Glimmer of hope for Maryland


PDA






EasternShore
February 7, 2006, 10:55 PM
I know it is slim but it looks like it is time to start calling our esteemed leaders in support of this:

http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/bills/hb/hb0529f.pdf

The bill is entitled Declaration of Rights - Right to Keep and Bear Arms

It's a slim chance but one worth getting behind.:D

If you enjoyed reading about "Glimmer of hope for Maryland" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
pcf
February 8, 2006, 07:26 AM
I have to disagree, we should not support anything that affirms "the right to keep and bear arms for certain purposes" How lond would it be until Joe Curran says that one must show "good and proper cause" before keeping a firearm readily available in the home for self defense?

Spot77
February 8, 2006, 09:43 AM
Well let's just get Joe Curran out of office and everything will be peachy.

Or a better idea....let's NEVER go on the offensive with ANY gun bill and wait for more anti-gun bills to pop up. That way we can spend all of our time trying to defend what little rights we have left.

If the extremists in this state really wanted to take all of our guns, they could have done it already. If we keep THEM on the defensive, then they'll have less time to devote to anti-gun bills.

Besides, if the bill turns to crap, we have enough votes in the JPR to kill it just like every other bad gun bill for the past three years.

However, this will be a referendum to let the people of Maryland VOTE on it, not just the swine in power.

And specifically, read lines 15 and 16 of the bil which define "certain purposes."

And even better, this may keep local jurisdictions from enacting tougher gun laws.

Notice several Democrats sponsoring the bill as well.

UNOFFICIAL COPY OF HOUSE BILL 529
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
E4 6lr2209
SB 379/02 - JPR
____________________________________________________________________________________
By: Delegates Costa, Aumann, Bartlett, Bates, Boschert, Boteler, Bromwell,
Cluster, Donoghue, Dwyer, Eckardt, Elliott, Frank, Gilleland,
Impallaria, Jennings, Kach, Kohl, Kullen, Leopold, McDonough,
McMillan, Miller, Rudolph, Sophocleus, Sossi, Stocksdale, Stull, and
Weldon
Introduced and read first time: February 1, 2006
Assigned to: Judiciary
_____________________________________________________________________________________
A BILL ENTITLED
1 AN ACT concerning
2 Declaration of Rights - Right to Keep and Bear Arms
3 FOR the purpose of adding a new article to the Maryland Constitution to establish a
4 constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms for certain purposes;
5 and submitting this amendment to the qualified voters of the State of Maryland
6 for their adoption or rejection.
7 BY proposing an addition to the Maryland Constitution
8 Declaration of Rights
9 Article 48
10 SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
11 MARYLAND, (Three-fifths of all the members elected to each of the two Houses
12 concurring), That it be proposed that the Maryland Constitution read as follows:
13 Declaration of Rights
14 ARTICLE 48.
15 A CITIZEN HAS THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR THE DEFENSE OF
16 SELF, FAMILY, HOME, AND STATE, AND FOR HUNTING AND RECREATIONAL USE.
17 SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That the General Assembly
18 determines that the amendment to the Maryland Constitution proposed by this Act
19 affects multiple jurisdictions and that the provisions of Article XIV, 1 of the
20 Maryland Constitution concerning local approval of constitutional amendments do
21 not apply.
22 SECTION 3. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That the aforegoing section
23 proposed as an amendment to the Maryland Constitution shall be submitted to the
24 legal and qualified voters of this State at the next general election to be held in
25 November, 2006 for their adoption or rejection in pursuance of directions contained in
2 UNOFFICIAL COPY OF HOUSE BILL 529
1 Article XIV of the Maryland Constitution. At that general election, the vote on this
2 proposed amendment to the Constitution shall be by ballot, and upon each ballot
3 there shall be printed the words "For the Constitutional Amendment" and "Against
4 the Constitutional Amendment," as now provided by law. Immediately after the
5 election, all returns shall be made to the Governor of the vote for and against the
6 proposed amendment, as directed by Article XIV of the Maryland Constitution, and
7 further proceedings had in accordance with Article XIV.

EasternShore
February 8, 2006, 07:24 PM
Spot or Norton, or anyone else for that matter...

Does anyone know where this came from? Who got the delegates to start this? I think this thing is great since there is nothing in MD's constitution as of now.

Did MSI start this?

And what seems to be most important is Sandy Abrams and the NRA actually going to bat for it?

Spot77
February 8, 2006, 08:59 PM
I can honestly say I don't know which, if any gun group got the ball rolling on this.

I can tell you that MSI supports it 110% and many of us have been carrying the "bluebacks" around to collect cosponsors.


(Bluebacks are the actual bill that a cosponsor signs, thus "carrying around the bluebacks" means taking an official copy to each potential cosponsor and persuading them to sign on)

I believe Greg got a few more signatures today and there's been a bunch added since the posting of the bill online.


Time for the Democrats to put their money where their mouths are; they all claim to "support the Second Amendment" so here's a way to put it in writing.

Helmetcase
February 8, 2006, 09:17 PM
Amen Spot, Greg has been doing a BANG up job. My contributions have been paltry by comparison. Need to get down there tomorrow and make myself known. Think I can break away by early afternoon...

I understand that Dwyer's office has the blueback, I'm going to go to each of the delegates that signed on last year and didn't this year, and get them on board. Momentum!

Frankly I'm tired of the mentality of some the defeatists around MD who'd rather do nothing and monopolize the gun rights sandbox than see us taking action.

Norton
February 8, 2006, 09:20 PM
Spot77 pretty much summed things up nicely.

To add...I think that we have to look at where we are in this state and how we got here.

We've been listening to the NRA and the "establishment" gun "leaders" all along and what has it gotten us? They keep telling us gun owners to sit down, shut up and, by the way, write us a check so that we professional gun rights advocates can take care of business.

We've gotten ballistic fingerprinting, a handgun roster, safeguns, an assault weapons (pistol) ban, the transport law, etc following their "plan" (if there is one) and we're worried about the semantics of one word in a bill that AFFIRMS the right to keep and bear arms in MD? As Spot77 says, lines 15 and 16 define "certain purposes". That term is used in many of the bills pitched here in MD, not just as it relates to gun laws.

I swear, I don't understand sometimes......we whine and complain about the state of affairs here and when we get an excellent bill with bilateral support it's still not good enough. We're doomed......

Rather than getting in a bind over that one word, I think we need to be asking ourselves why the established gun activists and the NRA representative for MD are actively campaigning against shall-issue legislation in Maryland.

Norton
February 8, 2006, 09:27 PM
Frankly I'm tired of the mentality of some the defeatists around MD who'd rather do nothing and monopolize the gun rights sandbox than see us taking action.

Touche'......the aforementioned "establishment" is more concerned about defeating pro-active legislation proposed by others because they can't take credit for it.

I keep asking the apologists for these folks why, if they are doing such a great job, we are in the situation we are currently in?

offthepaper
February 8, 2006, 09:39 PM
Imagine if Curran's (anti) son in law (Martin O'Malley) wins the Governors race in Md. Curran doesn't think ANYONE other than military/LEO's should own ANY gun. The thought of O'Malley sitting in that seat, signing laws, and driving his agenda forward onto a state that has only recently(with the last Govenors election) begun a mild (very mild) turn that could eventually lead to a real change in the politics of the land. It's been the constant liberal politician parade through Maryland's political landscape which has prevented the citizens of the state from having their 2A rights protected. I'm not saying things are making good progress against the current state restrictions of their rights, I'm just saying maybe there's hope.:banghead: :cuss:

Helmetcase
February 9, 2006, 04:34 AM
I keep asking the apologists for these folks why, if they are doing such a great job, we are in the situation we are currently in?
I assume you saw the letter about MCSM shutting down? It's funny how they couldn't help but get a parting shot about you-know-who being the bee's knees.

I frankly don't understand why we're expected to fellate that guy. Sorry, but politics is, like it or not, about what have ya done for me lately? The problem is MD's so-called activists have really been playing defense for so long they've forgotten what offense is all about. A group like MSI comes along and starts shaking things up and they start looking like the do-nothings that they are...and thus start taking pot shots at us and suggesting we "leave it to the professionals." :rolleyes: Sorry, but the doors in Annapolis are open to all of us.

LAK
February 9, 2006, 05:46 AM
a resolution as opposed to a legislative act would get the message across with giving credit to the idea that a right can be legislated "in" or "out".

What does the Maryland State Constitution have to say about a right to keep and bear arms?

If needed, an Amended State Constitution on the issue would be the appropriate legislative act.
-----------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Helmetcase
February 9, 2006, 05:54 AM
Unfortunately our state constitution is silent on the issue. Something worth fighting for, no doubt.

Norton
February 9, 2006, 07:28 AM
I assume you saw the letter about MCSM shutting down? It's funny how they couldn't help but get a parting shot about you-know-who being the bee's knees.

I frankly don't understand why we're expected to fellate that guy. Sorry, but politics is, like it or not, about what have ya done for me lately? The problem is MD's so-called activists have really been playing defense for so long they've forgotten what offense is all about. A group like MSI comes along and starts shaking things up and they start looking like the do-nothings that they are...and thus start taking pot shots at us and suggesting we "leave it to the professionals." :rolleyes: Sorry, but the doors in Annapolis are open to all of us.

I saw the letter and it is just further affirmation that TPTB in the "establishment" are scared that we might actually make some progress if we keep pushing the way we are.

It's funny, I'm very active in a state professional organization for my teaching area and I've often asked the question of why we don't have a general membership meeting at our annual conference. Makes sense, right? I was told flat out that was not an option as we didn't want the rank and file TOO involved in the process.

Sound familiar? The new activists are beating the bushes for warm bodies, holding open membership meetings, prowling the halls in Annapolis for sponsors and co-sponsors, testifying in record numbers on the "gun day" hearings and we're the obstructionists?

Those same "establishment" individuals, who said in print that the new activists were working against repeal of IIBIS, didn't even come to Annapolis to testify on behalf of the bill. And this was supposed to be their highest priority?!

I suspect that for many of these individuals, it's not the kill but the thrill of the chase. In other words, they are never going to work too hard to make real change because it would essentially make them irrelevant. If one realizes that these establishment activists are basically politicians on a very small, narrow scale we have to ask the question, "What politician has ever voted himself out of office?"

Helmetcase
February 9, 2006, 10:01 AM
That's a very good point; the difference between us and them is that we'll actually be happy when someday MSI can take a day off. But we'll never be able to disband; even if we won we'd have to remain vigilant--too bad the "establishment" types in the progun movement can't see that far down the road.

offthepaper
February 9, 2006, 01:12 PM
Those same "establishment" individuals, who said in print that the new activists were working against repeal of IIBIS, didn't even come to Annapolis to testify on behalf of the bill. And this was supposed to be their highest priority?!
-------------------------
'nuff said.:banghead:

Norton
February 9, 2006, 02:26 PM
That's a very good point; the difference between us and them is that we'll actually be happy when someday MSI can take a day off. But we'll never be able to disband; even if we won we'd have to remain vigilant--too bad the "establishment" types in the progun movement can't see that far down the road.


I'll be happy when there is no longer a need for any lobbying to have our rights stop being infringed upon. I would be happy to spend more time actually shooting than begging for the ability to do so.

Our counterparts, on the other hand, are more interested in getting the credit. I could care less if it's MSI, MCDL, NRA, GOA or JPFO who get the job done as long as it gets done.

If you enjoyed reading about "Glimmer of hope for Maryland" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!