I do not want to get into a philosophical debate about the semantics of the 2nd Amendment or any other part of the Constitution, that is for a different thread. I simply think the article in the Times did not portray the bill accurately.
Do I think parts of the bill are infringements of the 2nd Amendment – YES
Do I think parts are not infringements of the 2nd Amendment - YES
Do I think it should be passed - NO
Did I write my representatives requesting it not be passed - YES
Am I willing to practice the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment regardless of legislation against it – YES
Do I think “this” bill, if passed, would be worth it for me personally – NO
I think it is a good to try and prevent crime. Would parts of this bill help, maybe; would armed citizens be better, I think so. I don’t think parts of this particular bill would come at a greater cost to my or others security than without them; Mayland’s carry laws however, definitely do. Other Maryland laws facilitate crime more than this bill is attempting to prevent, and I agree with Rick that those, more importantly, need to be assessed.
As a Maryland resident, I think the bill is utterly reprehensible. Fortunately, the history for the last several years is that almost none of these quack bills get out of committee and then none of them pass the Assembly. Alas, none of the pro-2A bills manage, either; the best one can say right now is that Maryland gun laws are in a sort of stalemate.
I figure this to change, one way or another, after McDonald v. Chicago is decided by SCOTUS.
Honestly, the main problem with Maryland right now is the may-issue nonsense and the corresponding lack of reciprocity/non-resident permits. Without a permit, Marylanders are very limited in where they can have guns and how they can move them from point A to point B. With a permit, most of those restrictions go away.
Maryland doesn't have any particularly onerous high-cap law (you can't transfer 20+ in the state, but you can own them if you get them elsewhere), you can own NFA items, and you can own "assault" weapons. The training requirement is a 20 minute web-site flash presentation joke. There is a fairly minimal list of places permit holders can't carry.
After may-issue, it'd be nice to get rid of the registration requirement on handguns and "assault" weapons, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
Actually I believe it's dumber than that. I think legally you can give some one a 20+ in state, but you can't sell it to them... Unless you drive across the border to any other state.
Originally Posted by kazzaerexys
No, it is illegal for me to give somebody my own 20+ mag in state, but if we both drove to VA or PA, did the exchange there, and drove back, that would by just fine. That's what makes the law so stupid---the only thing it prevents me from doing is transfering or mail ordering within the state of Maryland. The law is against transfer, not sale.
All my 30-round PMAGs were bought at the Dulles gun show, of course!
I stand corrected, but I haven't worried about it enough to check. Being "old" military I'm used to the 20 round mags. Although I do want to get to VA or PA and pick up some 30 round mags for my SIG 556, I'm not in a big rush.
Originally Posted by kazzaerexys
Everything on the Western shore should be given to DC and let the real Maryland, the Eastern Shore, get back to being Maryland.