Mr H
Banana'd
This is correct.
For everyone...
This is the ONLY aspect of the bill that we need to focus on.
2013 HB 107 - FIREARMS – DETACHABLE MAGAZINES – MAXIMUM CAPACITY FOR AMMUNITION
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
This is correct.
For everyone...
This is the ONLY aspect of the bill that we need to focus on.
Is this the lady that has been intoducing this similar bill for the last couple years?
I spoke against it two years ago and smegal ripped her a new one.
Following letter sent to house judical commitee members:
I am writing you to urge your opposition to proposed House Bill 107 –Firearms – Detachable Magazines – Maximum Capacity for Ammunition.
This bill is a misguided attempt to stem firearm violence at best and at worst, is an overt attempt to play on elevated public emotions to jam through unconstitutional antigun legislation. The problem with these laws is they are based on the flawed premise that criminal’s actions will be discouraged by a law. By their name alone, that premise is shown to be ludicrous, so we are left with the fact that these laws only affect law abiding gun owners and leave them at the mercy of criminals who come armed with magazines of any size they please.
Attempting to stop mass killings by limiting magazine size is totally ineffective at achieving its goals while quite effective at disarming law abiding citizens. People who are twisted and determined enough to carry out a mass shooting will find ways around magazines limits: multiple lower capacity magazines, multiple firearms and practicing quick changing of lower capacity magazines.
Other than the constitutional right that all citizens have to possess magazines of a capacity greater than some arbitrary number set by Annapolis, there are multiple positive uses for such magazines. Most modern shooting sports require magazine capacities greater than 10 rounds and they will be severely impacted or not able to compete anymore if this law is passed. The greatest good that comes out of possession of magazines of a capacity greater than 10 rounds is the ability to defend ones family and property. Almost all modern handguns are made with a magazine with a capacity above 10 rounds. In fact most 9mm handguns come with a 15-17 round magazine, including those carried by all state and local police agencies. The criminal that an officer may meet in his daily work is likely the same criminal that would be coming in my house with intentions to harm my family. The state feels that the threat presented by this criminal is enough that the officer must have a 17 round magazine in order to meet and neutralize this threat if necessary. I would remind you that the criminal who would break in my home and threaten my family is unlikely to have read the state law and adjusted his magazine capacity accordingly. This leaves my family at a disadvantage against a criminal and empowers criminals to target Maryland because they would know we would not be as able to protect ourselves as citizens of neighboring states.
I would ask why the legislature thinks my family is not to be accorded the same level of protection as the officer and why we should be at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting our families?
Maryland firearms owners are informed, organized and unwilling to stand by while Annapolis tramples our second amendment rights. We will be engaging our elected officials by phone, letters and in person to protect our rights.
Respectfully,
I am writing you to urge your opposition to proposed House Bill 107 –Firearms – Detachable Magazines – Maximum Capacity for Ammunition.
This bill is a misguided attempt to stem firearm violence at best and at worst, is an overt attempt to play on elevated public emotions to jam through unconstitutional antigun legislation. The problem with these laws is they are based on the flawed premise that criminal’s actions will be discouraged by a law. By their name alone, that premise is shown to be ludicrous, so we are left with the fact that these laws only affect law abiding gun owners and leave them at the mercy of criminals who come armed with magazines of any size they please.
Attempting to stop mass killings by limiting magazine size is totally ineffective at achieving its goals while quite effective at disarming law abiding citizens. People who are twisted and determined enough to carry out a mass shooting will find ways around magazines limits: multiple lower capacity magazines, multiple firearms and practicing quick changing of lower capacity magazines.
Other than the constitutional right that all citizens have to possess magazines of a capacity greater than some arbitrary number set by Annapolis, there are multiple positive uses for such magazines. Most modern shooting sports require magazine capacities greater than 10 rounds and they will be severely impacted or not able to compete anymore if this law is passed. The greatest good that comes out of possession of magazines of a capacity greater than 10 rounds is the ability to defend ones family and property. Almost all modern handguns are made with a magazine with a capacity above 10 rounds. In fact most 9mm handguns come with a 15-17 round magazine, including those carried by all state and local police agencies. The criminal that an officer may meet in his daily work is likely the same criminal that would be coming in my house with intentions to harm my family. The state feels that the threat presented by this criminal is enough that the officer must have a 17 round magazine in order to meet and neutralize this threat if necessary. I would remind you that the criminal who would break in my home and threaten my family is unlikely to have read the state law and adjusted his magazine capacity accordingly. This leaves my family at a disadvantage against a criminal and empowers criminals to target Maryland because they would know we would not be as able to protect ourselves as citizens of neighboring states.
I would ask why the legislature thinks my family is not to be accorded the same level of protection as the officer and why we should be at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting our families?
Maryland firearms owners are informed, organized and unwilling to stand by while Annapolis tramples our second amendment rights. We will be engaging our elected officials by phone, letters and in person to protect our rights.
Respectfully,
Depends on what MOM's rifle ban says. Unlikely.
Haides
Ultimate Member
I'd just like to point out how uncomfortable it is to abbreviate Martin O'Malley as "MOM" (however appropriate the 'nanny state' connotation that it carries).
After I saw someone make a comment once about sucking MOM's **** to get a CCW permit, I don't think I can ever look at that the same way again.
- May 22, 2005
- 122,893
Correct.
Do we really stand a chance on a proposed AWB/MAG Limit not passing?
Just read this article in the extremely leftist leaning Fredrick Post:
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/se...al.htm?StoryID=145752§ion=ed#.UPjxZGf-V1E
What really concerns me is the Senate President's statement when asked whether an AWB and new Mag limit could be pushed through the legislature. He responded with an "Absolutely, positively, unequivocally, yes." I feel like this means that the votes are already there. And as far as I know, there has been no successful challenge that I know of to any AWB put in place by federal, state, or local governments. Thus, there is no precedence for courts to go off of.
With the ban in NY, the heavily leftist leaning legislature, and the fact that the Senate President knows that the votes are already there...What chance do we have, other than hoping to vote the gun-control guys out next election cycle and then once again, hoping they can overturn the law?
Just read this article in the extremely leftist leaning Fredrick Post:
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/se...al.htm?StoryID=145752§ion=ed#.UPjxZGf-V1E
What really concerns me is the Senate President's statement when asked whether an AWB and new Mag limit could be pushed through the legislature. He responded with an "Absolutely, positively, unequivocally, yes." I feel like this means that the votes are already there. And as far as I know, there has been no successful challenge that I know of to any AWB put in place by federal, state, or local governments. Thus, there is no precedence for courts to go off of.
With the ban in NY, the heavily leftist leaning legislature, and the fact that the Senate President knows that the votes are already there...What chance do we have, other than hoping to vote the gun-control guys out next election cycle and then once again, hoping they can overturn the law?
- May 22, 2005
- 122,893
Threads merged.
Markp
Ultimate Member
- Dec 22, 2008
- 9,392
I fear that you are right, the votes are at least tentatively there, undoing that, that would take a lot of work... I am not sure they can be stopped this time despite the impressive efforts of MSI.
I will be the first to admit, MSI has done more to prevent the situation in Marylandistan from becoming worse than any other organization I can think of.
Mr H
Banana'd
Haides
Ultimate Member
Well, it is more convenient than "Lord Governor Martin St. Malley"
If we do have a coup d'etat, could we replace him with Lord Chad then?
drthv8r
Active Member
Now that's funny right there...lolGotcha. In that case arguing with her is like taking a ball away from a retarded kid.
Mr H
Banana'd
sent you info
ok-taken care of
So, if this law were enacted with most of its teeth, how would this affect my ability to purchase a "personal defense" weapon such as the Glock 19? Would I no longer be able to buy it, or would Glock have to ship it with a special 10 round magazine? Would I then be able to drive to a state which upholds the Second Amendment and buy the 15 round magazine, or would Glock have to change their manufacturing so that the gun can never accept > 10 round magazine?
Also, what will happen to all of the gun shops that have large stocks of > 10 round magazine weapons? I realize this may be a somewhat academic question with the recent gun purchase frenzy, but assuming the shops still have these magazines / weapons, do they need to get rid of them?
Finally, it seems to me that laws that infringe on the current manufacturing standards are by definition infringing on our rights to keep arms. It seems to me that NY and MD are looking for another trip to SCOTUS....?
Also, what will happen to all of the gun shops that have large stocks of > 10 round magazine weapons? I realize this may be a somewhat academic question with the recent gun purchase frenzy, but assuming the shops still have these magazines / weapons, do they need to get rid of them?
Finally, it seems to me that laws that infringe on the current manufacturing standards are by definition infringing on our rights to keep arms. It seems to me that NY and MD are looking for another trip to SCOTUS....?
I answered my question a bit...I see that the G19 can be purchased with a 10 round magazine. I am assuming that the owners of these magazines have 5 round capacity blanked out in them, and the standard magazine will fit as well. Still, forcing a manufacturer to make a special magazine seems to be an infringement to me, and should to any reasonable judge...
TOMAHAWK84
Member
- May 10, 2012
- 11
MD is going down hill fast
