(October 2007) In legal news, most attention fixes on the “DC gun case” (once called the “Parker case”, now referred to as “Heller” who is the only plaintiff to retain standing.) While its central question asks “does the Second Amendment apply to an individual?” there are a huge number of legal twists, either way its answered. We’ll review them in a future issue, but for now the status is simple: DC has petitioned for the Supreme Court to hear its appeal of a lower court’s pro-gun ruling; we’ll know in a few months if it is accepted. Then the fun begins for real (in an election year too!)
Below the radar, battles in other cases of interest to Marylanders continue through the fall. Just argued before the state’s highest court is one whose central question asks whether a conviction for possession of a handgun in connection with a drug crime is proper when the defendant has been acquitted of the drug crime. (Yes, the state will cheerfully keep you in jail on the ‘multiplier’ charge even when no base crime survives. Whether prosecutors can keep doing this will be determined by the case outcome.) To be argued in November is one that asks: Is a claim of perfect self-defense still available in Maryland to one who uses non-deadly force to defend against immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm? (Some prosecutors are nipping at the heels of lawful self defense.)
No ‘safe harbor’ for a Linthicum Heights woman who apparently received six handguns as part of her father’s estate when he recently passed away. Unfortunately, she was ineligible to possess guns due to a conviction on theft from near 20 years ago. She was in the process of selling the guns to a licensed dealer when Baltimore’s Gun Task Force, having checked the status on five of the handguns based on paperwork she filed with the state due to the transfers, swung into action and arrested her for having once possessed the firearms. Police surely like technical violations. Without them, they might have to go after violent criminals who possess guns today instead of targeting people who possessed guns in the past and were nabbed trying to do what society asked of them. Your tax dollars at work!
Daron Brown is a repeat felon. He has prior convictions for violent crime, drug trafficing and theft. In spite of this, he was free to roam the streets of Baltimore, which more or less seems to be the norm these days. One day police who recognized him did a stop’n’frisk. Eureka! In his backpack they found two shotgun shells. People with a gun disability can’t possess ammunition either, and prosecutors won an 8 year federal jail sentence for his possessing the two shells. Liberals will say: “Thank goodness for the gun laws! If not for them, this criminal would be free.” Thugs will say: “Thank goodness cops only care about guns, not us. Only pack heat when you need it, and you’re safe to do violence and drugs.” Cops say: “We get rewards for bringing in gun perps, not thugs, and it doesn’t matter how technical is the offense. You want us bagging violent criminals? Reward us for that instead. Until then, we do what gets us ahead.” We say: “Most of Brown’s crimes were committed at a time when he could have been in jail for his first offense. If anyone had cared about his first violent crime, then maybe we’d have stopped his later crimes and certainly wouldn’t have needed the BS gun law.” Daron, thanks for the case study in Baltimore’s insanity.
The criminal trial of Sandy Abrams, once scheduled for October, has been pushed back to January, due to the usual sorts of legal wrangling. A long-time spokesman for the business interests of gun dealers, Abrams stands accused of possessing an unregistered machine gun and illegally transferring a regulated firearm to someone who was disabled from owning guns (who later tried to shoot up police with the rifle), all after losing his license to do business in guns. While he stepped down from the NRA Board, Abrams inexplicably continued his involvement in Annapolis politics after his troubles began. A judgment on his case in January seems perfectly timed for the new legislative session, when gun-grabbers will want all media attention possible for their roll-out of new gun control proposals.
Lonaconing Trap Club vs. Maryland Department of the Environment is the suit which followed hard on the heels of the Ehrlich administration’s overreaching efforts to close a western Maryland range over noise. This case is at the Court of Special Appeals, where it was argued on October 3, 2006. Yes, that year is correct. These trap shooters are still waiting for a decision more than one year after arguing the case before the court. Don’t hold your breath.