Maryland Shall Issue - "Scarlet G for Gun Owner" Bills - Response

[Jaybeez]

I sent this to the email on his personal website, delsandy@aol.com

Excellent letter. If he responds i'd love to read it.

More of his hypocrisy

As vice chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, criminal law is one of my responsibilities. The rash of violence perpetrated by gangs and the senseless shooting of a five-year old bystander by a teenager with a long history of offenses demand a thorough review of our existing policy. I have begun that process.

Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy about the cell phone calls you make when you’re traveling from one place to another? Should the police be required to get a judge’s approval for a search warrant before they obtain the records of the locations where you made such calls? I think they should and will introduce a bill to require that they do so.

The bill to prevent the police from infiltrating organizations that are exercising their First Amendment rights when protesting government policy passed the House unanimously. I was the floor leader for this legislation.

For me, these are core values.

My life’s work is in a legislative body, where the majority rules. If you can count to 71 in the House and 24 in the Senate, you win.

But the First Amendment provides that the majority does not prevail when fundamental rights are violated.

The constitutional protection of freedom of the press does not prohibit a court from requiring a reporter to reveal a source, the Supreme Court has ruled. Nonetheless, the legislature can provide such protections by statute.

Similarly, the Court has held that the government can burden an individual’s exercise of his or her religious beliefs if there is a rational basis for a law of general applicability. Here as well, the legislature can enact additional protections, and the Congress has.

What prompts this discussion of constitutional law?

After the hearing concluded on my reporter’s shield bill yesterday, I learned that my religious accommodation bill had failed, 8-2.

Fundamentally, we were unable to persuade a majority of the members of the subcommittee that the exercise of religious belief – whether it’s a Shabbat elevator or a Hindu wall covering, is worthy of special consideration.

Oh boy

Several years ago, I concluded that we should repeal the death penalty. The reason underlying my decision: the time and money spent litigating and legislating on this issue should be put to far better use.

Keeping people safe where they live, work, and play is one of the primary obligations of government. The resources diverted to the death penalty diminish our capacity to fulfill that requirement.

The money spent on death penalty cases could be used instead to target career offenders, protect at-risk children, and identify youthful offenders who are on the road to becoming murderers.

The same can be said for the time, money and manpower dedicated to identifying law abiding gun owners, instead of concentrating on existing criminals and crimes.

My tutorial arose in an email exchange about the Voter’s Rights Protection Act.

My bill would add a new provision to the law, making it a crime to use a foreclosure list to challenge people’s right to vote because there has been a foreclosure at the address on their registration card.

That’s already illegal, I was informed the day before my bill hearing, because the only grounds on which to challenge a potential voter on Election Day is that person’s identity, not his or her address.

That makes using the foreclosure list a violation of the prohibition on influencing or attempting to influence “a voter’s decision whether to go to the polls to cast a vote” through the use of fraud. (My voting rights legislation in 2005 made that a crime – if done “willfully and knowingly,” but only a civil violation otherwise.)

While reviewing these provisions, I came across the language making it a felony to “vote or attempt to vote during the time that the person is rendered ineligible to vote” while on parole or probation after being convicted of a felony.

Informing people when they can register after they’ve been released from jail is the purpose of my House Bill 483.

 

[Fodder4Thought]

Possible approach to defeating bill in comment #2?

http://www.saysuncle.com/2010/02/11/scarlet-letter/#comments

(terse 'cause posting from phone. Stop.)

 

[MDFF2008]

I will post a reply if he does.

 

[hole punch]

Possible approach to defeating bill in comment #2?

http://www.saysuncle.com/2010/02/11/scarlet-letter/#comments

(terse 'cause posting from phone. Stop.)

tirno says:

Here’s how to kill the bill, as was done in WA state when this was proposed: Point out that gun ownership is a protected right for most Americans, and only a limited number of people have had that right suspended as a result of due process. Therefore, the correct way to do this would be to put a marking on the driver’s licenses of those that may not purchase handguns.

At this point, some ACLU type will flip his lid because this will identify the bearer as a felon, drug abuser or any of the other prohibited person classes to anyone that views the license, and the proposal won’t even make it out of committee.

I like. Use the anti's watchdog against them

 

[md_rick_o]

REPLY from McConkey:

I support this legislation!!!

Del. Tony McConkey

My letter to him:

I respectfully request that you oppose this bill. HB 820 is nothing more
than a way to harass gun owners and the owners of Gun shops. It does
nothing to protect the citizens of Maryland. The Second Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America states that the right to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. All this bill is designed to
do is infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens and before you say
that the 2nd doesn't apply to the states feel free to look at how the
Supreme Court has been ruling. The people of Maryland are watching and
we will get the word out.

We need a lot of of pressure on him. I responded with:

Ok you support it but what about your constituents who you are there to represent? This isn't about you!

 

[md_rick_o]

I sent this to the email on his personal website, delsandy@aol.com

Outstanding letter gprimr1, thanks for sending it. It really should be interesting to see any response that he comes up with.

 

[rambling_one]

Ok you support it but what about your constituents who you are there to represent? This isn't about you!


??????????

 

[MDFF2008]

I would ask him why he supports it.

Wow, and he's a Republican.

 

[Norton]

McConkey will vote with us. He wasn't paying attention to which bill he was responding to, guranteed. Don't fry him.....please. He's one of the good guys.

 

[Reinhaard1]

REPLY from McConkey:


My letter to him:


We need a lot of of pressure on him. I responded with:

McConkey supports this??!!

His homepage says one of his top three goals is to "defend our 2nd Amendment rights." http://www.tonymcconkey.com/ The website is dated, but unless there was some sort of miscommunication, he must have had a radical change in his goals then.

ETA: Just read your above post Norton. Okie dokie.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Obviously, my email written and posted here went out to the two judiciary committees.

Senator Stone opposes. As does Delegate Jennings.

I got an email back from one my delegates that is not on the House Judiciary Committee, but will oppose it on the floor. I also got a phone call from my other Delegate's legislative aid and said that that Delegate will put pressure where it's needed (even though he is not on the committee). I know my Senator is pro-gun, though she has not responded yet (and she is NOT on the Senate Judiciary committee), but she tends to follow the CC on emails and apply pressure.

Seems like we are making some progress fighting this bill. I wish we could make progress and beat down their doors to make them move on the GOOD GUY legislation.

 

[wreckdiver]

I've been getting tons of emails from delegates who say they will oppose the bills. No dems have replied, or at least none that say they oppose the bills. Keep up the pressure.

 

[HKB]

still have not received any reply's

 

[jonnyl]

still have not received any reply's

They may be backed up because of the snow, I got responses from Dwyer and Jennings yesterday from emails earlier in the week.

 

[Maverick0313]

Just got this from AGC...


Complex Permit to Purchase Bill Introduced in Maryland!
Please Contact Your State Legislators!

Over the years, Maryland’s anti-gun politicians have shown their disdain for our Second Amendment rights by introducing numerous proposals to limits our freedoms. This year Delegate Samuel Rosenberg (D-41) and State Senator Brian Frosh (D-16) have introduced legislation that would permanently alter the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun-owner’s in Maryland.

House Bill 820 and Senate Bill 645, deceptively titled as the “Firearms Safety Act of 2010,” are nothing more than the same old tired gun-control agenda pushed by the same sanctimonious politicians who believe you have no Second Amendment rights, unless Delegate Rosenberg and Senator Frosh grant them to you.

House Bill 820 and Senate Bill 645 propose to convert handgun ownership from a Constitutionally-protected right into a privilege, to be granted by the State Police only at their arbitrary discretion.

First, the bill would require Marylanders to obtain, for a fee not specified by the bill, a handgun purchase permit before acquiring a handgun. Second, such a permit would be granted only upon “satisfactory completion" of an unspecified firearms safety training course approved by the State Police. And third, the bill would grant the State Police the arbitrary discretion to reject an application for a permit, claiming that the applicant has a “propensity for violence or instability.” House Bill 820 and Senate Bill 645’s scheme would result in the State Police maintaining records of Marylanders to whom purchase permits have been issued.

The bill also proposes a regulatory scheme designed to reduce the number of firearms dealers by creating a new layer of pointless bureaucratic requirements with which they would have to comply, and violations of which could be used as the grounds for revoking their licenses. For example, while dealers are already required under federal law to maintain records relating to the receipt and transfer of firearms, House Bill 820 and Senate Bill 645 propose that they be required to duplicate the same records on state forms.

Maryland is one of the best examples for the proposition that gun control does not reduce crime. Despite being one of the five or six states with the most heavy-handed gun control laws, Baltimore repeatedly is among the major U.S. cities with the highest murder rates.

Please contact your elected officials and strongly urge them to reject any government scheme that treats you like a criminal.

 

[coinboy]

Response from Robey:

Dear Mr. coinboy, thank you for your email regarding gun legislation. This bill will not be heard by my committee, but if it should pass to the full Senate for vote, I will seriously consider your concerns before casting my vote. I appreciate your taking the time to share your concerns with me.

Regards,
Jim Robey

 

[Norton]

I will seriously consider your concerns before casting my vote in the way to best usurp your rights in view of my statist authoritarian beliefs.

Fixed that for you....

 

[Jaybeez]

Fixed that for you....

I assume MSI will have a recommended plan of action for the 11th, to best use our resources and make a good showing. Please let us know....

 

[Norton]

I assume MSI will have a recommended plan of action for the 11th, to best use our resources and make a good showing. Please let us know....

Yes.

 

[NYKh]

Have time to send out paper letters (my preference) because of the snow!!:
Any critiques before I mail it out?

Dear____
I have read the text of HB820/SB645, and must say I am appalled at the content. If the aim is to decrease gun crime, this bill will do absolutely nothing. If the goal is to decrease gun ownership by
law abiding citizens, then it will be successful. If the goal is to make buying and owning a firearm a process far more complicated than it needs to be, it will be successful. If the goal is to make buying and owning a firearm much more expensive than it needs to be then again, it will be successful. I am astonished that in a time when the Supreme Court has ruled that owning
firearms is an individual Right (Heller v D.C.), Maryland is the only State in the Union which chooses to try to go against that Right. Some may say that the bill still allows people to buy and own firearms, but the process is complicated and the cost has the potential to be prohibitive. Many people will think twice. This bill is not only bad, it is Unconstitutional.

One might argue that this bill will reduce crime. I vehemently disagree with that assessment. If one looks at the "Legal laboratory", it is clear that gun control laws do not result in a decrease in crime. I practice medicine. In the medical field we constantly analyze studies, and change our approach to problems when we find that the current approach doesn't work. We readily
adopt a different treatment when we find one that is better. The same should apply to your job. You should not be insisting that we continue with the same treatment despite substantial evidence the treatment will have no effect on outcome. Briefly consider the situation in Washington D.C.. Until recently there was a complete ban on guns in the city. The number of gun crimes was astronomical. The legislative branch of the Maryland governemnt is wasting their time (and need I remind you, the Citizens' money) in going forward with this legislation. It may make a few members of the House and Senate "feel" as though they have made a difference, when the only difference they have made is in making the lives of law abiding Marylanders more difficult.

I urge you to vote against HB820/SB645. Respect the Rights of the Citizens of this State to own firearms for lawful purposes. I look forward to seeing how you vote on this issue. Be assured I will be discussing it with friends, colleagues and patients.



Sincerely, ****** ****, M.D.

Hope you don't mind I ripped the core concepts of the email and modified it to reflect a IT professional at a fortune 200 company rather then one in the medical profession. The concept of analyzing studies and changing approach seems to fit with both professions.