(2008-02-17) Several bills have already been heard (as this issue goes to press, several minor bills have also already been voted down as trash, so we don't bother to list them at this time.) A right-to-carry bill was heard early in session – a pity it is even submitted. The community pays a price when someone gets the bright idea to submit it without a plan, and then we pay an even bigger price to ensure it can't be voted (since if it advances, it will surely be transformed into a very anti-gun measure.) Gunowners' political capital should be invested to make gains, not cover tactical blunders. Each year this happens, carry is pushed further to the future, since such handling trains officials to view it as a loser.
SB 299 is the crossfile of HB 877, and was already heard. This is the proposal to define penalties for possession of a handgun by a minor. We oppose it. We also oppose HB 108, which was heard in January. This proposes a ban on citizen ownership of “electronic weapons” – Tasers . It is not a gun bill, but we are always uneasy about controls on inanimate objects as opposed to criminal behavior. Readers know we have expressed our strong concern about the danger of Tasers, but the issue is not so much the devices as it is their abuse as a control mechanism by rogue cops. A ban is not the answer unless you take them away from police too. The future of this bill is unclear, with an odd assortment of backers pushing it. (For example, Second Amendment Sisters left a statement of support for the ban.)
Two bills (beyond the very good SB 449 mentioned earlier) address questions of immunity from liability in use of deadly force in either business or home (HB 1075 and HB 1060, resp.) Long-time readers know we launched this as an issue in Annapolis more than a decade ago, so we obviously support the concept, but these particular bills suffer from certain defects, and regardless, simply aren't going anywhere. Waste no effort on them, nor on the proposal to make the state return application fees on denied carry permit applications (HB 1061, also going nowhere.) If gunowners are to pay the immense political cost of passing a bill, let it be for something real. (These three bills were submitted purely for show. Maybe others give style points on failed legislation, but we rate officials by how well they advance goals sought by the community. This takes coordination, not freelancing, and is rewarded as such.)
A bill narrowing who may be approved for a dealer's license (and also concerning record-keeping obligations) is in the Rules committee, but may soon be directed to Judicial Proceedings for a hearing. SB 851 should be called “Sandy's Law” , after the dealer association's long-time spokesman, Sandy Abrams. Now a convicted felon, as previously reported, Sandy shows every sign of trying to hover on the periphery of the gun trade, which begged this legislation from one of the Senate's super-libs. All dealers may soon pay the price, as will their customers who will inevitably pay higher prices for products once reporting burdens increase ‘cost of business.'
Though not listed in this table, several proposals this session deal with privacy . These aren't gun bills per se, but a government's policy on personal privacy does affect the climate in which we exercise the rest of our freedoms, including firearm ownership. Society has become so complex that control-minded officials think everyone is guilty of something , so they and their agenda first decide who needs to ‘get got' – gun owners would be an example – then work back from there to find a pattern of facts that gives them a case. The only defense for an honest citizen holding unpopular views is to avoid being targeted in the first place, and that means not giving officials data to color their arguments. More thoughts on page 5, with details on the web site. This is worth your consideration.