MD AWB Live Update 2-10-04


PDA






Norton
February 10, 2004, 01:24 PM
Been receiving some live updates from Brother Spot77 who is at the hearing today for the MD AWB in Annapolis.

As of 12:00pm he said there were approximately 400 pro-gunners (woohoo!) at the doors to the hearing and no sign as of that time of the anti's. They were gathering at another location IIRC.


READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY:

Some things that Spot77 were important: They ARE keeping a rolling tally of the phone call throughout the day and your continuing phone calls are of paramount importance throughout today, Tuesday February 10. if you can make one call or 20 calls...please do it.





Continue laying on the heat and we may just pull this off!!

Way to go all of you folks who could make it today.....we owe you big time for your efforts.

More updates as the afternoon progresses.

If you enjoyed reading about "MD AWB Live Update 2-10-04" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Girlwithagun
February 10, 2004, 04:07 PM
I just got back from Annapolis. I wished I could have stayed the whole time but my boys were tired and I should not have worn 4 inch heels. :p

It was great to see the amount of people on "our side"! I only saw a small group of about 5 antis and they were standing in the corner like scared mice. :neener:

I was glad to see Don Dwyer by the door letting us know he is on our side. There may have been more, but he is the one I recognized. Let's all remember to thank the ones who stood up for us when everything is said and done. *crosses fingers*

To the THR members I met today: Nice to meet you and hope to see you at the range! (Or plan another get-together)

Norton
February 10, 2004, 04:18 PM
Girlwithagun:

So the huge turnout projected by the anti's never appeared? Excellent:cool:





3:15pm....no new news from the front....more as I get the info

MikeK
February 10, 2004, 06:47 PM
Just got home a little while ago. Nice meeting you gwag, and the two boys. I don't think I could have handled them, but you're a little younger.

The unofficial vote tally was 5 to 5 out of 11. Apparantly one came over to our side.

State Police, Sheriffs and FOP all oppose the bill and testified so. One of the senators from Baltimore was the biggest Ahole I have ever heard. How did he get elected? Oh, that's right he's from Baltimore (Nothing against Baltimorians, I have some friends who live there.)

The testimony may go on for a while. I may call the local tavern later and page some folks I know to learn the outcome.

Met Cliff and Chaim (again), Jeepdriver, K-Romulus and identified Spot77 later, but didn't get a chance to chat. He switched suits on me.

As soon as I hear more, I'll post.

(Edited for anecdote)

Chaim and I were standing in the lobby of the hearing room. He was wearing his yarmulke and Leah Barrett (MMM, ceasefire MD) must have thought he was a rabbi that was going to testify on their side and approched him. I guess he explained he wasn't on her side, but he sure could have had some fun with her.

greyhound
February 10, 2004, 07:32 PM
Thanks for the update. Not to sound more dense than usual, but is 5 to 5 out of 11 good?

And I must express surprise that the MSP, Sheriffs, and FOP all oppose the bill. I've been outspoken about the anti-gun nature of the MSP, maybe I was wrong. But I thought they were all for getting any gun possible out of the hands of any citizen, be they law abiding or criminal? Guess I was wrong, won't be the first time!

Norton
February 10, 2004, 07:36 PM
The fact that these law enforcement agencies are coming out against the ban will be very good support for Erhlich. He said he would only support the ban if the state's law enforcement agencies came out in favor of it. The banners were making it well known that the Howard County Police/Sherrif were in favor of the ban....this may take some wind out of their sails.....

MikeK
February 10, 2004, 08:10 PM
greyhound - I probably could have writen it better. Basicly the decision on the bill probably rests with one person. Supposedly as of this morning 4 were opposed, 5 were for and two were undecided.

So 5 to 5 is better than 12 hours ago.

Excerpts of the hearing will probably appear on WMPT (ch. 22) starting at midnight. They had a crew there. If they focus on any gunnies it will probably be the ONE guy dressed in camo as opposed to the 70 percent of guys in suits and women in dresses/slacks and the remainder in casual attire. They did film one boy ~ 11 sitting on the floor behind me wearing an 'I'm the NRA and I Vote' button. He was taking copious notes with the word 'EMOTION' written big enough for me to see it when the anti's were lying, I mean testifying.

It's a cliffhanger. Though we all gave it a good shot.

00-Guy
February 10, 2004, 08:40 PM
Thanks to all who went, called, wrote, emailed or faxed.. Posted only to follow additional posts.

BRONZ
February 10, 2004, 08:56 PM
Thanks for the update. To all who took the time to defend my right to bear arms I THANK YOU from the buttom of my heart. I also thank you for my 2 young sons. I just about have all I want, but its the next generation of gun cuture you are fighting for.

My hats off to you. Hahza, Hahza, Hahza.

I will keep making calls. TRIPWIRE advised to call all week. I will keep making the calls.
:)

greyhound
February 10, 2004, 09:07 PM
MikeK-

No, you were there and I wasn't so my hat's off to you for keeping us updated.

Yikes, this is close. Does anyone know how Haines from Carroll County stood? I can't believe a Carroll County pol could support gun grabbing.

In any event, I just mailed another snail mail to Gov. Erlich urging veto if it gets that far. I can only hope not.

Thanks one again to all those that could make it. I take it these things never happen on the weekend, but maybe next time I can take a personal day....

chaim
February 10, 2004, 09:07 PM
I'm writing from school so I can't be here long (I'm taking Computerized Accouting so I can get online).

Anyway, when I got there Girlwithagun was by the door and "recognized" me (it was the first we ever met- what gave me away :p ) and I talked with her for a moment before heading upstairs to the meeting room with MikeK who was also at the door. The crowd was huge- the overflow crowd in the hallway in front of the meeting room was shoulder to shoulder. Just going by those wearing pins we were probably 3 or 4 to 1 v. those without any identifiers or who were anti and I'm sure quite a few without any pins were on our side (heck, until the break when Scott/Spot77 gave me an extra pin I didn't have any) so I'd guess we were 4 or 5 to 1 v. actual antis.

They first gave their people one hour then ours. The MSP spokesperson was the first to speak for us. He did ok (though I wasn't pleased by his support of all our current laws- they only oppose this one since "at this time it is unnecessary"), but the antis on the comittee kept him there for 45 minutes of our hour by asking unrelated questions (he's testifying on the MD AWB and he's being asked his opinion of the Federal ban sunset, other gun laws, etc. and they keep repeating their questions). After him we got two more people (Sanford Abrams of Valley Guns and the president of some MD gunstore prof association, and the spokesperson for the FOP)- they too were asked about unrelated laws and to their credit they didn't waste time and try to answer them, also the Balt. City Senator tried to paint Abrams as responsible for every "kid" killed in the city since he sells guns:banghead: .

Then, after our three speakers (the other side when they testified earlier got far more than three), they took a 1 hr break to get to other business. Many people there on our side thought the repeated asking of unrelated questions of the MSP was to delay and keep too many of ours from talking before the break and I'm not sure they are wrong. The "break" went over an hour, and by the time it was done most of the crowd left- they may well have designed that to lower the pro-gun numbers for the cameras.:scrutiny:

Mike, I am sorry I didn't come up with something better than a cold stare and a hard "no" for Ms. Barrett when she thought I was the Baltimore Hebrew Congregation (a local Reform synagogue) rabbi who was speaking. Oh well, maybe next time.

Anyway, I should go, and that is pretty much all I have to add.



edit:

Almost forgot, when we returned from the break they decided to limit everyone to only 2 minutes and told us if we oppose the bill to simply state that and only give more testimony than that if we have something new to add:banghead: (please someone else who was inside the gallery at the time tell me I misheard)


Ok, this time I mean it. I need to get back to my classwork so I'll be gone until class is over. I'll check back in a couple hours.

JeepDriver
February 10, 2004, 09:26 PM
It was an interesting day.

I agree the Senator from Baltimore was an ???????.

I didn't know what to expect when I got there, as it was my first time at anything like that, but I glad I went. After seeing the way our goverment functions, I'm amazed anything gets done.

MikeK
February 10, 2004, 09:39 PM
Chaim - no need to apologize. I never think of good comebacks until an hour or so later.

But.........."Ms. Barrett I am sorry that I can no longer testify on behalf of your cause. After listening to the arguments I have been convinced that this bill is wrong. I will testify against it and urge my congregation to purchase assault rifles." might have gotten an interesting reaction.

Kharn
February 10, 2004, 09:54 PM
But.........."Ms. Barrett I am sorry that I can no longer testify on behalf of your cause. After listening to the arguments I have been convinced that this bill is wrong. I will testify against it and urge my congregation to purchase assault rifles." might have gotten an interesting reaction.

LMAO. :evil:

Good job guys, sorry I couldnt be there. :(

Kharn

K-Romulus
February 10, 2004, 10:00 PM
Everything those guys said about the first "Session" is right.

When the second go-round came, the anti-gun-owner crowd had about 6-9 more people to testify (including the rabbi - who was sitting near me and who I knew was probably not the red-headed THR'r we all know).

When they were done, there were about another 6-9 anti-288 "scheduled" speakers, then they turned the floor over. I think there was a two minute rule for the first 20 or so people - luckily I was one of those 20. I got up and said what I had to say about the 2 versions of the bill: the PR "weapons of war" version, and the actual nuts and bolts text of the bill. I thought I had three minutes, but man, that bell went off pretty fast.

I was able to get in how the bill text is way broader in terms of gun-banning than its proponents have been letting on. For instance, a "copycat" weapon is defined as anything that "can accept" (1) a magazine and (2) any of a host of "evil" features. The rub is that most semi-auto rifles can be retro-fitted with "evil stocks," and pretty much any semi-auto handgun can have a threaded barrel slapped into it. So, therefore, all of these types of firearms would be banned as "copycat assault weapons."

I hope people were listenting. The bad part was that Frosh, Forehand, and Hughes(?) weren't there to hear our side of the second session.:rolleyes:

Girlwithagun
February 10, 2004, 10:22 PM
Sorry I missed the rest of you guys. Since there were so many guys there and only one Mom with two little boys, I left it up to everyone to find me. Hopefully we'll meet at a future shoot.

Spot77
February 10, 2004, 10:59 PM
K rom: That was you? wow....sorry we didn't get to meet..... I was the one spouting how this bill divides the citizens of MD, eradicates a culture, etc. I was one of the ones cut down to speaking for just one minute.

I was proud to state where I was from, since Senator Jimeno lives in my neighborhood. I needed him to know that his constituents oppose this.

I left around 6:30. After being there fir 10 hours, I was one hungry and grumpy diabetic:D

I was EXTREMELY proud to be there with the THR members and many of the other fine people I met - Sandy Abrams of Valley Gun, Lou from Shooters' Discount, Rose and Bob Holden....all fine people.

As I heard it, the "Official" tally of pro SB288 people in attendance was 17. That's easily second or third hand info though....


MikeK...I'm sorry we didn't get to meet either. I was sitting in the front row/right and didn't want to lose my seat, so I didn't get up for almost 8 hours.....I even sat through the other bills that were being proposed.

KEEP SENDING THE EMAILS!!:fire: :fire: We're close to a victory....remember this was just a hearing so we still need to influence the vote!!!!


Senator Hughes threw out the "But you're all baby killers and blood will fill the streets if we don't pass this bill" card. My favorite laugh came when he said, "Does the State Police care about the deaths of black babies in Baltimore City?"


....to which I would've replied, "No sir. MD State Police have no jurisdiction in Baltimore City per your City Council vote, remember?"

I will be emailing like a fool tomorrow.....cuz MD THR'ers are ON FIRE!:fire:

Spot77
February 10, 2004, 11:01 PM
"I hope people were listenting. The bad part was that Frosh, Forehand, and Hughes(?) weren't there to hear our side of the second session.'

Doesn't matter anyway. They're all sponsors of SB288 and will NEVER vote against it.

Frosh and Hughes are BIG ???????s.

chaim
February 10, 2004, 11:25 PM
I was EXTREMELY proud to be there with the THR members and many of the other fine people I met - Sandy Abrams of Valley Gun, Lou from Shooters' Discount, Rose and Bob Holden....all fine people. Oh yes, I kind of enjoyed it when you, Lou and I were standing against a wall during "intermission" and the pimply faced girl (college student?) there for a bill in front of another committee and wanted to know why all these guys were there with NRA pins on (I guess we were the friendliest looking of the dozens of guys she could have gone to). I don't think any of us had the energy to debate or educate at that moment but I found it humorous somehow- though it was mixed, she told us she is for guns and likes the NRA but the AWB is the one gun control bill/law she is for:rolleyes: . It was also pretty cool to meet Mr. Abrams- I think he too thought I was that Reform rabbi (actually I'm pretty sure he knew I wasn't, especially since I had your NRA pin by then, but he used it to open the conversation).

All in all, I actually enjoyed it and I wasn't pleased I had to leave early. I wish I could have testified as well, but knowing I had to leave by 5 and how crowded it was I knew I couldn't. The whole thing was kind of energizing- watching the wheels of government rolling makes me think even more about laying the groundwork to move into politics in the next few years.

RM
February 10, 2004, 11:38 PM
Baltimoresun.com now has an article online about today's hearings which will be in Wednesday's paper. Thanks to all of you who were able to attend today and did attend. I greatly appreciate it. Whose is the Senator from Baltimore who was a real a-hole? Why do you think so many police departments opposed the bill? I was quite surprised by that. Do you think that is Erlich's influence? Can someone suggest a list of which legislators we should continue to call or email?

cpileri
February 10, 2004, 11:52 PM
Is that him? Is he a bigger a$$ than New jersey's Corzine? Now THERE'S a real conceited a-ring!
C-

chaim
February 11, 2004, 12:00 AM
Here is a link to the article RM referenced: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-guns0210,0,3371998.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

and the article:

From Wednesday's Sun
Md. lawmakers hear gun-ban testimony
Backers, opponents argue over statistics on slayings
By Kimberly A. C. Wilson
Sun Staff
Originally published February 10, 2004, 9:10 PM EST


For state lawmakers, gun-control advocates, police commissioners and even candidates stumping for president, when it comes to the issue of banning assault weapons, one-in-five is the magic number.


Democratic presidential primary front-runner Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts uses the statistic. So does the Episcopal Church of America. And in Annapolis, where a Senate committee heard testimony Tuesday from all sides on a proposed assault weapons ban, supporters quoted the statistic verbatim: "One in five law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty is killed with an assault weapon."

There's just one problem with the ratio, according to gun rights advocates: It isn't true.

Dozens of them testified before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Tuesday, and a hundred more crammed an antechamber while committee members considered a bill that would give Maryland one of the nation's strictest bans on semiautomatic firearms by ban ning 45 named weapons and any subsequent copycats. Though 70 state senators and delegates back the bill, gun shop owners, hunting groups, and assorted police organizations rejected the ban and the statistic.

Lt. Col. Steven. T. Moyer of the Maryland State Police [em dash] which opposes prohibiting the sale, transfer and ownership of semi-automatic weapons [em dash] told committee members that of the 50 rifle-related deaths in the state over the past decade, none of them were officers.

"The statistics are not here and [don't] support this legislation," he said.

Roots of the 20-percent figure lie in the Washington-based Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit group that works to curtail gun violence through research, advocacy, education and litigation. The group analyzed unpublished FBI data on fatal police shootings from Jan. 1, 1998, through Dec. 31, 2001. During the period, 211 officers nation wide were slain in the line of duty, 41 of them with weapons the group determined to be assault weapons, such as M1 Carbines, AK-47s, Tec 9s and AR- 15s.

"They classified all rifles as assault weapons," Republican Sen. Nancy Jacobs, wearing a button with the words "MARYLAND GUNOWNERS VOTE," complained during the marathon hearing.

Not so, said Kristen Rand, the Violence Policy Center's legislative director, in a telephone interview.

"All we did was we called the FBI, we asked them if we could get a list of guns used to kill police officers," Rand said. "We took those instances where we knew for sure that it was an assault weapon and put them together. I think the confusion comes in that this data is not routinely released."

The data, summarized in the organization's "Officer Down" report, includes the model number and bullet caliber used in police shootings from Alaska to New York. Among the fatalities is the Oct. 20, 2000, death of Baltimore County Police Officer John Stem, the last Maryland officer to die from wounds inflicted by an assault weapon. Stem sustained the wounds during a barricade shooting in 1977 that left him paralyzed and killed a fellow officer.

New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, whose husband was killed by Colin Ferguson during the 1993 Long Island Railroad shooting, is sponsoring a bill on Capitol Hill to renew the federal assault weapons ban that will expire on Sept. 13, a ban prompted in part because officers complained of being outgunned by criminals on city streets. McCarthy, a Democrat, said she has noted the one-in-five statistic in the past because it harkens to the main purpose of the ban.

"Let's go back to the reason we passed the assault weapons ban in the first place: That was because our police officers were outgunned and they were being killed by these guns," McCarthy said.

Howard County Police Chief G. Wayne Livesay, president of the Maryland Chiefs of Police, one of the few law enforcement organization supporting the ban, agreed.

"It's our responsibility to protect our officers on the street, and that's why we're here," Livesay testified.

For its part, the FBI disavows any part in the hubbub. The agency's statistics, gathered from police and sheriff's departments around the country, aren't intended to shape politics said spokesman Paul Bresson.

The fate of Maryland's proposed ban is uncertain. The 11-member Senate committee is split down the middle, according to Jacobs. Five favor the ban; five oppose it. The swing vote is Sen. John A. Gianetti Jr., a Democrat from Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties.

chaim
February 11, 2004, 12:20 AM
Here's an article from WBAL TV's website:

http://www.thewbalchannel.com/politics/2837724/detail.html

Gun Owners, Gun Control Advocates Renew Long Rivalry

POSTED: 5:58 PM EST February 10, 2004

ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Gun owners and gun control advocates renewed their long-standing legislative battle Tuesday at an emotional hearing on a bill to ban sale of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns in Maryland.

Gun owners showed up in force, packing the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee room and an adjacent hallway, many wearing bright red badges reminding lawmakers that gun owners vote.

In case the message wasn't clear enough, there was also a sprinkling of "Cas Who?" buttons, a reminder of the role gun owners played in defeating former House Speaker Casper Taylor two years ago.

There were far fewer supporters of the bill sponsored by Montgomery County Sen. Rob Garagiola, D-District 15, but they told committee members that a majority of Marylanders are on their side, (Senate Bill 288; Senate Bill 318)

The committee appeared to be closely divided on the issue, but Garagiola said he thinks he has the six votes needed to get it out of committee.

"I know we have a majority of support on the Senate floor as well," he said. The challenge will be to overcome an anticipated attempt by opponents to kill the bill with a filibuster, Garagiola said.

Gov. Robert Ehrlich voted against an assault weapons ban in Congress and does not support Garagiola's bill, Shareese DeLeaver, a spokeswoman for the governor, said Monday. But she said he has not gone so far as to say he would veto the bill if it reaches his desk.

"I'm hopeful we will get a bill to the governor, and I'm hopeful he will sign it," Garagiola said.

One of the witnesses who spoke for the bill was Victoria Snider, whose brother was one of the victims of the sniper shootings in Montgomery County in 2002.

"I felt as if I were in a nightmare," Snider as she related having to tell her parents "that their only son was dead."

"I urge you to support the assault weapons ban," she said. "This bill would ban weapons of war."

Opponents of the bill said it would do nothing to reduce crime, but would penalize law-abiding Marylanders who collect guns or who use semiautomatic rifles for hunting, target practice and competitive shooting.

"Gun bans don't work," Sanford Abrams, owner of Valley Gun Shop in Baltimore County, said.

Abrams angered Sen. Ralph Hughes when he tried to tell the Baltimore Democrat he was confusing automatic weapons such as machine guns with semiautomatics, which fire once each time the trigger is pulled.

"I'm not confusing the issue," Hughes responded. "It's the guns that you sell that are killing people."

Abrams calmly stood his ground, insisting that the bill would do nothing to reduce use of guns by criminals or save lives.

Hughes stalked out of the room after the exchange.

Garagiola's bill was introduced because a federal ban on the sale of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns that was enacted 10 years ago is expected to expire in September. Maryland bans the sale of semiautomatic pistols, but not long guns.

State police officials, who supported gun control measures during the administration of former Gov. Parris Glendening, opposed Garagiola's bill at the hearing.

Stephen Moyer, head of the state police Homeland Security and Intelligence Bureau, said while the Washington-area snipers - Lee Boyd Malvo and John Muhammad - used one of the semiautomatic weapons that would be banned by Garagiola's bill, "the fact is that a single-shot hunting rifle would have done more damage. ..."

"These rifles [semiautomatics] are not being used in crimes," Moyer said. "A ban on these weapons punishes law abiding citizens."

Law enforcement officers split on whether the bill should be passed, with the state Fraternal Order of Police joining state police in urging that it be rejected.

But Howard County Police Chief Wayne Livesay, president of the Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, said semiautomatic weapons present an added danger to police officers.

"We are asking you to ban them ... before someone gets killed," he said.

Yes, the Baltimore City Senator is Hughes. There is a good description in the article about the exchange between him and Mr. Abrams (well, a shortened description that doesn't begin to represent how insulting Sen. Hughes was to Mr. Abrams and really to all gun sellers and owners).

echo3mike
February 11, 2004, 12:38 AM
That oughtta motivate folks. Let's cut these prigs and the VPC/Brady bunch off at the knees.

Keep'em coming, folks.


Judicial Proceedings Committee
Brian E. Frosh ,Chair (410) 841-3124, (301) 858-3124
brian_frosh@senate.state.md.us

Leo E. Green ,Vice-Chair (410) 841-3631, (301) 858-3631
leo_green@senate.state.md.us

James Brochin (410) 841-3648, (301) 858-3648
jim_brochin@senate.state.md.us

Jennie M. Forehand (410) 841-3134, (301) 858-3134
jennie_forehand@senate.state.md.us

Robert J. Garagiola (410) 841-3169, (301) 858-3169
rob_garagiola@senate.state.md.us

John A. Giannetti, Jr. (410) 841-3141, (301) 858-3141
john_giannetti@senate.state.md.us

Larry E. Haines (410) 841-3683, (301) 858-3683
larry_haines@senate.state.md.us

Ralph M. Hughes (410) 841-3656, (301) 858-3656
ralph_hughes@senate.state.md.us

Nancy Jacobs (410) 841-3158, (301) 858-3158
nancy_jacobs@senate.state.md.us

Philip C. Jimeno (410) 841-3658, (301) 858-3658
philip_jimeno@senate.state.md.us

Alex X. Mooney (410) 841-3575, (301) 858-3575
alex_mooney@senate.state.md.us


If we kill this POS from a HUGE liberal state now, the VPC/Brady bunch won't have a leg to stand on when the Federal Ban comes around for review.

Just food for thought.
S.

RM
February 11, 2004, 07:19 AM
The Sunpapers states that 5 Senators are on record as for the ban and 5 opposed. I know some, but could someone please list which side each Senator is on? It would help me with emails.

Norton
February 11, 2004, 07:58 AM
My letter this morning to the honorable Senator Giannetti who is apparently emerging as the swing vote on the committee:






Senator Giannetti,

Many thanks to you and your receptionist for a pleasant contact during my phone call of February 3. It was greatly appreciated to deal with an obviously well run office staffed with courteous individuals.

I am once again contacting you to strongly urge you to vote AGAINST Senate Bill 288. This deeply flawed legislation has very little to do with crime control and everything to with people control and political grandstanding.

The Maryland State Police acknowledge that so-called assault weapons are not an issue from their standpoint. Their own numbers point out that their contacts with these alleged assault weapons are far and few between. If the State Police acknowledge that this bill will do nothing to control crime, then what is it's real purpose?

The purpose of this legislation is to create such a broad definition of what constitutes an assault weapon, that it will eventually lead to the banning of all semi-automatic centerfire firearms. The carefully constructed use of terms such as "may accept" and "can be" leave loopholes that are large enough that nearly all firearms could be gradually added to the list, therefore creating a de facto ban on firearm ownership in this state.

Senator Garagiola and his cronies say the majority of Marylanders are in favor of this ban. I ask you, where were they on February 10? Surely if gun owners are such a minority amongst the citizenry of the state, their voice would have been drowned out if Senator Garagiola was accurate in his statistics.

The fact is Senator, the citizens of Maryland have stated their position on Senate Bill 288 and the answer is loud and clear. We do NOT want Bill 288 to be signed into law and expect you and your colleagues to stop this bill now and get on to other matters which can have a positive result for the citizens of Maryland.

Please add me to your election mailing list. If you vote against this ban, I will do everything in my power to see that my fellow firearms owners know that you are a supporter of their constitutional rights.

Respectfully,

Cliff
February 11, 2004, 10:32 AM
It was a pleasure meeting JeepDriver,MikeK,Girlwithagun,and other folks from TheHighroad. I was very pleased with the pro-gun turnout we had yesterday. We filled the committee room to overflowing back out to the hallway. I finally got a chance to testify during the second session late that afternoon. The committee chairman cut the time down to 2 minutes,then after about 20 people had spoken,he cut it down to 1 minute because close to 100 people still were on the list to speak,even though a lot of those folks had left already.
It was my first time attending something like that,but it will not be my last.Next time I plan on bringing my lunch,water,soda's etc.
Listening to the delay tactics used by members of the committee to keep us from testifying really pissed me off.
Watching Rep Nancy Jacobs cut the legs out from under the anti's was a pleasure.
I left about 6 P.M. tired, and hungry. I plan on calling members of the committee today. Lets keep the pressure on.
Once again a pleasure meeting all Thehighroad members yesterday. Hope to see you again soon.

Spot77
February 11, 2004, 10:48 AM
"The Sunpapers states that 5 Senators are on record as for the ban and 5 opposed. I know some, but could someone please list which side each Senator is on? It would help me with emails."

the way I see it:

OPPOSES SB288
Jacobs
Brochin
Haines
Mooney
Jimeno

I think Senator Gianetti will oppose it, but he seems to appear "undecided" at this time, so BANG AWAY AT HIM!!!!:fire:

Norton
February 11, 2004, 01:10 PM
Great discussion taking place over on the Baltimore Sun web page regarding Bill 288


http://www.baltimoresun.com/cgi-bin/ultbb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=17;t=013855

Norton
February 11, 2004, 01:16 PM
Man...we need some of these guys on our forum.....


another thread from Baltimore Sun

http://www.baltimoresun.com/cgi-bin/ultbb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=17;t=013814

Austin Charles
February 11, 2004, 02:37 PM
Can you believe this,

I called WJZ TV channel 13 in Baltimore and asked why I have not seen anything on SB288 on their ststion?

The lady said to me that with all of the other things going on like

the chicked flue that the assault weapons ban was not important.

I hardly watch that station anyhow but I will die before I watch another news program from them again.


This is how tough we have it here.


by the way K-Romulus your speech was really good.Thanks for fighting the fight

Mark Tyson
February 11, 2004, 04:57 PM
the chicked flue that the assault weapons ban was not important.

Actually, I think the chicken flu is more dangerous than all the "assault weapons" in the country.

Spot77
February 11, 2004, 06:25 PM
I sent another round of email this morning, and as we all already knew.....here is Senator Haines' reply:


Thank you for your e-mail, your phone call and for testifying in opposition of SB 288. You can count on me to oppose this bill.




Do I detect a bit frustration in his email? Am I bothering him too much?:evil:


I also received a nice snail mail from Senator Jimeno, saying basically the same thing....and that he opposes ALL gun control legislation.

BRONZ
February 11, 2004, 08:52 PM
MPT showed the taping of the debate at 1200 am last night. Thats why I'm draging now. But my feeling from it was that it will die at this level. But one of the anti's said if it doesn't make it this time we will be back next year.

Sen. Jacobs she is great. She would let them talk and then hammer then with a question.

Sen. Mooney was the sam way. He would ask questions knowing their answer would trip them up.

Oh! and the Maryland State Police. Those guys were great with there no bs reason for not supporting this bill. What they say goes a long, long way. It is so refreshing to see an agency like MSP not playing politics as is the norm. I think it will be MSP that will be the decide the outcome.

Can somebody tell me what an assault pistol is.:rolleyes:
what like a Glock 18. They got to be joking. They wan't to take away my culture and they don't even know what their talking about.

JeepDriver
February 11, 2004, 09:03 PM
and they don't even know what their talking about.

That's what really got to me yesterday. They are so un informed about the types of weapons they are talking about. And their uses.

Shooting is my hobby, why is it I have to fight for the right to continue enjoying my hobby?

Norton
February 11, 2004, 09:18 PM
My letter to the not-so-honorable Senator from Baltimore City.....he of the the irrational tirade on Tuesday:




Dear Senator Hughes,

I am writing to you in reference to Senate Bill 288, the Maryland Assault Weapons ban of 2004.

As I have stated to you in my previous letter, I strongly urge to reconsider your support for this flawed piece of legislation which does nothing to prevent crime.

While I understand your frustration with the horrific levels levels of violent crime in Baltimore City, surely you understand that the overwhelming majority of crimes committed with firearms, are perpetrated with guns that are already possessed illegally. To the persons committing these crimes, making a firearm "more illegal" will not make them think any harder about whether they should use that firearm in the act of a crime.

Furthermore, by deliberately blurring the line between military issue, fully automatic rifles and the semi-automatic rifles legally and responsibly possessed by lawful citizens you demonstrate that your well-meaning but misguided passion has overwhelmed your facility for logical argument. To accuse Mr. Sanford Abrams of being a "killer of black babies" as you say, runs into the realm of outright race-baiting and deliberate dishonesty.

Senator, the city of Baltimore already has an almost exclusive bans on firearms in one of the most heavily regulated states in the country. If this has not succeeded in reducing the level of violent crime, what is there to make you think that further disarming the law abiding citizens of the State of Maryland will improve this situation?

You may dismiss my letters as those of a lone individual arguing a self-serving purpose, but on Tuesday, February 10 the citizenry of Maryland stood up and loudly declared that Senate Bill 288 runs against all that they hold dear. By a more than 10 to 1 margin, you heard speaker after speaker from every cross section of demographics describe to you why this bill will violate their constitutional rights and will do absolutely nothing to reduce crime in Baltimore or anywhere else. In fact, the Maryland State Police, Fraternal Order of Police and Calvert County Sheriff's Office came forward in outright opposition to SB 288.

Rather than sponsoring laws which only punish law abiding and responsible citizens, you and your colleagues should be working towards actions which will actively curtail and punish those that violate our laws. Crime control is a good thing....people control is a bad thing. The violation of a citizen's constitutional rights is unforgivable and your endorsement of this bill will bring about my staunch support for anyone who runs for office in opposition of you. I may not live in Baltimore City, but my check will cross the Patapsco River to come to the aid of anyone who seeks to remove you from office.

Sincerely,

Norton
February 11, 2004, 09:59 PM
From the Towson, MD newspaper...TowsonTimes.com if you want to respond.....





House, Senate consider ban on assault weapons


02/11/04
Story By Bryan P. Sears
Respond to this story
Email this story to a friend

House and Senate lawmakers introduced bills last week to ban assault weapons in Maryland.

The ban, proposed by Del. Neil Quinter, a Howard County Democrat, and Sen. Rob Garagiola, a Montgomery County Democrat, would affect "rapid fire, military-style assault weapons."

Garagiola said Senate Bill 288 is necessary because a federal ban on similar weapons is set to expire in September.

The bill is cosponsored by three Democratic senators from Baltimore County: Paula Hollinger, who represents the 11th District which includes Owings Mills; Delores Kelley, who represents the 10th District including Randallstown, Woodlawn and a portion of Catonsville; and Ed Kasemeyer, who represents the 12th District, made up by portions of Arbutus, Catonsville and Howard County.

Quinter filed a similar bill in the House.

Del. Richard K. Impallaria, who represents Cockeysville, Kingsville, parts of Essex and Middle River and a section of Harford County in the 7th District, is among those who oppose the bill.

He said he believes in the importance of keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals, but not in preventing private citizens from having the weapons for protection.

"I wish well-minded people would concentrate on deporting (sniper Lee) Malvo rather than deporting guns," Impallaria said. "Guns didn't commit the crime, the people need to be prosecuted. Those who have illegally obtained handguns should get a harsh punishment."

The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee was scheduled to hold a hearing on SB288 Tuesday. A committee vote could come at any time after the hearing.

Norton
February 11, 2004, 10:01 PM
My letter to the author of the above article:



Mr Sears,

Your article on the hearing for SB288, the Maryland Assault Weapons Ban of 2004 was an incomplete one that does truly convey to your readership the scope of the opposition to this deeply flawed piece of legislation.

By a more than 10 to 1 margin speaker after speaker, including those from the Maryland State Police, Fraternal Order of Police and the Calvert County Sheriff's Office came forward to explain why this bill will do nothing to prevent crime and will only punish law-abiding and responsible gun owners.

Where in your story do you demonstrate journalistic integrity by acknowledging that the vote tally amongst members of the Judicial Proceedings Committee is 5 in favor of the bill, 5 in opposition and one who is officially undecided but has stated that he favors nothing more restrictive than the federal ban (which the MD ban most certainly is)?

On the surface, the concept of banishing so-called assault weapons seems a good idea. However, the wording of SB288 is such that it can and will eventually be construed to cover all centerfire guns that are capable of accepting a detachable magazine. Furthermore, the bill uses scary sounding push button catch phrases such as "street sweeper", "thumbhole stock", "flash hider" to further inflame irrational fears amongst those who are not firearm owners.

Sir, I hope that your glaring omission of important balancing factors was more a result of space constraints than it was of an editorial policy that furthers a political agenda favorable to gun control advocates. You owe it to yourself and your readership to present a fair and balanced representation of this important piece of civil rights legislation.

Respectfully,

Spot77
February 11, 2004, 10:14 PM
Replies from some local Delegates:

Dear Mr. XXXXXXX

Thank you for your e-mail requesting opposition to SB 288. I will oppose
this legislation should it come to the floor of the House for a full vote. I
will always fight gun control.

Sincerely,
Delegate Joan Cadden
District 31


AND:

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX,

Thank you for your email and your comments on SB 288. I want you to know
that I oppose this legislation and will vote agains it.

Delegate John Leopold


AND. let's not forget Delegate Dwyer (I LOVE his response!!!:

Scott,

Thanks for the note. I assure you I will fight for your rights that are
guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. I for one, know and respect your
rights!

We need you to continue to voice your support of your rights as a law biding
citizen of these United States. We can not allow this nonsense to continue.

KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY!

Constitutionally yours,
Delegate Don Dwyer, Jr.

---------------------------------------------------------
So make sure that in addition to making the calls, sending the emails, and visiting your local state senators you also contact your Delegates and let them know that we're watching their votes VERY closely.

:fire:

Spot77
February 11, 2004, 11:17 PM
ooooh look at these scary pictures.....the one holding the picture is Leah Barrett, the whacko that gets paid $32,000 a year for telling gun lies.

MikeK
February 12, 2004, 12:41 AM
I got most of the MPT show on tape (thanks to my technical assistant - I'll have to get her a nice Valentine's present). Watched most of it tonight.

If I had some more time and creativity there's a lot of potential for a great comedy/tragedy pulling a few segments off.

For example:

The ex-ATF guy - If you don't pass this bill then police traffic stops will require everyone to get out of the car and lie face down on the ground and when the police come to your house it will be in armored vehicles.

The CFA women - just about the entire testimony, but the highlights were that a semi-auto is MUCH more powerful than a machine gun; the pistol grip, forearm and thumbhole stock let you spray from the hip soooo accurately because the 600 rounds a minute don't heat up the barrel. I can't go on because I'll either laughor cry too hard.

The esteemed sen. hughes from Baltimore - most of it, but his response to Abrams was classic.


On the other hand Sen. Jacobs questions and the responses she got were excellent. Mooney also did well, but took 2nd place.

A segment on 'facts' from the antis and later true facts from our side would make some interesting viewing.

chaim
February 12, 2004, 01:40 AM
They got to be joking. They wan't to take away my culture and they don't even know what their talking about.
Yes, my "favorite" (the former ATF guy Mike mentioned, the "we'll have to come in armored cars" guy, was number two) was the "I've never fired or handled a gun, I don't even know the names of the different guns, but you should listen to me because I'm a mother and a minister" woman.

If you listened to what she had to say she was an idiot. However, watching the video of the session I thought of something that didn't occur to me in person- if you agreed with her or ignored what she said, she did speak very well. As a Unitarian Universalist (UU) minister (I hate to admit it but I've met her and my parents know her, though only on the acquaintance level) she is well practiced at public speaking and at least comes across as quite articulate. Watching the tape and seeing how articulate she came across despite not knowing what she was speaking of, it made me think- we need to recruit some pro-2nd Amendment ministers, priests and/or rabbis for next time. Just think, someone who speaks in front of crowds for their livelihood and thus are well praciticed but who actually knows what they are talking about and are on our side- it should really be useful.

PAshooter
February 12, 2004, 08:21 AM
I'm late in chiming in on this thread, but have been doing my part. My work situation prevented me from joining the party in Annapolis on Tuesday, but I have been calling and sending e-mails in an attempt to hold up my end.

As an aside, of all the e-mails I sent the only response I got was from Nancy Jacobs - to express appreciation for my registering my opinion and to assure me that she was firmly in our camp. She also directed me to the segment on MPT this past weekend where she had a discussion of the issue with one of the Senators who supports of the bill. I thought she did an ok job of presenting our case.

Anyway - just wanted to express my appreciation to all of those who got involved, kept the rest of us informed, and attended the hearings on our behalf. Thanks... and let's all keep at it until this draconian infringement on our rights dies a well-deserved death.

Spot77
February 12, 2004, 09:06 AM
Compromise offered on gun ban measure

By Kimberly A.C. Wilson

Sun Staff

Originally published February 12, 2004

Sen. John A. Giannetti Jr., the swing vote on a proposal to ban 45 assault weapons beginning when the federal ban expires this year, is offering middle ground between legalizing the firearms and banning them outright.

His idea: enact an identical state version of the federal ban on 19 semiautomatic weapons.

A Democrat representing Prince George's and Anne Arundel counties, Giannetti called his proposal "a reasonable compromise."

Giannetti said that he offered the amendment to the proposed ban after learning at a packed hearing this week that both the Fraternal Order of Police and the Maryland State Police opposed the bill .

"That surprised me," he said, and prompted him to poll sheriffs in his jurisdiction for their thoughts on banning the weapons.

The bill, and a House version, are supported by more than 70 lawmakers. The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee could vote on the matter as early as today.

mailto:john_giannetti@senate.state.md.us

410-841-3141

301-858-3141

Spot77
February 12, 2004, 09:14 AM
Another issue I've been pushing with the lawmakers is to reform Md's transportation of firearms laws....It's ridiculous how many hoops we have to jump through to go to the range, and how we're not even allowed to stop for gas on the way back.....Now might be a good time to try to get that ammended to what Gianetti is proposing......

jrhines
February 12, 2004, 12:06 PM
As a member of some liberal anti-gun email list (think of it as skulking around behind enemy lines), I got this....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Maryland Supporter,

We need your help TODAY. The Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings committee is voting TODAY, Thursday Feb. 12, on the assault weapons bill, SB 288 and Senator John Giannetti (D-21) is the key swing vote.
Please call him without delay:

1 800 492 7122, ext 3141
email: john_giannetti@senate.state.md.us

Tell Senator Gianetti to support SB 288, because you want to keep assault weapons out of your community!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I called 'em and told 'em. I really appriciate being kept informed, especially on there nickle!

jrhines
February 12, 2004, 12:18 PM
..and I e-mailed them, same message - Vote NO!

Getting on the email list was interesting. They wanted you to send some anti-gun message to the Gov & his Lt. They supplied the opening and the closing verbage, but left the middle message up to you. They also supplied a suggested subject line, "Ban Md assult weapons", which I changed to Ban Assult Weapons Bans. Hoping the subtlety would not be lost. In the middle I switched to all caps and laid out my unmistakable pro-RKBA views, labeling the pre- and postambles as liberal eyewash.

We shall see...

Spot77
February 12, 2004, 01:02 PM
Just sent the mail and called again, reminding the Senator that "gun Owners Vote" (if you were there Tuesday you know significance!), and that citizens' rights count.

Got a nice phone call from Senator Jimeno's office today as well, thanking me for my testimony. It's nice to be noticed and remembered:D


Last chance everybody.....:fire: :fire: :fire: :fire:

STAY ON FIRE!

Spot77
February 12, 2004, 01:45 PM
Reply from Senator Gianetti's office a few minutes ago:

"Thank you for emailing my office concerning Senate Bill 288. I've appreciated hearing the opinions from residents all over Maryland. I'll be sure to consider all sides of the issue before voting in committee.



If there is anything else I can do for you in the future, please don't hesitate to contact me again.

Sincerely,


John A. Giannetti Jr.
Senator, District 21
Prince George's & Anne Arundel Counties"


HOGWASH!


:cuss:

00-Guy
February 12, 2004, 03:35 PM
As Spot77 indicated, I too got the same bit of email from Giannetti. Also yesterday I received a nice snail note from Alex Mooney thanking me for my interest and inviting me in the future to provide him opinions on other topics of interest to the citizens of Maryland.

An important note: It never hurts to let your House of Delegates representative know your opinion on Seante bills either. I emailed mine today! (I hope that she never gets to see this bill in any form though!!!)

Norton
February 12, 2004, 03:45 PM
I got the same cut and paste reply from Giannetti. Keep the phone calls pouring in folks...this guy is going to sell us out if we don't watch ourselves.

DorGunR
February 12, 2004, 03:55 PM
Yeah, I just received the exact same thing.

Thank you for emailing my office concerning Senate Bill 288. I've appreciated hearing the opinions from residents all over Maryland. I'll be sure to consider all sides of the issue before voting in committee.

If there is anything else I can do for you in the future, please don't hesitate to contact me again.

Sincerely,

John A. Giannetti Jr.

Senator, District 21

Prince George's & Anne Arundel Counties
:rolleyes:

jrhines
February 12, 2004, 04:23 PM
Something that you may find of intrest. This is copied from the 21 district vote count from the 2002 elections. My estimat of the population of the 21 district is over 150,000 folks. Look what elected him...

This page shows official results for the 2002 Gubernatorial Primary election. It was generated at 01:18 PM on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 (US Eastern Time).

State Senator: District 21 (Vote for One)
Democratic Candidates
Arthur Dorman John A. Giannetti, Jr. (Won)
Anne Arundel 595 908
Prince George's 3,545 3,457
Totals (48.7%) 4,140 (51.3%) 4,365

Less than 10,00 folks put this guy in power. I would say he had less than a mandate!! I think we can rally 226 people to change the results next time!

PAshooter
February 12, 2004, 04:51 PM
So did they vote today?

Spot77
February 12, 2004, 04:56 PM
Supposed to....I've been listening to, and watching the news all day but haven't heard or seen any mention of it.

Maybe the 5:00 news will have something.

If I have to wait untill the 11:00 news I might have to :banghead: :banghead: and:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

DorGunR
February 12, 2004, 06:29 PM
I was at my favorite gun store in Glen Burnie today and Scott and Bill both told me that SB 288 had been tabled (not going out of committee) however I haven't seen or heard anything on the news to back this up.......sure hope they are right.:confused:

K-Romulus
February 12, 2004, 06:33 PM
The MD/DC/Balt media seems to have done a "blackout job" on this story, so don't hold your breath. They sure were eager to print all the Cease(thinking)MD pre-hearing propaganda, but coverage of the actual events at the hearing has been nil. The WashPost is the guiltiest party around.

I was sitting near some woman who was allowed to stand near the back. I think she was with the press because others were shooed out of the room if they couldn't find a seat, but she wasn't. This woman was taking notes during the first session and had a tape recorder out. Of course, she was gone before the second session even started, like a lot of people. If she was with the press, then she missed the real segment of the story that day when the 100+ average people got up to testify against the bill.

Spot77
February 12, 2004, 06:36 PM
Yeah I know how one side the press was....heck even committee members didn't have enough respect to stay for all of the testimony....I was one of the first ones testifying that got cut to one minute......There was no press there to take >MY<picture and get quotes from me.

BRONZ
February 12, 2004, 06:39 PM
If it is tabled, does that mean it's gone for this session, or does it mean they can work on Gianetti and then fast track it again. this session. :banghead:

JeepDriver
February 12, 2004, 06:51 PM
Tabled?

Some one help out a political idiot, what exactly does that mean?

BRONZ
February 12, 2004, 07:09 PM
Jeepdriver

I think tabled means they are putting it on hold for now.

I got an 81 CJ-8 and a 84 CJ-8 Postal from Alaska. Whata u got:D

JeepDriver
February 12, 2004, 07:26 PM
I hope it's on hold. That will give us (and them:( ) more time.

maybe if we continue to bang away on the Senators the next time it comes up they might think twice about signing on to it!




95 YJ and a 94 XJ

Trying to secure a 97 ZJ so my XJ can come off of daily drive status and grow up!

chaim
February 12, 2004, 07:27 PM
I called Sen. Brochin's office to find out for sure what is going on- the news sounds mixed, but more good than bad.


There has been a vote.

Sen. Brochin voted against the bill:D (he had see-sawed a little, first against then undecided)

It has been put "on hold". I don't know as much about state legislative workings as I do federal legislative workings but "on hold" sounds to me like it isn't defeated but it isn't going anywhere. I think it could still be resurrected this legislative session if one side or another senses a change. Anyone more versed in state workings let me know if I'm wrong.

moa
February 12, 2004, 07:33 PM
I got the same e-mail response from Giannetti too. Also, got the same letter from Mooney.

At least Giannetti knows we are alive. I responded to Giannetti that among other things, SB 288 is a solution looking for a problem.

If you enjoyed reading about "MD AWB Live Update 2-10-04" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!