Maryland state senate bill 403
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Maryland state senate bill 403

  1. #1

    Maryland state senate bill 403

    It has come to my attention that Senator Steve Waugh (R of Calvert County) has introduced Senate Bill 403 which, if passed, would extend reciprocity of the surrounding states (Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia and West Virginia) for valid Concealed Carry Permit holders to also be allowed to carry in the State of Maryland.

    GAM-SB0403 Summary 2016 Regular Session

    Suggest many letters of encouragement and support be sent to Sen. Waugh and the other co-sponsors of this bill. There are many permit holders that live in these surrounding states that are currently banned from carry in Maryland and don't go there because they feel their US Constitutional Right to self defense and baring arms is being infringed by Maryland's current stance on Concealed Carry that prohibits permit holders from surrounding states.

  2.   
  3. #2
    That's great news. What's the chance of this actually passing though? It is a real bill or one someone puts forth to make a point without actually expecting it to pass?

  4. #3
    There is also a cross-filed bill in the Maryland House numbered HB 0369 that is for the same purpose. I have emailed the co-sponsors of these bills with encouragement and support. I have also emailed the NRA-ILA and the Delaware States Sportsman's Association (DSSA) asking for their support on both of these bills. I hope that any members of USA Carry in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, and West Virginia would also join in the push to get this done. It would be one of the biggest wins in reciprocity between these states in history.

  5. #4
    Good news!! Kinda 'trapped" here in Delaware. Non Res Pa will help, some.

  6. #5
    I know what you mean. It's like a vast Liberal wasteland, surrounded by a vast Liberal waste land.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    There is also a cross-filed bill in the Maryland House numbered HB 0369 that is for the same purpose. I have emailed the co-sponsors of these bills with encouragement and support. I have also emailed the NRA-ILA and the Delaware States Sportsman's Association (DSSA) asking for their support on both of these bills. I hope that any members of USA Carry in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, and West Virginia would also join in the push to get this done. It would be one of the biggest wins in reciprocity between these states in history.
    Please receive the comments below in the helpful spirit in which they are offered. NEVER underestimate the impact of your efforts. Sometimes it takes a decade to get favorable laws.

    Keep trying, don’t give up. LEARN when the opposition stymies your efforts.

    Both SB403 and HB369 have passed their “Bill Crossover Date” of 21 March 2016 and were not passed to the other chamber. They’re DEAD – THIS year.

    This document http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2016RS/fn...003/sb0403.pdf lays out the “reasons” why the bill could not advance.

    FIRSTLY: That document handed pro-gun forces in MD a potent weapon: to wit, the “revenue to the State of Maryland” argument.

    1) How much revenue does MD get NOW from licenses issued to non-residents? Hint: With only 16,000 total active permits in the state I’d guess not much, but SOMEBODY in State Government knows – FIND THEM - and find out - in time to write next years bills. Why limit reciprocity to bordering states only?

    2) How much MORE revenue would MD receive from both residents and non-residents alike IF they were to eliminate their unconstitutional “show-good-cause” requirement AND become a “shall-issue” state (“From the October 1, 2013 effective date of the Firearm Safety Act of 2013 through calendar 2015, DSP received 40,774 applications for an HQL.” – you do the Math)? Do I smell a bill to do that in the next legislative session? WHY NOT?

    SECONDLY: Is it REALLY a function of the Department of State Police (as outlined in ‘the document’ “Thus, it is unclear how DSP can implement the reciprocity provisions established under the bill.”) to implement reciprocity? In MOST states, reciprocity agreements are handled by the State Attorney General.

    THIRDLY: What is the technological impediment that keeps “DSP” from verifying out-of-state permits? Oh wait, silly me - they DON’T HAVE TO NOW, so they just say they ‘can’t’. HINT: How do they verify the validity of those non-residents of MD carrying under LEOSA?

  8. #7
    Thanks for the info anvil6. Hopefully this will be brought back up. As for the DSP, they could find out like other police Depts. do. They call the issuing agency in the permit state. Boy that took a lot of thought didn't it. I have fiends that were MD State Police, and they say it is not a big deal. Just a political move on the part of the State Government to block anyone with a gun in Maryland.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Thanks for the info anvil6. Hopefully this will be brought back up. As for the DSP, they could find out like other police Depts. do. They call the issuing agency in the permit state. Boy that took a lot of thought didn't it. I have fiends that were MD State Police, and they say it is not a big deal. Just a political move on the part of the State Government to block anyone with a gun in Maryland.

    Fewer Maryland Legislators supported reciprocity legislation in 2016 than did in 2015. SB 0403 of 2016 received 15 sponsors to SB454 of 2015’s 16 sponsors. It was worse in the house, where HB 0369 of 2016 received only 35 sponsors, compared to HB 0464 of 2015 which received 44.

    IF Marylanders are SERIOUS about getting reciprocity passed then they MUST reverse this “declining interest” on the part of their Legislators.

    Perhaps they should focus their efforts in other areas – such as ELIMINATING the very subjective “good and substantial reason” requirement AND/OR becoming “shall issue” – please don’t try to do both in the same bill.

    Reciprocity legislation in Maryland goes all the way back to at least the 2010 Legislative Session, when HB 52 received an “unfavorable” recommendation by a 10 -10 vote in the Judiciary committee and was not advanced to the floor. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2010rs/vo...hb0052_jud.pdf

    Similar bills granting reciprocity for carry permits generally or with neighboring states were introduced in the 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, and 2010 sessions. The following bills “received a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, but no further action was taken”: HB 62 of 2014; HB 1421 of 2013; HB 256 of 2012; HB 9 of 2011. Additionally, SB 660 of 2013 received a hearing in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, but no further action was taken. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2015RS/fn...004/hb0464.pdf

    Frankly, SIX YEARS of getting “NFA” (no further action) from committees should not be acceptable to Marylanders.

  10. #9
    I suggest that since 2016 is an election year, many may back away because they are representing a very Liberal district and fear using their own good conscious.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    I suggest that since 2016 is an election year, many may back away because they are representing a very Liberal district and fear using their own good conscious.
    Slim possibility. More likely the sponsors are pandering to their conservative base by saying “see, I supported the bill by co-sponsoring it”. There’s FAR more to ‘support’ than just adding one’s name to the list of sponsors.

    The really HEAVY lifting behind getting legislation passed is done in Committee. Often, it is done in backroom deals.

    In the case of “sponsors” who don’t sit on Committee the bill is assigned to, that often means behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing with their peers who ARE members of “the Committee” to at least get them to DISCUSS the bill, INCLJUDING offering their own amendments to the bill in committee.

    “Sponsors” who sit on ‘the Committee’ need to FORCE discussion of their bill in Committee by offering THEIR OWN amendment(s). Not only will that cause discussion – where the ACTUAL reason some oppose the bill may be discovered (if there is one) – and will force Committee Members to go “ON RECORD” with their votes on the amendment AND the bill (that’s if the Rules Committee sets it up for Committee votes to be recorded and open to public scrutiny).

    Legislators WILL NOT see the light until they feel the heat from constituents. That means hand-written letters, emails, phone calls, faxes, polite-but-firm comments on ‘social media’ sites they host, visits to their offices, petitions, being a visible and vocal pain-in-their-neck at every ‘voter information’ event they throw in their district.

    If you’re wondering how I can SAY that, it’s because I’ve lived in THREE very different States where I was fortunate enough to watch pro-gun legislation EVENTUALLY become law after overcoming MANY obstacles.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast