(2008-03-31)Status of active legislation ...
SB 42 is a ‘family law' bill titled Temporary Protective Orders - Surrender of Firearms . It is just that, a bill that not only allows but in practice would mandate that someone who comes under a temporary protective order (because of, say, a domestic dispute) should also be disarmed. These are not people who have been charged with any crime – if they were, then very different law already exists to handle that situation. The fundamental shift in this policy is that the order can be issued ex parte , that is to say, without the subject being present in court to oppose the order or potentially even know about it – until the sheriff's tactical team shows up at his house to seize guns. Supporters of the bill say it will protect families; opponents say it is ripe for abuse in the often heated legal posturing of family law. To this we add, what a shame that in America someone never even suspected of a crime would be subject to the full weight and force of government confiscating his property without even having a day in court.
This bill passed out of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee once window dressing was added, saying that any person whose property has thus been taken should be given an explanation by police on how to get it back after the order expires. That amendment is, of course, only window dressing since for the most part in Maryland police simply don't give firearms back. (In urban areas, the instructions might as well read ‘you can have your guns back once you show you can play the flute while holding your breath.' For illustration, we commend our article on what it took for Larry Ballard to get guns back this month, and point out that Tony Mora, of whom we have written in the past, has yet to get his guns back, even with a federal judge saying he should.) Even in the most positive light, this law will put a huge new legal burden on police, who have never before in America been given a custodial obligation for property having no crime nexus. This will be a litigation bonanza the first time that someone with cash and an attitude doesn't get guns back (much less have them cared for.) As always, ordinary people will simply be screwed.
It isn't clear yet whether proponents of the bill hurt themselves laughing that such an amendment would enable this bill to advance. It sailed through the Senate, has been heard by House committee and is awaiting a vote there.
HB 108 started in this session as a ban on private possession of ‘electronic weapons' (e.g., TASERs) of which we have written much in the last year. This bill was amended into a reporting obligation (private and law enforcement) for any TASER use (removing the ban entirely) and as such passed the House. (At this writing its hearing before Senate committee was recently held, and it awaits a committee vote.) In its new form there is little for us to oppose in this bill, and much to like. Its prospect in the Judicial Proceedings Committee is unclear, as JPR's chairman has not telegraphed his intentions, but there is still time for this bill to pass if the committee will take it up.
HB 1060 , a bill which would give civil immunity to someone who uses deadly force in defense against certain acts of violence in the home, has cleared the House of Delegates – against all odds and expectation. (In fact, it received a unanimously positive vote on final passage through the House.) It's a good bill (some would say a good first step) and does not suffer from some of the defects of other ‘castle' or defense legislation submitted this year. In spite of its obvious merits, most observers are surprised that this measure advanced as far as it did. It wasn't lobbied; it flew under the radar, and potentially could serve as an example of what good can happen when a measure is not cast as a gun bill (with its consequent potential for becoming a political football.) We're unaware of any specific plan to get it past Senate JPR Chairman Brian Frosh, who we think is hostile to it (and has an eagle eye for what bills come up.) We think it will die sitting in Frosh's drawer. That said … we never thought it would get that far in the first place.
SB 914 was introduced by Senator Muse to clarify an existing law to say that one member of the Handgun Roster Board (which is responsible for approving handguns for lawful sale) should represent an organization that advocates against handgun violence. On the surface, it is innocuous but it opens the very core of handgun law in the state, and in doing so, represents the ultimate vehicle for amendment into potentially any restriction on handgun availability.
Why would such a bill be needed? After all, “Ceasefire” already enjoys statutory representation on the Board. What begged this bill were the inexplicable actions of John Josselyn and the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore (AGC.) They incorporated under the name Ceasefire after noticing that the long-time anti-gun group of that name recently allowed its company standing (registered in the state) to lapse. Having appropriated the antigun group's corporate identity, they marched into Annapolis, disrupted what would have been a routine appointment to the Roster Board (saying they are Ceasefire) and started advertising a pro-gun message (and memberships) under that name.
We're more than a little unclear about what this move could have won for the Cause, but we do know that mooning leadership is usually not something one does for free, since elected officials have the last laugh. Introduction of SB 914 is one of the several natural and predictable consequences of taking another group's name, image and, in this case, its ability to have input on a gubernatorial appointment. The bill just submitted “clarifies” who gets that input. [Other predictable consequences may be in the works, but fortunately they only impact AGC and its member clubs.]
SB 914 quickly made its way through the Senate without debilitating amendments, but not without some monkey business. A Herculean lobbying effort by the NRA kept anti-gun sentiment in check, but the monkey business came from an ostensible pro-gunner, Senator Andy Harris. The plan was to let this bill ease through with low profile at a point when lobbyists had schmoozed anti-gun senators into a momentary state of complacency. In spite of this, Harris chose to unmistakably proclaim here is a gun bill by moving to keep the bill open for an extra day once it was on the Senate floor. No step more openly begged for gun grabbers to insert their own measures into the bill. Harris apparently wanted to run up NRA's costs of keeping this bill clean, and he clearly wanted to put a thumb in the NRA's eye too: he proposed an amendment to limit Roster Board membership to only in-state operations.
After even faster scrambling by the NRA lobbyists, Harris' amendment was replaced by one drafted by the Judicial Proceedings Committee chairman, Senator Frosh, on behalf of leadership (which listened to NRA even if Harris did not.) It will now simply ensure that all Board members are Maryland citizens. This won't preclude the NRA from maintaining its presence on the Board. (A big thanks to Andy Harris for validating our previously-written view that he is unworthy of moving up to Congress. Harris is running for the Congressional District 1 seat in November.)
Fittingly, the bill will have its House Judiciary hearing on April 1 st , after which NRA will again need to mount a maximum lobbying effort to ensure the bill advances without anti-gun amendments. (Stopping it completely is not possible.) What a shame these lobbying resources must be spent trying to minimize the damage from a self-inflicted wound (delivered by the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore trying to be cute) instead of advancing pro-gun bills!