through their vote. Beyond that I am hearing nothing about whether any of this will end up in court.

I disagree. If referendums in this state got us illegal immigrants reduced college tuition, what makes you think they will vote against this bill?

MSI is working behind the scenes on the court issue. Details to come.

I don't agree with you Larry, not on this issue. While I was up in Annapolis and meeting other firearm owners protesting or testifying against this bill, I was amazed by how many were Democrats. They support all the other crap that the Dems put out but are staunchly pro-second amendment. We (pro-2nd people) outnumbered the anti's giving testimony on these bills and protesting them, 100 to 1, and that is a conservative estimate. The people of this State spoke out against this bill and Frosh dismissed them. He did not listen to his constituents, except for the minority that wanted this travesty to pass.

Hopefully when he is up for election again they will remember, but I fear he has been promised something bigger (States AG) for pushing this through and doesn't care about getting re-elected anymore.

I'm with you on this one.

There was blatant disregard for us this whole time.

Delegates reading the newspaper, playing online chess, ordering clothes online, playing on their phones, etc.

O'Malley came to all the dems and said "vote for this bill, no matter what".

That is evidenced by the failing of an ammendment that would get rid of plea bargains for people who commit crimes with a gun.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm with you on this one.

There was blatant disregard for us this whole time.

Delegates reading the newspaper, playing online chess, ordering clothes online, playing on their phones, etc.

O'Malley came to all the dems and said "vote for this bill, no matter what".

That is evidenced by the failing of an ammendment that would get rid of plea bargains for people who commit crimes with a gun.

I am waiting for someone to tell me they think Brian Frosh is NOT representing the views of HIS constituents.

 

[huntr1]

According to what is in the house version, my SKS is not banned. Only SKSs with detatchable magazines are banned.

 

[Tilted]

Then we differ on whether this is weeds or the heart of the matter.

I do NOT know statute remotely well enough to make this argument, what to reference but, if we do, in fact, have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and it is NOT reasonable to require licensing and finger printing to vote, to assemble, to claim 5th amendment protections, to engage in commerce, to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, then this law can NOT stand up in federal court.

Add to that provisions that WIPE away a Constitutional right for minor infractions AND other infractions one is not even convicted of or have overturned. I mean, this thing is odious and onerous on several levels IF we are talking about constitutional rights.

The problem is that consideration of these issues is, based on general rights-protection doctrine and likely based on what the Supreme Court says about Second Amendment protections in specific, going to boil down to balancing tests - balancing government's interests in regulating firearms against individuals' rights to own and carry them. When it comes to firearms, the government interest in public safety is going to carry a lot of weight in the minds of judges and justices. And those judges and justices are mostly going to defer to legislatures in assessing that public safety interest and deciding what best serves it. That means, for practical purposes, Second Amendment protections are not going to be as strong- as unyielding - as protections relating to other rights and amendments (e.g. free speech, free exercise of religion). That's unfortunate, it's wrong in my assessment; but nonetheless it's the reality we're likely to face going forward.

Put simply, as frustrating as it as and will be, the Second Amendment is not going to get as much respect as some of those others or as much respect as it should.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I'm curious as to why anyone think the SCOTUS will kill this bill.

They already affirmed that states have the right to place limitations on our rights. They tried an injunction in NY after the challege to NY's "good reason" law and failed.

The only thing I can possibly think of would be nullification of be the PBJ part, because it's technically a ex post facto law.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I am waiting for someone to tell me they think Brian Frosh is NOT representing the views of HIS constituents.

Reps were taking talleys of yay or nays as people e-mailed and called.

Maybe a quick call to Frosh's office may get you the tally sheet.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

SB281 Guns FAQ - Maryland Shooters

 

[Larry Gude]

Reps were taking talleys of yay or nays as people e-mailed and called.

Maybe a quick call to Frosh's office may get you the tally sheet.

That is not remotely the same as votes.