HB 214 - Immunity for Use of Physical Force in Defense of Dwelling

[sykesville]

go get his name and title and ask to get a picture with him.

after you get that, ask what his good and substantial was.

+1

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

If you did not catch today's testimony on this (now, HB1185), you might be interested in the cross between Smigiel and the person from the NAACP (sorry forgot who it was) on CCW. Needless to say, the NAACP supports CCW for high ranking officials of the NAACP, not the people in Bodymore getting robbed every day. The spokesperson for the NAACP showed us all his CCW card.

And Dumais getting in the middle of it to stop another carry permit discussion....

Maybe the NAACP guy's name is Bob Costas?

 

[danb]

And Dumais getting in the middle of it to stop another carry permit discussion....

Maybe the NAACP guy's name is Bob Costas?

Right, I am supposed to believe that the chair just happened to be absent at that exact moment leaving Dumais to try to shut down Smigiel, then just happens to come back as the fireworks are over. Not a dog and pony show at all. Do they have "x"s on the floor of the house like on stage?

 

[ShafTed]

If you did not catch today's testimony on this (now, HB1185), you might be interested in the cross between Smigiel and the person from the NAACP (sorry forgot who it was) on CCW. Needless to say, the NAACP supports CCW for high ranking officials of the NAACP, not the people in Bodymore getting robbed every day. The spokesperson for the NAACP showed us all his CCW card.

Well, Phooey! I should have gone down today. Has anybody figured out how to pull up the video archive on this?

Edit: they finally added today's video to the menu, it used to only have February dates available. Now I have to deal with the MicroScum/silverlight issue on a Ubuntu notebook. GRRRRR!

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Well, Phooey! I should have gone down today. Has anybody figured out how to pull up the video archive on this?

Make sure you find the part of the recording when the guy was trying to get parole options for violent offenders (murderers) and asked everyone that was with him in the gallery to stand up. Notice the two that didn't stand up

Today's theme was "let's give criminals a second chance" in HJC.

Was almost too much to take, they are trying to find new ways to implicate law abiding firearms owners, while simultaneously finding ways to let out violent offenders cuz they are rehabilitated. What???

 

[Lou45]

Make sure you find the part of the recording when the guy was trying to get parole options for violent offenders (murderers) and asked everyone that was with him in the gallery to stand up. Notice the two that didn't stand up

Today's theme was "let's give criminals a second chance" in HJC.

Was almost too much to take, they're trying to find ways to lock up law abiding firearms owners, while simultaneously finding ways to let out violent offenders cuz they are rehabilitated. What???

I would like to make a comment about this ^^^ but for the sake of preventing accusations coming my way, I won't.

 

[Mr Bear]

I would like to make a comment about this ^^^ but for the sake of preventing accusations coming my way, I won't.

This sounds like another setup, except this year the criminals are looking for a break. They might actually be living better than us hard working folks. Seems they have delegates that really represent their interests.

I remember when life was so simple. You worked hard, you knew who your friends were, you knew who your enemies were, & your representatives looked out for your best interests. Now it's hard to tell who's who.

We must really look like a bunch of flaming a..holes to these idiots.

 

[ShafTed]

I just sent this to the entire House of Delegates:

Honorable Delegates:

This session HB 214 was filed, sponsored by one Delegate, to generally and unnecessarily muck about with the concept of Castle Doctrine and self defense, which are already well covered in case law. This bill was a very bad idea, and I testified as such in the Judiciary Committee hearing on 28 Jan. The bill was later voted unfavorably by the Committee. Now, I have found that HB 1185 was sponsored by a different group of 16 Delegates. I have looked at the text of both bills. They are, word for word, identical. This bill is still a bad idea, and others have testified against it in the Judiciary Committee hearing on 11 March. If you need more information on why this bill is a bad idea, please review the video archives of these two hearings.

By my calculations, there are still 124 Delegates who have not yet sponsored this bill, under bill numbers yet to come. Please allow me to save some time on behalf of you (the individual Delegates), the House Judiciary Committee, the entire House of Delegates, and the citizens of Maryland. This bill will still continue to be a bad idea, no matter who sponsors it, or when. Please do us all a favor and do not sponsor this bill! Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

 

[hdatontodo]

Wasn't there a Montgomery Co or other local kid who was drunk and climbed in the wrong window and was shot?

I wonder if this is a band-aid for that deselection from the gene pool.

 

[LCPIWB]

If you did not catch today's testimony on this (now, HB1185), you might be interested in the cross between Smigiel and the person from the NAACP (sorry forgot who it was) on CCW. Needless to say, the NAACP supports CCW for high ranking officials of the NAACP, not the people in Bodymore getting robbed every day. The spokesperson for the NAACP showed us all his CCW card.

I was going to ask for a fastforward.
Found it myself.

Smigiel vs. NAACP

 

[swinokur]

Wasn't there a Montgomery Co or other local kid who was drunk and climbed in the wrong window and was shot?

I wonder if this is a band-aid for that deselection from the gene pool.

I think it was in Ashburn IIRC.

 

[danb]

Don't get it... people vote against the bills they sponsor.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/votes_comm/hb1185_jud.pdf

 

[DC-W]

I was going to ask for a fastforward.
Found it myself.

Smigiel vs. NAACP

Enlightening. Thanks for that.

 

[dblas]

Don't get it... people vote against the bills they sponsor.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/votes_comm/hb1185_jud.pdf

Not exactly.

The way the vote works in the House Judiciary Committee goes this way, they bring the bill up and advise they are voting to approve a favorable or unfavorable report.

In the case above, they were voting to approve an unfavorable report, so if you support the bill, you vote Nay, if you are against the bill, then you vote Yea to support the unfavorable report.

Clear as mud, right?

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

HB 214 and HB 1185 were identical proposals, one sponsored by a D (Conaway), the other by a R (Parrott).

Here's the Committee votes for HB 214 (note the vote was for "favorable", so a yay was a vote for FAV): http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/votes_comm/hb0214_jud.pdf

Result 8-11, 2 absent (Rosenberg and Simmons): UNF

Here's the Committee votes for HB 1185 (note the vote was for "unfavorable", so a yea was a vote for UNF): http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/votes_comm/hb1185_jud.pdf

Result: 12-8; 1 absent (Arora out, Simmons voted this time Yea): UNF

 

[danb]

thanks. those multiple negatives get me every time.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

thanks. those multiple negatives get me every time.

The weird part is only the votes on the bottom of the sheet changed...even though the motion was reversed.

Looks like the party line theory holds for most of them.

For example, Dumais voted yea both times. So she agreed with it when it was Conoway's and disagreed when it was Parrot's.

Same for the R's, except the reverse. Go figure.

The citizen testimony was nearly identical. The bills were identical. What's different?

Most interesting is Conaway voted against it both times. Gotta give the guy credit, at least he was consistent

 

[Lou45]

The weird part is only the votes on the bottom of the sheet changed...even though the motion was reversed.

Looks like the party line theory holds for most of them.

For example, Dumais voted yea both times. So she agreed with it when it was Conoway's and disagreed when it was Parrot's.

Same for the R's, except the reverse. Go figure.

The citizen testimony was nearly identical. The bills were identical. What's different?

Most interesting is Conaway voted against it both times. Gotta give the guy credit, at least he was consistent

Conaway voting against his own bill.....twice. Now that's funny right there, I don't care who you are, that's funny.

 

[TopShelf]

HB 214 and HB 1185 were identical proposals, one sponsored by a D (Conaway), the other by a R (Parrott).

Here's the Committee votes for HB 214 (note the vote was for "favorable", so a yay was a vote for FAV): http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/votes_comm/hb0214_jud.pdf

Result 8-11, 2 absent (Rosenberg and Simmons): UNF

Here's the Committee votes for HB 1185 (note the vote was for "unfavorable", so a yea was a vote for UNF): http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/votes_comm/hb1185_jud.pdf

Result: 12-8; 1 absent (Arora out, Simmons voted this time Yea): UNF

I am a bit lost on these votes. The "Motion" on both vote sheets has "unfavorable" checked off. Is the incorrect "motion" box checked on the 214 bill? If the majority vote "Nay" to unfavorable, do they take another vote on a favorable motion?

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I am a bit lost on these votes. The "Motion" on both vote sheets has "unfavorable" checked off. Is the incorrect "motion" box checked on the 214 bill? If the majority vote "Nay" to unfavorable, do they take another vote on a favorable motion?

The "unfavorable" box is checked on both because that is the resultant report of both votes.

The motion is declared prior to the vote verbally. Makes for interesting moments when they mix the language when the chair brings the bill up for the vote and usually includes someone asking if what the yea and nay means.