Maryland Shall Issue - Legislative Summary

In this issue:

1. General Assembly Session Recap
2. HB519 Details


1. General Assembly Session Recap
The sound that you heard on April 11th was the collective sigh of relief that the 2011 General Assembly session was coming to a close.

In what has become a familiar pattern to gun owners involved in the Maryland legislative process, the name of the game for this year's session was "status quo". By that, we mean that our community staved off many serious threats to our rights but at the same time we made no significant gains either (though we'll detail one good piece of news below).

We're finishing up our scorecard of legislator voting records on the bills that received votes, either in committee or on the floor of the House or Senate, and will share that with you in coming days.

For now, here's the run down of how the bills that we were tracking fared: House Bills

•HB-9 - Regulated Firearms - License Issued Delaware, Pennsylvania, or Virginia - Reciprocity - STRONGLY SUPPORT Suffered the same fate as last year, with a "desk drawer" veto by Chairman Vallario, meaning it was never voted on in committee.

•HB91 - Courts-Bankruptcy-Arms - SUPPORT - Unfavorable report by Judiciary Committee

•HB-252 - Crimes - Possession of Loaded Handgun or Regulated Firearm - Enhanced Penalties - OPPOSE No action taken

•HB-294 - Abuse or Neglect of Animals - Use of Rifle, Handgun, or Other Weapon - Penalties - OPPOSE No action taken

•HB-330 - Detachable Magazines - Maximum Capacity for Ammunition - STRONGLY OPPOSE - Unfavorable report by Judiciary Committee

•HB-343 - Public Safety - Handgun Permits - Repeal of Finding Requirement - STRONGLY SUPPORT
Unfavorable report by House Judiciary Committee

•HB-355 - Natural Resources - Hunting - Junior Deer Permit - SUPPORT - Passed by the General Assembly and awaiting the Governor's signature.

•HB519 - Firearms - Knowing Violation of Specified Prohibitions - Penalty - OPPOSE - Favorable report with amendments by House Judiciary Committee. See below for more information.

•HB705 - Crimes - Pawn Shop Sales of Firearms - Prohibition - OPPOSE - Withdrawn

•HB730 - Public Safety - Regulated Firearms - Mental Disorder - STRONGLY OPPOSE - Unfavorable report by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. Expect to see this bill back next year.

•HB803 - Criminal Law - Possession of a Handgun - Institutions of Higher Education and Hospitals - OPPOSE - Unfavorable report by House Judiciary Committee

•HB1008 - Firearms - Detachable Magazines - Maximum Capacity for Ammunition - OPPOSE - Unfavorable report by House Judiciary Committee

•HB1043 - Regulated Firearms - Applications for Dealer's License - Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements - OPPOSE - Unfavorable report by House Judiciary Committee

•HB1331 - Peace Orders - Surrenders of Firearms - OPPOSE - No action taken.




Senate Bills

•SB-161 - Regulated Firearms - Applications for Dealer's License - Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements - OPPOSE - No action taken. Expect this one to come back again next year

•SB-162 - Firearms - Detachable Magazines - Maximum Capacity for Ammunition - STRONGLY OPPOSE - No action taken.

•SB-239 - Crimes - Possession of Loaded Handgun or Regulated Firearm - Enhanced Penalties - OPPOSE - No action taken

•SB-311 - Weapon-Free Higher Education Zones - OPPOSE - No action taken.

•SB-425 - Abuse or Neglect of Animals - Use of Rifle, Handgun, or Other Weapon - Penalties - OPPOSE
No action taken.

•SB-650 - Peace Orders - Surrender of Firearms - Unfavorable report by Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee

•SB-929 - Firearms - Knowing Violation of Specified Prohibitions - Penalty - OPPOSE - No action taken.



2. HB519 Details
If you recall, we were on record as opposing HB519.

Many of you questioned our stance on the bill, since the meat and potatoes of it dealt with "the knowing violation of a certain prohibition against obliterating, removing, changing, or altering the manufacturer’s identification mark or number on a firearm; and generally relating to firearms violations. "

We certainly were not taking the stance that we thought it a good idea to obliterate or remove a serial number, but we instead took objection to the continued use of the terms "ammunition designed solely for use in a regulated firearm" in Maryland code.

We're proud to say that thanks to our vocal opposition to this "legislative unicorn" that the language was subsequently stripped from the bill through amendment. You can see the version of the bill that was adopted here.

Maryland Shall Issue, Inc.
1332 Cape Saint Claire Road #342
Annapolis, Maryland 21409
240-446-6782

Mission Statement: Maryland Shall Issue is an all volunteer, non-partisan effort dedicated to the preservation and advancement of all gunowners' rights in Maryland, with a primary goal of CCW reform to allow all law-abiding citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon; and to the education of the community to the awareness that 'shall issue' laws have, in all cases, resulted in decreased rates of violent crime.

Follow Us On Facebook​

Thanks for the update.

So let me get this straight...

You got a bill passed that, essentially, makes it legal for people under the age of 21 to legally possess ammunition?

They STILL can't possess a "regulated firearm".

But if they have a few boxes of 9mm rounds in their apartment, it's no longer a jailable offense in MD?

The fact that this is considered some sort of "win" in the "gun rights arena" in MD is testament to the utter corruption of the MD General Assembly, the near-universal love of the self-imposed slavery that most Marylanders seem to enjoy, and is a sad, sad, sad commentary on the state of Civil Rights activism in the "Free State"...

Cecil Calvert, Second Lord of Baltimore would be proud that his little sheep have stayed so compliant, docile, and easy to push around...

BTW, when is someone going to publicly "out" the members of the Judiciary Committee who have Carry permits but consistantly vote AGAINST lifting the restrictive gun laws in MD? I'll gladly volunteer to do it next year--they can't do anything to me--I live in NC...

And when is someone going to bring suit against Vallario and the MD General Assembly for allowing religious organizations to testify on the "against" side of the Reciprocity hearings? They've done it for the last two years (Catholics in 2011, Methodists in 2010, or was it vice-versa?) DESPITE the fact that there are "seperation of church and state" clauses in th eUS AND the MD constitution, and DESPITE the fact that it SPECIFICALLY against Federal AND MD State law for any religious organization with 501c3 status to engage in political lobbying?

Keep up your hard work, folks. The pockets of Marylanders still have a few dollars left in them...

Yes. The lack of a loss this year IS a victory in a state with the most lopsided imbalance of power in the country and in one of the few states that actually got worse for the pro-gun effort following the 2010 election.

In a year where they deliberately changed the makeup of the judiciary committee to give them an advantage now on both sides of the street, they could have forced anything down the throats of the state's gun owners and there would be nothing we could do to stop them if we weren't able to persuade them otherwise. There are no check valves in place anymore.

Persuading a bunch of Prince George's and Montgomery County democrats to vote our way in opposition to a bunch of anti-gun bills, several of which were coming directly from the governor's office, is a victory.

But, never let it be beyond some people to let their own biases and blindness fail them.

Dreamer said:

DESPITE the fact that there are "seperation of church and state" clauses in th eUS AND the MD constitution, and DESPITE the fact that it SPECIFICALLY against Federal AND MD State law for any religious organization with 501c3 status to engage in political lobbying?

Click to expand...

No such law. There are only limitations on the amount of money and the percentage of total financial activity.

There is nothing that prevents a 501c3 from issue advocacy.

There is also no law that prevents representatives of religious organizations from voicing opinions on issues.

Dreamer said:

S
You got a bill passed that, essentially, makes it legal for people under the age of 21 to legally possess ammunition?

Click to expand...

Existing MD law prohibited anyone under the age of 21 form possessing "ammunition designed solely for use in a regulated firearm".

There is no such thing.

However, it could be used against a person under the age of 21 in the possession of say .22lr or 9mm ammo by an overzealous prosecutor who could possibly sell it to a jury resulting in conviction for something that doesn't exist.

It's a win.

Why oppose bills dealing with abuse or neglect of animals? Unless there's a lot more to this than you posted that gives gun owners a bad name.

BTW does a non-resident have any chance of getting a concealed carry permit in MD? Is the application available on line?

MD has only one permit. Makes no distinction for resident or non resident.

http://www.mdsp.org/downloads/downloads_intro.asp

district9 said:

Why oppose bills dealing with abuse or neglect of animals? Unless there's a lot more to this than you posted that gives gun owners a bad name.

Click to expand...

It's already illegal to kill someone else's animal. It's already illegal to discharge a firearm in most circumstances.

This bill made these "more illegal" (think double secret probation) and also defined killing an animal as being cruel (which of course it is in most manners and circumstances that we think of it when it comes to incidents like the one that prompted this legislation).

However, while hunting was specifically named as an exception, the concern was that now that we've defined the killing of an animal as "cruel" that later on the anti-hunting and anti-gun majority could come back and removes the hunting exemption.

This bill was nothing more than political showboating over one incident that occurred in AACO.

swinokur said:

MD has only one permit. Makes no distinction for resident or non resident.

http://www.mdsp.org/downloads/downloads_intro.asp

Click to expand...

Thanks for that link. I'd actually seen that before, but wasn't sure of the terminology "Handgun Permit". Is that considered a permit to carry a handgun?

Maryland Shall Issue said:

It's already illegal to kill someone else's animal. It's already illegal to discharge a firearm in most circumstances.

This bill made these "more illegal" (think double secret probation) and also defined killing an animal as being cruel (which of course it is in most manners and circumstances that we think of it when it comes to incidents like the one that prompted this legislation).

However, while hunting was specifically named as an exception, the concern was that now that we've defined the killing of an animal as "cruel" that later on the anti-hunting and anti-gun majority could come back and removes the hunting exemption.

This bill was nothing more than political showboating over one incident that occurred in AACO.

Click to expand...

OK. I don't know the specifics of the incident, and IMHO much of what goes on in legislative bodies is political showboating, but I always cringe when I hear gun rights advocates and animal neglect/cruelty tied together. This is a very emotional issue for a lot of people, and usually does gun rights advocates no good with the general public to be portrayed as being in this way. There was a case in FL a couple of years ago where some military guys (who really should have known better) began picking off birds in a wildlife sanctuary. They got off on lesser charges because they had a good lawyer, but even in gun friendly FL their actions did a lot of harm to gun owners public image.

district9 said:

Thanks for that link. I'd actually seen that before, but wasn't sure of the terminology "Handgun Permit". Is that considered a permit to carry a handgun?

Click to expand...

Without offending the semantics police, yes. The license makes no distinction on the type of carry, but if you OC, you'll have your permit revoked immediately if not sooner.

Chairman Vallario has been in the House since 1975....think it's about time to replace him???

mrjam2jab said:

Chairman Vallario has been in the House since 1975....think it's about time to replace him???

Click to expand...

Careful what you wish for.

While he's certainly not a banner carrying 2A supporter, he not a rabid anti-gunner either. Right now, while it is EXTREMELY frustrating to have some of our pro-gun bills held up in committee, he has equally held up most of the anti-gun bills because he feels that existing laws are for the most part restrictive enough. It's the almost surreal nature of MD politics that you have to measure your successes sometimes by what >doesn't< happen.

His replacement will surely be an anti-gun activist who will spare none of their near dictatorial powers as chair of the committee to punish us. Take a look at the Senate committee and Senator Frosh. Imagine that being magnified into the House committee.

district9 said:

OK. I don't know the specifics of the incident, and IMHO much of what goes on in legislative bodies is political showboating, but I always cringe when I hear gun rights advocates and animal neglect/cruelty tied together. This is a very emotional issue for a lot of people, and usually does gun rights advocates no good with the general public to be portrayed as being in this way. There was a case in FL a couple of years ago where some military guys (who really should have known better) began picking off birds in a wildlife sanctuary. They got off on lesser charges because they had a good lawyer, but even in gun friendly FL their actions did a lot of harm to gun owners public image.

Click to expand...

We fully understand the concern and the opposition to the bill was not arrived at casually. However, the bill was defeated soundly in committee so it would seem that others agreed with our position.

Maryland Shall Issue said:

\Take a look at the Senate committee and Senator Frosh. Imagine that being magnified into the House committee.

Click to expand...

Ah, Senator Frosh... One of the most frothingly-anti-2A representatives in the MD GA.

Who also, BTW, holds a MD Permit to Carry a Handgun. (just sayin'...)

He has also been an ARDENT opponent of Civil Immunity for MD residents that defend themselves against violent criminal with deadly force. The fact that he practices law for one of the largest personal injury law firms in MD apparently doesn't pose any conflict of interest issues with the GA.

In 2008, when Susanne Hupp testified for the Reciprocity bill in MD, Frosh said this:

"I don't see why the average person needs a concealed weapon..."

(quote at 1:16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oW192VupIc

What's good for the Frosh, apparently, is NOT good for the Sheeple in Bethesda or Annapolis...

And I think the above statement shows EXACTLY how Frosh thinks of the Citizens of MD--HIS life is valuable enough to protect with a concealed weapon, but the "average people" in MD are essentially expendable and disposable in his eyes.

And this is coming from a man of Jewish heritage. You'd think someone who's people have been constantly under attack by repressive governments, and are perennial victims of genocides might be a little more pro-human-rights and pro-self-defense for ALL citizens...


Frosh is such a duplicitous sociopath that there is an entire website devoted to exposing his lies, corruption and croneyism:

http://www.froshwatch.com/issues/main.htm

Frosh was one of only 3 "no" votes for the "Jessica's Law" in MD--a law to establish stricter penalties for pedophiles.

He has opposed laws that would reduce "good behavior allowances" in the sentences of sex offenders.

He has worked hard to ensure that illegal aliens in MD can get MD drivers licenses.


So not only is Frosh a hypocrite and an elitist oligarch with regards to CC, he has fought to give perks to perverts, child molesters, and illegal aliens in MD...

And folks wonder--with people like this in Annapolis--why you guys have such oppressive gun laws?

The good people of MD need to SERIOUSLY consider investing in some sticky petrochemicals, soft pillows, and large lumber in the run-up to 2012, at least in the metaphorical sense.

It's WAY past time to stop "playing nice" with these sociopaths in Annapolis...

swinokur said:

Without offending the semantics police, yes. The license makes no distinction on the type of carry, but if you OC, you'll have your permit revoked immediately if not sooner.

Click to expand...

Even though the Statutory regulations make no reference to mode of carry, and there is no general prohibition against OC in MD law, and in fact, MD law does NOT authorize local governments to regulate the possession, transfer, or transportation of firearms more strictly than State law. Most municipalities cite Article 23A §2(b)(10) as giving them authority to pass codes regulating firearms, however, it has been SPECIFICALLY stated by the MD Attorney General (in a rare restriction of local power) that this State Statute ONLY covers discharge of firearms, and DOES NOT empower or authorize localities to regulate possession or display.

OC is legal in MD (if you have a MD PTCH) because it is NOT prohibited by any State statute.

Local ordinances prohibiting "public display of a firearm" are a direct violation of the limits imposed upon municipalities by MD statute and through the MD Constitution. End of discussion...

But the MD AG usually gives localities a "pass" when they enact illegal codes (even when the AG admits in writing that localities have no such authority!)--ESPECIALLY if they serve to generate revenue (traffic cameras) or restrict the fundamental human rights of the Citizenry.

MD government is, by all counts, eligible for prosecution under Federal RICO statutes--they certainly meet all the qualifications...

Maryland Shall Issue said:

No such law. There are only limitations on the amount of money and the percentage of total financial activity.

There is nothing that prevents a 501c3 from issue advocacy.

There is also no law that prevents representatives of religious organizations from voicing opinions on issues.

Click to expand...

The IRS may not completely agree with that...

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163392,00.html

"In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status."

Click to expand...

The test for "substantial part of its activities" is NOT only financially-based--it also is measured by time spent by compensated AND volunteer workers...

Considering the amount of time and money that the Catholic Church and the UMC both spend on anti-gun causes, I'd think they might be getting dangerously close to "substantial activities"...

Sending an official representative from the Diocese to present against a bill in the legislature is NOT "voicing an opinion", especially when they announce themselves as a representative, and present their case as the official position of their sponsoring organization.

Bu I can understand how y'all might not remember the parts of the 501(c)3 code about "time" or concerning "boots on the ground activism", and would instead focus instead on the financial aspects of policy change.

Seeing as how the wheels of MD government are greased by dollars and not logic or the Rule of Law, I suppose any activist group in MD needs to be MUCH more concerned with the financial aspects of political machinations than actually attempting to actively engage the Citizenry and mold public opinion using education, public relations, and service...

Dreamer said:

Ah, Senator Frosh... One of the most frothingly-anti-2A representatives in the MD GA.

Who also, BTW, holds a MD Permit to Carry a Handgun. (just sayin'...)
HIS life is valuable enough to protect with a concealed weapon, but the "average people" in MD are essentially expendable and disposable in his eyes.

Click to expand...

This is insane. Is this common knowledge in MD? Why aren't MD news media shouting this from the rooftops?

district9 said:

This is insane. Is this common knowledge in MD? Why aren't MD news media shouting this from the rooftops?

Click to expand...

The last time I asked this question, the thread where I did it on THIS forum was deleted in it's entirety and the other forum I posed it on banned me for life.

Good luck with that one, bro...