HB1002 - NRA-ILA Alert

Rack&Roll said:

News Flash from the Statehouse: our folks talked to Mike Miller this morning to confront him on the fact the fact that the Gun Free Campus bill does not allow trained military carrying concealed or retired police officers to carry conceal while attending class--except is they display a badge, which they won't want to do.

Miller seemed perplexed, but sensed a military/police backlash apparently. So the bill vote has been suspended until tomorrow, ostensibly because Miller "is attending a funeral and will be unable to preside in the Senate" Yeah right.

The only hope for our side is to load the bill up with costly language stipulating signage everywhere that the campuses are Gun Free Zones, hoping to kill it with costs. But, it appears they are going to ram this through, so about the only hope is to get as many exceptions for Good Guys as possible.

Click to expand...

Even if people become aware that "campuses" are gun-free zones, people still won't know where the affected campus properties are, given the massive proliferation of unmarked, satellite locations and adjacent-owned or leased properties interspersed with non-campus buildings. It's not like going past an entrance sign or through a gate and knowing that you're "on campus." No notice, no due process.

And that's just one of many issues with this bill.

I know with my university if you got in trouble at your OFF campus room the university would be notified and often put you on some probation or something as if you were on campus.

It seems that if you are a student of a university you are subject to their policies while you are a student regardless of whether you are on or off campus. I can foresee a scenario were the policy will state you shall not own weapons while a student.

some additional information on the higher education bill

Rack&Roll said:

News Flash from the Statehouse: our folks talked to Mike Miller this morning to confront him on the fact the fact that the Gun Free Campus bill does not allow trained military carrying concealed or retired police officers to carry conceal while attending class--except is they display a badge, which they won't want to do. Miller seemed perplexed, but sensed a military/police backlash apparently. So the bill vote has been suspended until tomorrow, ostensibly because Miller "is attending a funeral and will be unable to preside in the Senate"

Click to expand...

If someone talked to Senator Miller and pointed out some of the problems with the bill, I am glad to hear it. But Miller's presence or absence would have no immediate bearing on the bill that is the subject of the NRA alert, HB 1002, because the bill is up in the House, not the Senate.

Some of the comments above are clearly based on the original bill language as introduced. The House Appropriations Committee made two significant changes to the bill.

First, the Appropriations Committee eliminated all weapons other than firearms from the scope of the bill.

Second, the House Appropriations Committee amended the bill to exempt a person "required or authorized by the policies of the public institution of higher education to possess a firearm . . ." This seems poorly thought out, to say the least. I do not know how licensed persons or other ordinary citizens can be expected to know the policies of each institution that controls any patch of university property they might drive across. Decades ago, the General Assembly enacted firearms-regulation pre-emption laws that greatly reduced the legal hazards created by a patchwork of local firearms laws. But HB 1002, as amended, would effectively reverse that decision, by creating a large number -- many hundreds, I suppose -- of patches of property, most not clearly demarcated, that would be governed by differing firearms policies set by individual university institutions. This is a formula for trapping a lot of hunters and other law-abiding citizens into the cruel machinery of the criminal justice system because they accidentally drive into an unmarked zone, governed by a firearms policy that they are unlikely to know, or commit other violations of this ill-considered piece of "feel good" legislation.

By lopsided margins, the full House already, yesterday (March 9), voted down a series of amendments that would have blunted some of the bad effects of the bill. For example, the House rejected (53-83) an amendment to exempt any individual who is carrying a concealed firearm within the scope of a Wear & Carry Permit issued by the Secretary of the Maryland State Police.

The full House even rejected (56-78) an amendment to exempt any specific individual who the Secretary of the Maryland State Police affirms in writing has been issued a permit "on the grounds that the applicant has objectively established that the applicant's life is in danger or that the applicant is being targeted by individuals wishing to do the applicant harm." This rigid refusal to accommodate even persons who the Secretary of the Maryland State Police formally affirms to be licensed to carry a firearm because they are "targeted" (state witnesses in prosecutions of gang members, for example) is very wrong headed and diminishes public safety rather than enhancing it.

I hope that the Senate takes more seriously than did the House, the prospect of leaving such people defenseless, or causing them to inadvertently commit infractions when they drive through some corner of unmarked university property.

My university also banned smoking on campus and the issue of what is on and off campus was a problem.

Schipperke said:

They'll pass it just because it looks good makes them feel good. If there is no place else with this law, they'll pass it to be first. If others have the law, they'll pass it to keep up. This is the problem with the terror watch list law. NJ has it, a Republican Governor happily signed it. Maryland Republicans naturally have no leg to stand on in the Democrats view now.

Click to expand...

FIFY

vgplayer said:

My university also banned smoking on campus and the issue of what is on and off campus was a problem.

Click to expand...

A good example of what should be brought to their attention.

mdram said:

signs should read 'weapon free zone'
as knives are also a no go
thats the killer
who doesnt carry a pocket knife 24/7

Click to expand...

Girly men.

am i a bad person because i even had one in my pocket at my wedding?

I think their response will be that it's your problem, and if in doubt, don't even come close to the gun free properties.

Seems to be their theme with everything involving guns. Make it as complex, unintelligible, draconian, and prohibitive as possible.

Jim12 said:

I think their response will be that it's your problem, and if in doubt, don't even come close to the gun free properties.

Seems to be their theme with everything involving guns. Make it as complex, unintelligible, draconian, and prohibitive as possible.

Click to expand...

So career criminals (and large dem voting block) will be taken care of in the justice system; meanwhile, honest folk running afoul of a stupid law, will have the book thrown at them.

Jim12 said:

I think their response will be that it's your problem, and if in doubt, don't even come close to the gun free properties.

Seems to be their theme with everything involving guns. Make it as complex, unintelligible, draconian, and prohibitive as possible.

Click to expand...

Yes, the more complex and confusing the better.

We are wacked by the courts not following common law and voiding confusing laws. Its one of the behind the scenes breakdowns of our culture.

Hey, I was shocked you could be arrested in DC with a piece of brass in your pocket. With Maryland's restrictions on carry permits, then now add this, they are just going back door to near ban carry.

ddeanjohnson said:

The full House even rejected (56-78) an amendment to exempt any specific individual who the Secretary of the Maryland State Police affirms in writing has been issued a permit "on the grounds that the applicant has objectively established that the applicant's life is in danger or that the applicant is being targeted by individuals wishing to do the applicant harm." This rigid refusal to accommodate even persons who the Secretary of the Maryland State Police formally affirms to be licensed to carry a firearm because they are "targeted" (state witnesses in prosecutions of gang members, for example) is very wrong headed and diminishes public safety rather than enhancing it.

Click to expand...

Absolutely ridiculous. So going to school means being left defenseless.

I would argue that this is borderline discrimination.

This is smelling more and more like there are threats being made to back benchers, as the numbers just aren't making sense.

I can't dig into it now, but if someone has some time to plow through it, it could prove illustrative.

Our sign folks talked to the damn sponsor, Delegate Barnes in the House, for the Gun Free Campus bill this morning on the sidewalk and he readily admits that his legal approach is "everything is banned unless there are exceptions".

I made this complaint awhile back that Maryland Democrats no longer question the "ALL THINGS ARE BANNED UNLESS WE GIVE YOU AN EXCEPTION" style of law-making. It is European and unconstitutional, but these traitorous morons could give a crap.

All future folks testifying should call them on violating their oaths of office. Demand to know if they understand American civics and history.

ddeanjohnson re: post 23---yes, Mike Miller is a Senator but this is one of his three signature gun bills and he has the influence to stop down activities on the House side with wave of his hand. That according to delegates talking to us on Sign Patrol this morning.

Miller told me himself that because he has grandkids in college he is going to make this Gun Free Campus bill happen.

That doesn't mean that we let up on the pressure to kill this unAmerican legislation. This is the proof that the Annapolis Mikes will not hesitate to sell us out. Call your legislators because Millers grandchildren don't trump our rights.

fightinbluhen51 said:

So they need a dispensation petition to get this to the floor?

Click to expand...

Could work both ways for other bills ya' know...

I was just informed that testimony cannot be submitted any more as it was in 2nd reader yesterday, where all the R amendments were shot down.

While we were over fighting it in the Senate yesterday, they were back dooring it over in the House.

Time to expose another "shenanigan" of those spineless coward tyrants.

DEMOCRAT
COWARDLY
TYRANNY

Rack&Roll said:

ddeanjohnson re: post 23---yes, Mike Miller is a Senator but insiders tell us this is ine if his three signature gun bills and he has the influence to stop down activities on the House side with wave of his hand. That according to delegates talking to us on Sign Patrol this morning.

Miller told me himself that because he has grandkids in college he is going to make this Gun Free Campus bill happen.

That doesn't mean that we let up on the pressure to kill this unAmerican legislation. This is the proof that the Annapolis Mikes will not hesitate to sell us out. Call your legislators because Millers grandchilfdren don't trump our rights.

Click to expand...

Well, that sounds a little bit either/or, but it's not. It's both. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are against this bill and who have grandchildren in college, too.

Miller went through college without this bill in place, didn't he? Were his grandparents negligent or uncaring?

Raineman said:

I was just informed that testimony cannot be submitted any more as it was in 2nd reader yesterday, where all the R amendments were shot down.

While we were over fighting it in the Senate yesterday, they were back dooring it over in the House.

Time to expose another "shenanigan" of those spineless coward tyrants.

DEMOCRAT
COWARDLY
TYRANNY

Click to expand...

We're supposed to be happy because they decided not to take little kids' toys away from them.

Yet.