Maryland: Two Anti-Gun Bills will be Considered in Committee this Thursday, February 10!

[shadowrider]

--snip--

Senate Bill 161 would allow the Secretary of State Police to reject the license application if it is determined that someone whose license was previously suspended or revoked is involved. It would also unnecessarily duplicate recordkeeping and other requirements that have been in place at the federal level since 1968. Several provisions of SB 161 mirror federal law and are already illegal. Where it does not mirror federal law, it imposes restrictions greater than those already in place.

Senate Bill 162 would make it illegal for anyone to manufacture, sell, offer to sell, purchase, receive or transfer any detachable magazine with a capacity of more than ten rounds, except for .22 caliber firearms. Any violation and conviction would result in a punishment not to exceed three years and a fine not to exceed $5,000 or both.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6226

[Hoyt]

1. There ya go -- contrary to inveterate carriers' beliefs, high capacity mags can be controlled/banned

Need more bills like 162.

[X_Digger]

2. Err.. this is a _state_ initiative..

Who said states couldn't try to pass any law?

Does that mean it will ultimately hold up, if challenged??

[Hoyt]

4. One of toters' rationale for opposing banning hi-cap mags is that it won't be successful.

Then, there are those who say it can't be defined (mags, clips, with one chambered, and other stupid quibbles). Then there are those who say you can't stop people from selling them. And one of you will even show us how to make them in the basement.

Well, that simple, few sentence bill would stop law-abiding folks from doing any of that. Yep, there would be folks who will still sell/transfer/buy them. But, then, those would no longer be law-abiding. Then, as soon as some are caught and penalized, the much of the rest of you will kept them in your bedrooms and no longer carry them in public, sell them, etc. The guy who would make them in the basement would be violating all aspects of the law.

So over time we'll see less of these on the streets. That's good. No need to answer, as I'm sure the thought traumatizes you. Those that cheat, will lose any right to carry as they will become criminals (which means they were never law-aiding).

Truthfully, I think many of the gun obsessed are attracted to big mags, big bores, etc. Once we get rid of all that "sexy" stuff, many will quit purchasing more and more guns -- at least legally -- because they will no longer fulfill gun owners baser desires. It's a long term project to improve the over-proliferation of guns in society. So might as well bite the bullet right now and get started.

[bossy22]

6. oh how little you know

and how close minded you are


the bill does not ban possession- technically its fully legal to purchase one out of state and bring it back

[X_Digger]

7. Free Clue: The state in question is Maryland- which already has crap laws on the books..

They already only allow the rich, famous, and politically connected to carry- see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x373652

And that has fuck all to do with the national debate currently in progress.

*sigh*

[Hoyt]

8. Any state that lets you guys carry these things has crap laws, don't you think?

It would be nice to get something passed nationally. But to keep guns off the street, I'll take state laws, county laws, municipality laws, or neighbor covenants that says -- keep those dang things at home.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. How nice of you to show us how society should be remade, and why.

Has it ever occurred to you that you might not actually know why a large group of people who you apparently dislike

do what they do? I suppose not, else we would be spared the constant neo-Puritanical screeds.


Typical prohibitionist modus operandi: claiming to have diagnosed a 'problem' that ails society and quite prepared to 'fix

it' by banning something. Whether it be ethanol, cannabis, pornography, or guns- It's always the same approach:


Appeal to emotion and claim your proponents are depraved, ill, and/or profiting from the situation you decry.

I note your posts are noticably free from anything besides your own opinion. I doubt that is accidental.

[Hoyt]

13. It's pretty clear why you do what you do (pack in public). You probably don't understand the reason

but most everyone else seems to.

Keep a diary of how you feel and why you strap that thing to your body to go to the grocery store, movies, church, etc. Be honest with yourself, if you can.

[Callisto32]

22. Now you know me better than I do...? I believe I have discovered the source of Hoyt's power:

[GreenStormCloud]

33. I don't feel anything when I put the gun in the holster.

I have been doing it daily for so many years that it isn't new or novel. It is just part of getting dressed. Put on trousers, shoes, gun, shirt, etc.

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. I don't own a gun, and all I 'pack' is a multitool. And you were told that before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=371349#372983


Funny how your stereotypes keep colliding with reality....

[RSillsbee]

18. You are absolutely right

Well, that simple, few sentence bill would stop law-abiding folks from doing any of that.

Yep, and that's all it would stop.

Just like the Chicago gun ban only stops the law abiding

[Callisto32]

21. Silly prohibitionist.

[Euromutt]

39. There's that overly pedantic definition of "law-abiding" again

Like we haven't heard that one a thousand times over the past two years.

Look, let's establish some common terminology here, specifically the concepts of malum in se and malum prohibitum.
Malum in se is Latin for "(an) ill in (and of) itself"; something that is a crime because it directly causes physical or material harm to an unwilling victim, such as physical assault, theft, rape and murder.
Malum prohibitum means "(an) ill (because it is) prohibited"; at best, these are actions that are prohibited because, while they do not directly inflict physical or material harm to another, they create a situation in which such harm (a malum in se) may occur. For example, DUI is a malum prohibitum because, while it does not in itself hurt anyone, it creates a risk deemed to be unacceptably high that such harm will occur.
However, many mala prohibita do not meet such criteria, and merely criminalize victimless activities. Drug laws are a prime example, as is the Lacey Act, which makes it a federal felony to break any fishing or hunting regulation in a foreign country. Under this act, three Americans were sentenced to eight years' imprisonment for bringing lobsters they had caught on a fishing trip to Honduras back in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes (a rule which Honduras itself no longer enforces).

If you exclude from your interpretation of "law-abiding" anyone who has ever committed a criminal offense, you exclude practically the entire adult population of the United States. Everyone who's ever been in possession of marijuana (possession of less than 40 grams is a misdemeanor in my state http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.4014), in possession of alcohol under the age of 21 or provided alcohol to a person under the age of 21 (both gross misdemeanors http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=66.44.270), performed oral sex in a state with a sodomy statute (prior to Lawrence v. Texas), or broken any one of countless obscure laws is, by your interpretation, a "criminal" and thus "never law-abiding" in the first place.

Well, that's just not a workable definition, and frankly, I don't think it's what RKBA advocates mean when they say "law-abiding citizen." By that term, they mean someone who does not commit mala in se--offenses that inflict physical or material harm on others--and certainly does not use the firearms in his possession to commit offenses. The term "law-abiding citizen" is simply a convenient shorthand for that concept.

[Hoopla Phil]

27. I don't think it will.

I've been rereading Heller a bit and there is no way I can see a magazine ban passing the rational in that case.

[X_Digger]

28. Agreed, using the same logic that threw out the forced trigger locks and disassembled state. n/t

[rl6214]

3. Can be

But won't be.

[Euromutt]

16. What do you mean by "can be"?

Do you mean that legislatures can pass legislation, and the head of executive can sign them into law, even in cases where judicial review will almost certainly find that law wanting? Well, sure; that's why we have judicial review of legislation in the first place, as the final check on bad law.

Or do you mean that it's politically feasible to impose restrictions on "high capacity" magazines? Well, that remains to be seen since a) this is only a bill that has yet to make it out of committee, let alone be put to a vote, and b) even if were to pass, it remains to be seen whether the voters will re-elect the legislators who supported it.

Either way, you're asserting as a fait accompli something that is far from settled.

[bossy22]

5. it doesnt actually ban possession of those mags

i guess it would be fully legal to drive to PA buy a mag and then bring it back

[Hoyt]

9. Probably right. Those law abiding citizens who carry will do anything to get em.

It's pretty clear that those obsessed with guns will look for loopholes, just like corporations, to fill their need for hi-cap mags, guns and such. Too bad folks can't comply with the spirit of the law.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. "Too bad folks can't comply with the spirit of the law." I have a suggestion along those lines.

Why don't you go first with "compliance to the spirit of the law". Practice what you preach.

I know just the laws for you:


To comply with the spirit of the various PATRIOT Acts, why don't you send a copy of all your Internet postings, along with

screenshots of every site you visit directly to the Department of Homeland Security. Do this daily.


If good citizens should comply with the spirit of the law, you shouldn't make the Feds go looking for what you've been up to.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, amirite?

[Hoyt]

12. Stay on topic. Just because you can't image life without hi-cap mags in your publicly carried gun

is no reason to offer BS arguments.

We would not be having this discussion, if you guys weren't out there toting in public, glamorizing toting, and paying lobbyist to promote toting and extreme accessories such as hi-cap mags.

[bossy22]

15. WTF is a hi-cap mag?

where is the line drawn. logically, the word phrase implies a mag capacity above "normal"- but normal for many handguns is 13-17 and the bill bans anything above 10? So where is the logic?

[Hoyt]

19. What is it about pro-gunners? They need nomenclature, exploded gun diagrams, etc. to reply to posts.

A Hi-cap mag is just that. I'm not here to argue over whether it is 10, 11, 12 bullets. The intent of the proposed legislation is clear.

I think most manufacturers can quickly adapt a magazine to meet the requirements. Gun show dealers will probably be offering convertible hi-cap mags under the table within a few days.

You get the same response from the gun obsessed when us use the phrase "assault" weapon -- every pro-gunner will respond with "describe an assault weapon." I think it is just a stalling tactic, like that commonly used by T-baggers, the party of "No", etc.

[shadowrider]

20. I see. It's another floating number which means what you want it to mean when you want to mean it

kinda like the difference between a clip and a magazine.

"You know what I mean"

Only I don't.

What do YOU mean by hi-cap?

[Hoyt]

25. What do you find ambiguous about this? I guess we'll need "ATF approved" stamped to help you.

Perfectly clear to me. But, I guess you are challenged by the proposal. Please tell me what you don't understand about the following:

Senate Bill 162 would make it illegal for anyone to manufacture, sell, offer to sell, purchase, receive or transfer any detachable magazine with a capacity of more than ten rounds, except for .22 caliber firearms. Any violation and conviction would result in a punishment not to exceed three years and a fine not to exceed $5,000 or both.

[bossy22]

29. do you even read what you type?

Definitions are one of the most important pieces of this legislation. the "spirit" of the law is going to be based on what its definition of hi-cap mag is so why is it illegitamte for me to question where the line is drawn?

We all know what the law says, what we are discussing is the merit of its content. For example im going to propose a law called "child protection act"- what its key provision is going to be "no person shall say dabababa on a zoop machine between hours when minors under the age of 18 are eating ice cream". Does that make any sense? probably not- but thats the point- its the definition that matters. I can scream all i want and tell you to abide by the "spirit of the law" which is to protect children but what matters is what the law provision actually says.

So again, why is the limit 10? Surely there must be evidence that shows a causation or atleast somewhat of a correlation between shootings involving <10 round magazines and those involving >10 round magazines.

The truth though i already know- that there isnt so much as a correlation (that is because shootings are affected by many more variables then just magazine size). An individual in binghamton new york (new york has a 10 round mag law) shot and killed 13 people with a gun that was designed in the early 20th century and has a standard magazine capacity of 7-8 rounds (he didnt use any "hi-caps"). So if this is possible than the spirit of the law must go deeper than just 10 rounds- possible to no rounds. see my point- the DEFINITION MATTERS

[Hoyt]

32. So, exactly what are you stumbling over with the simple proposal?

Magazine size is an issue. In fact, I's support a law that anyone even interested in one should be banned from owning a gun (you could appeal with in-depth psychiatric assessment). Why? -- because it's clear to me that they have a real problem, just like someone who carries pornographic photos of little children around in their wallet.

[bossy22]

34. im stumbling over the why

why is it 10 rounds- why not 8, 9 or even 11 or 12? There is no logic in where the line is drawn. You call someone a sicko for wanting a "hi cap mag" but don't define what high capacity is. What if a bill designates anything over 5 rounds high capacity? am i a "sicko" for owning a 6-shot revolver. You lump people who own 100 round mags with people who own 12 round mags.

interesting proposal my friend- except you just banned 95% of the nation's police forces. Gues they are sickos for wanting standard beat officers to carry firearms with 12-17 round magazines

[derby378]

35. Excellent point. Why do some DUers hate the police?

Comparing an honest cop on the beat to a raving pedophile is bad form, indeed.

10 rounds good, 11 rounds bad. Don't ask why, because to do so is to question the wisdom of your so-called betters. :rofl:

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. "So let it be written! So let it be done!" Commanded by an anonymous voice on the Net.

One that avoids citations in the manner of a vampire avoiding a UV lamp.

You certainly have an inflated sense of your own importance.

[beevul]

36. Heh...

Supporting a bill that attempts to "time release ban" standard capacity magazines eh?


And arguing from a "high capacity" magazine standpoint, in doing so.


Why am I not surprised.

[shadowrider]

43. I'll. type. s-l-o-w-e-r. What do YOU consider hi-cap (Forget the OP)

I'm asking for YOUR opinion.

[Callisto32]

24. Don't worry, I won't waste time on showing you where you are incorrect or vague, anymore.

It's more fun to let you be wrong and laugh.

[oneshooter]

38. However we will point out when you are right, if it ever happens! n/t

[derby378]

31. Well, if you can't define it, that's not our fault

We asked. You failed to respond. We move on.

[beevul]

37. Look whos talking.

"We would not be having this discussion, if you guys weren't out there toting in public, glamorizing toting, and paying lobbyist to promote toting and extreme accessories such as hi-cap mags."

We also wouldn't be having this same discussion, if you guys weren't out there characterizing standard capacity flush fit magazines as "extreme accessories".


Though I doubt that the rationale coming from your side would change any.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. How 'bout you explaining exactly why guns in public are bad?

Beyond the usual "They just are."

You've been begging that question for the better part of a year.

[Hoopla Phil]

14. And no abortion past 10 days after inception. . . .

[PavePusher]

17. Ummm... "inception"?

Heh... B-)

[Hoopla Phil]

23. Oops,

Guess conception would have been better wouldn't it?

[Hoopla Phil]

26. I don't think a magazine ban will pass constitutional muster.

It's all about "militia arms".

[YllwFvr]

42. it has in other states

though not to this extent I think. I was hoping to see those other laws knocked down as gun rights march on but some places seem set on rolling back the tide. Everyone else is going pro RKBA, get with the program Maryland

[Hoopla Phil]

44. Magazine bans have not been challenged yet at SCOTUS.

Unfortunately it takes a long time for challenges to laws to make their way to SCOTUS. The Miller decision was a long time and have many of it's "challengers" loose standing along the way. I'm very anxious for the Chicago case to make it's way up. The wheels of justice turn slow.

[beevul]

45. This is why we fight.

"The wheels of justice turn slow."

This is why we fight.


The wheels of justice turn slow...focusing efforts legislatively, and forcing our opposition to deal with them and use their limited resources on OUR terms, on the other hand...Works much quicker.

[Dr_Scholl]

30. Maryland's gun laws make me glad I live in Virginia.

n/m