" Foster a Bill" Drive

"Mr H"
Glen Burnie, MD
District 32

Testimony to the House Judiciary Committee,
In Favor of HB0995

March 4, 2014

Esteemed Members of the Committee,

There is a movement in the Land. It is called Liberty.

Marylanders have long relished the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the United States, and through a State Constitution which recognizes and incorporates its Federal `parent’ as the supreme law of our Nation.

Sadly, our once-great home has become one of a mere handful of states where Liberty is not fully recognized, and the citizenry is treated more as chattel than as a free and industrious people. Taxes, regulations, and restrictions burden us unnecessarily on a daily basis, and the power of the government grows unchecked.

Particularly cumbersome and invasive are the firearms laws in the state. We have laws which prevent law abiding citizens from reasonably attaining a means of personal protection outside their homes. There are laws which unrealistically ban certain classes of firearms for no reason other than their appearance, and their magazines which are in common use nearly everywhere else in the world. We restrict the availability of firearms simply because they must have the blessing of bureaucrats before being allowed for sale. Purchase of these regulated firearms requires burdensome and costly processes not required by the vast majority of the Nation.

For some reason, Maryland has chosen to enact these laws over clear and vocal opposition by its citizens, many of whom have been present in record numbers in Annapolis over the past several years. People who thought there would never be any cause to worry about their Rights, are becoming aware and active in pursuing a change, now realizing that our most fundamental Right—that of self-protection—is under assault by the very people we elect to preserve our way of life.

The enactment of these laws is overwhelmingly believed to be Unconstitutional.
 
"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute."
--Alexander Hamilton (Federalist Papers #78)

This bill follows this founding principle, ensuring that no state official would be permitted to engage in activity which would Unconstitutionally punish individuals or businesses with regard to firearms, accessories or ammunition. In fact, six Maryland Sheriffs, ranging the length of the state (Carroll, Frederick, Garrett, Kent, St. Mary’s, and Wicomico counties), have committed to this very principle, vowing not to enforce Unconstitutional laws in their jurisdictions. This is becoming more common across the United States, as evidenced by the growth of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (www.cspoa.org).

The laws we currently have on the books which fall into this category must be revisited, and other proposed legislation addresses much of it (in particular, the Firearms Safety Act of 2013). FSA13, in and of itself, is now responsible for not only the greatest rush in firearms sales in history, but also the most oppressive infringements we have ever known. It has been responsible not only for individual burdens, but also for huge losses to the Maryland economy, through the future losses of manufacturing to other states.

Marylanders will continue to fight for our Rights, and the movement is growing. We are Liberty’s voice.

I respectfully request a Favorable Report, and ultimate passage into law.

Click to expand...

Biggfoot44 said:

Since HB262 and HB1356 are word for word identical , do we submit two seperate testimony , or one testimony with both Bills in the title ?

Click to expand...

Biggfoot44 said:

Since HB262 and HB1356 are word for word identical , do we submit two seperate testimony , or one testimony with both Bills in the title ?

Click to expand...

The sphinx said:

Wow MR H that was outstanding!!!

Click to expand...

"Mr H"
Glen Burnie, MD
District 32

Testimony to the House Judiciary Committee,
In Opposition to HB0623

March 4, 2014

Esteemed Members of the Committee,

Since the end of the 2013 General Assembly session, there has been an unprecedented surge in firearms purchases; hundreds of thousands of firearms, in fact. Nearly every one of these purchases has been made by good, upstanding, law-abiding citizens. As of the end of the calendar year, of the nearly 130,000 handguns purchased, something on the order of 220 of these required the State Police to initiate a recovery due to a disqualifying factor at the time of purchase. This is less than two-tenths of one percent. Crimes committed with handguns lawfully purchased in this period were negligible, with only one act of carjacking that I can find.

Why did this situation occur?

The answer is simple, but the reasons are long.

Maryland State Police are the “Point of Contact” for Regulated Firearm purchases with the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), while unregulated long guns are checked through NICS by the dealer. Maryland is only one of four states in the Nation with this particular arrangement, which requires these purchases to be held up for seven days, while MSP conducts investigations through 17 separate (and unconnected) databases before determining the status of the purchase.

Every firearm purchase through a licensed dealer in the United States requires the NICS check, but MSP is charged with doing this check as part of their regulated purchase investigation, rather than it being done at the dealer, as with unregulated purchases.

Were Maryland to submit significant data to NICS (for which Federal funds are available), rather than maintain the disparate databases and the manpower to pore through them, then Point of Contact status would no longer be needed, and the requisite background check could be completed in a matter of seconds, rather than the several months it is currently taking for pre-October 2013 purchases.

This bill purports to streamline part of this process, but in reality creates a separate issue.

My reading indicates that, while the bill seeks to identify more people who would be Disapproved for information not available to the dealers at the time of sale, this is an attempt to add to existing law what amounts to an “indefinite lookback” for anything potentially disqualifying an individual from purchasing a firearm (even going so far as to create grounds for ‘recovery’ of any firearms the individual already owns). Additionally, this seems (while reading other bills submitted this session) to be part of a broader attempt to reclassify incidents which could now be considered disqualifying, for an indefinite period in the past. I do not trust that the Sponsor is not aware of this, and may be willing to waste law enforcement resources simply to promote an anti-firearms position.

The bill’s requirement to make these checks at least twice a year, and only for individuals making purchases prior to October 2013, unfairly targets the 99.98% of individuals who are law-abiding, and have already been proven to be no threat to society at large.

Very simply, Equal Protection must apply, and this bill becomes completely unnecessary once Maryland decides to fully engage in the NICS process as a Point of Sale state. In fact, MSP has, in the recent past, been on record as wishing to do exactly this, and was apparently denied that request by the Administration.

In recent years, this Administration, and this Assembly in general, have been unhelpful in promoting the Liberties our Founders held dear and enshrined for the ages. The embarrassment we feel as a population, from the actions of our officials, is unmistakable. Maryland law has been steadily moving away from the Nation's trend. Even states such as Illinois and California are being told by the Federal Courts that their restrictions on the Second Amendment are unwelcomed.

Maryland needs to rejoin America, and I sincerely request this bill be given an Unfavorable Report.

Click to expand...

tsmith1499 said:

I wish I could THINK as well as Mr. H writes. Everyone is doing a fantastic job!! Keep it up.

Click to expand...

mopar92 said:

Also an important point. Making pages double spaced and adding pictures is helpful and makes documents easier to read.

Graphs and charts on a (likely) black and white printer may not work as well.

Click to expand...

Overboost44 said:

Nevermind what I just posted. After reading DCW's document, there is not much more that needs to be said. I think the visual would be powerful, though I would hope everyone would be listening to him speak. Nice work!

Click to expand...

iH8DemLibz said:

I know

how to

double space

my comments.

Aside from the obvious, I am probably the biggest luddite on this thread. I am not at all computer savy and the only links I'm capable of producing contain Porky and Bambi.

Can I post it here for someone else to take, copy, and turn into the type of links you're looking for? Or I could sent it as a PM to someone.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Biggfoot44 said:

As I am putting my word files into form , should I send one file each in cover email , or a half dozen at a time.

And a major thanks to Andi and crew for assisting us in making our views known to the Committee.

Click to expand...

ShallNotInfringe said:

You can PM it to me for a once-over.

Just sent a tailored version in favor of HB36. DC-W... How did you get that into PDF? Maybe it's my puter, but I couldn't cut and paste yours.

Let's stuff Andi's email.

Click to expand...

HB 36 SUPPORT
DC-W

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to testify on this bill. My name is DC-W and I'm a registered Democrat from Dundalk. I support HB 36 and I would ask that you do as well.

Self-defense is a human right that all of us innately have. Since Maryland does not acknowledge self-defense as a “good and substantial” reason to receive a carry permit, the State finds itself in stark contrast to the majority of the Nation. Currently, there are only four States that “may issue” a permit based on some kind of subjective need. Those are Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Because of the recent 9th Circuit Court ruling, Hawaii may soon join the other 46 states that don't have such a provision to issue a carry permit or don't require permits to carry at all. Some other may issue states like California and New York leave it up to local jurisdictions to decide whether or not to issue a permit.

The biggest problem with the current mode of issuing permits in Maryland is that the law is currently classist. If one does not own a business, transport large sums of business currency, or is in law enforcement or is a guard, a permit is nearly impossible to receive. The majority of Marylanders are none of the above, nor are they financially wealthy. Be that as it may, we are all wealthy, as there is no price that can be placed upon our lives. The removal of the “good and substantial” language by this bill would apply to all Marylanders who choose to seek a permit and not just those of a higher or special class.

The only other way to get a permit in Maryland is to have already been the victim of a violent crime or have been the target of verifiable and documented threats. That also supposes that the applicant was able to survive said violent crime. Instead of awarding the ability of armed self-defense after something horrible has occurred, it should be available before something may happen.

Some have suggested that more carry permits would mean more violent crime, or that Maryland would fall into dangerous lawlessness. This is simply not the case, especially when taking into account that 42 other states issue permits outright and 5 of those require no permission at all. They trust that their citizens will not violate the law or commit violence just because they carry a firearm for self-defense. I'd like to bring up Texas, for instance.

As of December 31st, 2012, Texas had 584,850 concealed carry permit holders. Keep in mind, that same year, that total would have amounted to around a 12th of Maryland's entire population. Texas is one of the few states that publicly tracks crimes committed by its permit holders. There were 63,272 convictions in 2012 for those 21 or older there. Of those convictions, permit holders were responsible for 120 or .1897% of all convictions. That means 584,730 permit holders didn't break the law. The overwhelming majority of permit holders there abide by the law and follow good judgment while carrying a firearm every day in public. There is nothing that makes Texans better than Marylanders, and there is no reason to disallow each of us the same benefit.

In a State that has stressed equality, it is time that this State affords all of its citizens equal protections and observes that the concept of armed self-defense is not exclusive to a special few types of Marylanders, but to all.

Thank you for your time and service to our great State.

Sincerely,




DC-W






Sources

Texas Statistics on CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holders:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/demographics.htm

Wikipedia “Concealed carry in the United States”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

Peruta v. County of San Diego, CA
US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit ruled on 2/13/2014 that the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution does apply in public and San Diego County's “good cause” provision is in violation of the right to keep and bear arms.

Opinion available here: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-Opinion.pdf

Click to expand...

DC-W said:

I used a scanner. I had to include my signature, after all
I e-mailed a word document to Smigiel's office, but haven't heard anything back

Also, I'm going to remove the .pdf. I just noticed a typo. In the second paragraph, I referenced "self-defense" language. This bill doesn't do that like SB729 does. The text below will show that and I'm going to re-send it to Smigiel's office.

Here's the text:

Click to expand...

eruby said:

eruby
111 Misanthrope Way
Hating, Maryland 21157
March 4, 2014

Click to expand...

DC-W said:

I used a scanner. I had to include my signature, after all
I e-mailed a word document to Smigiel's office, but haven't heard anything back

Also, I'm going to remove the .pdf. I just noticed a typo. In the second paragraph, I referenced "self-defense" language. This bill doesn't do that like SB729 does. The text below will show that and I'm going to re-send it to Smigiel's office.

Here's the text:

Click to expand...