The Maryland Gun Center

Rickman · Oct 17, 2014

Thank you sir and I will add my "welcome aboard" to all of the previous comments.

jjsat · Oct 17, 2014

This forum brings together smart, honest opinioned, people who care about gun rights for Maryland and the country. Welcome Jack!

fabsroman · Oct 17, 2014

Nnztg8r said:
So, I read this post from "Jack".

I see Jack has all of two posts.

Not wanting to jump to conclusions, I look for his other post...figuring it just might be an intro.

No intro.

But.... Appears my new friend Jack is pretty experienced and well read. An understatement.

So, if "you don't know Jack". Google him. I'm impressed and appreciative thus far.

You go Jack! Thank you.

The Baltimore Sun recently ran an article that he wrote in response to an anti-gun article.

There is also a pretty good deposition he gave in Kolbe v. O'Malley. I haven't read through the entire thing, but have seen quotes in legal briefs/motions.

Facts and truth can kill liberal agendas that are based on emotion and "what ifs".

When I first saw Jack McCauley as a screen name in this thread, I was a little leery myself because as we know, anybody can pick any screen name they want, even somebody else's name.

fabsroman · Oct 17, 2014

Mr H said:
For those who may not be aware, Jack has been doing what he can to help protect 2A rights for Marylanders for some time.

Over the summer, he did us the honor of joining MSI leadership for lunch, and attending an MSI Executive Member meeting in Calvert County, where we learned a great bit about him, and what he has done for all of us (where he could).

I am happy he has chosen to join us here as well, and provide us with the product of his experience.

I am pretty sure plenty of people on here have no idea that Jack McCauley is the recently retired Maryland State Police Commander. Just thought I would point that out since I haven't seen anybody do so in this thread.

Not every member of this board reads nearly every thread title. If they did, they would have found something like this:

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=161814

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=159856&highlight=McCauley

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=158291&highlight=McCauley

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=148158&highlight=McCauley (A very long thread about the Motion for Summary Judgment in Kolbe, but it shows some of Mr. McCauley's deposition testimony)

Mr. H and I don't always agree, but I can agree with him that I am happy Mr. McCauley has joined us on this board.

HRDWRK · Oct 17, 2014

Welcome

Tomcat · Oct 17, 2014

I'll have to admit I had to Google the name but once I did WOW! I remember that day last year when he was supposed to testify for the House Judiciary Committee then couldn't answer any questions as directed by the lawyer and Mike almost had a heart attack.

Welcome aboard sir :thumbsup:

OrbitalEllipses · Oct 17, 2014

ShafTed said:
I find this interesting on SO many levels!

And a hearty Welcome Aboard! to Jack

Their server's cert has been out of date for a long time actually.

Charlie K. · Oct 17, 2014

Welcome aboard Jack.

Chris0nllyn · Oct 17, 2014

Welcome....

I have a question, and I hope you don't take it the wrong way.

Back during the 281 hearings, I believe Spiegel asked you a question regarding the effectiveness of SB281 and one of O'Malley's aide/goons told you not to answer, and you did not answer.

Do you regret not doing so?

Do you believe that answering that not answering that question, as well as any other direction given to misinform those who voted for 281 played a part in its passage?

Not that it matters now, and I'm sure many of those folks knew how they were voting anyway, just curious.

Stoveman · Oct 17, 2014

If you don't follow Jack on FB, you should. Lots of great info....

Welcome, sir!

Mr H · Oct 17, 2014

I'd like to ask a favor of everyone...

Can we PLEASE stop calling it "SB281"??

That was good in 2013, but in 2014 that was the number of something completely different, and next year something else entirely.

At this point, it's the Firearms Safety Act of 2013. So FSA2013 or FSA13 is more accurate.

RRHemi · Oct 17, 2014

Mr H said:
I'd like to ask a favor of everyone...

Can we PLEASE stop calling it "SB281"??

That was good in 2013, but in 2014 that was the number of something completely different, and next year something else entirely.

At this point, it's the Firearms Safety Act of 2013. So FSA2013 or FSA13 is more accurate.

I refuse to call it that because there is no safety derived from it

Kinda like calling Liberalism Progressivism. F that Sh*t

lx1x · Oct 17, 2014

RRHemi said:
I refuse to call it that because there is no safety derived from it

lol.. qft!!

ShafTed · Oct 17, 2014

How about a little truth in advertising?

FSA2013 = Firearm Suppression Act of 2013

I used that line a couple of times in committee testimony this year.

Jack McCauley · Oct 17, 2014

Chris0nllyn said:
Welcome....

I have a question, and I hope you don't take it the wrong way.

Back during the 281 hearings, I believe Spiegel asked you a question regarding the effectiveness of SB281 and one of O'Malley's aide/goons told you not to answer, and you did not answer.

Do you regret not doing so?

Do you believe that answering that not answering that question, as well as any other direction given to misinform those who voted for 281 played a part in its passage?

Not that it matters now, and I'm sure many of those folks knew how they were voting anyway, just curious.

I do not take offense to the question. If you ask anyone who knows me, they would find it hard to believe I let that happen. I don't back down from anyone and I speak out on a regular basis. As I sat and listened to the many arguments, I seethed at their ignorance. I had passing thoughts of taking over the podium an spilling my guts on everything I knew and didn't know. But, the fact is that the Office of the Governor holds a ruling authority over the Department of State Police. When a member of the Governor's Office gave an order, unless it was unlawful, I was to follow it. Before you say it, the First Amendment Right does not apply to an officer in uniform while holding an official position. I could have answered the question, yes. But in 23 years of service, I had never been charged with any violation of agency rules. I can promise you if I gave an answer in that room, I would have been punished, both formally and informally. I did not plan to retire that year. In fact, I had no plans to retire any time soon. I just hoped to get the hell out of the Licensing Division if I'm being perfectly honest. I hoped at the end of the session I would be set free from that assignment. So, I tried to behave. I have a family and they are first. A demotion would have meant less income and a lot of hassle for my family. No easier way of saying it. Do I think my testimony would have changed the outcome of the bill? I don't know if answering that question would have had any affect. That's a big what if. But I do believe the Office of the Governor purposefully withheld information from members of the legislative committee.

Ellegon · Oct 17, 2014

Thank you for your service ! ! WELCOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

redeemed.man · Oct 17, 2014

Jack McCauley said:
I do not take offense to the question. If you ask anyone who knows me, they would find it hard to believe I let that happen. I don't back down from anyone and I speak out on a regular basis. As I sat and listened to the many arguments, I seethed at their ignorance. I had passing thoughts of taking over the podium an spilling my guts on everything I knew and didn't know. But, the fact is that the Office of the Governor holds a ruling authority over the Department of State Police. When a member of the Governor's Office gave an order, unless it was unlawful, I was to follow it. Before you say it, the First Amendment Right does not apply to an officer in uniform while holding an official position. I could have answered the question, yes. But in 23 years of service, I had never been charged with any violation of agency rules. I can promise you if I gave an answer in that room, I would have been punished, both formally and informally. I did not plan to retire that year. In fact, I had no plans to retire any time soon. I just hoped to get the hell out of the Licensing Division if I'm being perfectly honest. I hoped at the end of the session I would be set free from that assignment. So, I tried to behave. I have a family and they are first. A demotion would have meant less income and a lot of hassle for my family. No easier way of saying it. Do I think my testimony would have changed the outcome of the bill? I don't know if answering that question would have had any affect. That's a big what if. But I do believe the Office of the Governor purposefully withheld information from members of the legislative committee.

You will get nothing but respect from me with that answer. I realized after just a few years working in a county Public Safety agency that the politics were not worth it to me. I encountered a situation in which I was pulled in to an office by the Lt. Col. of my agency and asked to drop a formal complaint against a member of a different county Public safety agency. I refused and was told in no uncertain terms that it was not a good career move. I resigned a few months later and have worked in the private sector ever since. I have never looked back. I applaud you for having the stomach to deal with the politics and make it to the rank you did. I applaud you even more for getting out before it destroyed you. We are glad you are here.

Vile Shadow · Oct 17, 2014

ShafTed said:
How about a little truth in advertising?

FSA2013 = Firearm ~~Suppression~~ STUPIDITY Act of 2013

I used that line a couple of times in committee testimony this year.

Fixed.

Jack McCauley said:
I do not take offense to the question. If you ask anyone who knows me, they would find it hard to believe I let that happen. I don't back down from anyone and I speak out on a regular basis. As I sat and listened to the many arguments, I seethed at their ignorance. I had passing thoughts of taking over the podium an spilling my guts on everything I knew and didn't know. But, the fact is that the Office of the Governor holds a ruling authority over the Department of State Police. When a member of the Governor's Office gave an order, unless it was unlawful, I was to follow it. Before you say it, the First Amendment Right does not apply to an officer in uniform while holding an official position. I could have answered the question, yes. But in 23 years of service, I had never been charged with any violation of agency rules. I can promise you if I gave an answer in that room, I would have been punished, both formally and informally. I did not plan to retire that year. In fact, I had no plans to retire any time soon. I just hoped to get the hell out of the Licensing Division if I'm being perfectly honest. I hoped at the end of the session I would be set free from that assignment. So, I tried to behave. I have a family and they are first. A demotion would have meant less income and a lot of hassle for my family. No easier way of saying it. Do I think my testimony would have changed the outcome of the bill? I don't know if answering that question would have had any affect. That's a big what if. But I do believe the Office of the Governor purposefully withheld information from members of the legislative committee.

No problems here.

You just confirmed what I've been suspecting since I've been here, and that is that the MSP, despite what they know to be true, MUST kowtow to the Goobernor. Frankly, that disgusts me. :mad54:

I'm inclined to think that even if you did give the answer that you wanted, it wouldn't have made any difference. O'Malley and Frosh had an agenda, and that was to force a shit sandwich on the parts of the state that wouldn't like it, while feathering O'Malley's nest for further political aspirations. God forbid... :sad20:

newq · Oct 17, 2014

Jack McCauley said:
I do not take offense to the question. If you ask anyone who knows me, they would find it hard to believe I let that happen. I don't back down from anyone and I speak out on a regular basis. As I sat and listened to the many arguments, I seethed at their ignorance. I had passing thoughts of taking over the podium an spilling my guts on everything I knew and didn't know. But, the fact is that the Office of the Governor holds a ruling authority over the Department of State Police. When a member of the Governor's Office gave an order, unless it was unlawful, I was to follow it. Before you say it, the First Amendment Right does not apply to an officer in uniform while holding an official position. I could have answered the question, yes. But in 23 years of service, I had never been charged with any violation of agency rules. I can promise you if I gave an answer in that room, I would have been punished, both formally and informally. I did not plan to retire that year. In fact, I had no plans to retire any time soon. I just hoped to get the hell out of the Licensing Division if I'm being perfectly honest. I hoped at the end of the session I would be set free from that assignment. So, I tried to behave. I have a family and they are first. A demotion would have meant less income and a lot of hassle for my family. No easier way of saying it. Do I think my testimony would have changed the outcome of the bill? I don't know if answering that question would have had any affect. That's a big what if. But I do believe the Office of the Governor purposefully withheld information from members of the legislative committee.

No one blames you. It was obvious from the onset that they were not after the truth. If they were interested in deterring crime or preventing gun violence they would have worked hand in hand with law enforcement. You were merely a pawn in the game. You did the only thing that you could have done. Had you done in different you would have sacrificed yourself for naught, as it wouldn't have changed a thing.

Mr H · Oct 17, 2014

newq said:
No one blames you. It was obvious from the onset that they were not after the truth. If they were interested in deterring crime or preventing gun violence they would have worked hand in hand with law enforcement and the 2A community. You were merely a pawn in the game. You did the only thing that you could have done. Had you done in different you would have sacrificed yourself for naught, as it wouldn't have changed a thing.

Minor adjustment.

This could have benefitted everyone with a little genuine interest from O'MAO and Friends.

Sadly, Imperial Dogma doesn't allow for that.

The Maryland Gun Center

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Formerly Known As HITWTOM

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Banned

TV Personality

Banana'd

Active Member

Peanut Gallery

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

...

101st Poptart Assault BSB

Banana'd

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics