Maryland Gun Owners Face a Flurry of Gun Control Bills: Here Are 4 of the Worst

maryland gun control bills

Bigstock

By Edward Hershon

If it’s January through the beginning of April, you can assure yourself that the Maryland General Assembly is in session in Annapolis. In case you missed it, there has been a flurry of activity in Annapolis related to “gun legislation.”

Both houses of the General Assembly have had their hands full with various bills related to guns. Here are just a few to highlight:

SB737/HB786

Would create what will be called the “Long Gun Qualification License”. Similar to the Handgun Qualification License, the LGQL will require anyone wishing to purchase a long gun (rifles and shotguns) to attend four hours of training and have your fingerprints taken by the Maryland State Police.

This proposed legislation would also require a person who purchases a long gun to wait seven days before they can walk out the door with their long gun from a licensed dealer.

HB612

Would put the Colt AR-15 H-BAR rifles on the list of “regulated firearms” in Maryland. Only rifles owned prior to October 1, 2013 (yes, this will be a retroactive piece of legislation) will be grandfathered into law.

For owners who acquired their rifles after October 1, 2013, they would need to remove those rifles from their possession.

HB96

Would require a non-prohibited adult who loans a handgun to another law-abiding, non-prohibited adult to go through the procedures as if they were actually selling or permanently transferring ownership of a handgun or regulated firearm.

The practical effects of this are many, but two of the bigger issues are if you were the owner of a regulated handgun, and you left your home for several hours and your spouse used your handgun to defend him/herself from bodily harm or even to go to the firing range, you could be subject to up to five years in jail. The other big issue is that firearm ranges would not be able to rent firearms any longer.

SB1000/HB1343

Is legislation designed to abolish the Maryland Handgun Review Permit Board. The Board has been in existence since 1972 and is a civilian oversight Board of the Maryland State Police’s granting or denial of Wear and Carry Permits (commonly referred to Concealed Carry Permits).

In the 2018 legislative session, the General Assembly passed a law to add another layer of review beyond the Handgun Review Permit Board; at the Office of Administrative Hearings. Going to the Office of Administrative Hearings is fiscally difficult for many people and if they elect to proceed to represent themselves, they are at a severe disadvantage since the Office of Administrative Hearings is a judicial proceeding with an Administrative Law Judge and rules of procedure are in effect.

Since October 1, 2018, when cases were permitted to be appealed to the Office of Administrative Hearings, the Maryland State Police have vowed to appeal every case that they lose from the Maryland Handgun Review Permit Board. The sponsors of this legislation believe that administrative law judges that have been trained by the Maryland State Police will be more impartial than a citizen review board that is chosen by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.

 

Edward Hershon is managing partner of Hershon Legal in Annapolis, Maryland. 

 

comments

  1. Sure looks like Authoritarianism to me….

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      Whaaaaaa???… NO! Its freedom!!! Freedom from fear. Freedom from violence. Freedom from self reliance. Freedom from responsiblity. Freedom from evil gun owners. Freedom from toxic phalocentric cisgender masculinity…. freedom. /sarc/

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “Freedom from toxic phalocentric cisgender masculinity…”

        I’d say that getting BOHICA aka, getting “fucked in the ass” yet again plays right into “phalocentric cisgender masculinity”.

  2. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    1. The Second Amendment is law and the only part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, included as an integral part of the body of the Constitution via the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, that “shall not be infringed”. The words need no interpretation and they are justified and proper for guaranteeing that all American citizes and naturalized citizens remain free and secure in their safety, property and papers from tyranny by their own government. History supports the reason for this amendment and its being unchangeable by any method including an Article V. amendment.

      Freedom and liberty will end should government continue abusing this Constitutional safeguard made law of the land upon ratification of the Constitution.

      The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution makes all Federal laws superior to state constitutions and state laws. The authority of all Federal laws comes from constitutional law which is superior to all other laws.

      State governments and the Federal govt do not have the power to overrule the Constitution or to alter any part of it by regulation or decree. Article V. provides the only method for changing it, amendment.

      No state can regulate who can possess firearms or the kinds of firearms they can possess. It is imperative that. citizens possess firearms of equal and/or superior force to those held by any potential adversary.

      The entire problem about guns is government that has run amok of the Constitution. Government comprised of progressives who feel they are entitled to rule over us instead of doing what we tell them we want done as things are supposed to work.

      We the people are the cause of the problems we now face. We are responsible for repairing government. We can do this with or without bloodshed.

      We can refuse to reelect every Member of the House and the one-third of Senators up for election in 2020, or, face a bloody revolution to forcefully regain control and return govt to the Constitution.

      Lets do without bloodshed and exact constitutional term limits in Articles II. and III. Pass the word to all. We cannot afford business as usual!

      1. avatar possum says:

        Reality versus Dreams.

  3. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Bill of Rights
    Unenumerated Rights

  4. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Maryland’s purposed bill/laws are UnConstitutional.

    1. avatar cgray says:

      “UnConstitutional”? Hell is that?

    2. avatar UpInArms says:

      Maryland doesn’t even know what the Constitution is. For as long as I can remember (I grew up and live next door in DE), Maryland has been a one-party totalitarian state, and even though they occasionally vote in a Republican governor, those governors are simply signed up in the wrong party. All they need to do is take control of the state’s economy and Maryland would be the perfect clone of China.

      Maryland is just a Democrat’s wet dream.

  5. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    If the HBAR law is passed without a grandfathering clause, I fear this will set a precedent where all bans in the future will lack them. Of course the courts will uphold them. Thus the Constitution is attacked on so many fronts while people cheer.

    1. avatar J says:

      The bump stock ban didn’t have grandfathering. NJ’s new magazine ban doesn’t have grandfathering. There are many other proposed bans that don’t have grandfathering.
      Prepare for confiscation to be the new normal.

      1. avatar Bob Jones says:

        Confiscation of guns is nothing compared to what’s in the pipeline. IRA’s, 401Ks, Bank Accounts, Property, Homesteads, Real Estate, Personal Property……Everything. Most of the Democrats/Liberals/ Progressives/Socialists are really Bolsheviks (ultra-elite ruling class) and will ultimately take it all. Their proposed Ends justify any and all means.

        Real the early history of the Soviet Union, it’s similar to what’s happening in the US these days. They just need a few more voters and a big dose of vote fraud to get full control.

    2. avatar CC says:

      If the HBAR law is passed without a grandfathering clause, I fear this will set a precedent where all bans in the future will lack them.

      You should do more than fear it, you should expect it. NRA scored a huge victory by while also generally opposing it, forcing AWB to be both grandfathered and sunsetted. If you look at gun control attempts and success (state and federal) last 25 years there is a clear trend toward increasingly not grandfathering.

      The moment the Democrats take the White House and Senate there certainly will be a non grandfathered AWB as one of the first orders of business. They have a good chance at white house, a fair chance at senate in 2020, and a extremely good chance of taking the senate in 2022.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        California passed a law banning previously grandfathered 10+ capacity mags. An injunction was issued in a very strong opinion, and the injunction was upheld on appeal as a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion. Barring any surprises, case is set for trial this spring, I believe. Early indications are that the law is unconstitutional. If it passes muster on appeal (as if), it may set a national precedent for such laws. Then again, the bump stock cases, which raise identical issues, may beat it to SCOTUS, not because they are ex post facto laws (they are not) but because they are a taking for public purposes without compensation.

  6. avatar Robster says:

    We must stand for our 2nd Amendment rights. We can’t simply fold over.

  7. avatar barnbwt says:

    “Would require a non-prohibited adult who loans a handgun to another law-abiding, non-prohibited adult to go through the procedures as if they were actually selling or permanently transferring ownership of a handgun or regulated firearm.”

    The other aspect of these types of laws; are they legally requiring a sale/transfer to transpire in order to allow possession from one person to the next? That seems rather fraught from an insurance perspective (“you dropped my H&H, you bought it!”) and several other similar areas. It also opens up the possibility of a “possession tax” where the transfer is taxed/regulated similar to the NFA which has plenty of (bad, but real) precedent backing it up. And with Hughes going un-challenged all these years, there’s a pretty clear roadmap to making transfer of any firearm to any person under any circumstance, illegal. If the feds can do it, the states can do it as well.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “And with Hughes going un-challenged all these years, there’s a pretty clear roadmap to making transfer of any firearm to any person under any circumstance, illegal. If the feds can do it, the states can do it as well.”

      Why, yes – It’s “common-sense” don’t ya know.

      This their road map. Throw as much against the wall as possible, and eventually, when the courts get around to it, decide what’s constitutional and what isn’t.

      Either way it’s blatant civil rights harassment. I hope Thomas & Co. see this and have something in mind to put a stop to it…

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        The nature of government and people is on government’s side. Societies tend to run from liberty to tyranny if left unchecked. Incrementalism will not restore the true exercise of liberty. The best incrementalism can offer is to stave off complete loss through conversion of the exercise of rights into privileges. One major downside of that slow capitulation is that future generations will find it more difficult to identify tyranny and ultimately to fight against it. Restoration will only come abruptly or not at all.

        There are two ways to restore the exercise of true individual liberty in the Nation. One way is through mass non-compliance in the open. The People must stubbornly refuse to comply, openly flaunting these unconstitutional abominations. They cannot back down. The other way, which can also be the result of the first way being unsuccessful, is more physical revolt against tyranny. If the People are not prepared to do those two things, they will never regain their freedom. Once this generation passes away, the next will find it all the more difficult to open their eyes (new normalization has set in) and more difficult to find the means to fight back against an even more powerful tyrant. At some point, it becomes almost impossible to fight back successfully; Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

  8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Governments have no righteous/legitimate authority to enact laws which prohibit effective self-defense since those laws condemn the populous to grievous injury and/or death.

    Look at it this way:
    Government has no righteous/legitimate authority to force you to drink contaminated water since that condemns you to grievous injury and/or death. Neither does government have righteous/legitimate authority to force you to accept beating, rape, and/or death at the hands of attackers.

    Government employees (which includes politicians, bureaucrats, clerks, prosecutors, judges, bailiffs, and law enforcement officers) who force you to accept beating, rape, and/or death at the hands of attackers are themselves accomplices to those attackers.

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      Nor does it have a right to force you accept medical/pharmaceutical procedures which carry potential risk. Especially when those procedures are not even legitimate safety tested. But they’ll do it anyway, as they disarm us.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I do not know any detailed research nor science behind vaccinations.

        The polio vaccine appears to be wildly successful.

        I have no idea what risk (if any) is a result of measles, chicken pox, etc. vaccines.

        I know this much: requiring children to have vaccines before attending school makes no sense at all. Children who have not received vaccines pose absolutely zero risk to children who did receive vaccines, assuming that vaccines actually work. Therefore, if an unvaccinated child is a carrier, they can only infect other unvaccinated children whose parents already determined to take on the risks associated with refusing to vaccinate.

        Of course all this goes to show that a large portion of our population operates on emotion, fantasy, and self-proclaimed notions of virtue. Just as people seek to enforce positions on vaccines based on factors other than facts and rights, people seek to enforce positions on firearms based on factors other than facts and rights.

        1. avatar CC says:

          I knew our resident anti-vax nut would be triggered with their usual inane and illogical statements.
          EG:

          Children who have not received vaccines pose absolutely zero risk to children who did receive vaccines, assuming that vaccines actually work.

          a) vaccines actually do work.
          b) children who have not received vaccines DO pose a huge risk to children who due to immunity issues cannot be given vaccines.

          The polling and surveys shows anti-vax nuttery is much more common on the left, 22% to 45% more common. But apparently we have a some morons on the right as well.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          Typical troll response, citing meaningless, fictional percentages about people beliefs along party lines. Nice how you try to deflect away from the issue with a nonsense post. Here’s a fun fact. No pediatric vaccine has ever been safety tested against an inert placebo. It is also the only pharmaceutical product that enjoys exemption from this gold standard safety testing. It’s is also the only product sold in the United States where the manufacturer cannot be held legally liable for damages caused by the product. Issue at hand is the government forcing some Indivuals to accept harm.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          CC,

          … children who due to immunity issues cannot be given vaccines …

          I have not heard of such medical conditions. While I am not a physician, I have a pretty darned good knowledge base and have never come across this.

          Supposing your claim is true, those same children with immunity deficits would be equally susceptible to influenza, the common cold, mononucleosis, and who knows what else. Should we require everyone to wear bubble suits with HEPA filters to ensure that our tiny majority of children who cannot receive vaccines are safe from everyone else?

          And you obviously missed the irony in your claim. In your world it is okay to force OTHER parents to expose their children to possible risks associated with vaccines, but it isn’t okay for parents of children with immune deficits to be exposed to the possible risks associated with unvaccinated children. Why is it okay to force one set of parents to take on risk and so that others can reduce their risk?

        4. avatar John E> says:

          Pg2, you are an idiot. MMR has virtually wiped out occurrences of those diseases until the resurgence of them do to unvaccinated migrants entering the US. MMR vaccines were tested significantly before being introduced to the US population, as the disease states were significant prior to implementation.

        5. avatar John E> says:

          Uncommon Sense: Lupus, Leukemia, other cancers, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. I am not a doctor either, you are intellectually lazy.

        6. avatar Pg2 says:

          JohnE, MMR has never been safety tested against an inert placebo. Never, not once. So before you embarrass yourself further, keep your blind faith and unscientific beliefs about MMR safety to yourself. And we know the MMR can cause brain swelling, ie brain damage. Health and Human Services performed a study through Harvard and found that less than 1% vaccine reactions are reported to VAERS. There were more 400deaths following vaccination reported to VAERS last year. Do the math genius.

        7. avatar Pg2 says:

          Uncommon, best way to shut up an intentionally lying or outright ignorant troll is to tell the truth. And watch them vanish, except for serge, he just continues to make shit up and throw temper tantrums.

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Neither does government have righteous/legitimate authority to force you to accept beating, rape, and/or death at the hands of attackers.”

      Yeah, it does, actually. Wasn’t there a SCOTUS case that essentially said the police have no obligation to protect you?

      I guess we can just “lay there and enjoy it”…

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Geoff PR,

        Yes, there are multiple United States Supreme Court cases which state that police have no particular duty to protect any single person unless they have contracted to do so with a particular person.

        Nevertheless, police refusing to intervene on my behalf does not typically condemn me to grievous bodily harm, rape, or death as long as police do not forcefully prohibit me from having and using effective means of self-defense.

        Of course we all know that police do indeed often forcefully prohibit us from having and using effective means of self-defense. In those cases police (and every government employee who ordered/enabled them) are criminal accomplices to violent attackers.

  9. avatar SoCalJack says:

    From my CA perspective, these bills are very bad and too agressive to pass, I hope, for the sake of the POTG and the future POTG of Maryland.

  10. avatar WI Patriot says:

    While ALL are a load of crap, this one I find particularily disturbing…

    “Would put the Colt AR-15 H-BAR rifles on the list of “regulated firearms” in Maryland. Only rifles owned prior to October 1, 2013 (yes, this will be a retroactive piece of legislation) will be grandfathered into law.

    For owners who acquired their rifles after October 1, 2013, they would need to remove those rifles from their possession.”

    HowTF can they go back 5.5yrs…??? Hmmm…

    1. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

      See, for reference, the recent bump stock ban, allowed per the Chevron Deference (basically, the court saying that we trust that the government agency is acting legally and within its jurisdiction without oversight, even in the face of litigation).

      But you probably thought bump stocks were just a stupid piece of plastic.

      1. avatar Nick says:

        That precedent won’t hold for the MD law. The lack of grandfathering in that case is because ATF is basically saying bumpstocks had always been banned by the law and they had just misinterpreted it. This is wrong, but entirely different than changing the statutory definition as the MD law would do.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Nick,

          Is it entirely different? It sure sounds the same to me.

          ATF said, “Bumpstocks actually are machine guns so they are forbidden under the 1986 Hughes Amendment.”

          And in Maryland’s case, they are saying, “Model ____________ (fill in the blank) semi-automatic rifles actually are ‘assault rifles’ so they are forbidden under the 2013 law.”

          The only difference is that an administrative agency versus a legislature expanded the contraband umbrella.

  11. avatar Tim says:

    2A notwithstanding, I struggle to sympathize with people who choose to live in a state that borders an open sewer (D.C.).

  12. avatar DixieBiker says:

    Uncommon Sense has the right idea. Should the Bill pass and be made a law, the first 2A supporter who is unfortunate enough to be attacked should sue the pants off of Maryland’s draconian government as accomplices to the attack under Criminal Law and file a Civil Suit as well. The right to self-defense is not an option of the government, it is a Human right guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

  13. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Idiots, morons, and despots. I guess they are synonyms. That 2013 crap shouldn’t pass a SCOTUS review. If you can go to jail for letting the guy standing beside you try your new .454 something is seriously screwed up about these people. If Marylanders don’t vote them out of office or move they are true wimps. I declined to move in with a woman because she lived in New Jersey.

  14. avatar GeorgiaBob says:

    “Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument (the US Constitution).”
    – – – – – United States Chief Justice Marshall, 1803 in Marbury v. Madison.

    Now, when will a Maryland citizen take the state to task?

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      That quotation would look good on a large billboard. Then below it state ” We will not comply with unconstitutional laws “.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Ironically, Marshall completely ignored the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison opinion and created doctrine giving the Supreme Court the power of Judicial Review; a privilege not explicitly granted to the Court by the Constitution. That doctrine enabled all of the Constitution shredding Supreme Court decisions. What was required was a constitutional amendment. Instead, Marshall quoted Hamilton and created the power out of thin air. The Constitution had been ratified, not the arguments of Hamilton before ratification. What Marshall did in that case was the essence of our complaint against gun control laws; it’s all an unconstitutional over-reach of power and, thus, null and void.

      “This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” – Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825

      http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html
      http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/284/Thomas_Jeffersons_Reaction

  15. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    “the LGQL will require anyone wishing to purchase a long gun (rifles and shotguns) to attend four hours of training and have your fingerprints taken by the Maryland State Police.”

    But, unlike requiring voter ID, this somehow isn’t racist.

  16. avatar possum says:

    Our second amendment is safe, Our president said so.

  17. avatar GS650G says:

    Why is the Colt AR-15 H-BAR being singled out when there are 40 or more different variants out there?

    1. avatar Docduracoat says:

      Marylands’ assault weapon ban allowed the only type of A.R. 15 they thought was suitable for target practice.
      The H bar is legal in Maryland while all the other variants are not.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        So they filtered it down to one model.and now banned that. Nice.

  18. avatar former water walker says:

    Coming soon to ILLinois…I will. NOT comply😡

  19. avatar million says:

    this’ll make Baltimore safe.

  20. avatar Mad says:

    Idiot politicians sure are planning their own suicides

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      They’re planning our homicides. If the People don’t fight back, that’s what will happen.

  21. avatar Hannibal says:

    Maryland, surely in the top 5 states that issue the LEAST carry permits (it’s right up there with NYC per capita- either you’re connected or rich to get one) needs to reduce the number of carry permits it issues, regardless of the many regulations and qualifications needed to do it in the first place.

    How many licensed carriers have killed someone in MD to cause this change? (crickets)

  22. avatar Tim kiphart says:

    #wewillnotcomply.

    F them mother effers!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email