The Maryland AWB of 2007

Status
Not open for further replies.
anti-gun-owners on the renewed offensive

Looks like the lull might be over.

Word on the street is that the Brady Campaign sent out an email alert on the MD SCAWB, referencing our pre-emeptive efforts against it. Here is what I saw:

removed by K-Rom

Edited to add:I decided that a cut-n-paste of the email alert may not be prudent. Here is what it said:

1) SB 43 would ban the Muhammed/Malvo Bushmaster
2) "assault rifles" are not used for hunting or sport; only use is to kill people
3) SB 43 could get a committee hearing as soon as next week (!)
4) the "gun lobby" has already started lobbying against SB43
5) the CeasefireMD report "Every 48 Hours" tells the whole truth


Aside from the usual hysterics, I wonder how true it is that the bill could be given a hearing next week?:scrutiny:
Nothing on the Bill's status page.
 
Last edited:
The Brady Bunch always use hyperbole. When they persuaded H&R Block not to give an NRA discount, it was a "Stunning setback" to gun nuts.:scrutiny:

They were pushing in the last 24 hours to get a special session for the AWB to be renewed.

ANYTHING they say is to be taken with a salt lick.
 
1) SB 43 would ban the Muhammed/Malvo Bushmaster

Per my skewering of Doug Duncan at last year's hearings on this very point:

The AR15 in question was already banned by the 1994 legislation. The ban was in place and it did nothing to stop criminals from obtaining the firearm illegally.
 
Twenty,

You're too kind....I'm no hero, just the beneficiary of hanging out with a lot of good people who have been fighting these SOBs for a long time.

My next set of letters is going together Sunday.
 
BTW....

I checked on my registered delivery of my PIA requests. They were delivered and signed for. :evil:

The clock is ticking on getting those out.
 
1) SB 43 would ban the Muhammed/Malvo Bushmaster
Per my skewering of Doug Duncan at last year's hearings on this very point:

The AR15 in question was already banned by the 1994 legislation. The ban was in place and it did nothing to stop criminals from obtaining the firearm illegally.
That's a very good point. In addition to that, aside from whatever ban may have covered the gun, they didn't have the gun legally in the first place, and they didn't buy it in MD. Furthermore, they killed almost a dozen people in a way that could have been done with a muzzleloader. Hell, if they had used just about any more powerful caliber (ie: a standard deer rifle or even a .50cal muzzleloader), I'd bet there would have been fewer survivors.
 
Gilberts is good

The staff there already had a copy of the bill on the counter and were telling folks about it.

I left about 20-30 copies of the "lies/facts" brochure, and they put them right by the sign-in log (you have to sign in when you walk in the door).:)
 
We hit the Bel Air gun show today. Small building, but it was packed with hundreds of people. Left lots of lit there.
 
K-Rom, glad you managed to get to Gilbert's, I was already trying to move back to school when you last mentioned it and have been too busy to get back home (not that my printer works right now though :cuss: ).

I know that Atlantic Guns is having a Sig-Arms sale soon that might draw out a crowd. If they don't have flyers already, it might be a good idea to see if they'll take some, especially since one of the draws of the sale is that Sig representatives are showing off the new rifle which would be hit hard by the bill.
 
Has anyone left any fliers at the Gun Rack in Burtonsville? Those guys seem like they'd be willing to help and I can probably get over there this Saturday if noone else has yet.
 
Hello everyone. I`m new to this forum. I would like to send the set of letters you are talking about here to our senators. Can you show me witch letters you are sending? I get very involved politically when it comes to our gun rights. I am a Life NRA member and annual GOA member. I can`t believe that S.B. 43 is not on NRA`s or GOA`s website yet.
 
Someone might want to drop off flyers at Horst Guns at 543 & Rt 1 (just outside of Bel Air), they're the new indoor range in the area.

Kharn
 
It's ON!!! MD House "Assault Weapons Tax" bill filed

Here it is (no bill text yet)

http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/billfile/hb0441.htm

HOUSE BILL 441
File Code: Taxes - Sales and Use

Sponsored By:
Delegates Rice, Ali, Feldman, Gutierrez, Hucker, Ivey, Manno, Montgomery, and Taylor

Entitled: Assault Weapon Tax

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Synopsis:
Imposing a tax on the sale of an assault weapon in the State; establishing the rate of the assault weapon tax at 10% of the taxable price of the assault weapon; distributing the revenues from the tax to a special fund, 80% to be used for education aid and 20% to be used for victim services; including the assault weapon tax under the administration of the sales and use tax; exempting from the tax sales of assault weapons to police forces and other governmental agencies; requiring assault weapons dealers to file specified returns; etc.

Pretty weak co-sponsor list, but this may the Trojan attempt to get a bill onto the floor . . . since it is a "tax" bill, expect Franchot to start up with a media PR campaign.
 
10%, then 30%, then no sales of stripped receivers, when people figure out that's a loophole, then 100%...

and more paperwork for dealers.

And a public perception that it's "legitimate" to track these weapons...
 
watered down?

I still want this bill dead, but did it just go from a ban to a 10% tax? Did we just take a step towards victory here?
 
twenty711,

This bill would have no affect on the ban. It is in the House whereas the other bill is the Senate. They are trying an end run around the Judicial committees with this bill. If it gets to the floor they can "light it up" with amendments including thhe AWB.

On one hand it is a sign that our pressure on SB43 is working....they are having to resort to maneuvering instead of a frontal assault. OTOH, it's one more fight that we have to engage in and one more day that we have to take off work to go down there and defend our rights.
 
I went through and added ratings on the Ways and means Committee which is where the AWB tax will be heard in the house. This is a wholly a separate fight from SB43 and warrants another set of letters.
 
Judicial Hearing scheduled for SB 43 Md Assault Weapon Ban for 2/27 @ 1PM in Annapolis


Get your personal days and vacation days in order now.
 
Hi Norton,

Got the letters out today for the good guys and the idiots.

Here's an article I'm going to email to the 6 Senators on our side. Everyone feel free to copy if you want. The more the merrier!!

It was one of the links listed on the Atlantic Firearms website near the bottom.


WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies
National Academy of Sciences, Justice Dept. reports find no benefits to restricting ownership of firearms

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 30, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – While it is an article of faith among gun-control proponents that government restrictions on firearms reduces violence and crime, two new U.S. studies could find no evidence to support such a conclusion.

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.


The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control.

"Policy questions related to gun ownership and proposals for gun control touch on some of the most contentious issues in American politics: Should regulations restrict who may possess firearms? Should there be restrictions on the number or types of guns that can be purchased? Should safety locks be required? These and many related policy questions cannot be answered definitively because of large gaps in the existing science base," said Charles F. Wellford, professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Maryland and chairman of the committee that wrote the report.

However, the National Research Council decided even more thorough research on the topic is needed.

Many studies linking guns to suicide and criminal violence produce conflicting conclusions, have statistical flaws and often do not show whether gun ownership results in certain outcomes, the report said.

A serious limit in such analyses is the lack of good data on who owns firearms and on individual encounters with violence, according to the study.

The report noted that many schools have programs intended to prevent gun violence. However, it added, some studies suggest that children's curiosity and teenagers' attraction to risk make them resistant to the programs or that the projects actually increase the appeal of guns.

Few of these programs, the report concludes, have been adequately evaluated.

The report calls for the development of a National Violent Death Reporting System and a National Incident-Based Reporting System to begin collecting data.

The study by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Science, was sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Joyce Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

"While more research is always helpful, the notion that we have learned nothing flies in the face of common sense," said John Lott, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a critic of gun-control laws. "The NAS panel should have concluded as the existing research has: Gun control doesn't help."

Meanwhile, a study released by the Justice Department suggesting background checks at gun shows would do little to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

The study noted the number of criminals who obtained guns from retail outlets was dwarfed by the number of those who picked up their arms through means other than legal purchases. The report was the result of interviews with more than 18,000 state and federal inmates conducted nationwide. It found that nearly 80 percent of those interviewed got their guns from friends or family members, or on the street through illegal purchases.

Less than 9 percent were bought at retail outlets and only seven-tenths of 1 percent came from gun shows.

The Justice Department's interviews also showed so-called "assault weapons" are not a major cause of gun violence. Only about 8 percent of the inmates used one of the models covered in the now-expired assault weapons ban, signed into law by the Clinton administration in 1994.
 
FIGHT!!!!!

To all those of you in Maryland, keep fighting, this is what could happen:cuss: to you.



ANALYSIS OF COOK COUNTY Illinois
ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN


Effective November 14, 2006, a Cook County gun ban Ordinance criminalizes the otherwise lawful possession of many common firearms and large capacity magazines. The law provides for imprisonment up to 6 months, fines, and confiscation and destruction of the enumerated weapons. Owners of such firearms or large capacity magazines have until February 12, 2007 to either remove the affected guns and remove any large capacity magazines from Cook County or surrender them to the police for destruction.

What firearms and magazines are affected by this county wide ban? Over 60 firearms are specifically listed as being illegal, including the deer rifle popular in many Midwest states, the SKS with a detachable magazine. Popular self defense weapons like the Mossberg 500 pump, and popular target shooting semiautomatic AR-15 are also illegal. In addition, all magazines that can hold more than 10 shells are banned.

The Ordinance specifically bans any semiautomatic shotgun that has a fixed magazine with a capacity in excess of five rounds. Since shotgun shell rounds can be obtained in sizes as short as 2 inches, the ordinance can be construed to ban all common semiautomatic shotguns.

In addition to banning over 60 enumerated firearms, the Ordinance defines certain banned firearms with catch-all definitions. One such carefully worded definition bans any semiautomatic rifle that need not have, but has the ability to accept a large capacity magazine and has,

"A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel,"

A standard dictionary definition of the word shroud is, “something that covers, screens, or guards.” The ordinance defines this “shroud” as something that allows the holding of the rifle in the off hand that would keep the shooter’s off hand from being burned. The Ordinance only excludes from this categorization a “slide,” a term usually applying to the top piece of a semiautomatic handgun. Missing from the exclusion is any verbiage about “the forearm assembly,” “fore-end,” or “stock”. An arguable interpretation of the word “shroud” as used in the Cook County Ordinance would include the standard forearm or stock that allows normal two handed shooting.

In determining the likelihood of Ordinance being interpreted to cover all standard semiautomatic rifles, we can look to the past history in Cook County. The current and prior States Attorneys of Cook County have previously interpreted criminal statutes in an unreasonable manner to justify charging otherwise law abiding citizens with gun possession crimes. These prior anti-gun interpretations have defied common sense and contradicted prior case law. Because the interpretations have been publicly stated to be the official interpretation, all Cook County Assistant States Attorneys are required to use them in determining what charges would be filed. One of the recent examples of the way Cook County prosecutors interpret the law unreasonably has been their failure to acknowledge that current state law allows the carrying of an unloaded gun in specially designed fanny packs. One would expect the Cook County States Attorney’s Office to continue their tradition of interpreting gun laws in a manner to include as many gun owners as possible, and therefore to start charging under the new Ordinance owners of semiautomatic firearms that could be held by two hands, which is for all practical purposes, all semiautomatic rifles.

For a listing of the enumerated firearms that are banned, and the exact wording of the ordinance, see the third Ordinance listed:
http://www.cookctyclerk.com/html/111406orddoc.htm

What can gun owners do? This ordinance primarly affects Cook county residents. For firearm owners living outside Cook County, the ordinance exempts from the statute the “transportation of assault weapons or large capacity magazine if such weapons are broken down and in a non-functioning state and are not immediately accessible to any person.” Such weapons may be transported while unloaded, broken down and cased in your trunk or otherwise not immediately accessible to the occupants of the vehicle. A locked case would make the weapons not immediately accessible for the owners of station wagons and SUVs.

For Cook County residents who possess the specifically listed firearms, until there is a successful court challenge to this ordinance with a published Appellate opinion, the only prudent legal option would be to relocate the banned firearms outside the geographical boundaries of Cook County. The ordinance criminalizes possession of the banned firearms inside of Cook County, not the mere ownership of the banned weapons possessed outside of Cook County.

Cook County residents who own semi-automatic shotguns and rifles that could arguably meet the generic ordinance definition of a banned assault weapon face a dilemma of uncertainty. Until there is a test case taken up on appeal, those residents may be subject to arrest, conviction and have their weapons confiscated and destroyed. A full criminal defense would cost $10,000 on up with no guarantee of winning the case on appeal. Until the Cook County States Attorney publicly states that under no circumstances will the new ordinance be enforced against owners of ordinary shotguns which could be loaded by more than 5 two-inch long shells, or against owners of long guns with ordinary forearms and stock, those firearm owners would be prudent to also relocate those possibly banned firearms.

There are undoubtedly some Cook County residents who, because of their honestly held beliefs, are willing to knowingly incur the risks of convictions, incarceration, and confiscation of their firearms for violating the Cook County gun ban. Those residents should refrain from engaging in activities that would bring those firearms to the knowledge of their local law enforcement officials. On some isolated occasions the Chicago police proactively sought out otherwise law abiding owners of handguns for the simple purposes of confiscation. However, the vast majority of the over 10,000 firearms that are seized by the police each year in Cook county, are seized by chance . Police seize many firearms as a result of searches of cars stopped for traffic violations, searches of homes and business as a result of responding to calls of crimes, domestic arguments, search warrants for drugs, and other ordinary police caretaking functions.

Often, police routinely ask for consent to search to satisfy their investigations. Owners of the affected firearms should be aware that they have a Constitutional right to decline to consent to a search of either their cars, homes or businesses. Owners of the affected firearms should likewise absolutely refrain from activities that would bring them into contact with the police. The mere absence of more interactions between the police and citizens have historically resulted in the majority of potential gun violations not ending up as confiscations or arrests. For instance, to date, not a single test case has been made in Cook County concerning the fanny pack exception to the state law that allows the transportation of unloaded firearms with detached loaded magazines in a case designed to transport a firearm.

The new Cook County gun ban can affect tens of thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens. This imprudent law has forced gun owners to make tough decisions that the Courts will take years to ponder. Gun owners should individually read the ordinance, and contact the 17 Cook County Commissioners. But unless and until the ordinance is repealed or struck down, owners of the affected firearms should follow the law as best they can.



Also read ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson's Report on the Cook County AWB.
http://www.isra.org/legislation/cook_county_report.shtml
 
analysis of "tax" bil

I looked over the "Tax" bill, (which is up now: http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/bills/hb/hb0441f.pdf), and really struggle to see what they were trying to do here. Maybe a tax lawyer could help.

The low down from what I can tell:

1) it's a sales or use tax; pay this when you take possession; either pay the retail seller the tax upon purchase or pay directly to the comptroller within 21 days (i.e., if secondary or FFL-facilitated sale)

2) only applies to certain firearms:
- all copies of AK's, UZI, Galil, AR15, "Baretta"(sic) AR-70, FN-FAL/FNC/LAR, SWD M-10/11/12(macs?), Steyr-Aug, and the Tec-9 family
- street-sweeper type revolver shotguns

3) the payer gets a 0.5% tax credit on the tax paid. Ex: $800 AR-15 has an $80 tax due(10% of price). You then get a $0.40 tax credit ($80x 0.005) for your troubles.:rolleyes:

4) dealers must submit monthly reports on gross receipts from the listed firearms, along with an accounting for the sales tax due

5) takes effect July 1, 2007; The state police will submit a report next year on the effect of the tax on the sales of the listed firearms

MACs, pistol UZIs and TECs have been banned for over 10 years now under the "MD Assault Pistol Ban," so their inclusion makes no sense.

It is pretty bizarre as bills go. Maybe that is why they could only get 10 out of 141 delegates to co-sponsor.
Most definitely a likely Trojan SCAWB.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top