What would it take to get you to move out of Maryland?

WingsOfGold

Well-Known Member
Been gone for 10 years now, may move against my will to Georgia because wife cannot deal with the isolation. One thing certain never again my home state unless someone gave me large waterfront tract for like 10 dollars.
I can buy fresh steamed crabs here CHEAPER than in Md so why go to that shithole.
1690926625806.png
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
For your consideration ...

No. That is not what it is.

Illegals are not eligible to apply for those police jobs.

"The bill "provides that an individual who is not a citizen but is legally authorized to work in the United States under federal law is authorized to apply for the position of police officer, subject to all requirements and limitations, other than citizenship, to which other applicants are subject," HB3751 reads, adding that non-U.S. citizens must be able to obtain, carry, purchase, or otherwise possess a firearm under federal law to apply for the job."

I notice, as the "Act" is written, that there is no reference to the actual Federal Law that states what alien person is legally authorized work in the US. Now, for legality reasons, and understanding of applicability, there must always be 'legal' definitions of certain words and the references to Laws outside of a States jurisdiction if so including in such as as to be the guiding principle behind such a law. If they are going to invoke Federal Law as their qualifying rule, then they must reference such law/laws by their statute designation.

They did not do this. Therefor, someday, people might be getting pulled over by Carlos with a Mexican flag hanging in his rear view mirror next to his handcuffs, with possibly a MS-13 tattoo on his forearm.

BTW. Under U.S. law, of the GCA 18 U.S.C. 922, only US citizens and lawful permanent residents who are at least 18 years old can possess or sell firearms or ammunition.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
For your consideration ...



I notice, as the "Act" is written, that there is no reference to the actual Federal Law that states what alien person is legally authorized work in the US. Now, for legality reasons, and understanding of applicability, there must always be 'legal' definitions of certain words and the references to Laws outside of a States jurisdiction if so including in such as as to be the guiding principle behind such a law. If they are going to invoke Federal Law as their qualifying rule, then they must reference such law/laws by their statute designation.

They did not do this. Therefor, someday, people might be getting pulled over by Carlos with a Mexican flag hanging in his rear view mirror next to his handcuffs, with possibly a MS-13 tattoo on his forearm.

BTW. Under U.S. law, of the GCA 18 U.S.C. 922, only US citizens and lawful permanent residents who are at least 18 years old can possess or sell firearms or ammunition.
In order for one to legally work in the U.S., they must fill out a Form I-9 and present the supporting documentation.

As to U.S. law, of the GCA 18 U.S.C. 922, I was already aware.
 
Last edited:

LightRoasted

If I may ...
For your consideration ...

In order for one to legally work in the U.S., they must fill out a Form I-9 and present the supporting documentation.

As to U.S. law, of the GCA 18 U.S.C. 922, I was already aware.

That is a process. Which the "Act" does not address at all. The "Act" mentions no Federal Law/s, Federal Statute, that would specify how an alien is legally authorized to work in the United States that a prospective employer would reference to assist in determining the "lawful status" of an individual. That, in and if itself, leaves the door wide open for abuse.

Now, if only, by Federal Law, US Citizens and lawful permanent residents can process and own a firearm, how would it be possible, according to Illinois, that an alien person would be able to hold a law enforcement position using their terminology "legally authorized to work in the United States under federal law" which doesn't address the legal possession of a firearm? As it stand, they contraindicate themselves: Legally allow to work in the US, is far different from having to be a US Citizen or lawful permanent resident that can process and own a firearm.

What they do mention is this: "and is authorized under federal law to obtain, carry, or purchase or otherwise possess a firearm,". That statement only applies to US Citizens and lawful permanent residents via the GCA. They mention DACA, however that law doesn't authorize those alien individuals to "obtain, carry, or purchase or otherwise possess a firearm". The law as written is extremely contradictory.

What it boils down to is this, as the "Act" reads, the only people that can apply for the positions the "Act" is written for, is US Citizens and lawful permanent residents. They mention "legally authorized to work in the United States" (as a ruse). Many aliens that are legally authorized to work in the United States, are not US Citizens nor lawful permanent residents. So on that basis, the entire "Act" is pointless and does nothing new.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
For your consideration ...


Now, if only, by Federal Law, US Citizens and lawful permanent residents can process and own a firearm, how would it be possible, according to Illinois, that an alien person would be able to hold a law enforcement position using their terminology "legally authorized to work in the United States under federal law" which doesn't address the legal possession of a firearm?
There are illegal aliens and there are legal aliens. That's how. The Illinois law requires applicants to be authorized to work in the U.S. and be eligible to possess firearms. Those are two things that an LPR can do. I think your "nuking" this out to much and trying to complicate. It's actually quite simple.
 

LJ1999

Well-Known Member
I have lived in MD my entire life. Charles County. I have lived in almost every area, White Plains, Waldorf, La Plata, Cobb Island, Newburg and now Indian Head. I basically keep moving to escape the crap. So with that being said, I don't think of myself as a die hard Marylander, it just happens to be where my job and family have always been. I love the access to the River and the way I can go anywhere and know someone.

My husband and I talk a lot as to where we might head for retirement but we still have family here and that makes it hard to leave.

BUT, to answer the actual question, if MD started passing laws that actually affected me, then I guess it would be time to leave. Laws like you must give up a room in your house to an immigrant, door to door gun confiscation, making it illegal to remove homeless drug addicts from your yard or property.

Right now I still feel safe and happy where I am. Happiest when I am on the boat in the middle of the river.
 

phreddyp

Well-Known Member
The reality is this once you have enough money, you can chose to live wherever you want. I'm staying put!
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I'll still be in MD, at least temporarily. I'm moving out beyond Sidling Hill. Whether I stay remains to be seen. I can easily jump to PA or WV if it gets very bad.
 
Top