Maryland AW Ban essentially confiscates banned AW

[Celtic159]

SB 281 does infringe on 2 Amendment rights. DC vs Heller also says this.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.

The way I read this is any total ban of firearms is and entire class of 'arms" as stated above.

I'd read it that way too, but isn't there already that sort of ban in California? Has there been a challenge to it?

 

[Darkemp]

Whether or not we can transport our ARs and AKs to the range is not important now. We need to fight the bill tooth and nail to the bitter end. If we cannot win this battle, we can worry about the details then. At least they give us one month to sell.

Why sell? How can they prove you have anything?

 

[jr88]

Just keep in mind that some of these extreme provisions are bargaining chips to be tossed away. I received a forwarded email (not sent to me) from a state delegate that it is guaranteed "something will pass". So they allow us to transport to or from a range, like current handgun laws, keep all the registration stuff, and call it a day. We breathe a sigh of relief, and they march us a little further into servitude.

This has nothing to do with Sandy Hook, children or even guns, for that matter. This is all about getting MOM to energize his base and test the waters for 2016. He first has to get on the national stage to participate in the primary process. He has been a D spokesperson (my party, as of last Wednesday) for some time, but is not known outside of Maryland.

This is geared to get national attention. The Monica Media will, I think, be out in force, and it won't be to show how decent and patriotic we are. MOM will do everything possible to portray us in a false light to "justify" draconian restrictions. Either way he wins. Crime has been trending down. If that continues, he can claim credit. If it doesn't, he can give an "Our achievements to date are impressive, but there's work to be done" speech.

Smart people would be trying to figure out how to give MOM some favorable press without losing our 2A rights. We are just pawns in their game.

While I agree this is O'Malley's plan, it just shows how out of touch with reality he really is. He is a full blown narcissist, but without out the IQ.
If he attempts a run for 2016, all his skeletons (http://www.cecilcalvert.com/?p=4038) will come out and he will look like a fool. An alleged affair and pregnancy with a young black women while married, is a tough accusation to overcome.

 

[Markp]

Correct. This IS a class of arms that Americans turn to for self defense. Our lawmakers are too arrogant to believe it.

They are too blinded and drunk on power to much care. They'll do as they please, because we tolerate them. Guam is a microcosm of the same corruption we see in DC every day except it's far more personal and blatant.

 

[ridethemessiah]

I would love to conform to these new rules, but I simply don't understand what this "assault weapon" is that they keep referencing.

 

[Bolts Rock]

Transport an assault weapon into the State.

Which means you cannot go to Bridgeville, New Holland, Peacemaker, FFR&G, Quantico, Butner or Perry and legally bring your rifle back home.

 

[Les Gawlik]

They are too blinded and drunk on power to much care. They'll do as they please, because we tolerate them. Guam is a microcosm of the same corruption we see in DC every day except it's far more personal and blatant.

Just as long as everyone doesn't run over to one side. Hank Johnson told us what happens then! Who knew?

 

[doc.morrison]

"The despot's heel is on our shore, Maryland, my Maryland" Our state anthem, written in 1861. You know who the despot was (and is).

 

[dreadpirate]

Can you provide more details about your statement? Don't get me wrong - this bill is garbage and I am NOT giving an inch and will testify against it.

Assault pistols registered in 1994 are not "banned for transport". You can shoot them and possess them if registered per the state law.

How are you making this assertion that you cannot transport it anywhere? I don't see that in the bill either.

There is simply too much unfounded opinion in this thread.

I am reading this from Maryland Shall Issue. Please say it aint so.

 

[reccitron]

First, nowhere does it state that you cannot transport your weapon within the state.
Since a registered Assault weapon would be allowed to remain in your possession as allowed subsection (b),

That's how I read it to. Transporting within the state isn't specifically banned so it would be ok. It did mention transport if you are under a court order to turn it in because of a violation but that wouldn't apply if you have legally obtained and registered it.

As someone else mentioned, the grey area is if you took it to another state you may not be able to bring it back in because of:

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault [pistol] WEAPON into the State;

 

[dreadpirate]

I just want to be clear that I read this from a source the Maryland Shall Issue; this was sent to me in one of their emails. The subject of the email was:

"Town Hall Meetings January 26th 2013. Make Your Voice Heard!"

and this was in the message:

"1.) Although you may continue to own a banned rifle (after registering it), you CANNOT take it to the range to use. Transportation will be banned. "

So naturally, I freaked out. I will be more than happy to be wrong on this one.

 

[Wynter]

Look guys and gals, I know that we are ALL P!$$ED about this, but we MUST maintain a level head in our online discussions. They are out there for ALL to see and you had best believe that we are under a microscope. Talk of purchasing in the city without papers does not serve our cause. I am just as mad as the next owner and feel that we need to represent ourselves and each other better than we are doing right now.

 

[Tungsten]

In reading most of the comments, it appears everyone feels this bill is ridiculous and unconstitutional. So if this bill does pass, do you consider that the "red line"?

 

[dev]

I just went over the text once more and noticed a few interesting things.

If you register the weapon you can legally possess and it does not say you can't transport.
If you don't register then you cannot possess which means transport is out with the exception of surrendering the weapon legally. Court order and notifying the State police gives you the safe means of passage of not getting into any trouble if you are stopped on the road with an illegally possessed weapon.

It seems to me it gives those that missed the deadline a way to turn in their weapons legally then having them break the law doing so.

I am not trying to put a positive spin on this, only so that we don't look foolish with the wrong interpretation of what they are trying to pass only to have them say they are not doing so and having a false victory.

 

[willtill]

I just went over the text once more and noticed a few interesting things.

If you register the weapon you can legally possess and it does not say you can't transport.
If you don't register then you cannot possess which means transport is out with the exception of surrendering the weapon legally. Court order and notifying the State police gives you the safe means of passage of not getting into any trouble if you are stopped on the road with an illegally possessed weapon.

It seems to me it gives those that missed the deadline a way to turn in their weapons legally then having them break the law doing so.

I am not trying to put a positive spin on this, only so that we don't look foolish with the wrong interpretation of what they are trying to pass only to have them say they are not doing so and having a false victory.

The question needs to be asked. The verbiage is unclear. Who wrote this bill? Was Frosh drinking?

One must target their audience with understandable writings. I don't even think whoever (Frosh) drafted this bill actually understands what he's trying to convey.

 

[44 Bulldog]

What the f^(# are these assholes thinking,I thought they took an OATH of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States, they should all be jailed for lack of candor

 

[dev]

The question needs to be asked. The verbiage is unclear. Who wrote this bill? Was Frosh drinking?

One must target their audience with understandable writings. I don't even think whoever (Frosh) drafted this bill actually understands what he's trying to convey.

I wouldn't put it passed them that they made the wording purposefully confusing for the layman so that we would be fighting a non issue. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit but it's clever strategy.

The thing I don't like is that they grant possession and that means they can revoke it anytime they want.

 

[marte616]

Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with. ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)

 

[fleaman64]

Clearly the whole new law is an unconstitutional infringement that should be ignored if passed.
I will not register my guns, and I will not comply with any other infringement.
I'm not going to be blamed for the actions of a homicidal nutcase in a gun free zone.
There are places I can go to shoot my "evil black assault rifles" even if transportation is banned, that's what the 4th amendment is for, NEVER allow police to search your vehicle and NEVER admit to having anything in your vehicle. You have the right to use your rights and to remain silent.

+1

Unconstitutional "laws" are not lawful and me and mine will not abide. The right to keep and bear arms is not granted by government therefore cannot be taken away by government period. End of story.

 

[fleaman64]

What the f^(# are these assholes thinking,I thought they took an OATH of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States, they should all be jailed for lack of candor

They should be jailed for treason and sedition. Decorate the parks with the scum.