Maybe he can come and see us all testify.....
Live from Baltimore town hall antigun circle jerk
- Thread starter occbrian
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Maybe he can come and see us all testify.....
I wrote this to the senate judiciary committee and called my delegates, senator, and Delegate Dwyer's office...
*********************
I attended last night's (1/31) Town Hall meeting on the Governor's Public Safety initiatives sponsored by Lieutenant Governor Brown and wanted to take this opportunity to share with you some of my observations.
I am veteran, serving for over 20 years as a combat arms officer in the U.S. Army. I am the former Unit Chief of the FBI's Critical Mission Assurance Unit, the entity that manages the continuity and emergency management functions for the entire Bureau. I am now detailed to the DoD working the same programs for the U.S. Intelligence Community. My job is to understand the threats, hazards, and impacts of complex catastrophic emergencies and the corresponding capabilities of our local, state, and federal government to respond to and recover from these type events.
Although highly encouraged hearing about the State's efforts in strengthening school security and mental health services, I was shocked and appalled at the lack of understanding that our Lt. Governor and Superintendent of the Maryland State Police had in regards to the Governor's Public Safety initiatives regarding firearms. None of the panelists, to include the Lt. Governor could articulate why these legislative proposals were focused on so called "assault weapons" rather that the illegal use of handguns, which according to 2011 FBI statistics, account for over 96% of shootings and are (mis)used in less that 1% of shooting incidents. None of the panelist could explain the logic behind the legislation. They could only parrot that this legislation will not affect handgun and long rifle (hunting) firearms our of "respect" for Maryland's hunting and sporting communities.
More appalling was MSP Superintendent Marcus Brown's attempts to define what is an "assault weapon" under this legislative proposal Twice, even after being challenged the first time, he described attributes and feature of FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms, speaking about "select fire" and "burst fire" capabilities, even going as far as describing how fully automatic firearms operate. None of the panelist could articulate why certain features were being attributed to assault weapons. When asked why a telescoping stock, which serves the same analogous function as the ability to adjust a car seat to accommodate a driver's physical ability to more safely operate the vehicle, was going to be a ban feature, they could not reply.
When asked about the transportation provisions, and how it would prohibit a law abiding citizen from transporting his lawfully owned firearm over state lines to a friend/family/range/competition/hunting event across state lines and be able to legally return to the State, the Lt. Governor had no answer and stated that he would "look into it." A question that was not able to be asked due to time limitations was how a resident military member who PCS's out of state on military orders with his personally owned firearms could legally return with his/her personal property after completion of the assignment.
I personally and professionally oppose this legislation (SB 281) as overly broad, technically flawed, disenfranchising, and not legislatively focused to address the root causes of violence in our communities (poverty, lack of educational and economic opportunities, and the violent economics of the illegal drug trade). I also feel that it directly infringes on my 2A rights and ability to fully defend myself in a catastrophic incident where the government and police are not available to protect me, my family, or my community. (See Hurricanes Katrina/Sandy and the LA riots). That said, the complete inability of our political leadership and senior law enforcement professionals to comprehensively understand and fully articulate and justify the legislation that they authored and support, specifically legislation that has Constitutional rights implications, was absolutely appalling.
Based on last nights results, it is my firm opinion that the majority of this legislation is nothing more than political theater and an opportunity for some politicians to posture themselves on issues for the 2016 election cycle. The panel could not and did not justify its position and proposals. It is my fear that we will be stuck with some feel good legislation that does little to solve the violence. When this comes true, this legislation will only serve as the starting point to further restrict our rights and abilities to defend ourselves and our families, now and in the future.
With the exception of strengthening mental health services and reporting, I ask you to oppose this legislation. I also ask that you also call Colonel Brown to task. As the State's senior law enforcement professional his total lack of understanding of the legislative details of a bill that the MSP is suppose to implement and the difference between NFA automatic and semi-automatic firearms is shameful.
*********************
*********************
I attended last night's (1/31) Town Hall meeting on the Governor's Public Safety initiatives sponsored by Lieutenant Governor Brown and wanted to take this opportunity to share with you some of my observations.
I am veteran, serving for over 20 years as a combat arms officer in the U.S. Army. I am the former Unit Chief of the FBI's Critical Mission Assurance Unit, the entity that manages the continuity and emergency management functions for the entire Bureau. I am now detailed to the DoD working the same programs for the U.S. Intelligence Community. My job is to understand the threats, hazards, and impacts of complex catastrophic emergencies and the corresponding capabilities of our local, state, and federal government to respond to and recover from these type events.
Although highly encouraged hearing about the State's efforts in strengthening school security and mental health services, I was shocked and appalled at the lack of understanding that our Lt. Governor and Superintendent of the Maryland State Police had in regards to the Governor's Public Safety initiatives regarding firearms. None of the panelists, to include the Lt. Governor could articulate why these legislative proposals were focused on so called "assault weapons" rather that the illegal use of handguns, which according to 2011 FBI statistics, account for over 96% of shootings and are (mis)used in less that 1% of shooting incidents. None of the panelist could explain the logic behind the legislation. They could only parrot that this legislation will not affect handgun and long rifle (hunting) firearms our of "respect" for Maryland's hunting and sporting communities.
More appalling was MSP Superintendent Marcus Brown's attempts to define what is an "assault weapon" under this legislative proposal Twice, even after being challenged the first time, he described attributes and feature of FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms, speaking about "select fire" and "burst fire" capabilities, even going as far as describing how fully automatic firearms operate. None of the panelist could articulate why certain features were being attributed to assault weapons. When asked why a telescoping stock, which serves the same analogous function as the ability to adjust a car seat to accommodate a driver's physical ability to more safely operate the vehicle, was going to be a ban feature, they could not reply.
When asked about the transportation provisions, and how it would prohibit a law abiding citizen from transporting his lawfully owned firearm over state lines to a friend/family/range/competition/hunting event across state lines and be able to legally return to the State, the Lt. Governor had no answer and stated that he would "look into it." A question that was not able to be asked due to time limitations was how a resident military member who PCS's out of state on military orders with his personally owned firearms could legally return with his/her personal property after completion of the assignment.
I personally and professionally oppose this legislation (SB 281) as overly broad, technically flawed, disenfranchising, and not legislatively focused to address the root causes of violence in our communities (poverty, lack of educational and economic opportunities, and the violent economics of the illegal drug trade). I also feel that it directly infringes on my 2A rights and ability to fully defend myself in a catastrophic incident where the government and police are not available to protect me, my family, or my community. (See Hurricanes Katrina/Sandy and the LA riots). That said, the complete inability of our political leadership and senior law enforcement professionals to comprehensively understand and fully articulate and justify the legislation that they authored and support, specifically legislation that has Constitutional rights implications, was absolutely appalling.
Based on last nights results, it is my firm opinion that the majority of this legislation is nothing more than political theater and an opportunity for some politicians to posture themselves on issues for the 2016 election cycle. The panel could not and did not justify its position and proposals. It is my fear that we will be stuck with some feel good legislation that does little to solve the violence. When this comes true, this legislation will only serve as the starting point to further restrict our rights and abilities to defend ourselves and our families, now and in the future.
With the exception of strengthening mental health services and reporting, I ask you to oppose this legislation. I also ask that you also call Colonel Brown to task. As the State's senior law enforcement professional his total lack of understanding of the legislative details of a bill that the MSP is suppose to implement and the difference between NFA automatic and semi-automatic firearms is shameful.
*********************
fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
Too bad Emily Miller hasn't written a column on it.
She should now know when the next one in (since it is even closer to her) from her twitter.
fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
I have been in contact w/ her via twitter and she said she will be writing on the topic. My guess is she will attend the hearing next week (especially of Obozo shows up).
I sent her a link to when the next one is in PG county.
You should post your letter on Emily's Facebook page. She will take notice and it should get some good attention from those who follow her.
wesser1
Active Member
I agree, and I think you should tweak it a little and send it to the papers as well. Might get printed.
On straw purchasing, it seems to be common myth that straw purchases are relatively common, and this is the argument that was presented to require fingerprinting at the town hall. I found this on smartgunlaws.org:
New York City officials recently conducted their own investigation at gun shows across the U.S. to test whether, among other things, FFLs would sell to someone who appeared to be a straw purchaser.11 New York’s investigation found that 16 out of 17 (or 94% of) FFLs approached by investigators willingly sold to an apparent straw purchaser.
Is this true? I think that if we have reliable facts to refute this, we can reject the push for fingerprinting proposed in SB281.
New York City officials recently conducted their own investigation at gun shows across the U.S. to test whether, among other things, FFLs would sell to someone who appeared to be a straw purchaser.11 New York’s investigation found that 16 out of 17 (or 94% of) FFLs approached by investigators willingly sold to an apparent straw purchaser.
Is this true? I think that if we have reliable facts to refute this, we can reject the push for fingerprinting proposed in SB281.
tball
Ultimate Member
Great job on the write ups to occbrian and Cogcon.
There is something I would like to see addressed. The deaths/murders by long guns in Maryland has been 2 to 3 per year. I believe at least one of these was a self defense shooting in 2011, where a homeowner shot someone who was breaking into his house. I believe there was another one in PG county where a homeowner shot an intruder. These were long guns, but there was no reference to the type of long gun. I would not be surprised if more of the others were also home defense shootings.
There is something I would like to see addressed. The deaths/murders by long guns in Maryland has been 2 to 3 per year. I believe at least one of these was a self defense shooting in 2011, where a homeowner shot someone who was breaking into his house. I believe there was another one in PG county where a homeowner shot an intruder. These were long guns, but there was no reference to the type of long gun. I would not be surprised if more of the others were also home defense shootings.
JPG
Ultimate Member
My read from this is that this panel went like the first prez debate. What we learned from that debate is not to set back and hope momentum carries us through the finish line. Everyone still needs to contact everyone in their rolodex (you know what I mean) and tell them about the bill and the town halls. Don't think they will go to a 12+ hour event unless very passionate about 2A, but might go to a 2 hour evening meeting.
If your sphere of influence isn't talking to you about 2A bill then they don't know or don't care. Bring them aboard.
If your sphere of influence isn't talking to you about 2A bill then they don't know or don't care. Bring them aboard.
I was there last night and I too went up to Dr. Demarco to get the source of his stats on "states that have licensing and fingerprinting have less gun crime". They kept using the 30K gun deaths each year which according to CDC includes almost 20K suicides. I wasn't able to ask a question on that.
Anyway, as I approached Dr. Demarco, he was surrounded by his gun control activists and I heard him confirm your suspicion. To paraphrase him responding to one of his collaborators "...yeah as long as we get licensing and fingerprinting, I'm happy....".
My impressions of the MSP Col. was that he was in a bad place. I thanked him for his service, told him I respectfully disagreed, and he thanked me for understanding that law enforcement was in a tough place in the debate. I think having his boss' right hand man there meant he really couldn't speak his mind. Just guessing though. Upshot is I think a lot of law enforcement support us.
I too was pleasantly surprised by those who were in support of our position. If it were me and I was the Lt. Gov and his panel, I'd be using what I learned in Baltimore to prep for the next two meetings. That's where I'd have friendly media to prove we didn't know what we were talking about and have more coherent messages. The 6th is where we're likely to be the weakest since we'll have some of our leadership in Annapolis during the hearing. If AW ban is a red herring than they'll slam home their point while we're distracted. Just my $0.02....
I'm guessing The Sun was there. Did anyone see anything in the paper today about the meeting?
Had the same thing happen to me last week. Old friend who owns guns his father gave to him asked why we needed guns that can mow down little kids like in the movies. Once I set him straight, I could see the wheels turning. We need to get this info out to the rest of the general public.
I'm with you. I'm thinking there's something else that we're missing here. Fingerprinting? Licensing? Dr. Demarco admitted as much to one of his gun control cohorts after the meeting.
According to Dr. Demarco, those states that have licensing and fingerprinting have dramatically less gun crime and deaths.
Your arguing against a Dr. from Hopkins. We need to look at his sources or call them suspect. Maybe someone that goes to the meeting on the 5th can ask him publicly what his sources are for this statement.
Bohlieve410
Ultimate Member
- Feb 21, 2011
- 1,575
I'd invite anyone that thinks we shouldn't have guns to live in my old hood at east fayette and conkling. Or take a walk around my old school on liberty heights.
All I gotta say is remember Zach Sowers. He should've been a DGU. An honest citizen murdered by thugs, and not one of these ahole politicians care about us. Must be nice to live in gated communities in Roland Park and Bethesda. But most of us can't afford that. So we're stuck being at risk of being killed by the same people they let out of jail multiple times.
All I gotta say is remember Zach Sowers. He should've been a DGU. An honest citizen murdered by thugs, and not one of these ahole politicians care about us. Must be nice to live in gated communities in Roland Park and Bethesda. But most of us can't afford that. So we're stuck being at risk of being killed by the same people they let out of jail multiple times.
I asked Vincent DeMarco what his source was, and he gave me the graphic that has been posted. I am afraid that his source is not substantial, but as Nikon said, you can't argue against an "accepted expert" without facts. I suppose the only factual evidence on this would be compiled by police departments in major cities.
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,366
You can always argue against unproven "Facts" with other unproven "Facts" of your own because to expose the weakness of your argument calls their own into question.
To prove "Straw" purchasers are not a problem look to the number of people convicted of being a straw purchaser. I'll bet after lack of prosecution and plea bargains the number of convictions is miniscule so by saying in Maryland in the last ten years there have only been (?) people convicted of straw purchasing yet during the same period there were (???,???) guns sold. Need to find some numbers and be as limited and selective in cherry picking them as they are.
Other good numbers:
How many times a gun stops a crime.
The number of homicides contrasted with accidental shootings, and justifiable shootings. Don't fall into the "Total Gun Deaths" trap, if a police officer shoots a criminal that is a "Gun Death" but is Justified. Ask for a breakdown of the total and have the numbers yourself so you can say "Of those gun deaths XX were police officers defending them selves should we limit the police? And XX were citizens protecting them selves and their families while waiting for the police to arrive should we take their guns away?".
Be armed with number of suicides from other causes to show people will kill themselves even if they can't access a gun.
Blacksmith101
To prove "Straw" purchasers are not a problem look to the number of people convicted of being a straw purchaser. I'll bet after lack of prosecution and plea bargains the number of convictions is miniscule so by saying in Maryland in the last ten years there have only been (?) people convicted of straw purchasing yet during the same period there were (???,???) guns sold. Need to find some numbers and be as limited and selective in cherry picking them as they are.
Other good numbers:
How many times a gun stops a crime.
The number of homicides contrasted with accidental shootings, and justifiable shootings. Don't fall into the "Total Gun Deaths" trap, if a police officer shoots a criminal that is a "Gun Death" but is Justified. Ask for a breakdown of the total and have the numbers yourself so you can say "Of those gun deaths XX were police officers defending them selves should we limit the police? And XX were citizens protecting them selves and their families while waiting for the police to arrive should we take their guns away?".
Be armed with number of suicides from other causes to show people will kill themselves even if they can't access a gun.
Blacksmith101
Last edited:
I know I've read the 30,000 number somewhere before. it may have been in a CDC report or just a random article somewhere, but you're correct — that's not gun murders, it's total gun deaths (murder, suicide, accidents, justifiable homicide).
For clarity, the FBI's 2011 crime report shows the total gun murders. Here's the section of the report (Expanded Homicide Data Table 8) that shows the breakdown of murders by type of weapon, from years 2007-20011.
TOTAL FIREARM MURDERS
2007: 10,129
2008: 9,528
2009: 9,199
2010: 8,874
2011: 8,583
That guy's whole argument seemed to be that fingerprinting and registration would intimidate people, which would lead to fewer people buying guns. Even if he actually has stats that could back that up, it screams second amendment violation to me. It's not okay to intimidate citizens into not voting and it's not okay to intimidate people into not keeping and bearing arms.
If you feel like doing lots of math, you can check his claim by calculating firearm murder rates for each state and comparing them:
(Gun Murders ÷ Population) x 100,000 = rate of gun murder per 100,000 people
^I think I did that right.
Wikipedia - Population of each state
FBI Crime Report - Number of firearm murders in each state
Here's two I did to get you started if you're interested:
Maryland: 4.6 gun murders per 100,000 people
New York: 2.3 gun murders per 100,000 people
The population numbers are from 2010 and the gun murder numbers are from 2011, so it's not perfect, but it's close enough for analysis. The guy didn't seem like an idiot, so his claims are probably true. It's still just a statistic, though. Numbers don't lie, but they aren't sworn to tell the whole truth either. Regardless, I don't think the registration/fingerprinting argument hinges on numbers anyway. It hinges on the question of Constitutionality and on law-abiding citizens refusal to be treated like criminals.
