A Law Which Will Make Some of You Orgasm (Manchester: buying, cost of)

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry

I am in full support of the 2nd Amendment. I want law abiding citizens to have the right to purchase long guns. I also strongly support a law that will make it more difficult for violent criminals to purchase these guns and I do not see how those 2 opinions conflict in any way what so ever. If you are not mentally ill or have a violent past I have no idea why you would be so upset over this bill. And no "thou shall not infringe" is not a viable argument to a law meant to reduce the ability for the bad guys to purchase long guns. This won't effect your ability to purchase what you want, the law abiding gun owner will simply not be infringed upon

What more laws, that are already on the books, are needed? That's the point. Background checks have been required for decades as have exclusion from purchase for convicted felons and those who are mentally ill.

A couple decades old but still accurate:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ocon/guns.html

So, how exactly does increasing costs and regulation on the law abiding impact the above?

It's just like anything, make it enough of a pain in the ass and people will just say the heck with it. Nothing's been made illegal but the same thing has been accomplished.

My "upset" was over the whole range of bills introduced, not just one. For reference, I don't own any of the currently regulated firearms but still, although I'm retired from public life, have enough connections in Annapolis to have been told that if these regulations go through the next ones will be directed at ones I do own, which several Delegates have been saying they want to do for the last several years.

And not one of any of these laws will impact the violence in Baltimore or anywhere else.

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

And not one of any of these laws will impact the violence in Baltimore or anywhere else.

True, because most of the guns used in crime there originate in states with even less regulation

[DaveinMtAiry]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

What more laws, that are already on the books, are needed? That's the point. Background checks have been required for decades as have exclusion from purchase for convicted felons and those who are mentally ill.

A couple decades old but still accurate:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ocon/guns.html

So, how exactly does increasing costs and regulation on the law abiding impact the above?

It's just like anything, make it enough of a pain in the ass and people will just say the heck with it. Nothing's been made illegal but the same thing has been accomplished.

My "upset" was over the whole range of bills introduced, not just one. For reference, I don't own any of the currently regulated firearms but still, although I'm retired from public life, have enough connections in Annapolis to have been told that if these regulations go through the next ones will be directed at ones I do own, which several Delegates have been saying they want to do for the last several years.

And not one of any of these laws will impact the violence in Baltimore or anywhere else.

I can't comment on "whole range of bills introduced" because we are discussing the one you posted in your original post. And while I understand your point about handguns and crime we also know long guns have been involved in pretty much every mass shootings as well as other tragedies. Just seems like common sense that we should do what we can to try to prevent the mentally ill or violent criminals from being able to make these purchases to easily.

I get the push back to some degree, the law would make it more difficult for gun owners to sell to other gun owners. It would be an inconvenience to be forced to do background checks, right? Or is the objection you do not have the access to background check vehicles?

Oh and by the way I totally agree that additional fee, up to $1,000 (if that figure is to be believed) is an unfair burden to gun owners. But let's not forget the additional taxes smokers and drinkers pay. Seems there is a lot of lifestyle judgement being made on tax burdens in our society, and it's not limited to Maryland.

[westsideboy]

Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry

I can't comment on "whole range of bills introduced" because we are discussing the one you posted in your original post. And while I understand your point about handguns and crime we also know long guns have been involved in pretty much every mass shootings as well as other tragedies. Just seems like common sense that we should do what we can to try to prevent the mentally ill or violent criminals from being able to make these purchases to easily.

I get the push back to some degree, the law would make it more difficult for gun owners to sell to other gun owners. It would be an inconvenience to be forced to do background checks, right? Or is the objection you do not have the access to background check vehicles?

Oh and by the way I totally agree that additional fee, up to $1,000 (if that figure is to be believed) is an unfair burden to gun owners. But let's not forget the additional taxes smokers and drinkers pay. Seems there is a lot of lifestyle judgement being made on tax burdens in our society, and it's not limited to Maryland.

Mixing the defensive bills with the outrageous ones isn't a good idea, IMO. I think it reveals the true end goal of the legislators. That goal is to make any short of recreation involving guns (hunting, target shooting, collecting) an onerous financial burden, and ultimately disarm as much of the population as possible.

I compare it to abortion. When you read about a bill that bans abortion after 6 weeks, or requires parental consent, or whatever, does anyone really feel that is what the legislators proposing it actually want? Or is it clear that ending abortion is the goal, and the intermediate bills are small bites off that apple?

[westsideboy]

Originally Posted by westsideboy

Mixing the defensive bills with the outrageous ones isn't a good idea, IMO. I think it reveals the true end goal of the legislators. That goal is to make any short of recreation involving guns (hunting, target shooting, collecting) an onerous financial burden, and ultimately disarm as much of the population as possible.

I compare it to abortion. When you read about a bill that bans abortion after 6 weeks, or requires parental consent, or whatever, does anyone really feel that is what the legislators proposing it actually want? Or is it clear that ending abortion is the goal, and the intermediate bills are small bites off that apple?

"defensible" not "defensive"

"sort" not "short"

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

Originally Posted by westsideboy

Mixing the defensive bills with the outrageous ones isn't a good idea, IMO. I think it reveals the true end goal of the legislators. That goal is to make any short of recreation involving guns (hunting, target shooting, collecting) an onerous financial burden, and ultimately disarm as much of the population as possible.

I compare it to abortion. When you read about a bill that bans abortion after 6 weeks, or requires parental consent, or whatever, does anyone really feel that is what the legislators proposing it actually want? Or is it clear that ending abortion is the goal, and the intermediate bills are small bites off that apple?

That's a good way to explain it

[DaveinMtAiry]

Originally Posted by westsideboy

That goal is to make any short of recreation involving guns (hunting, target shooting, collecting) an onerous financial burden, and ultimately disarm as much of the population as possible.

It's comments like this that make me shy away from debating with gun owners. I don't believe for a second that the goal is to disarm legally owned guns owned by people who should be allowed to own them. Gun laws designed to make it harder for those who should not be owning guns does not mean The Man will be showing up at your door demanding your guns used for target shooting or home protection, that's simply paranoia.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry

It's comments like this that make me shy away from debating with gun owners. I don't believe for a second that the goal is to disarm legally owned guns owned by people who should be allowed to own them. Gun laws designed to make it harder for those who should not be owning guns does not mean The Man will be showing up at your door demanding your guns used for target shooting or home protection, that's simply paranoia.

Then you need to open your eyes (and ears) because the more candid of gun control people will admit it.

How do any of the proposed laws make it any harder for someone who shouldn't have one to get a gun? They don't.

What they do is impose more burdens and cost on the law abiding who already follow the laws.

Here's a fun fact:

A prohibited person is under no compulsion to admit to having a gun because that's a violation of his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination as determined by the Supreme Court in Haynes v. United States so only people not prohibited to own firearms are required to follow registration requirements.

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

[westsideboy]

Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry

It's comments like this that make me shy away from debating with gun owners. I don't believe for a second that the goal is to disarm legally owned guns owned by people who should be allowed to own them. Gun laws designed to make it harder for those who should not be owning guns does not mean The Man will be showing up at your door demanding your guns used for target shooting or home protection, that's simply paranoia.

I understand, but why else propose a 1,000 dollar "registration fee" per firearm if the goal isn't to prevent legal gun owners from keeping their firearms? Do you think people out my way who own 5-6 different firearms have $5,000 on hand to "register" them? I think you will admit the big cigarette taxes are in place to stop people from buying cigarettes. It was an expressed goal of the tax increase, to stop people from having them.

I'll go back to abortion. Is it paranoia when people say all of the partial abortion bans, shuttering of clinics, end of funding, etc. aren't specifically designed to stop people from having abortions? I'm Pro-Life, and I will be upfront, stopping abortions is the goal of these measures, one step at a time if necessary.

[bufflove]

I can't even keep up with what you guys are referencing. HB1261? That bill would certainly not result in someone having to pay $5k to register their hunting rifles. Here it is, if you want to flip through: https://legiscan.com/MD/text/HB1261/2020

Let me know if there's another proposed bill about (not to exceed) $1k registration fees.