Senate Gun Bill Day - 2/26/14

[montoya32]

Just an FYI, Frosh championed SB247 which removes strict liability for landlords of dog owners and also removes pit bulls as being inherently dangerous. This bill has passed the senate, was amended in the house and passed as amended in the senate.

I am not saying I swayed the senators, but Jacobs and Jennings originally voted against this bill. I posted this and not it passed. We need to leverage the stances of our delegates and senators in our testimonies for the gun bills. We cannot let them discriminate against a style of gun, yet fight for equality with dogs as Frosh has.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Just an FYI, Frosh championed SB247 which removes strict liability for landlords of dog owners and also removes pit bulls as being inherently dangerous. This bill has passed the senate, was amended in the house and passed as amended in the senate.

I am not saying I swayed the senators, but Jacobs and Jennings originally voted against this bill. I posted this and not it passed. We need to leverage the stances of our delegates and senators in our testimonies for the gun bills. We cannot let them discriminate against a style of gun, yet fight for equality with dogs as Frosh has.

That's great!

Believe it or not, I supported a Simmons bill this year on revenge porn, sat through the hearing and approached him in the hallway of the HJC to let him know and thank him for the legislative effort. Told him that even though we were on opposite sides on the gun issue last year, he had a good bill on this topic. I think he was surprised a bit, but we should make sure we demonstrate was can be multi-dimensional enough to support their bills when we agree on other areas.

 

[dblas]

We need to find a common goal that both sides can agree to. Perhaps working to make Maryland the 1st 100% NICS compliant state?

 

[501st]

We need to find a common goal that both sides can agree to. Perhaps working to make Maryland the 1st 100% NICS compliant state?

What makes you think that a big deal won't be made about not having the "super special" additional checks done by the MSP that are not covered by NICS? Especially since MD has a poor record of reporting mental health records to NICS?

It doesn't help that the Govenor isn't willing to support this. (doesn't look like his potential successor will either)

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

What makes you think that a big deal won't be made about not having the "super special" additional checks done by the MSP that are not covered by NICS? Especially since MD has a poor record of reporting mental health records to NICS?

It doesn't help that the Govenor isn't willing to support this. (doesn't look like his potential successor will either)

We need information on this... NICS failure rate vs. other check failure rate on regulated firearm applications. That could prove interesting.

Say the ratio is 10,000 to 1. in other words, of the regulated firearm applications that were submitted and disapproved over the last 15 years, of 10,000 disapproved, 9,999 were caught by NICS, that's an interesting fact.

If the ratio is more like 10,000 to 7,500 the state has a strong case for requiring the Maryland process or there is a problem with NICS reporting. In the latter, the next question would be of those 7,500, how many should be in NICS?

Might require a bit of data mining, but this information is recorded somewhere.

 

[mopar92]

What makes you think that a big deal won't be made about not having the "super special" additional checks done by the MSP that are not covered by NICS? Especially since MD has a poor record of reporting mental health records to NICS?

It doesn't help that the Govenor isn't willing to support this. (doesn't look like his potential successor will either)

Those things that MSP checks archaically. Well, those things are the items MD hasn't submitted to NICS. Oh, and parking tickets.

 

[Mr H]

... and sealed juvie records

 

[dblas]

What makes you think that a big deal won't be made about not having the "super special" additional checks done by the MSP that are not covered by NICS? Especially since MD has a poor record of reporting mental health records to NICS?

It doesn't help that the Govenor isn't willing to support this. (doesn't look like his potential successor will either)

If everything gets reported to NICS/NCIC then there should be no need for any additional "Checks"

We need information on this... NICS failure rate vs. other check failure rate on regulated firearm applications. That could prove interesting.

Say the ratio is 10,000 to 1. in other words, of the regulated firearm applications that were submitted and disapproved over the last 15 years, of 10,000 disapproved, 9,999 were caught by NICS, that's an interesting fact.

If the ratio is more like 10,000 to 7,500 the state has a strong case for requiring the Maryland process or there is a problem with NICS reporting. In the latter, the next question would be of those 7,500, how many should be in NICS?

Might require a bit of data mining, but this information is recorded somewhere.

Actually, what we need to get their attention is the number of people that are denied in Maryland, that moved out of state permanently and were able to obtain a firearm because of the archaic record keeping systems that are Maryland centric. Find one crime in another state that was committed by a former Maryland resident, that was able to legally purchase the firearm in the other state because said state had no access to Maryland's records. What would happen? Lawsuit potential? Liability potential? How about just the level of plain culpability?

Find on case, in one state that could have been prevented if Maryland had shared all of the required information with NICS/NCIC and bring that to the news (Emily Miller to start) and let the media do the rest of the digging. After all if there is one, there has to be more.

See where this could go.

Who wouldn't want to prevent that from happening? Who would want to be on the wrong side of that story and have to answer questions?

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Update: SB 248 passed in SJPC today with amendments. This is the Frosh bill extending statute of limitations for firearms crimes.

Here's the amended bill:

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/bills/sb/sb0248t.pdf

Doesn't appear any other bills have come out of the committee from this lot as of yet.

 

[Mr H]

I think I hate it less...

But at least it makes some more sense this way.

 

[SB281 Blaster]

Maybe a little glimmer of common sense. Having the statute of limitations as indefinite was rediculous.

 

[dblas]

Those things that MSP checks archaically. Well, those things are the items MD hasn't submitted to NICS. Oh, and parking tickets.

... and sealed juvie records

The above things are the items that are available to Maryland only, so if Joe citizen gets denied for one of these items in Maryland.

Joe Citizen moves to another state buys a firearm, because the archaic Maryland records aren't available to the other states.

Joe Citizen commits a major gun crime with said firearm.

If were found out that this could have been prevented if Maryland had put those records into NICS, could Maryland be sued as being culpable for the tragedy?

I think yes, but those smarter than me in the ways of the courts would have to chime in.

 

[Clovis]

dblas, I would agree. If I were the victim of a person whose information was being withheld by Maryland, I would be pretty sure I could find a lawyer to sue Maryland and likely in federal court setting.

 

[DC-W]

Update: SB 248 passed in SJPC today with amendments. This is the Frosh bill extending statute of limitations for firearms crimes.

Here's the amended bill:

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/bills/sb/sb0248t.pdf

Doesn't appear any other bills have come out of the committee from this lot as of yet.

Thanks for that. It now makes far more sense.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

SB283 FWA SJPC 3/3. Passed Senate 3/5.

Crossed over.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

What makes you think that a big deal won't be made about not having the "super special" additional checks done by the MSP that are not covered by NICS? Especially since MD has a poor record of reporting mental health records to NICS?

Is there any difference between the HQL and the regulated purchase background checks? With the bill to merge the data between the "crimes committed" (disqualifying crimes) and the ownership database, wouldn't that make the HQL as antiquated as the shell casing law?

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Is there any difference between the HQL and the regulated purchase background checks? With the bill to merge the data between the "crimes committed" (disqualifying crimes) and the ownership database, wouldn't that make the HQL as antiquated as the shell casing law?

The HQL checks and MSP background checks are identical.

The HQL is issued every 10 years, the background check is performed for every purchase. Theoretically, if a person don't file another application (HQL or purchase/transfer), there are no continuous checks going on, so if a person is charged with a prohibiting factor, the system does not flag that the person has a firearm.

The CJIS is required to report if a HQL holder (per FSA 2013) if their status changes. Here's the clause:
"IF CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD INFORMATION IS REPORTED TO THE CENTRAL REPOSITORY AFTER THE DATE OF THE INITIAL CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS CHECK, THE CENTRAL REPOSITORY SHALL PROVIDE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE LICENSING DIVISION A REVISED PRINTED STATEMENT OF THE APPLICANT’S OR LICENSEE’S STATE CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD."

What Simmons is worried about is a person that either does not apply for a HQL or make another purchase, that person may be retaining their firearms in the event they later become prohibited, by one of two possibilities:

In the "forward" case, say a person bought a regulated firearm in 2008 and is subsequently charged with a prohibited class crime, and did not get a HQL. He wants to be able to confiscate that firearm by discovery using linked databases. If that person does not make another purchase, they may not (don't know for sure) connect the dots on the prior purchase. The bill is worded this way right now.

In the "reverse" case, say a person bought a regulated firearm in 2008 and was charged with a crime in the past that was not a prohibiting factor, but subsequently became one, for example due to statutory change (a 6 month penalty becomes a 3 year penalty with a law change) or the PBJ clause in FSA 2013. Right now, the bill is not worded this way, but once the first case is set up, have no doubt they will take this on.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

I'm still missing the point of an HQL. Are you suggesting that the HQL is a way of linking the data bases from the HQL forward in time without Simmons database merge legislation? Or without the HQL, there is no way to track forward because there is no linking of the databases?

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I'm still missing the point of an HQL. Are you suggesting that the HQL is a way of linking the data bases from the HQL forward in time without Simmons database merge legislation? Or without the HQL, there is no way to track forward because there is no linking of the databases?

Appears to be the current case.

Basically, Simmons is worried about the people NOT getting HQL's and NOT making any more purchases.

A HQL holder will be discovered in the forward case (commits a prohibiting crime after applying) by the FSA 2013 required reporting. The person should be denied the HQL for the reverse case (is prohibited at the time of application).

A non-HQL applicant/holder may not be discovered to be in the unlawful condition of being prohibited and in possession of a firearm.

... No more purchases, no flagging right now (I suppose).

Making sense?

Looking at the HQL from the State's vantage point, there are many advantages:

- If you recall, last year going into session, there was a pending court case that could have made MD go "shall issue" on carry permits. In fact, they were in that status until the appeal ruling came down on March 21, 2013. They were looking for ways to stem the tide on applications. They needed a training component to accomplish that.

- They could slow down handgun purchases by instituting a 2 step background check process. One to get the license, then another for each purchase.

- They now have fingerprints for handgun purchasers (HQL holders) in the CJIS system

- They instituted the continuous reporting mechanism by effectively registering people, as opposed to registering firearms. Now they have both

- They could reassure themselves that a person was "qualified" to exercise their second amendment right.

Of course, these are not the stated reasons for the HQL. It was for the children

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

Appears to be the current case.

Basically, Simmons is worried about the people NOT getting HQL's and NOT making any more purchases.

A HQL holder will be discovered in the forward case (commits a prohibiting crime after applying) by the FSA 2013 required reporting. The person should be denied the HQL for the reverse case (is prohibited at the time of application).

A non-HQL applicant/holder may not be discovered to be in the unlawful condition of being prohibited and in possession of a firearm.

... No more purchases, no flagging right now (I suppose).

Making sense?

It makes sense, but seems unlikely to do anything. Maybe they should pass a law that installs a camera in my house. It doesn't indicate crimes in the past, but may show crimes in the future.

Oh, and make me pay for it.