2/26 MDS Sleuth Fire-Mission

[Mr H]

So as not to detract from the planning thread...

There are several "anti" bills on the schedule for the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee on the 26th, and we want to be prepared.

So, I'm reaching out to the most prolific, resourceful people I know, to get a little something done, so that we can have folks prepared to testify on the 26th.


SB 248 Sen Frosh, et al
Criminal Law - Use of Handgun in Crime of Violence or Felony
Statute of Limitations

SB 353 Sen Manno. et al
Criminal Law - Deadly Weapons on School Property
Public and Private Schools

Here's what I'm asking...

(in my best John Conyers) Read the bills. Make note of any specific references you think you see.

Read any Fiscal Notes, etc., and look for anything you might think unusual.

Check into the history of the Sponsor(s). Chances are they have a background that relates to the bill.

Research any connections you think you've found. Post questions here and I know people will help you sort it out.

Why??

These bills aren't just bad because they've been filed by known opponents of 2A. If history is any guide, there's possibly more below the surface that can be used to tip this apple cart, HARD.

This is a chance for anyone who's been looking for ways to contribute, but can't get to Analpolis or feels they've been needing to put in that little bit more.

And, lest we forget... Anyone who can get to the Senate office building for the JPR hearing, please do it!! If this is to be our year, we need many new and different faces to show up for every little thing that happens this year!!

TIA!!!!

 

[DC-W]

So I get that SB164 was filed by Brochin, but it's crossfiled as HB712 and sponsored by Del Smigiel and many other ardent 2A supporters.
How does this get handled?

 

[Mr H]

So I get that SB164 was filed by Brochin, but it's crossfiled as HB712 and sponsored by Del Smigiel and many other ardent 2A supporters.
How does this get handled?

meant to delete that one... disregard, and thanks for the poke!!!

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

The legislators should be required to submit a rationale in writing for each bill submitted at the time they are read in and should be posted with the bill.

Trying to get inside their heads is a scary thought process...

Anyway - on Frosh's bill, SB 248, it adds a reference to MD Criminal Statute 5-106(b), which says....

(b) Notwithstanding § 9-103(a)(3) of the Correctional Services Article or any other provision of the Code, if a statute provides that a misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary or that a person is subject to this subsection:
(1) The State may institute a prosecution for the misdemeanor at any time; and
(2) For purposes of the Maryland Constitution, the person:
(i) Shall be deemed to have committed a misdemeanor whose punishment is confinement in the penitentiary; and
(ii) May reserve a point or question for in banc review as provided under Article IV, § 22 of the Maryland Constitution.

So basically, he is trying to extend the statute of limitations indefinitely to allow for prosecutions for crimes committed in the past. This gives the state the ability to retroactively prosecute people.

I feel compelled to add that there are no fiscal notes on this, but given the arguments last year on stopping the amendmentthat would have prevented reduction of diminutive credits for firearm crimes due to the cost of keeping criminals in jail (per the grabbers arguments, yes they said that!), this bill should be deemed a budget killer for the state. Which,by the way, is now resurrected in an election year by folks that voted against the amendment last year.

Anyway, the language in the existing statute says:
"A person may not use a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, as defined in § 5–101 of the Public Safety Article, or any felony, whether the firearm is operable or inoperable at the time of the crime."

The criminal and public safety code is littered with possibilities of felonies related to firearms....so if you commit a firearm offense that carries a felony charge (not necessarily in the commission of another crime other than a crime associated with a firearm), they can come after you at any time.

 

[DC-W]

In regards to SB353, how is it that the State can dictate such rules on private property? Some private schools are conjoined to campus housing which share the same property. Is a firearm for self defense in the residence a violation of this law? What of home schools?

 

[Mr H]

It all counts!!! Have at it, and see what comes up.

My own opinion is that they can't.

And remember... SB353 is another "ripped from the headlines" bill, which always makes for bad law. It seems to be a theme this year.

 

[K-Romulus]

SB 353 will basically eliminate the ability for parents to take their kids hunting before or after school. Under the current law, unloaded and locked up long guns are OK to remain in car trunks during pickup and dropoff. The ban will likely apply even to compound bows since they are "weapons."

The bill also bans all hunting on private school property at any time, even the weekends, even if the school invited the hunters on the grounds for deer management. And that ban includes bow hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

The legislators should be required to submit a rationale in writing for each bill submitted at the time they are read in and should be posted with the bill.

Trying to get inside their heads is a scary thought process...

Anyway - on Frosh's bill, SB 248, it adds a reference to MD Criminal Statute 5-106(b), which says....

(b) Notwithstanding § 9-103(a)(3) of the Correctional Services Article or any other provision of the Code, if a statute provides that a misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary or that a person is subject to this subsection:
(1) The State may institute a prosecution for the misdemeanor at any time; and
(2) For purposes of the Maryland Constitution, the person:
(i) Shall be deemed to have committed a misdemeanor whose punishment is confinement in the penitentiary; and
(ii) May reserve a point or question for in banc review as provided under Article IV, § 22 of the Maryland Constitution.

So basically, he is trying to extend the statute of limitations indefinitely to allow for prosecutions for crimes committed in the past. This gives the state the ability to retroactively prosecute people.

I feel compelled to add that there are no fiscal notes on this, but given the arguments last year on stopping the amendmentthat would have prevented reduction of diminutive credits for firearm crimes due to the cost of keeping criminals in jail (per the grabbers arguments, yes they said that!), this bill should be deemed a budget killer for the state. Which,by the way, is now resurrected in an election year by folks that voted against the amendment last year.

Anyway, the language in the existing statute says:
"A person may not use a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, as defined in § 5–101 of the Public Safety Article, or any felony, whether the firearm is operable or inoperable at the time of the crime."

The criminal and public safety code is littered with possibilities of felonies related to firearms....so if you commit a firearm offense that carries a felony charge (not necessarily in the commission of another crime other than a crime associated with a firearm), they can come after you at any time.

What exactly is the penalty for receiving a handgun without a HQL? The statute does not include a penalty specifically for that section, nor for the ALG section.

 

[Mr H]

Reading SB728, and a couple things jump out at me which may make this bill less helpful than we first thought. Mind you, it's entirely possible I'm missing something here, but still...

The bill makes no distinction between types of firearms, which seems good until I realized this could be in conflict with the definition in 5-123, and be construed as applying a 7-day wait to ALL firearm purchases.

If, in 1.(a) the word "firearm" is replaced with "handgun", then the remainder of the bill makes more sense (assuming, of course, we still have the bans in place at that point).

Anyone else with a more weathered eye want to look at it??

Seems to me that it needs to be amended or withdrawn at this point.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Meanwhile back at 5-106(B) , it already has no time limits on prosecution of felony (other than the specific exceptions) , or a misdemeanor subject to imprisonment in the Penetentary for more than 1 year .

The existing "in comission of " statute already has 5yr to 20yr penalty, but doesn't explicity include the word "Penetentary" , only "Imprisonment", so concievably someone could get sentenced to 5 to 20yrs in a County Jail, or halfway house. It would be suprising if that is the only effect to remove that possable ambiguity, but I haven't spotted anything else

The The underlying "in commision of" ststute has some content that goes way beyond the public perception, but that not under consideration this year.

And again let's hear it for Maryland for having a 20yr misdemeanor.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Meanwhile at SB 353 , it primarily only inserts Private School into the existing 4-102 .

Indirectly adressing the language parity , we could adress sec3 (II) . It only allows for person specifically hired bvy Private School for "purposes of Gaurding " to be armed. Public schools have ready access to public Law Enforcement personnel to conduct investagations to possable threats, or possable criminal violations involving said public schools. A private school may will need or choose to hire a private investagator to investagate such threats or offenses that public schools would have ready access to in house.

Language should be added to Sec3 (II) to include "hired by Private School to investagate threats or crimes against students, staff, visitors, or facilities" , since those activities might not be included under simply "Gaurding" .

 

[Mr H]

One of the issues with 353 is that, in addition to intruding into Private Schools, it continues the 'credentials' requirement in FSA13.

I could ALMOST support it, if off-duty/plainclothes were allowed to carry without displaying creds.

 

[dblas]

One of the issues with 353 is that, in addition to intruding into Private Schools, it continues the 'credentials' requirement in FSA13.

I could ALMOST support it, if off-duty/plainclothes were allowed to carry without displaying creds.

That would have to be a separate amendment at this point, to remove the off duty LEO credential issue.

 

[Mr H]

That would have to be a separate amendment at this point, to remove the off duty LEO credential issue.

Understood... just rushed cooking dinner, and didn't think to use the A-word

 

[DC-W]

I think I've decided to support SB164. The 5-year mandatory minimum is for committing a crime of violence with a firearm. The specific crimes are listed here http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/f...on=5-101&ext=html&session=2013RS&tab=subject5

I cannot support SB248 by any stretch as (correct me if I'm wrong) allows the state to seek stiffer penalties at any time for things classified as misdemeanors in the past:
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/f...on=5-106&ext=html&session=2013RS&tab=subject5

 

[501st]

I think I've decided to support SB164. The 5-year mandatory minimum is for committing a crime of violence with a firearm. The specific crimes are listed here http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/f...on=5-101&ext=html&session=2013RS&tab=subject5

I cannot support SB248 by any stretch as (correct me if I'm wrong) allows the state to seek stiffer penalties at any time for things classified as misdemeanors in the past:
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/f...on=5-106&ext=html&session=2013RS&tab=subject5

Regarding SB164, what if that was used against somebody defending their home/property?

 

[DC-W]

Regarding SB164, what if that was used against somebody defending their home/property?

They'd have to convicted of one of those crimes. Burden of proof is on the State. I know there's a current case where it's clear the prosecutor is a bit overzealous with charges, but I don't think this would affect any rightful self-defense claims.

Imagine how this would affect crime in Baltimore City.

 

[501st]

They'd have to convicted of one of those crimes. Burden of proof is on the State. I know there's a current case where it's clear the prosecutor is a bit overzealous with charges, but I don't think this would affect any rightful self-defense claims.

Imagine how this would affect crime in Baltimore City.

Sure, but I rather have judges who know when to throw the book at someone or programs like project exile (which existed in Baltimore once) to cut down on criminals using guns/being out on the streets.

 

[Brooklyn]

They'd have to convicted of one of those crimes. Burden of proof is on the State. I know there's a current case where it's clear the prosecutor is a bit overzealous with charges, but I don't think this would affect any rightful self-defense claims.

Imagine how this would affect crime in Baltimore City.

Sorry no ... see they have no evidence at all to charge folks with-- and if you are willing to kill witnesses it tends to stay that way.


Eliminating the SOL on a misdemeanor that carries a 20 year max sentence is basically making it a felony in all but name.. So why do it... ?

it part of the big lie ...

Most cases go cold pretty quickly -- forensics degrade-- witnesses move on. memory fades etc. They would like us to believe in the fairy tale that someday they will clear a case... its all crap.

SOL is intended to increase the chance of a fair trial.. there is even a chance that no SOL would not pass muster on due process grounds.. Frosh is a real estate salesman with a law degree -- he clearly knows nothing about real criminal law..

SOL can not be infinite and still protect due process. And a Misdemeanor with no SOL and 20 year max sentence is just a felony.. at least call it such.


Do not be distracted by the light show--- last year they banned guns this year they ban crime--- if it works at all they will use it to claim the gun ban worked-- yes they are that Machiavellian ....


So must we be. Stop useless gun bans they we can support the tough on crime act-- think its an accident that it come on the eve of his run fro AG.



We tried to deal with them last year -- now we need to cut off all support. Even bills that look good on the surface are poison pills for us.

I wish it were not so ---- but it is. Time for the art of war.. really.