Finished MD House Bill Testimony

My phone keeps screwing up and deleting all my attempts at written testimony. So hopefully I can manage this.
I'll steal finished testimony and post it here so others can copy paste and send "form letters". Even if all you can manage is an email to a legislator it's better than nothing.



IMPORTANT NOTICE!
You should attempt to personalize these bills as much as possible.
Too many form letters harm us overall as a form letter is easy to dismiss whereas more personalized letters provide a better effect.
If a form letter is all you can manage then do so but even 2 minutes of personalization can make all the difference!

HB 715 SUPPORT

HB 715 SUPPORT

I am asking you to support HB 715 (SB 584) Public Safety – Handgun Identification Requirements.

This bill would repeal the requirement to submit a fired shell casing when purchasing a new handgun. There are several reasons to support this repeal.

Despite what is seen on TV, there is no automatic database of shell casings, instantly available to law enforcement personnel. The reality is not CSI. The Maryland State Police and local police departments have never been able to scan all fired shell casings in order to solve crimes. This matching to fired casings has never been used to solve a random crime. It was used, once, to confirm that a fired casing was fired from a suspect’s gun.

Indeed, the State Police do not have the ability to scan any fired casing. They have not had this ability for several years. They have publicly stated that fired casings are simply boxed and stored. Any other activity has not been funded for many years. The State Police have not requested funding to reactivate this program.

This imposes a burden upon lawful gun buyers. Last year’s Firearms Safety Act required a Handgun Qualification License for the purchase of a handgun. This imposes a cost to the buyer of at least $100, but often approaching $250. The requirement for a fired shell casing imposes a $30-50 additional cost as it is often not included by the manufacturer. This is a reasonable step to reduce costs to lawful buyers.


Thank you,
Registered voter
District #

Testimony to the House Judiciary Committee,
In Favor of HB0062

March 4, 2014

Esteemed Members of the Committee,

The residents of the state of Maryland have long been prevented from a reasonable means of self-protection outside the home, by means of a firearms carry permit. This is a well-documented infringement that other legislation seeks to correct. This bill, however, seeks to right this inequity as it concerns the residents of our immediate, surrounding, neighboring states.

Many people, as we know, work in Maryland, but live in these neighboring states. In their home states, they are provided reasonable access to carry permits for any number of reasons, with little to no encumbrance. However, when coming to Maryland to pursue a livelihood, they are forced to abandon their personal protection firearms for the duration. The same can be said for anyone visiting the state for family, business, or recreation.

The issues that come with this are numerous, and add up to a serious detriment--not only to the individuals, but the state as a whole.

Out-of-state workers have multiple burdens as a result of these restrictions. In addition to the obvious safety issues, these individuals also face choices of whether to leave their homes as unarmed potential victims, or to risk storing a firearm in their vehicle before entering Maryland (only to feel safe again once returning across the border). The risk of theft from their person or vehicle also increases, should they be observed at some point during their transition to (or from) "Maryland Mode."

People are regularly discouraged from vacationing in Maryland, as well as choosing not to relocate to the state due to the forced disallowance to carry a firearm on their person. The statewide economic effect and tax revenues lost because of this are likely incalculable, but would easily count in the multiple millions of dollars annually.

Many Maryland residents also possess valid non-resident carry licenses from out of state (particularly Virginia), and yet are denied the option for self-protection outside the home. These people are our neighbors, our friends... yet they are not permitted to exercise their fundamental, enumerated Constitutional Right in their own home state.

The Assembly (as a body) has demonstrated, year after year, an overall disdain for firearms, firearms owners, and legitimate uses of firearms by responsible, law-abiding individuals. Despite the efforts of many conscientious Constitutionally-minded Delegates and Senators, time and time again bills to further ensure the protection of our most basic rights are not passed through.

This bill is a step toward a benefit much larger than simply the lawful carry of firearms. It is a step toward restoring Maryland's once grand reputation as the "Free State", and a potential economic boon to the state and its business community.

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

Sincerely yours,
Registered Voter
District #

HB (262 or 1356) Bowhunting - possesion of handguns

SUPPORT
The ability for Bowhunters to able to have a handgun for protection would be a signifigent safety measure, and bring Md in line with large and growing number of states nationwide.

Of recent years the population explosion of Black Bears has seen them very common in their traditional habitats , and expanding their range into areas where they haven't been seen in modern times. This makes them much more likely to be encountered by Sportsmen afield,

And the dangers are not just from four legged creatures. Two components of our nation's illegal drug epidenic are illict marijuiana fields , and clandestine methamphetamine production labs. These are commonly located in isolated , rural areas, and often located on publicly own isolated Forrests, and natural resourse area, or isolated private property without the knowledge of the landowner . Which are aslo frequently prime hunting areas.

Twenty years ago, the hunting community has shocked by the murders of Don Hill on November 20, 1993 , and Gregory Wood on November 25, 1993 in adjacent Counties in North Florida while they were hunting. There was much speculation at the time, but Investagators eventually found that they were both killed persuant to robbery of their money and valuables, and were targeted by being alone in the woods of a National Forest, and a Wildlife management Area respectivly.

This common sense measure to not prohibit Bowhunts from possesing personal protection handguns has already been adopted by our neighboring States of Pennyslvania , Virginia, and West Virginia . Nationwide Bowhunters are able to protect themselves in : Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Missouri , Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennennsse, Texas, Washington state and Wyoming, with more states adding all the time.

The traditional concern with the practice had been to prevent the possability of illegal hunting by bowhunters , but this has not be a signifigent problem in those states where the practice is allowed. This Bill's provision of non- hunting style handguns of restricted barell length , and no optical sights intended for long distance shooting are adaquate to ensure complience with the hunting rules.

The part of this Bill that could be problematic in the future are the geographic boundries for its provisions. The Specification of Deer Management Zone A is indeed a resonable boundry , as the Deer Zones are presently constructed . But maryland's depart of Natural Resourses is very procative and diligent in modifing the geographically based areas in managing Maryland's population of Deer and other wildlife. During my years of hunting , I have seen the State vary from statewide to six zones , with boundries constantly evolving to reflect habitat and wildlife population changes.

In order to meet the Hunter safety concerns, and avoid confusion, this Bill sould be modified to reflect specific , recognizable boundries into future years. Possabilities include all of washington, Alleganey , and Garrett Counties. Condisering terrian and wildlife on South Mountain, and adjacent areas , a boundry of US 15 from Pa State line south to intersection with US340, and thence US340 to the Virginia State line. If the general Assembly prefered to leave the boundry to be determined by the DNR, the specification of "Those areas where centerfire rifles are allowed for Deer Hunting would closely conform to the second option presented above.


The Committee should give this Bill a favorable recomendation, subject to a more definitive physical boundry.

Sincerely Yours,
Registered Voter
District #

HB 115 OPPOSE

February 27, 2014
HB 115 OPPOSE

House Judiciary Committee
101 House Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Committee Members:

I am writing you today to oppose this legislation. GPS tracking of firearms has already been studied in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and in the city of Chicago, Illinois. While the technology does exist to use GPS to track firearm locations, it has many drawbacks, disadvantages, and shortcomings.

For GPS to work, the receiver must have a line of sight to four or more transmitting GPS satellites. There are many locations, such as inside large buildings, in basements and tunnels, in outdoor canyons and valleys, and even on city streets surrounded by skyscrapers where GPS receivers do not function. If you’ve ever tried using the GPS in your car to navigate the streets of New York City or driven through the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel with a GPS unit you have experienced this.

The GPS unit in the firearm must be powered by a battery. It is trivial for a criminal who doesn’t want to be tracked to remove or just not recharge the battery, rendering the device inoperable.

Using GPS to track the movements of law-abiding citizens also opens many questions relating to privacy, especially in this day and age with the NSA being what it is. Is the aim of mandating the use of these devices to track the movements of law-abiding citizens as they hunt, shoot a round of skeet, or earn the Boy Scout Marksmanship merit badge at summer camp? I certainly hope not.

Maryland is a state with many problems, the least of which are spending and budgetary problems. This issue has been researched by three different legislatures and all three decided to pass on the technology. This bill paints a mental picture of three men with sticks hitting a horse which is no longer among the living. I see no reason for Maryland to waste taxpayer money trying to find a way for “the Free State” to further erode the privacy of its law-abiding citizens.

Kind regards,
Registered Voter
District #

HB659 Regulated Firearms-Transport Through State



This is a Common Sense Bill. The transport of firearms addressed in this Bill not only poses no threat to the safety and tranquility of Maryland, it is already specifically protected by long standing Federal Law.

At present should a Maryland Law Enforcement Offical mistakenly bring charges under 4-203 , or any other similar Md statutes, it would be impossable to obtain a conviction, waste the resources of Police Agencies, Prosecutors, and the Courts. And also cause needless distress to innocent citizens going about their lawful business.

Please give this Bill a Favorable recomendation.

Sincerely Yours,
Registered Voter
District #

HB 1005

HB 1005 Handgun Permit Requirements - Retired Military


Our Retired Veterans have already demonstrated a career of patriotism , self discipline , and service.

Our Retired Veterans have all received extensive training in the safe handling, and effective use of firearms.


Our Retired Veterans have all participated in exercises and training to effectivly function in conditions simulating dangerous and chaotic situations.

Many of our Retired Veterans have experience in functioning under actual Combat Conditions.


This Bill will enable Maryland Citizens to benefit from their long years of sevice , and dedication to Duty.

Please give a Favorable recommendation to this Bill.

Kind regards,
Registered Voter,
District #

My blood pressure is already rising.

HB 997 SUPPORT

HB 997 Competition Shooting and Match Shooting - Firearms Excemption


Many disciplines of Rifle competion commonly involve Modern Sporting Rifles and standard capacity magazines in order to be competitive , others explicetly require them. These include the various popular action and three gun competions that are frequently televised, and the National Champoinships held in Camp Perry , Ohio each year.


Due to Maryland's somewhat unique geography, most locations in Maryland are within a reasonable diistance of a Border. Many of the Gun and Sportsman Clubs with shooting ranges have a signifigent percentage of both members and Match participants who reside in a neighboring state.


This Bill would ensure the viability of Maryland Gun and Sportsman Clubs , and encourage participation and excellence in the Shooting Sports both here in Maryland, and nationally.

Please give this Bill a Favorable recomendation.

Kind regards,
Registered Voter
District #

HB 215 OPPOSED


HB 215 renewal Period for Retired Law Enforcement Officer

Police work is a noble profession. The myriad of service they render to the benefit of the public are vast , and vital to our society. Our Retired Law Enforcement Officers are to be honored for their dedication, and efforts in protecting and serving the public, much in the same way as our Retired Millitary Servicemen and Women for their service to our country.

But alas , in retirement Law Enforcement Officers are again regular citizens, and their authority and responsabilities are the same as every other citizen.

In light of their former service , they are due a certain measure of consideration for the nature of threats and dangers from their careers that follow against them into their retirement.

Their existing ability to recieve Handgun Permits without the same elusive , and narrowly construed "Good and Substantial reason" as the remainder of Maryland residents, and their favorable handling of Permits that were inadvertently allow to laspe , is already a major Courtesy extended to Retired Law Enforcement Officers , and it is not nesecarry, or equitable to the rest of Maryland citzens to make their Permit renewals easier and less frequent.

Now , on the other hand , if the State of Maryland feels that it is suitable for 5 year renewals , and no fingerprints for renewals , then let's extend those to ALL Permit holders.

Please give this Bill an Unfavorable review.


Kind regards,
Registered Voter,
District #

HB 0995 SUPPORT

HB 0995 SUPPORT

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.


Kind regards,
Registered Voter,
District #

HB 623 OPPOSE

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.


Kind regards,
Registered voter
District #

Great job, Mo!

HB 36 SUPPORT

HB 36 SUPPORT

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,
Registered Voter,
District #






Sources

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

Wikipedia “Concealed carry in the United States”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceal..._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/...ta-Opinion.pdf

HB 36 SUPPORT

HB 36
Public Safety - Handgun Permit - Applicant Qualifications
Support


Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee,

I am a lifelong Maryland resident and a homeowner and taxpayer.

I am licensed to carry a handgun in over 30 other states, holding Non-Resident permits by several other states.

I support HB 36 and want the opportunity to protect my family and myself from rising crime in Maryland. Courts have consistently held the police have no duty to protect citizens, and I feel it is my duty to protect my family and myself.

I can exercise my Civil right to protect myself in a majority of these United States. Even Illinois will begin issuing carry permits very soon.
I urge you to give a favorable report to HB 36.

Kind regards,
Registered Voter
District #

HB 262 SUPPORT

HB 262 SUPPORT

Testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in support of HB0262 / The lawful carrying of a Handgun while Bow Hunting.


I am a registered Democrat from Parkville, Maryland and I wish to thank the committee for allowing me to submit my testimony is support of HB0262.

I have personally been in a situation where having this proposed legislation in place could have been beneficial. Two hunting seasons ago, in the Fall of 2011, a white pick-up truck kept driving up and down the road next to the private land I was hunting on. After a few, slow passes one man carrying a muzzle loader and one man carrying a rifle exited the vehicle and proceeded to enter the field very close to where I was. After watching them for some time, I realized they were simply looking for something. I called out to them, told them I was coming to them, and they remained calm. After I approached the two men and began speaking with them, I found out they had come onto the property to track a deer they had shot earlier. Their story proved to be accurate. We found the deer and they left without incident. I was fortunate. Sadly, other hunters have not been.

A little more than 20 years ago, in Northern Florida, Don Hill and Gregory Wood had been murdered while engaging in the legal act of hunting. They had their money and their possessions stolen. These two tragedies took place in what most people would consider safe places to hunt. A National Forest and a Wildlife Management Area. These two innocent men were the unfortunate ones.

Maryland continues to shout from the roof tops how progressive and modern the State is and how much the State cares about the citizens who reside in her. This maxim holds true sans one group, hunters and those who wish to have the ability to protect and defend themselves with handguns.

Aside from the self protection issue, there are a myriad of other reasons to carry a handgun while hunting. On three separate occasions during the 2013 bow hunting season, I shot and wounded deer that had to lay there and suffer in needless pain. I was within 12 yards of all three deer and I could have easily ended their suffering had I been able to carry a handgun with me while bow hunting.

Though HB0262 has my complete and full support, I feel it should be amended to include all hunters, on all lands, and in all counties. All Maryland bow hunters should be afforded the same level of safety and security.

Therefore, I respectfully request a Favorable with Amendment report from this committee on HB0262.


Thank you.
Registered Voter
District #

HB 919 SUPPORT

HB919

In Support

Delegates,

This bill looks to afford the same rights with respect to carrying a weapon on public school property to a retired officer (in good standing) that it does to a non-retired officer. This is common sense legislation. Why would we want to trust an officer who retired yesterday any less than we trust one who is still in active duty? The answer, for me, is that we would trust them equally. This bill would adjust the law to to show the retired officer the same level of trust as the active duty officer.

Please give this bill a favorable report.

Kind regards,
Registered Voter
District #

HB 521 SUPPORT

Testimony to the House Judiciary Committee
In Favor of House Bill 521

March 4, 2014

Members of the committee,

I write to you today to express my support for HB 521. This bill would allow the issuance of a Handgun “Carry and Wear” Permit to those that possess a Handgun Qualification License.
Currently, the Maryland State Police does not recognize self defense as a Good and Substantial reason for the issuance of a handgun permit. This limits my rights to protect myself outside of the home to open carrying a long gun, which according to our laws and our Attorney General, is legal within MD. On May 13, 2011, AAG Kathryn M. Rowe issued a letter to the Honarable John L. Bohanan stating that the open carrying a long gun is legal, with certain restrictions that apply to all firearms such as schools, within 1000ft of a demonstration, in legislative buildings etc. In response to question number 13 “Can a person carry a loaded AR-15 openly/concealed in a non-threatening manner on a public roadway/sidewalk in any municipality in Maryland?” AAG Rowe responded with the following: “It is clear that a person may not carry a loaded AR-15 concealed on their person anywhere in the state. CR 4-101(c)(1). A person may openly carry a dangerous weapon, including a loaded AR-15, unless the possession of the weapon is itself illegal or it is carried in a place where it is not permitted. Because the State preemption provision grandfathered existing local regulations of firearms, there may be municipalities where open carry of firearms is not permitted.”
Open carrying a long gun, while legal, is cumbersome and it also creates an unfounded fear among residents of our state when they see someone walking down the street with a rifle slung across their back. It causes police resources to be used to respond to 911 calls for someone that is doing nothing illegal. In addition to this, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned San Diego’s similar “good and substantial” requirement finding it an unconstitutional limit on the issuance of a concealed carry permit.
By passing this bill, you can provide eligible individuals with the option to exercise concealed carry. This will be better for everyone as it won’t cause the unwarranted concern by the public as they see people walking down the street openly carrying long guns- their only current viable option. This will avoid wasting police resources from responding to unfounded calls, and also allow eligible citizens and voters of the State to protect themselves and their families in a controlled way.
The current requirements of the Handgun Qualification License require training classes including live fire, fingerprinting and comprehensive background checks. This is more stringent than many other State’s requirements for issuing a concealed carry permit and should therefore be more than sufficient to issue a carry and wear permit.
I respectfully request a favorable report and ultimately passage of this bill.

Kind regards,
Registered Voter,
District #

HB 115 OPPOSE

HB 115 In Opposition.

Dear Delegates,

This bill looks to study feasibility of GPS-enabling firearms. I feel this is a not an effective use of taxpayer money, and that it raises privacy concerns. Below are my reasons:

• Privacy
o Government surveillance of US citizens does not seem to be popular with the masses. Think NSA
o For those considering supporting this bill, do you think it wise to include tracking movements of US residents as part of your campaign platform?
o SCOTUS, in the case of US V. Jones, has ruled a warrant is needed to GPS-track.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirh...-gps-tracking/

• For a GPS the receiver to work, it must have a line of sight to four or more transmitting GPS satellites. You need only take a portable GPS map device to these locations to discover they will not function in a fully connected mode.
o Inside buildings
o On city streets surrounded by tall buildings
o In basements
o In tunnels
o Inside any container that would block 2-way communication, such as a metal box

• GPS receivers require a battery to work. Unplug or remove the battery, and the device will not function.

• Others have researched this type of GPS technology already. Please review findings from research done on behalf of (?) the Connecticut legislature - http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0069.htm

I respectfully request that you give this bill an unfavorable report.

Kind regards,
Registered voter,
District #

HB 122 SUPPORT

Testimony for HB 122 SUPPORT

Dear Committee Members:

I am writing you today to support this legislation. Maryland is a wonderful state, with natural treasures stretching from the mountains in the west to the beautiful beaches of the Eastern Shore. Our cities and towns boast a rich cultural heritage and a long and cherished history. Every year thousands of visitors come to our state, hoping to share in all that Maryland offers.
These visitors to Maryland take away precious memories of their time in Maryland. They also leave behind a tremendous amount of money to boost the state’s economy. The most recent Tourism Satellite Account reported more than $14.9 billion in visitor spending and more than $2 billion in State and local taxes.

Tourism is the 10th largest private sector employer in the State, supporting 135,741 direct full-time equivalency jobs in 2012 in leisure and hospitality, retail, transportation, and other sectors impacted by visitor spending. For these employees, tourism jobs provided $4.5 billion in wages and salaries in 2012.

Clearly, it is in the State’s best interest to encourage tourism and to make visitors to Maryland welcome so they can return year after year and tell their friends and family what a great state we have here. The Office of Tourism Development spent close to two million dollars in their media budget alone in 2012 to accomplish this.

There is a large group of people from outside our borders who would not only like to come to Maryland but are quite eager to do so. These people would be delighted to travel miles and miles, from as far north as Maine and as far south as Florida, for the chance to spend a few days in our state in pursuit of their favorite sport. They would love to come here for competitions and gladly boost our economy through their spending.

They won’t come, though. These people are target rifle competitors. They find our current firearms laws too complex, too restrictive, and frankly just too confusing to figure out. They do not want to risk being the test case in a long court battle. They do not want to risk arrest, imprisonment, confiscation of their prized target rifles, or the loss of the right to own a firearm for the rest of their life.
I cannot fault them for this attitude. I spent many days down in Annapolis last year, listening to hours and hours of testimony and debate on the Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (FSA2013). I have studied the law and sought answers to my questions from many sources. Despite these efforts, I cannot offer an out of state firearms owner a clear answer to the simple question, “Will I be in trouble if I come to shoot in Maryland?”

Failing to find an answer in the letter of the law, I tried to understand the spirit. In looking over the extensive list of banned rifles, something popped out that might point to an answer to this question. There are two important exemptions in the list of rifles deemed too deadly and dangerous for Maryland citizens to be able to buy. The first and widest exemption is one for the M1 Garand. There are no limitations on barrel length, stock configuration, etc. The rifle is clearly exempted, regardless of model type, from the law. The second exemption is quite narrower, the Colt Sporter HBAR.

Why would these two rifles be removed from the banned list? Are they somehow less lethal than the banned rifles? Do they incorporate novel and unique safety features which make them less of a threat to society?

Finding the answer requires a bit of delving into the past. When the list was first drawn up, the M1 Garand and the Colt Sporter HBAR were two of the most popular and widely used rifles in organized target competition. This leads me to believe the State, through specifically exempting these rifles, recognized the legitimacy of target competition and thought it important enough to avoid any prohibition against its practice within the state.

The list was drawn up over twenty years ago. While the spirit of the law may remain intact, the letter of the law has failed to be updated to stay current with technology and the rifles used in organized competition today. The rifles and other equipment used in target competition are subject to the constraints of a continually evolving set of rules for the sport. This bill would correct that failing. House Bill 122 will say clearly to potential out of state visitors, “Yes, we recognize the legitimacy and importance of your sport and welcome you to practice it in Maryland.”

In my research for this testimony, I had the opportunity to communicate with dozens of out of state rifle competitors. If this bill should become law, they will come to Maryland for competitions. They will not come for the chance to poke a few holes in paper but rather for the camaraderie and fellowship which is the heart of their sport. They will celebrate this fellowship with breakfast in our restaurants before the match and with dinner after. They will rest from their travels and competition in our hotels. They will refuel their vehicles at Maryland gas stations. In short, they will come to our state, enjoy the competition, leave their dollars here, and then head home, taking their rifles with them.

I have attached as appendices selected materials on the impact of tourism in Maryland, the equipment requirements for rifle competition, and some brief comments from out of state rifle competitors concerning their desire to visit our state and the negative impact FSA 2013 has had upon their travel plans. I would ask you to return a favorable report on House Bill 122 and to lend your support so this bill may become law.

Kind regards,
Registered Voter
District#