(4-17-2006) Most action this session revolved around range protection, embodied in SB 907. This bill was a corrective measure to close a loophole, bringing state code into line with the legislative intent of Parris Glendening’s major land-use policy enacted in 1997. That policy was simple, and based on the fact that nobody is making new land anymore: ranges are understood to be inherently noisy, but must be somewhere, so at least in the case of legacy ranges (the couple dozen facilities chartered before 1997) if neighbors move to the nuisance, then they accept the nuisance.
Nearly a decade later, MDE shocked observers by using its power to intervene in an otherwise private dispute between neighbors, a clear overreach of the authority granted to it. That occurred in the Lonaconing case, reported in our Feb issue. When MDE closed this range, the administration mooted range protection across the state. SB 907 sought to restore them by saying that for the state to have standing to sue, it should own property affected by noise.
With bi-partisan support, SB 907 passed the Senate by a wide margin (34-11). This was no surprise. Except for the most rabid antigunners, most people believe that so long as we have guns we ought to also have appropriate and safe places to teach and use those guns. Then against all expectation and precaution, in the final days of legislative session the House Environmental Matters committee gutted 907. At the urging of liberal hardliners, the powerful committee chair insisted on an amendment that would reverse the bill’s intent: instead of protecting legacy gun ranges from predatory attacks by MDE, it would give the state more ways to attack a shooting facility.
The amendment said MDE should consider the “types of weapons authorized for use at the range”, and authorized it to bring a nuisance suit if they changed. Not if the noise changed – just the type of firearms. What were they really talking about? Assault weapons. Left wingers who were eager to fabricate any gun issue asked MDE to take charge of monitoring whether a range’s users shot “assault weapons, machine guns or unauthorized” firearms. This was adopted by committee, then, having won their symbolic “victory”, anti-gunners ensured the whole bill died by recommitting it to committee once it was reported out to the House floor.
No bill should be submitted without a realistic plan for how it can be carried the distance, and SB 907 was no different. After a bill with such strong bipartisan support showed up at his chamber, observers had every reason to expect Speaker Mike Busch would ensure the measure sponsored by his Senator, John Astle, would get smooth sailing. Proponents were busy counting votes on the floor when we learned unexpectedly that Speaker Busch’s interest (or reach) apparently went only so far as ensuring the bill got a vote, but not so far as to keep the bill clean.
What was really going on? Extreme politics. Purists in the Democratic Party are intent on purging even centrists from their ‘big tent’, and number one on their hit list is Senator John Giannetti. Since Giannetti voted for the range bill (as did most senators, by a 3-1 margin), liberal brainiacs figured they could declare this to be a “gun bill”, then – never mind the bill's merits – oppose it so they could demagogue Giannetti’s vote. In short, Delegates in the Senator's district worked with up-and-coming Democratic leadership to fabricate an election issue.
The thugs who mugged our corrective measure for their own personal games were Delegates Barbara Frush and Brian Moe, both in Senator Giannetti’s district 21. They’re footsoldiers in a movement to replace Giannetti with a devoutly liberal political hack. But as perpetual back-benchers in the House, they didn’t swing the weight to kill SB 907 by themselves. For that they needed the help of House leadership. The killer amendment was drafted by committee chair Maggie McIntosh, and in a leadership strong system, she alone had the weight to make it stick. It makes every political sense from her perspective: in one stroke she roped two more delegates into her stable (they owe her for exercising power on their behalf), gig gun owners (impresses the liberal base) and embarrass the Speaker (whose job she covets.)
Where have we heard her name before? In February, Maggie McIntosh was named Sportsman of the Year by the Maryland Sportsmen’s Foundation. That’s right: their sportsman of the year killed the bill to protect ranges.
Not everyone on the left is uniformly happy with the handling of range protection by Maggie and Team 21. Some strategists lament the loss of a chance to mix this bill into gubernatorial politics. The problem SB 907 would have solved was created by the present administration’s MDE. Democratic activists would love to have seen the governor decide whether to veto the bill or admit he had to fix a problem his own people created in the first place. Ironically, Maggie became Bob’s best friend by jumping the gun, and GOP strategists breathed a sign of relief accordingly.