DC Examiner article on MD AWB

[K-Romulus]

Relevant portion of article from today's paper:

http://www.examiner.com/US-a40574~Brady_s_wife_urges_ban_on_assault_weapons.html

Brady’s wife urges ban on assault weapons

Anna Bailey, The Examiner

March 8, 2006 12:00 AM (16 hours ago)

Annapolis -
The woman whose husband was shot in the head during an assassination attempt on President Reagan wrote to Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich on Tuesday in support of several health initiatives and a ban on assault weapons like the Bushmaster used in the 2002 sniper shootings.

“These are weapons of war,” Sarah Brady said. “They’re not weapons you use for any legitimate purpose. They’re not weapons you use for hunting or target practice.”

Jim Brady, Reagan’s press secretary, was permanently disabled as a result of the gunshot wound he suffered in the 1981 attack.

Since a federal ban expired in 2004, state bans on assault weapons are crucial, his wife said.

A bill introduced by Del. Neil Quinter, D-Howard, would outlaw 45 rapid-fire, military-style weapons.

*(I cut out the rest of the article about how her letter also supports a cigarette tax increase, smoking ban in restaurants, and more funding for HIV/AIDS patients)*

[email protected]

My requisite email to the editors:

I would like to point out what I believe to be several factual errors in this story.

Brady is quoted as saying the firearms to be banned as so-called "assault weapons" are not “use[d] for any legitimate purpose . . . They're not weapons you use for hunting or target practice.” These assertions are incorrect.

A visit to most any organized target-shooting competition in the US, long-range or other, will show that the number one rifle in competitive use is the AR-15, a rifle specifically banned under the bill. Also, a quick visit to any of the area's local shooting ranges will show that plenty of law-abiding firearm owners do use their so-called "assault weapons" for recreational target practice.

The article went on to describe the firearms to be banned under the proposed bill as "rapid fire, military style."

Other than the one Mossberg Model 500 pump-action shotgun banned under the bill, which must be manually operated to load each round to be fired, the firearms banned under the proposed law all load and fire just one round per trigger squeeze. This is just like a revolver, and most definitely NOT like a machine gun, which continues to load and fire all of its ammunition until its trigger is released. I do not believe that any credible authority on firearms would consider a revolver to be a "rapid fire" type of gun.

As for the "military style" label, these firearms for sale to the civilian market are as to military ordnance as a Ford Fusion in the local car dealership is to a NASCAR race car. Appearance is meaningless; it is what is under the hood that counts.

I wish "good luck" to the guys who made it today's hearing . . . I tried to get the time off but failed

 

[Gun Wielding Maniac]

So, defending yourself is not a "legitimate" use for a firearm? Oh, thats right... the Second Amendment was meant to protect HUNTING rights...

 

[foghornl]

“These are weapons of war,” Sarah Brady said. “They’re not weapons you use for any legitimate purpose. They’re not weapons you use for hunting or target practice.”

Weapons of War ? ? ? ?

Works for me. If some miscreant(s) has/have broken into my home, said miscreant(s) have declared war on me & mine. So, Weapons of WAR should be pressed into service by me....

Thanks for the tip, Sarah.

 

[Henry Bowman]

What excatly is "target practice"? What target are we practicing to hit? Paper with circles printed on it? If so, then is it "not practice" during a match and is a match not a legitimate use?

It seems to me that hunting and shooting at any inanimate target is just practice (but fun, mind you) for what the Second Amendment is about.

 

[boxcab]

Gazette Article

I hope the folks heading to Annapolis had a copy of the Maryland Gazette front page in their hands...

County Denies Liability in Killing
By Eric Hartley Staff Writer
Maryland Gazette

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

BALTIMORE - Anne Arundel County can't be sued for botching an emergency call about a Glen Burnie woman's 2001 killing because 911 operators and police have no legal duty to help someone being abducted, assaulted or murdered, a county lawyer told a federal judge Monday. The family of Yvette Beakes, however, said she might still be alive if a 911 dispatcher had told officers about the 26-year-old pharmacist's kidnapping or passed along an eyewitness' description of her abductors' van.

"I think my sister could have been saved," her older brother, Jason Beakes, said in an interview Monday. "We'll never know for sure."

The county fired two employees over the incident and admits mishandling the calls, but now says there was no legal "special relationship" requiring it to help or protect Ms. Beakes.

"As harsh as it may be, the Constitution simply doesn't impose on government a duty to provide any sort of minimal service to its citizens," Assistant County Attorney Andrew J. Murray said.
U.S. District Court Judge Marvin J. Garbis tried to see how far Mr. Murray would take the argument.

What if a police car had been in the area, the judge wondered, and Ms. Beakes had run to the car screaming she was being abducted, but the officer was drunk and refused to help her, leading to her being murdered?

Mr. Murray said the county still wouldn't be liable unless the officer had actually agreed to help, then failed to do so.

Shaking his head, Judge Garbis said, "I don't want to go to Anne Arundel County anymore. I'm afraid to go to Anne Arundel County."

The judge didn't rule Monday on the motion to dismiss the case and said he'll file a written ruling.

Snipped details of case...

Dan

 

[Standing Wolf]

Goebbels would be so proud!

 

[boofus]

The national matches at Camp Perry are full of M1A and AR-15 rifles. As usual the brady witch is full of crap.

 

[Kim]

Any Judeg who knows anything should know that the State does not have a duty to protect individuals. That is how I like it and how it should be. Now if the citizens just realized this we would be one step closer to where we need to be.

 

[Spot77]

Unfortunately we left too early to get the Gazette article in time. It would have helped greatly. I JUST got home from the hearings (all 10 hours of them!) and I'm a bit tired. I'll post a sitrep tomorrow.

 

[ElTacoGrande]

The fact is, M16s are not even really "weapons of war" anymore. Most of the actual fighting in real wars is done with crew-served weapons these days.