Monday 3/27 8:00AM-3:00PM = SB 0001 Testimony Signup

[Some Guy]

Hello All,

Today, Monday, March 27th from 8:00 AM - 3:00 PM people can submit and/or request in-person testimony, and/or vote unfavorable for the following Maryland General Assembly Senate bill.

SB-0001: Criminal Law - Wearing, Carrying, or Transporting Firearms - Restrictions (Gun Safety Act of 2023)

This bill will be heard by the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, March 29th at 1:00 PM.

This bill is strongly opposed by MSI and 2A Maryland. It's bad news for wear and carry permit holders and the right to self-defense outside the home.

PLEASE MAKE SURE TO SUBMIT TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL, AND IF POSSIBLE...

PLEASE GO TO ANNAPOLIS IN PERSON AND TESTIFY AGAINST IT ON WEDNESDAY.

Please review the proposed bill at the MGA website and if you are interested voice your opinions and your comments on this bill TODAY from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM.

If you have not previously done this, here is some additional information:

The Maryland General Assembly allows the public to submit their favorable or unfavorable opinions as part of the hearing. The public can:

• Submit written testimony,
• Appear for oral testimony (in-person or by Zoom),
• Submit written testimony and appear for oral testimony, or
• Voice a favorable or unfavorable opinion without testimony.

In order for you to submit an opinion or testimony on any proposed legislation, including this bill, you must first set up a MYMGA account. To set up an account, go to the MGA website here:

Home Page

Then, click on the "MYMGA" button on the upper right corner of the page. Then follow the steps to set up your account.

The period for requesting in-person testimony and the submittal of written testimony is from Monday, March 27th from 8:00 AM until 3:00 PM. If by 3:00 PM you have not indicated a favorable or unfavorable opinion, submitted written testimony, or requested to appear in person for live testimony we will be out of luck. If you want to make your voice heard please set up and/or access your MYMGA account and speak your opinion during this period.

Remember: You do not have to sign up for oral or written testimony to voice your opinion. You can also simply use your MYMGA account and vote FAVORABLE or UNFAVORABLE depending on the bill.

If you have already created an account and are logged in this Witness Signup link will jump right to witness sign-up.

Please remember that your testimony is not recorded until you click the "Save" button.

Please visit Maryland Shall Issue Testimony Tips page if you need more information on signing up, or the main page Maryland Shall Issue for the bill tracker.

https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/legislation-tracker/bill-tracker

Note the Committee Drop-down menu can be used to focus in on the Senate Judicial Proceedings or the House Judiciary.

Please remember that your testimony is not recorded until you click the "Save" button.

 

[swinokur]

Also opposed by ACLU and MSP

 

[mpollan1]

I do not believe the arrogant pricks comprising the MGA give a rat's ass who opposes this bill. That said, voiced my opposition on notMYMGA

 

[Biknman]

As I did in the other SB1 tread to contract your State Delegates (which I did again this morning also) here is copy (and attached below) of my unfavorable written testimony I submitted this morning along with the document (attached below) Maryland’s Weapon Carry Laws: A brief chronology By Henry Heymering if anybody wants to copy and past it as their own testimony please feel free, also feel free to edit as you see fit.

Thanks

Dear District 45 Delegates,

As a constituent I am emailing to you today to strongly suggest that you OPPOSE the proposed state bills SB 1 being proposed as they are grossly unconstitutional and I’m afraid will make more law-abiding citizens criminals via unintended consequences.
Yet again peaceable individuals are being scapegoated and punished for the actions of others. Yet again, the state is incapable of doing anything besides reaching for tired, old, and failed policies that abuse the natural rights of their constituents.

The only "Tradition" of gun control found in Maryland history for to be in compliance with the Buren Decision and making it constitutional, where ones established out of racism meant to make it so that select races of people where unable to arm themselves. Reference (attached) The Maryland’s Weapon Carry Laws: A brief chronology By Henry Heymering found at http://www.neverbluefarm.com/articles/MD%20Carry%20Laws.pdf

As the state has become increasingly weaponized against peaceable people, faith in the institutions of this state has also increasingly diminished. Actions such as this, pushing to totally ban firearms across almost all public and private property, will only increase social and political disillusion.

These laws have been struck down repeatedly across the country and challenged in any state that has managed to pass them, and here will be no different. The precedent and standard was made with the Bruen decision, and that is what should be followed less you tie us up in more prolonged and expensive legal battles, wasting even more tax dollars just to lose.

I highly recommend that you oppose ANY bill aimed at restricting our rights and where we can and can't carry, and encourage your colleagues to do so as well. If not at least admen, the section “where alcohol is served” to read while under the influence of alcohol. As this will have made criminals of many law-abiding good citizens via unintended consequences that I believe that you do not intend to cause.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Allen65]

Here's my testimony:

Testimony for Unfavorable Finding for SB1 of 2023

<Allen65>

27 March, 2023

​

SB1 of 2023 is a bill fatally flawed at its inception, an emotionally driven action to intended to flout a decision of the United States Supreme Court that some members of the Maryland General Assembly disagree with. However, NSYRPA v Bruen is now settled law and it is the responsibility of the Government of Maryland to see that it is carried out both in word and intent.

There are myriad reasons this bill, even in its current amended form as passed to the House, is incompatible with Bruen. But instead of trying to superficially touch all of its issues, I am choosing two that will result in an actual decrease in public safety, the opposite of the bill’s supposed intent. These issues are:

1. The bill’s ban on licensed carry in businesses or at events that have a license to serve alcohol for on-site consumption, and
2. Injuries due to otherwise unnecessary firearms handling.

Few sane people would argue that people under the influence of alcohol should operate cars or firearms. However this bill makes no distinction between those who consume, and those who are merely present in the same building as alcohol service, even if for a fleeting moment. And it’s not just alcohol-serving businesses; in many locales, any social event that serves alcohol such as a company picnic, wedding, or club meeting requires a temporary liquor license and would therefore become a no-go zone both under the bill as proposed, and as a result, might lead to charges under Public Safety Article 4-203 which invalidates a carry permit in locations where carry is barred, with resulting multi-year prison sentences for violators. And an unlawful carry offense under 4-203 is a strict liability offense, so even someone unaware they are somewhere their permit is invalid could be charged.

As a result, those who need, as a matter of circumstance, or choose as is their right, to carry a concealed firearm, will need to be constantly aware of the status of their location. And if they are carrying, say because they are an abused spouse who is under physical threat from her abuser, they will need to remove and secure their firearm before entering the prohibited area.

Anyone who actually understands how firearms function would recognize the inherent danger in gratuitously handling a handgun. A handgun that stays in a holster, untouched, is perfectly safe. It harms no one in that state. However, there are thousands of documented instances, including among highly trained law enforcement officers, of unintended discharges while holstering and unholstering a firearm. I personally know a trained military officer who had such a discharge due to unnecessary handling, resulting in a luckily non life-threatening injury. This bill will dramatically increase the amount of firearms handling in Maryland among lawful, permitted carriers in order to comply, and will almost certainly result in injuries and even deaths as a result of accidental pulling of a trigger while removing a firearm from a holster to secure it for no other purpose than to comply with SB1. Is this the intent of the bill’s sponsors? Because it will be an effect.

There will also be increased theft of firearms secured outside a location in order to comply with SB1. Even supporters of this bill have warned of this result. A stolen gun is, by definition, a crime gun, and its thief certainly will not intend to use it for a lawful purpose. No locking device is theft proof, if the thief has any combination of adequate time, wherewithal, and/or tools. This bill guarantees an increase in successful firearms theft attempts as thieves will know prohibited locations and can stake them out, observing law abiding people securing their lawfully-carried firearms before entry. Is this likely result an intent of this bill’s sponsors? Because it almost certainly will happen.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, and many others, I am opposed to this bill and strongly urge the House Judiciary Proceedings Committee to issue an unfavorable report on Senate Bill 1 of 2023.


Very Respectfully,

<Allen65>

 

[Some Guy]

As I did in the other SB1 tread to contract your State Delegates (which I did again this morning also) here is copy (and attached below) of my unfavorable written testimony I submitted this morning along with the document (attached below) Maryland’s Weapon Carry Laws: A brief chronology By Henry Heymering if anybody wants to copy and past it as their own testimony please feel free, also feel free to edit as you see fit.

Thanks

Dear District 45 Delegates,

As a constituent I am emailing to you today to strongly suggest that you OPPOSE the proposed state bills SB 1 being proposed as they are grossly unconstitutional and I’m afraid will make more law-abiding citizens criminals via unintended consequences.
Yet again peaceable individuals are being scapegoated and punished for the actions of others. Yet again, the state is incapable of doing anything besides reaching for tired, old, and failed policies that abuse the natural rights of their constituents.

The only "Tradition" of gun control found in Maryland history for to be in compliance with the Buren Decision and making it constitutional, where ones established out of racism meant to make it so that select races of people where unable to arm themselves. Reference (attached) The Maryland’s Weapon Carry Laws: A brief chronology By Henry Heymering found at http://www.neverbluefarm.com/articles/MD%20Carry%20Laws.pdf

As the state has become increasingly weaponized against peaceable people, faith in the institutions of this state has also increasingly diminished. Actions such as this, pushing to totally ban firearms across almost all public and private property, will only increase social and political disillusion.

These laws have been struck down repeatedly across the country and challenged in any state that has managed to pass them, and here will be no different. The precedent and standard was made with the Bruen decision, and that is what should be followed less you tie us up in more prolonged and expensive legal battles, wasting even more tax dollars just to lose.

I highly recommend that you oppose ANY bill aimed at restricting our rights and where we can and can't carry, and encourage your colleagues to do so as well. If not at least admen, the section “where alcohol is served” to read while under the influence of alcohol. As this will have made criminals of many law-abiding good citizens via unintended consequences that I believe that you do not intend to cause.

Thank you for your time.

Thanks for sharing your input, Biknman. And thanks for submitting your testimony.

 

[Some Guy]

Here's my testimony:

Testimony for Unfavorable Finding for SB1 of 2023

<Allen65>

27 March, 2023

​

SB1 of 2023 is a bill fatally flawed at its inception, an emotionally driven action to intended to flout a decision of the United States Supreme Court that some members of the Maryland General Assembly disagree with. However, NSYRPA v Bruen is now settled law and it is the responsibility of the Government of Maryland to see that it is carried out both in word and intent.

There are myriad reasons this bill, even in its current amended form as passed to the House, is incompatible with Bruen. But instead of trying to superficially touch all of its issues, I am choosing two that will result in an actual decrease in public safety, the opposite of the bill’s supposed intent. These issues are:

1. The bill’s ban on licensed carry in businesses or at events that have a license to serve alcohol for on-site consumption, and
2. Injuries due to otherwise unnecessary firearms handling.

Few sane people would argue that people under the influence of alcohol should operate cars or firearms. However this bill makes no distinction between those who consume, and those who are merely present in the same building as alcohol service, even if for a fleeting moment. And it’s not just alcohol-serving businesses; in many locales, any social event that serves alcohol such as a company picnic, wedding, or club meeting requires a temporary liquor license and would therefore become a no-go zone both under the bill as proposed, and as a result, under Public Safety Article 4-203 which invalidates a carry permit in locations where carry is barred, with resulting multi-year prison sentences for violators. And an unlawful carry offense under 4-203 is a strict liability offense, so even someone unaware they are somewhere their permit is invalid could be charged.

As a result, those who need, as a matter of circumstance, or choose as is their right, to carry a concealed firearm, will need to be constantly aware of the status of their location. And if they are carrying, say because they are an abused spouse who is under physical threat from her abuser, they will need to remove and secure their firearm before entering the prohibited area.

Anyone who actually understands how firearms function would recognize the inherent danger in gratuitously handling a handgun. A handgun that stays in a holster, untouched, is perfectly safe. It harms no one in that state. However, there are thousands of documented instances, including among highly trained law enforcement officers, of unintended discharges while holstering and unholstering a firearm. I personally know a trained military officer who had such a discharge due to unnecessary handling, resulting in a luckily non life-threatening injury. This bill will dramatically increase the amount of firearms handling in Maryland among lawful, permitted carriers in order to comply, and will almost certainly result in injuries and even deaths as a result of accidental pulling of a trigger while removing a firearm from a holster to secure it for no other purpose than to comply with SB1. Is this the intent of the bill’s sponsors? Because it will be an effect.

There will also be increased theft of firearms secured outside a location in order to comply with SB1. Even supporters of this bill have warned of this result. A stolen gun is, by definition, a crime gun, and its thief certainly will not intend to use it for a lawful purpose. No locking device is theft proof, if the thief has any combination of adequate time, wherewithal, and/or tools. This bill guarantees an increase in successful firearms theft attempts as thieves will know prohibited locations and can stake them out, observing law abiding people securing their lawfully-carried firearms before entry. Is this likely result an intent of this bill’s sponsors? Because it almost certainly will happen.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, and many others, I am opposed to this bill and strongly urge the House Judiciary Proceedings Committee to issue an unfavorable report on Senate Bill 1 of 2023.


Very Respectfully,

<Allen65>

Nice work, Allen65. Well written. Concise, focused and organized. Thank you for submitting and sharing it.

 

[AvidRider]

Also opposed by ACLU and MSP

Wait. Maryland State Police opposes this bill? That says a lot.

 

[Some Guy]

Thanks to everyone that submitted testimony against SB-1 yesterday. Thanks for fighting for freedom.

 

[Some Guy]

If you requested to provide in-person testimony at tomorrow's SB-1 hearing please check your email and your spam folder, you may receive a notice that you were selected to testify at the hearing.