MSI and a Referendum

[Patrick]

Below you will see a short prepared statement from the MSI Board on the option to go to referendum. We decided to defer on the idea.

There are a few reasons, but the overriding one is that we have spent years talking about our right being one we own - one that nobody can take from us. So we cannot support a process by which we voluntarily ask strangers to let us keep it. We cannot honestly put our fundamental rights up for a popular vote.

If we want to take the fight to the other side, we do it at the ballot box by educating voters on just how they were abused by their legislature. Even those who do not own guns will learn that the abuse of one fundamental right opens the door for serious curtailment of the rights they do like.

I don't know about you, but I am not the kind of person who will beg my neighbors for my rights. These rights are mine and I won't ask you to keep the things I own, thank you very much.

 

[Patrick]

MSI Statement on Referendum Option

The American Experience was founded on a simple, dangerous premise: that we all individually own rights that the government cannot wish away with a simple vote. It's dangerous because it is simple. Wars have been fought over less, and regimes worldwide will literally kill their people before they let them learn our truth. Today, as we consider responses to Governor O'Malley's attempt to violate one of our fundamental rights, we are tempted with an approach that would put the exercise of a civil right up to a popular referendum vote. But we must resist. Some lawmakers fell prey to the surface veneer of easy answers, but we must do better than those who sided against the rights of the people they represent.

Today we must lead.

We will work statewide to educate the people of their rights. We will work with lawmakers - many of whom openly expressed concern over their vote in favor of gun control - to ensure they understand the true effect their law has brought upon their constituents. We will also work within the system we have - we will turn to the third branch of government to check the excesses of the Governor and our Legislature.

Civil Rights violations do not come with easy solutions. They require work. Those lawmakers who stood with us made a tough choice - to lead when the easy solution was to follow the herd. Our community has demonstrated its organizational capability and their motivation to effect real change. We will exercise that capability now, into 2014, and beyond.

Defending civil rights - even unpopular rights - is never an easy task. But we take strength from our growing resolve. We stood for our rights. We will defend them today and we will teach our children to maintain them tomorrow. In short, we are in this to win this for now and for ever more.

 

[Mark75H]

With the tremendous amount of cash needed for last minute TV advertising to win a referendum in MD, this is the thing to do.

 

[OnTarget]

Wouldn't a Referendum be the way to go while we prepare to go to court? Court cases can take years. Even if the Referendum didn't go our away vote wise, it could still be overturned by the outcome of a subsequent court case decision. Right?

If we think we are right and have the votes, I'd go for the Referendum? If nothing else, it stalls the effective date of the SB281.

 

[Brooklyn]

Wouldn't a Referendum be the way to go while we prepare to go to court? Court cases can take years. Even if the Referendum didn't go our away vote wise, it could still be overturned by the outcome of a subsequent court case decision. Right?

If we think we are right and have the votes, I'd go for the Referendum? If nothing else, it stalls the effective date of the SB281.

There are entire treads on this ... so I will defer to them, but there are many other concerns.

Most likely some other group will do it anyway... and it will in my opinion hurt our cause.


http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=114185&page=34

 

[teratos]

Wouldn't a Referendum be the way to go while we prepare to go to court? Court cases can take years. Even if the Referendum didn't go our away vote wise, it could still be overturned by the outcome of a subsequent court case decision. Right?

If we think we are right and have the votes, I'd go for the Referendum? If nothing else, it stalls the effective date of the SB281.

There will be no progress on court cases while there is a referendum. Suits could not be filed until it was over. If a referendum does not go our way (and it is VERY UNLIKELY to go our way), it can affect the decision of the courts.

More importantly, do you really want to put your Rights up for a vote? The people of Maryland elect people like O'Malley, Obama, Frosh etc. Are the the people you want giving their opinions on what your Rights are?

 

[AKbythebay]

A referendum would go down in flames I am telling you. 60-40 minimum on the gun grabbers side. Going straight to the courts is the right move. Like you said, you shouldn't have to ask the voters to approve of your constitutional rights

 

[eventhorizon]

More importantly, do you really want to put your Rights up for a vote?

Exactly. Look at what "the people" voted for the last go around.

 

[OnTarget]

I'll just say this and be done.

We didn't lose SB281 because of lack of people support, we lost because the politicians followed O'Malley's instructions. That's why I think we could win a Referendum. We have the support, I believe! My two cents worth.

 

[OnTarget]

There will be no progress on court cases while there is a referendum. Suits could not be filed until it was over. If a referendum does not go our way (and it is VERY UNLIKELY to go our way), it can affect the decision of the courts.

More importantly, do you really want to put your Rights up for a vote? The people of Maryland elect people like O'Malley, Obama, Frosh etc. Are the the people you want giving their opinions on what your Rights are?

At least a Referendum would be in OUR hands for us to decide. You have more faith in the court system than I. For example, the deck can be stacked against you. CA4 on Wollard, All three judges were Democrats (2 appointed by Obama; 1 by Clinton). Right there, this tells one what the outcome of the case will be. Referendum for me. I think we can muster the support.

 

[ThatIsAFact]

Good decision -- don't sign any petitions

This is a very astute decision by the MSI Board, whoever they are.

Those who are pushing for a referendum, if they get their way, will pull us all over the cliff into a political Grand Canyon. It would be a political blunder of monumental proportions. Don't sign those petitions for a referendum, unless you want to help make 2014 to be the year that pro-gun forces in Maryland went down to bitter defeat in the political equivalent of the famous and mindless Charge of the Light Brigade.

If you want to see Maryland law, a few years down the road, looking like what gun owners in New York, Connecticut, and California now face, the referendum route is the way to go. Another way to say it: If you want Baltimore and the DC suburb counties' delegations in the legislature to have even more power to set statewide gun policy in the future, that's the way to do it.

The electorate will ratify the bill, especially after they've been presented with biased summary of the law to vote on ("should there be a ban on high-powered semiautomatic military-style assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. . .the law does not affect rifles or shotguns commonly used for hunting," etc.) and months of propaganda (both paid ads and "news" coverage) on TV.

The lost of losing -- and it won't be close -- would be great. In modern American history, there are not many examples of state legislatures going in exactly the opposite direction from what the electorate has just done in a referendum. The usual pattern is for the legislatures to say "the electorate has spoken, now we have a mandate to give them more of the same." You can find a couple exceptions, but they were not in states like Maryland.

The resources should be devoted to defeating specific legislators in specific districts who voted in favor of the restrictions despite the urging of well-informed blocs of gun-owners in their districts. You pick opportune districts where it is possible to vote bums out -- which would be mostly districts outside the most urbanized areas. The defeat of a fairly small number could have a great sobering effect on the legislature, particularly on the Senate side, if it was seen that support for the attack on gun owners was the decisive or a decisive factor. Many of the urban anti-gun legislators have tailor-drawn districts that it is practically impossible for them to loose, even in a primary. The good news is that the anti voters are also packed into those same districts, so they cannot vote to save the legislators whose districts are more diverse.

But by forcing a statewide referendum, all the advantages of being able to pick your battlegrounds are lost. Also lost are the advantage of localized intensity and organization. You turn it into a game of money -- Bloomberg could spend many millions on TV ads if necessary -- do you have millions? You turn it into a game in which the news media will sway many -- how do you think that will go? You turn it into a statewide game of raw numbers. Those TV ads will turn out the voters you want to stay home. The final outcome will look like a Washington Post poll on "gun violence." And the crushing defeat will nullify the sobering effects of knocking off some bums in the election, should that occur.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

What I have a hard time with in this discussion is the framing of the debate over a referendum is the "putting our rights up for a vote" argument.

The wording of the referendum was always the variable IMHO.

The bill is titled "Firearm Safety Act of 2013". The question should be framed in terms of whether anyone truly feels safer now that this piece of legislation is enrolled and will prevent crime in Maryland. Many legislators admitted it would do nothing to prevent a Newtown, which was supposedly the impetus for the swift legislative response. I suspect this piece of crap that is the anti's wet dream in terms of "people with guns" control was in a drawer waiting for the right moment.

Leaving the referendum question in the hands of O'Malley's minions is/was the big issue.

We argued that the legislators were going against the will of the people during testimony. Now we will never know if that is a true statement.

*** Bombing - bomber blamed. Shooting - gun blamed. Benghazi - nobody blamed. ***

 

[OnTarget]

Bottom line for me, then I'm finished, I'd much rather have the people of our country decide by voting (our constitutional right), then place any trust in the politicians or the courts with their Democratic liberal leanings to make a decision for me. We've seen how that goes. Oh, Lord, have we ever.

It's your state, so have at it.

 

[erwos]

We didn't lose SB281 because of lack of people support

Sorry, but we do not have the people support. Period, end of story. Our side has far more motivated folks on it, but the number of people who passively support an AWB outnumber us by a large margin. You don't have to be particularly motivated to check a box stripping your fellow citizens of your rights, unfortunately. Now, the good news is that the original SB281 was so draconian that the moderate people who liked the idea of an AWB were wondering if this wasn't overkill... so it got gutted pretty good.

You're from western MD, no? You probably see very few people enthused about gun control. But for those of us near DC and in/near Baltimore, which are the population centers of this state, we see a vastly different political picture on the local level.

 

[Mark75H]

Exactly. Look at what "the people" voted for the last go around.

Only one conservative issue lost by a considerable margin, the others were extremely close, esp given the fact that there was a HUGE amount of liberal money spent on TV ads during the final week prior to the election and NONE spent by conservatives.

The close results are why the 2013 legislature made it almost impossible to get any more laws to referendum. Money on our side would be spent out just getting approved signatures because of this year's new laws

 

[teratos]

What I have a hard time with in this discussion is the framing of the debate over a referendum is the "putting our rights up for a vote" argument.

The wording of the referendum was always the variable IMHO.

The bill is titled "Firearm Safety Act of 2013". The question should be framed in terms of whether anyone truly feels safer now that this piece of legislation is enrolled and will prevent crime in Maryland. Many legislators admitted it would do nothing to prevent a Newtown, which was supposedly the impetus for the swift legislative response. I suspect this piece of crap that is the anti's wet dream in terms of "people with guns" control was in a drawer waiting for the right moment.

Leaving the referendum question in the hands of O'Malley's minions is/was the big issue.

We argued that the legislators were going against the will of the people during testimony. Now we will never know if that is a true statement.

*** Bombing - bomber blamed. Shooting - gun blamed. Benghazi - nobody blamed. ***

Look at the demographics of Maryland. It is a pretty safe bet we are going to lose a referendum. In fact, it is a pretty safe bet that the majority of Marylanders are in favor of gun control. That is just our demographic. In all likelihood, we were the vocal minority they said we were. That's just the honest truth. I could be wrong.

Here is a fact. The 2A was put into the Constitution to protect that Right from exactly the situation we have right now. It is an inalienable Right, not to be infringed upon by the Government, even if a majority believe it should be infringed upon.

There is a well known phrase: Democracy is two wolves and sheep arguing over what's for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.

In this case we are armed with the Second Amendment. We cannot allow the wolves to vote on what is for dinner.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Look at the demographics of Maryland. It is a pretty safe bet we are going to lose a referendum. In fact, it is a pretty safe bet that the majority of Marylanders are in favor of gun control. That is just our demographic. In all likelihood, we were the vocal minority they said we were. That's just the honest truth. I could be wrong.

Here is a fact. The 2A was put into the Constitution to protect that Right from exactly the situation we have right now. It is an inalienable Right, not to be infringed upon by the Government, even if a majority believe it should be infringed upon.

There is a well known phrase: Democracy is two wolves and sheep arguing over what's for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.

In this case we are armed with the Second Amendment. We cannot allow the wolves to vote on what is for dinner.

Agreed.

I was never for putting our 2A rights up for a vote. Find that unconscionable.

I was for the consideration of whether SB281 solved the problem it advertised it would...

*** Bombing - bomber blamed. Shooting - gun blamed. Benghazi - nobody blamed. ***

 

[Brychan]

IMHO the best way to MD rights back is to educate, work hard to replace the anti 2A in the house, senate and govenors office. Hopefully we will get some help from the courts along the way.

 

[esqappellate]

Wouldn't a Referendum be the way to go while we prepare to go to court? Court cases can take years. Even if the Referendum didn't go our away vote wise, it could still be overturned by the outcome of a subsequent court case decision. Right?

If we think we are right and have the votes, I'd go for the Referendum? If nothing else, it stalls the effective date of the SB281.

Both courts and a referendum cost lots of money and money is finite resource. The judgment call is that those resources are best concentrated on where we have the best chance of success, and, I quite agree, that is the courts. If you try to do both, you end up doing both poorly. Such is life.

 

[occbrian]

This is the right decision.

Courts, primaries, education.