rockstarr
Major Deplorable
sadly the number of fighters seems to always be shrinking on our side as more people say screw this place and just move away. ( I don't blame them)
That is, in fact, precisely what they do on the MD permit. It provides on the back "Not valid where Firearms are prohibited."
That is, in fact, precisely what they do on the MD permit. It provides on the back "Not valid where Firearms are prohibited."
They still ought not be able to make one either guess, be clairvoyant, be required to hire a real estate title search firm, play "hopscotch," or circumnavigate an entire area in order to legally go from point A to point B.
Where are all of U of MD's buildings and facilities that would be affected? Does anybody outside of a very small group of its facilities management specialists even have a list? Doubtful. Are they all marked and known as such to the public? Highly unlikely. What will it take, sign-wise and at what cost, to provide adequate public notice? Probably substantial signage, at a large cost.
When any building becomes the subject of a zoning or variance request, a large sign is required to be placed in front of it to give the public notice of the request and hearing. Does the MGA think any similar notice -- of a permanent nature -- is needed in this instance, where criminal penalties ensue? Food for thought.
And that statement is not complete, they need to add "by law"
News:
This bill passed 3d Reader on the floor this morning, but with only 80 YEAs (some of which may piss me off, but I need to do some digging). Several friendly amendments were offered, and all rejected.
Details here: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=02&id=hb1002&tab=subject3&ys=2016RS
(the final roll call isn't online yet, but pic is below)
Even if the 2 abstaining and the 1 or 2 NAYs I expect to switch vote with the majority, it's still not enough for an override. But, 4 were absent, so it's still problematic in that sense.
Keep up the pressure on the Senate side (SB906), and slaughter this turkey once and for all.
They still ought not be able to make one either guess, be clairvoyant, be required to hire a real estate title search firm, play "hopscotch," or circumnavigate an entire area in order to legally go from point A to point B.
Where are all of U of MD's buildings and facilities that would be affected? Does anybody outside of a very small group of its facilities management specialists even have a list? Doubtful. Are they all marked and known as such to the public? Highly unlikely. What will it take, sign-wise and at what cost, to provide adequate public notice? Probably substantial signage, at a large cost.
When any building becomes the subject of a zoning or variance request, a large sign is required to be placed in front of it to give the public notice of the request and hearing. Does the MGA think any similar notice -- of a permanent nature -- is needed in this instance, where criminal penalties ensue? Food for thought.
I am taking this opportunity to relate to the Committee my opposition to this unnecessary, poorly conceived, and Unconstitutional bill.
As related during testimony before JUD, there is currently no existing threat to anyone on a Maryland campus--public or private--from lawful carriers of concealed firearms. To determine that further restricting lawful citizens for purposes of eliminating a nonexistent threat is ludicrous at best, and a Rights infringement at most.
Passage of this bill, as I have noted before, would do nothing to make students (and faculty) safer but would, rather, make the occupants of classrooms, labs, cafeterias and dorm rooms nothing better than fish in a barrel to any potential armed assailant. Those willing to perform criminal acts (whether with firearms, knives, baseball bats or broken bottles) will not take a second to consider the law. They will not have an epiphany, where they all of a sudden say, "OH... It's a gun-free zone... I can't go there with my [likely illegally obtained] pistol."
The co-sponsors of this bill reads like a "Who's Who" of Constitutional violators, puppets of a terroristic leadership and/or violators of their Oath of Office. Even the lead sponsor has trouble expressing a cogent rationale. This tells me, once again, that this bill was conceived from on high, as the result of a single incident (which was actually foreign-inspired terrorism), for purposes of furthering the Curran anti-gun agenda.
The course the so-called leadership in the state is pursuing would take Maryland from a place where the violent crime rates are falling (presumably due to the increase in public awareness and increased firearms ownership), to one more like a third-world nation, where the rule of law means nothing to a criminal class facing little to no opposition from an armed populace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9lo0OxrXLo
Marylanders will not stand for it, and would much prefer to have the Rights of the REAL America.
I cross-posted this question in the Caetano thread. This bill makes no exception for self defense in student housing, and appears to cover weapons plainly covered by Caetano. Maybe I am wrong, but it would seem hard for the 4th circuit to uphold this law now that there are criminal penalties, in light of Caetano.