Maryland the next state to pass strict gun law

[Fenixgoon]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...3e1754-9c69-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html

Summary:

10 round magazine limit.
Ban on certain "assault weapons"
required fingerprinting, classroom training, and target practice
required a specific, state-issued ID (separate from DL) to buy certain firearms


I'm very glad to know that I could receive 20 years in prison for owning 4x 15-round magazines unless I register them with the state (5 years minimum for each offense the way I read the bill).

I hope everyone who supports this bill is in support of ID cards and fingerprinting for voting.

and if you have to pay for the fingerprinting, training, and target practice...poll tax anyone?

fingerprinting might scare straw buyers off somewhat..but at the end of the day, it's not immediately clear to me how it will make a difference because handguns already have to be registered in maryland.

Marylanders would not need to get a license to buy hunting rifles and shotguns.

so if you're going to go on a shooting rampage, buy a shotgun or a hunting rifle.

 

[OverVolt]

Baltimore is the new Detroit soon.

 

[Lithium381]

sad . . . .

 

[Fenixgoon]

i called the governor (as a MD resident, though moving to CA soon) to let him know i did not appreciate being turned into a criminal at the stroke of a pen.

 

[Lithium381]

You can have my old spot in CA, i sold my home and bought in the free state of TX

 

[Fenixgoon]

You can have my old spot in CA, i sold my home and bought in the free state of TX

if you lived in West Los Angeles, then absolutely. I need a place to live!

<---- jelly of you texan folk

 

[boomerang]

I said it in another thread. Jim Crow laws applied to gun ownership. That's pretty much what it boils down to.

Progressives will take over this nation - if we let them.

 

[OverVolt]

I said it in another thread. Jim Crow laws applied to gun ownership. That's pretty much what it boils down to.

Progressives will take over this nation - if we let them.

Yea sort of. The Agenda with Jim Crow was more obvious on part of the status quo. I can't possibly imagine what the agenda is here though.

The direction of the economy used to be clear and now everything is very convoluted. Who are they trying to discourage and why?

A variety of people are gun owners, rich and poor. I guess they are trying to take the side of democratic inner city anti-gun types as oppose to rural/farmland republican hunter types. The problem with this is the budget always blows up and the cities always become like Detroit, LA, DC, etc full of crime. The total opposite effect they had intended.

I guess the whole country is headed that way its just hard to comprehend how stupid it is.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Just as a farmer wouldn't allow his cows to defend themselves, terrorist government won't allow its would-be victims to defend themselves.

Terrorist government can have all the "assault" rifles it wants, but the peasant livestock can't.

 

[ivwshane]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...3e1754-9c69-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html

Summary:

10 round magazine limit.
Ban on certain "assault weapons"
required fingerprinting, classroom training, and target practice
required ID to buy certain firearms


I'm very glad to know that I could receive 20 years in prison for owning 4x 15-round magazines unless I register them with the state (5 years minimum for each offense the way I read the bill).

I hope everyone who supports this bill is in support of ID cards and fingerprinting for voting.

and if you have to pay for the fingerprinting, training, and target practice...poll tax anyone?

fingerprinting might scare straw buyers off somewhat..but at the end of the day, it's not immediately clear to me how it will make a difference because handguns already have to be registered in maryland.



so if you're going to go on a shooting rampage, buy a shotgun or a hunting rifle.

Do you plan on not registering your rounds? No? Then what's the problem?

You hope everyone supports ID cards and fingerprinting for voting? Why? Because of your an eye for an eye mentality? Pass voter ID laws, as long as they don't constitute a poll tax (which is specifically forbidden in the constitution and has been upheld in the courts already) I don't see any issues.

Poll tax on guns? Last time I checked thats not illegal or unconstitutional. So what's the problem?

 

[OverVolt]

Do you plan on not registering your rounds? No? Then what's the problem?

You hope everyone supports ID cards and fingerprinting for voting? Why? Because of your an eye for an eye mentality? Pass voter ID laws, as long as they don't constitute a poll tax (which is specifically forbidden in the constitution and has been upheld in the courts already) I don't see any issues.

Poll tax on guns? Last time I checked thats not illegal or unconstitutional. So what's the problem?

What.

I just see it as excessive and ineffective regulation. I'd rather them either take all the guns or leave them alone and make up their damn mind already.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Do you plan on not registering your rounds? No? Then what's the problem?

You hope everyone supports ID cards and fingerprinting for voting? Why? Because of your an eye for an eye mentality? Pass voter ID laws, as long as they don't constitute a poll tax (which is specifically forbidden in the constitution and has been upheld in the courts already) I don't see any issues.

Poll tax on guns? Last time I checked thats not illegal or unconstitutional. So what's the problem?

1) because they are requiring identification for exercising a constitutional right. if you want fingerprints and IDs to exercise 2nd amendment rights, you shouldn't have an issue with something just as important (such as voting).

note that i am not saying you shouldn't have to provide ID and go through a background check.

also, limiting magazine sizes will do nothing. and why should i have to register them? does it matter whether i have 10x 10rd or 5x 20rd? the 10rd limit is purely arbitrary.

2) because taxing your right to vote is unconstitutional. therefore it stands logical that it should be similarly unconstitutional to tax the exercising of *any* right.

should you be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures only if you pay $25 each time you want to exercise that right?

or how about your right against self incrimination? free speech?

 

[shortylickens]

Saw that.
Conn is expected to follow in their footsteps this week or next.

 

[ivwshane]

1) because they are requiring identification for exercising a constitutional right. if you want fingerprints and IDs to exercise 2nd amendment rights, you shouldn't have an issue with something just as important (such as voting).

note that i am not saying you shouldn't have to provide ID and go through a background check.

also, limiting magazine sizes will do nothing. and why should i have to register them? does it matter whether i have 10x 10rd or 5x 20rd? the 10rd limit is purely arbitrary.

2) because taxing your right to vote is unconstitutional. therefore it stands logical that it should be similarly unconstitutional to tax the exercising of *any* right.

should you be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures only if you pay $25 each time you want to exercise that right?

or how about your right against self incrimination? free speech?

Sorry wishful thinking doesn't work when dealing with laws.

Whether or not limiting rounds works or not is a matter of opinion unless you have a study that shows otherwise, if not then what would be the harm in seeing it's effects?

And I already addressed your first point in my previous post. The rest of your points are nonsensical bullshit.

 

[Lanyap]

I said it in another thread. Jim Crow laws applied to gun ownership. That's pretty much what it boils down to.

Progressives will take over this nation - if we let them.

I'm thinking more Red Dawn 2.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Sorry wishful thinking doesn't work when dealing with laws.

Whether or not limiting rounds works or not is a matter of opinion unless you have a study that shows otherwise, if not then what would be the harm in seeing it's effects?

And I already addressed your first point in my previous post. The rest of your points are nonsensical bullshit.

so why do people get pissy over voter ID laws and talk about poll taxes?

And I would absolutely be interested in seeing studies that demonstrate that a reduction in magazine size would be effective.

Edit: especially considering that he previous AWB was shown to have no effect on crime

 

[ivwshane]

so why do people get pissy over voter ID laws and talk about poll taxes?

And I would absolutely be interested in seeing studies that demonstrate that a reduction in magazine size would be effective.

Why do people get upset about voter ID laws? For several reasons, either the laws negatively affect a specific group of people who vote a certain way and serve no other purpose or they require ID's which are not free or put a burden on someone in order to obtain the ID (which has been ruled a poll tax by the courts and as I mentioned previously, is unconstitutional) or the voter ID law does nothing to stop voter fraud which makes the law pointless.

I'd love to see a study of the affects on round limits, I don't like laws that are useless no more than anyone else. If a study shows no impact then the law should be changed (on a side note guess why we don't have government funded gun studies).

 

[ivwshane]

Edit: especially considering that he previous AWB was shown to have no effect on crime

Bullshit. Show me a non biased study that backs up your assertion.

 

[Lithium381]

Bullshit. Show me a non biased study that backs up your assertion.

I have read MANY studies on the 94 ban and most have shown either inconclusive or the ban was ineffective. . . 10 years of data and it didn't reduce crime/shootings enough to be a blip.... i would assume that after 10 years the effects would be felt. then again most argue that it didn't go far enough, and only prevented new purchases and many of the old weapons were 'grandfathered' in. . . .

then again, how many of those SCARY ASSAULT WEAPONS that were grandfathered in were actually used in a crime? 1? 2? maybe none for all i have heard.

 

[Excelsior]

As if I needed another reason to hate Maryland.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Bullshit. Show me a non biased study that backs up your assertion.

Obama ignores DOJ researchers who conclude assault weapons ban won&#8217;t cut gun violence

DOJ Memo: Assault-Weapons Ban &#8216;Unlikely to Have an Impact on Gun Violence&#8217;

Wikipedia: Expiration and effect on crime

and finally, the department of justice

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

9.4. Summary

Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs, any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs, which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation&#8217;s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs. However, the grandfathering provision of the AW-LCM ban guaranteed that the effects of this law would occur only gradually over time. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers. It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban&#8217;s impact on gun violence.

96
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by
the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official
position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Having said this, the ban&#8217;s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were used in no more than 8% of gun crimes even before the ban. Guns with LCMs are used in up to a quarter of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability to fire more than 10 shots (the current limit on magazine capacity) without reloading. Nonetheless, reducing crimes with AWs and especially LCMs could have non-trivial effects on gunshot victimizations. As a general matter, hit rates end to be low in gunfire incidents, so having more shots to fire rapidly can increase the likelihood that offenders hit their targets, and perhaps bystanders as well. While not entirely consistent, the few available studies contrasting attacks with different types of guns and magazines generally suggest that attacks with semiautomatics &#8211; including AWs and other semiautomatics with LCMs &#8211; result in more shots fired, persons wounded, and wounds per victim than do other gun attacks. Further, a study of handgun attacks in one city found that about 3% of gunfire incidents involved more than 10 shots fired, and those cases accounted for nearly 5% of gunshot victims. However, the evidence on these matters is too limited (both in volume and quality) to make firm projections of the ban&#8217;s impact, should it be reauthorized.

so, an internal DOJ study (since this document does not represent DOJ official position) states that the 1994 AWB's effect was essentially too small to be measured. IOW, it had no effect at all.

if it were effective, then our crime rate wouldn't have continued to drop for the past 10 years after the ban had expired. gun crime and violent crime have been dropping for nearly 20 years straight.

check the FBI crime statistics.

 

[Spungo]

required ID to buy certain firearms

..... you don't require ID to buy a gun? So it's easier to buy a gun than cigarettes? That makes sense.

 

[Fenixgoon]

..... you don't require ID to buy a gun? So it's easier to buy a gun than cigarettes? That makes sense.

sorry, a separate, state-issued ID saying you can buy a firearm. as opposed to just using a driver's license. will clarify in OP

 

[ivwshane]

Obama ignores DOJ researchers who conclude assault weapons ban won’t cut gun violence

DOJ Memo: Assault-Weapons Ban ‘Unlikely to Have an Impact on Gun Violence’

Wikipedia: Expiration and effect on crime

and finally, the department of justice

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf



so, an internal DOJ study (since this document does not represent DOJ official position) states that the 1994 AWB's effect was essentially too small to be measured. IOW, it had no effect at all.

if it were effective, then our crime rate wouldn't have continued to drop for the past 10 years after the ban had expired. gun crime and violent crime have been dropping for nearly 20 years straight.

check the FBI crime statistics.

Thanks I appreciate the links.
First the study doesn't say it had the opposite effect as a previous poster stated, secondly, the AWB was greatly handicapped by the GOP by putting in restrictions to what the ATF could do in various subsequent bills. So at best we have an assault weapons ban that had its teeth ripped out that still may have had a small impact and at worse had no impact. Why don't we study a law that is actually enforced (as I mentioned earlier there are reasons why the previous law was not enforced).

 

[monovillage]

Thanks I appreciate the links.
First the study doesn't say it had the opposite effect as a previous poster stated, secondly, the AWB was greatly handicapped by the GOP by putting in restrictions to what the ATF could do in various subsequent bills. So at best we have an assault weapons ban that had its teeth ripped out that still may have had a small impact and at worse had no impact. Why don't we study a law that is actually enforced (as I mentioned earlier there are reasons why the previous law was not enforced).

You asked and Fenixgoon supplied the studies that refute in total all your claims. You respond by moving the goalposts and whine: shoulda, woulda, coulda. Unless you can provide an accurate scientific study backing up your claim you just got your ignorant ass handed to you.