Why can't we do this!?!?

[gtodave]

We can fight it both in court and at ballot, its not an either or situation.

Why should we give up a tool that would nullify an illegal law? We have the right to the ballot as much as to bear

Because it won't nullify it...all it will do is determine popular opinion. Mob rule /= Law in this country, despite what the "Democracy Now" types would tell you.

At best it would give OMalley fodder for changing the wording in the bill to pass it next year. The other outcome is that it gives the courts reason to NOT overturn it....knowing that the public is in favor of it.

Look at the ambulance fees in MoCo. Passed, went to referendum last time around, and was voted down by the public. This year, Leggett passed it again anyways.

If a court rules once an for all that it is not Constitutional, then they're done, and we win.

 

[joppaj]

They had massive last minute TV & radio ads, we had nothing and it still came down to a few votes

How much money do you think it's worth to Bloomberg to win a referendum in MD? My guess is several million.

In-State tuition for illegals should have been easy to beat. People on both sides of the aisle should have rejected that mess. It won by almost 500,000 votes.

 

[johnb007]

Our rights should not be voted on. Mob rule was never the way this country was to be governed.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[gtodave]

How much money do you think it's worth to Bloomberg to win a referendum in MD? My guess is several million.

In-State tuition for illegals should have been easy to beat. People on both sides of the aisle should have rejected that mess. It won by almost 500,000 votes.

Same thing for redistricting....it watered-down the votes of everyone. However, it passed with something like 90% of the vote, because of the wording in the question. Who would vote against "Constitutionally mandated redistricting based on Census polls"?

 

[Mark75H]

How much money do you think it's worth to Bloomberg to win a referendum in MD? My guess is several million.

In-State tuition for illegals should have been easy to beat. People on both sides of the aisle should have rejected that mess. It won by almost 500,000 votes.

That was the worst loss, the only significant one. Its the reason I use qualifiers.

 

[joppaj]

Same thing for redistricting....it watered-down the votes of everyone. However, it passed with something like 90% of the vote, because of the wording in the question. Who would vote against "Constitutionally mandated redistricting based on Census polls"?

Bingo. To be honest though I think it's largely as simple as voting the party line in many cases. A week or so before the election I received a "voter's guide" from the local Democratic Party with a ballot filled in to show my how I should vote on every issue. On election day I saw an awful lot of those "guides" in the hands of people waiting in line.

 

[gtodave]

Bingo. To be honest though I think it's largely as simple as voting the party line in many cases. A week or so before the election I received a "voter's guide" from the local Democratic Party with a ballot filled in to show my how I should vote on every issue. On election day I saw an awful lot of those "guides" in the hands of people waiting in line.

My cousin (DC PD) got one from the DC teacher's union (I guess they thought unions should vote in unison). He followed their suggestions

 

[Brooklyn]

We can fight it both in court and at ballot, its not an either or situation.

Why should we give up a tool that would nullify an illegal law? We have the right to the ballot as much as to bear

Which other rights would you give up?

Please let MSI make the call.

Funds are not without limit. If we put this on the ballot we will increase the liberal turnout at the polls when we try to vote out our state reps.

AND THE CASE WILL BE DELAYED WHILE THE REFERENDUM IS PENDING. THIS MEANS THE COURT COULD CHANGE..... AND NOT IN OUR FAVOR .... OK

 

[Mark75H]

AND THE CASE WILL BE DELAYED WHILE THE REFERENDUM IS PENDING. THIS MEANS THE COURT COULD CHANGE..... AND NOT IN OUR FAVOR .... OK

MSI doesn't have to do the ballot initiative

Not sure you are correct about ballot initiative affecting a court case??

As I said before, not taking it to ballot is willfully giving up a constitutional right

 

[Kilroy]

Please stop this idea. A referendum loss (and we would loose) would be taken as a mandate to take even more draconian gun control steps. Right now, all the anti-2A people have to argue with is some flawed poll, and "Think of the children." Do we really want to hand them an argument to use against us?

There's no way we'd win a referendum, for two reasons. The first is that Maryland voters blindly vote democrat. Unless we can change that, we'd loose. The second reason is that none of us is a billionaire that can bankroll this effort. In the US, the person that spends the most money usually wins. Look at what happened with Jessie Jackson Jr's seat. Bloomberg and company dumped millions into that race to ensure an anti-2a person won. That would undoubtedly happen here. If this nonsense passes, our best bet is the courts and the removal of the politicians that supported it. Hoping that the majority will vote to protect the rights of the minority is a loosing strategy.

 

[Brooklyn]

MSI doesn't have to do the ballot initiative

Not sure you are correct about ballot initiative affecting a court case??

As I said before, not taking it to ballot is willfully giving up a constitutional right

Once its on the ballot the court will moot the case pending the outcome. Courts are busy and will use any tool to make room on a docket.

The best we can hope for on a referendum is to face the same issue next year. our work is to eliminate Frosh et el. In an off year election it is better if there are no hot button referendums they can use to rally their base.

We are out gunned. We need to be smart. We must pick tactics and strategies that help us win. Consider how riled up we all are. Do you want to do that to our opposition ? That is what a referendum will do... do not forget as well that our resources are limited, and should be directed at week incumbents we may be able to defeat.

 

[LocknLoad]

Even if we could muster enough votes to win something like that, do you really want your civil rights put to a majority vote?

How do you think the question would be worded on a ballot in MD?

Do you believe that law abiding citizens should have the proper tools available to them to protect their families?

OR

Do you think psychos, and wannabe Rambos need weapons of mass destruction and high capacity assault clips, or should we have commons sense restrictions?

I agree. In Maryland?! These idiots are giving welfare handouts, tuition, drivers licenses and cell phones to ILLEGALS. I don't want these liberal weinies voting on shit that involves my rights...

 

[smores]

Its not. I said conservative voters. Traditional marriage is a conservative value.

So I have to care about marriage to be conservative? I missed that meeting.



Si vis pacem para bellum

follow me @DiscipleofJMB

 

[pbharvey]

So I have to care about marriage to be conservative? I missed that meeting.

Yes, its covered in the initial meeting.

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

Heterosexual marriage is a traditional social institution.

 

[Vile Shadow]

Um, guys,

Do we really need to be fighting amongst ourselves here? Have we forgotten who the enemy is?

Why do I smell the old divide-and-conquer bit at work here?

 

[uneven]

I have to repeat myself ... it would be foolish not to use every tool at our disposal.

This is exactly what I mean - if we are facing an inevitable event and we have a possible option to prevent or restrict or limit it - we should take it.

Worst case scenario? Ballot measures fail. Best case? They don't.

Multiple measures could also be a solution. An initiative to ban magazine limits could be kept separate from an initiative to authorize acquisition of any regulated firearm routinely carried by federal military personnel.

I think it's worth the attempt. This election cycle will see more Republican than Democrat voters, it is a proven trend.

 

[jonnyl]

I think you're understating the worst case scenario. By asking for a referendum on the ballot, you're conceding the point that this is not a civil right, but rather something that should be decided by majority rule.

 

[MDFF2008]

I think you're understating the worst case scenario. By asking for a referendum on the ballot, you're conceding the point that this is not a civil right, but rather something that should be decided by majority rule.

THIS!

And

Can you imagine, Bloomberg floods MD with money, plus a badly written ballot question, results in us loosing the ballot measure badly.

How much will that empower people in election year 2014?

 

[camobob]

What previous ballot initiatives show is that the majority of voters are willing to be led. A lot of gun owners I talk to haven't read 294 or 381 - the general public is clue less. They are fed a constant diet of anti gun ******** by the media and they are afraid. In a country of 350 million it's not hard to make a statistically insignificant string of events look like a crisis. The NRA is the enemy and the Dems are only trying to protect kids with reasonable gun control. That's just the way people see it. If the courts uphold licensing, fingerprinting and fees then we're screwed.

 

[MDFF2008]

All the Dems have to do is tell people the NRA is running it and they will come out the wood work to stop it.