Maryland: "Gun control bills supported as tools for law enforcement"

[cuchulainn]

http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-md.guns28feb28,0,5126674.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

Gun control bills supported as tools for law enforcementOpponents tell Senate measures unnecessary

By Ivan Penn
Sun Staff
Originally published February 28, 2003

Making her second impassioned plea for tougher gun control laws, the mother of one of last fall's sniper victims appeared before a Senate committee yesterday and described the pain of losing her son to gun violence.

Sonia Wills, the mother of slain Montgomery County bus driver Conrad Johnson, urged the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee to support three measures that would require reporting of lost or stolen handguns, expand ballistic fingerprinting to include all firearms and ban all assault-style weapons such as the one allegedly used by the snipers to kill her son.

"I am in Annapolis again today because I am still outraged," Wills said. "Conrad believed that life should be enjoyed, not feared."

This month, Wills joined Montgomery County police Chief Charles A. Moose and gun control advocates for a news conference announcing the legislation. She returned yesterday to testify on behalf of the bills, which are facing strong opposition in the committee and from gun enthusiasts.

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. has said he would consider legislation that he believes would have an impact on reducing gun violence - but would oppose any measure that seemed more political than a solution to the problem. He has generally opposed increasing restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.

Some law enforcement officials supported the three bills under consideration yesterday.

Requiring gun owners to report their lost or stolen handguns within 48 hours after discovering their disappearance would help police better track weapons and avoid charging innocent people, these officials said. Ballistic fingerprinting would allow investigators to match a specific weapon to a crime.

"It's about providing law enforcement with the tools they need to enforce the law in the 21st century," said Joe Vince, a former special agent for 28 years with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "Law enforcement needs technology to do their work."

Gun control advocates testified that assault-style weapons serve no purpose other than to kill people, which should lead lawmakers to ban their use by the general public.

But several pro-gun organizations urged the committee to reject the proposals, arguing that Maryland has some of the nation's toughest gun control laws. They said such requirements as reporting lost or stolen guns are an attempt to further regulate law-abiding gun owners.

"I'm concerned that the next step will be to ban my hunting rifle," said Sen. Larry E. Haines, a Carroll County Republican and committee member.

In written testimony, the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore Inc. and the Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association Inc. criticized the legislation as lacking any ability to prevent gun violence.

Ehrlich and the gun enthusiasts said they favor Project Exile - a program used in Richmond, Va., that gives mandatory sentences to criminals who violate gun laws - as a way to curb gun violence.

Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun

 

[cuchulainn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14153-2003Feb27.html

Ehrlich Against Expanding Ballistics Data Program By Jo Becker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 28, 2003; Page B01


Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) yesterday came out against a proposal that would expand the state's ballistic-fingerprinting program to rifles and other long guns, citing concerns about the cost and effectiveness of the gun-tracking program.

Returning to an issue from last fall's campaign, Ehrlich spokesman Henry Fawell said the governor has "yet to be convinced" that the handgun database actually works and is considering whether it should be eliminated. After consultation with Ehrlich, Maryland State Police officials testified at a General Assembly hearing that the state should evaluate the system before spending more money to expand the program.

"We all want to solve crimes," said Lt. Col. Stephen T. Moyer, chief of field operations for state police. "But when we are one of only two states that is operating a system like this, the probability of a match is very small."

The ballistic-fingerprinting measure is part of a legislative package supported by gun-control proponents, who have received lobbying help from Montgomery County Police Chief Charles A. Moose and the mother of one of the victims of last fall's sniper shootings. Another bill considered yesterday would require gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons to police within 48 hours. A third would ban the possession or transfer of 45 types of assault-type weapons, a step that proponents say is needed because the Republican-controlled Congress could allow a federal assault weapons ban to expire next year.

Aimed at helping law enforcement officers find the owner of a gun used in a crime, ballistic-tracking systems such as Maryland's rely on the unique markings that each firearm makes on shell casings. A "fingerprint" taken before the gun is sold is scanned and entered into a computer database. Law enforcement officials can then compare the marks on a casing discovered at a crime scene against images on file.

Maryland currently requires the ballistic-fingerprinting of handguns sold in the state; the proposal Ehrlich opposes would include all firearms sold in Maryland.

Just two weeks ago, Ehrlich's superintendent of state police, Edward T. Norris, called ballistic fingerprinting "a great investigative tool for any police department." But yesterday, Norris's representatives questioned the program's effectiveness and the $2.3 million cost the state would incur to upgrade its computer system to handle the additional data.

Moyer said the state's database contains images of 25,000 shell casings but has produced only two matches, neither of which led to a crime being solved. With improved technology "on the horizon," Moyer said, the state should assess the program and allow other states to develop similar programs "before spending $2 million that we don't have."

During last fall's campaign, Ehrlich took the position that Maryland has enough gun laws and said he would consider repealing programs such as ballistic fingerprinting if they were ineffective. Yesterday's remarks fleshed out his philosophy, marking a clear departure from that of his predecessor, Parris N. Glendening (D), who pushed the database and other gun-control measures through the General Assembly.

Glendening's state police superintendent, David B. Mitchell, appeared at yesterday's hearing to testify in favor of the bill. He saw Moyer in the hall. "There's nothing to study here," Mitchell told Moyer. "We know this works." He and other proponents attributed the shift in position entirely to Ehrlich.

"He put the pressure on the state police, and he's hiding behind that $2 million one-time cost to not give law enforcement the tools they need and want," said Khalid R. Pitts, director of state legislation for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, a national gun-control group.

Sonia Wills, mother of one of last fall's sniper victims, testified yesterday in support of all three measures. Though none of them alone would have prevented the killing of her son, Montgomery County bus driver Conrad Johnson, she said they might prevent others from suffering as she has.

"I, along with millions of Marylanders, am morally outraged that we even have to debate the fact that sensible regulation of deadly firearms is a good idea," she said. "Had a national ballistic-fingerprinting system been in place, my son's life might have been spared. But since Congress refuses to act, we in Maryland must."

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has said ballistics programs can provide valuable leads for investigators; opponents point to a California report last month that questioned the technology.

Jeffrey K. Reh, general counsel for Beretta USA Corp., said the technology costs his company's customers an extra $7 a gun in addition to the burden on taxpayers.

The company has 400 employees at headquarters in Prince George's County. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Prince George's), whose district includes the plant, said yesterday that the data suggest "the program has not been overwhelmingly effective."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

 

[FPrice]

"They (...several pro-gun organizations...) said such requirements as reporting lost or stolen guns are an attempt to further regulate law-abiding gun owners."

Um, I am against virtually ALL gun control regulations as most of us are. But is refusing to report lost or stolen firearms that much of an infringement of second amendment rights?

Or is this mistaken report by the writer?

 

[Leatherneck]

FP,
I agree that reporting is not unreasonable. The problem is, the antis are desperately (and successfully) looking for ANY restriction or requirement they can find to levy on gunowners. How would a legal requirement to report after the fact have any effect on crime?

TC
TFL Survivor

 

[Master Blaster]

Law abiding citizens will report a robbery and that their guns were stollen, this is required by insurance companies to get any reimbursement for anything that is stollen.

Even if the guns are not insured the lawabiding will report them stollen promptly. Suppose though that you are out of the country for a month and during the first week you gun is stollen from your home. durring the second week the gunis used in a crime and recovered by police, week 4 you return home discover the missing gun, and YOU are arrested for not reporting it stollen within 48 hours?

Still sound like a good law??

Crimminals of course dont care and wont report a stollen gun.
Crimminals ARE THE PROBLEM.

If John Muhammed's bushmaster had been fingerprinted, the tooling leaves the same negative impression on the next 100 rifles, and they might be knocking on your door cause rifle 32 after muhhamed's belongs to you and it is a close match.
Same for the other 99 innocent people.
Muhammed's was stollen or sold with no paper work so they would not have caught him.

 

[FPrice]

"Suppose though that you are out of the country for a month and during the first week you gun is stollen from your home. durring the second week the gunis used in a crime and recovered by police, week 4 you return home discover the missing gun, and YOU are arrested for not reporting it stollen within 48 hours?"

If I understand correctly, you would have 48 hours to report the theft AFTER YOU DISCOVER THE THEFT. Not after the theft which is entirely different.

But I hope no one thinks that I am supporting a law which mandates a very restrictive reporting time with a harsh criminal penalty for an honest gun owner who is himself/herself the victim of a crime. I fully agree that the problem is the criminal who uses a gun in the commission of a crime.

But we need to be careful how we phrase things and respond to such drivel. Take the phrase I extracted from the press release and imagine the following headline, "Maryland Gun Owners REFUSE To Report Stolen Guns". Does this help us in any way?

 

[cuchulainn]

FPrice,

I'd say that the best response to this proposal is the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" approach -- reducto ad absurdum.

Suggest requiring that the theft of any tool usable in a crime -- or at least prevalently used in crimes -- be reported within 48 hours.

Why just guns? Is there a law to report stolen cars within 48 hours? Yes, most people will do so regardless of the law for insurance reasons -- but is there a law? Could we stop "just one crime for the children" with a stolen car reporting law?

The problem is such a law reinforces the notion that "guns are different and extra scary" among the public. "Guns are special and the public deserves extra protections not applied to other nicey-nice, teddy-bear-esque products like canisters of mace."

 

[gun-fucious]

A third would ban the possession or transfer of 45 types of assault-type weapons, a step that proponents say is needed because the Republican-controlled Congress could allow a federal assault weapons ban to expire next year.

this is the crux of the biscuit

the rest of the proposals are diversionary tactics

if this does not pass the mustard in MD this year,
Then the AWB will most likely sunset to oblivion,
If the SB 494 ban passes in MD, then it will be used to promote the National ban

expect the MMM to lobby hard for you to loose

 

[gun-fucious]

i notice the Brady org provided a picture of a full auto assault rifle with a folding stock:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I14185-2003Feb27L

 

[hammer4nc]

gun fucious makes some important observations. We may be seeing the first signs of vpc/hci strategy relative to the assault weapons ban sunset.

The bill contains some throwaway provisions, which are headlined, to draw attention away from the MD state level aw ban proposal. Also, note the assertion (by the state police guy Moyers) that state-level gun control measures can't be expected to work...(unless they are adopted globally, apparently.)

Sometimes I like to do searches on the "experts" quoted in these types of stories. Joe Vince is listed as "former ATF"; somehow they neglect to mention that since retirement, he started a company called "Crime Gun Solutions" specializing in ballistic fingerprinting, I'm guessing. Follow the money.

Didn't some MD police agencies get in trouble for politicking on behalf of Kennedy-Towwnsend's gun control agenda in the last election? How much time does Chief Moose spend promoting gun control?

 

[gun-fucious]

"It's about providing law enforcement with the tools they need to enforce the law in the 21st century," said Joe Vince, a former special agent for 28 years with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "Law enforcement needs technology to do their work."

http://comedian.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_comedian_archive.html

Posted 8:15 PM by The Comedian
More bizarre suppositions and factual errors from the Howell Raines Gazette.

Joe Vince, a former official of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, said he believed that the bureau and the F.B.I. were now actively looking to see not only how Mr. Muhammad acquired the gun used in the shootings, but also whether he had any financial help in doing so. He bought the $800 gun when he was traveling around the country for months in a $250 used car.
This paragraph starts out asking how he aquired the gun, then it shifts to how he bought it? Does the Times know more than it is letting on, or is it merely discounting wholesale the possibility that the gun was stolen? I'd go along quietly with an inquest into how he acquired the weapon, but starting off with the assumption that Muhammad bought the weapon at anything like its real value falsely limits the scope of inquiry. (Sorry for the scope pun.)

Mr. Muhammad's interest in the Bushmaster rifle might be another clue, Mr. Vince said: "One reason criminals choose certain firearms is affiliation. He might have bought the gun because it looks like the one used by the Special Forces, and in his imagination, he was Special Forces."
Or, he may have acquired the weapon because, although it has a shorter barrel than a regular M-16, the AR Muhammad used has all of the same controls, in the same place, with the same function, as the M-16 he was trained on in the Army.

In recent years bills to close the so-called gun show loophole, in which a background check is not required when a gun is bought at a gun show, have faced strong opposition from the National Rifle Association. None have passed.
Again with this tired old lie.

UPDATE:"Joe Vince" sounded familar, so I did a bit of digging on him. Here is what I found.

From Mike Littwin of the Rocky Mountain News:

To counter the NRA, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will send you to Joe Vince, a former ATF official who helped invent the database system and who will tell you the White House is "misinformed" - that the system has been tested and works, that criminals often use new guns, that cops have made many matches over the years.
From Talk of the Nation:

RAY SUAREZ: We pick up the debate with Joe Vince, the former chief of the crime guns analysis branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He now has a consulting company in the Washington area.
Now we're getting somewhere. USA Today tells us that:

Joe Vince, president of Crime Gun Solutions in Frederick, Md., says
CNN's crossfire offered the following, in discussing a national registry of guns and their ballistic "fingerprints":

His name is Joe Vince, chief of Firearms Enforcement Division of ATF. "I definitely think the technology is there, and it has been refined to the point where it is cost effective. It would not be an imposition on the manufacturers or law enforcement or citizens, so I'm all for it."
Oh, fine then, trample the constitution in the pursuit of the illusion of safety, just so long as it is cost effective.

Chris Osher, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Joe Vince, former chief of the ATF's crime analysis branch, says the ATF is undermanned for the job. Restricting handgun purchases to one a month per person -- already the law in four states -- would level the playing field, he says.

"This is a matter of what's best for citizen safety," Vince says. "It's ludicrous. Most medium-sized cities have more police officers that work in that city than the ATF has in the whole country."
Again, no mention of his consulting work, or his strong partisan beliefs on gun control and registration. Mr. VInce is presented merely as a retired F-Trooper.

The Boston Globe:

Joe Vince, former director of the ATF's gun-tracing unit who runs a Maryland consulting group called Crime Gun Solutions ...

"We're just beginning to see criminals gravitating toward these weapons that are smaller and more powerful and easily concealable," he said.

"What we've done for criminals is increased their chance of being more effective, of hitting their target and hitting it repeatedly."
Reminds me of Glenn Reynolds post on how the VPC treats guns like Goldilocks. (This one's too big, this one's too little, these don't cost enough and these are too powerful.)

And here's my favorite, from an April, 1995 article by Margaret Pressler of The Washington Post:

Vince said that if a police officer stops someone for a traffic violation and finds a gun or cartridge in the car, the officer can compare a cartridge or a bullet from the gun against the database, and possibly find new suspects for unsolved crimes.
You get it? Mr. Vince wants police to start collecting gun "fingerprints" from people who do nothing more than get stopped for a traffic infraction.

Probable cause? Nope.

Suspicion of having committed a crime? Nope.

Mr. Vince doesn't seem to mind if the cartridge, its owner, and/or the gun are legally in the car, he wants its fingerprints and he wants to see if you've been a bad boy (or girl).

I have but one question for him, "By what right?"

( Oh, and here's a wipe to get the ink off of your hands.)

Now I know why the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance considers him an HCI mouthpiece. The shocking part is that in all the quotes and interviews I read, Mr. Vance is portrayed merely as an ex-civil servant. None of the introductions make clear that he is a strong statist partisan, with a serious axe to grind.

Back in April of 1999, Mr. Vance (then stationed in Miami, FL) had this to say about "right wingers":

''We're seeing stolen explosives, particularly military, going to militant groups within the country, in particular the right-wing groups, who are stockpiling this type of explosive,'' said Joe Vince of Miami's ATF. ''We're also seeing a market for it
going out of the country.''

 

[cpileri]

yeah sure

Ehrlich not support the new laws...
AWB allowed to sunset in MD...
And me having a sex change operation.

I'll believe it when I see it.

C-

 

[gun-fucious]

don't wait to see

make something happen

tell Larry Haines and Rob Garagiola that an AR15 is a legitimate Maryland hunting rifle:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/huntersguide/weapon.html

"I'm concerned that the next step will be to ban my hunting rifle," said Sen. Larry E. Haines, a Carroll County Republican and committee member.

[email protected]

[email protected]
(freshman sponser of SB 494 assault weapon ban)
Rob receiving his Jump Wings after completing his 5th jump - a night jump - at Ft. Bragg, NC in Feb. 2000, after breaking his leg 6 months earlier at Ft. Benning, GA.

* United States Army Reservist (1995-2001)

- Sergeant, Parachutist
- Served 5 years in a Special Operations Airborne Unit
- Served 1 year in a Military Judge Unit
- Received numerous awards, including:
"Distinguished Honor Graduate" at Primary Leadership Development Course (1998)
Army Commendation Medal (for organizing and operating unit security program)
Army Achievement Medals (for various achievements concerning unit legal operations)

http://mlis.state.md.us/2003rs/billfile/sb0494.htm

Sponsored By:
Senators Garagiola, Conway, Currie, Exum, Forehand, Grosfeld, Hollinger, Hughes, Jones, Kasemeyer, Kelley, Lawlah, McFadden, Pinsky, Ruben, and Teitelbaum


find their email address here:

_01_ _John J. Hafer_(R) [email protected]
_02_ _Donald F. Munson_(R) [email protected]
_03_ _Alex X. Mooney_(R) [email protected]
_04_ _David R. Brinkley_(R) [email protected]
_05_ _Larry E. Haines_(R) [email protected]
_06_ _Norman R. Stone, Jr._(D)
_07_ _Andrew P. Harris_(R) [email protected]
_08_ _Katherine Klausmeier_(D) [email protected]
_09_ _Robert H. Kittleman_(R) [email protected]
_10_ _Delores G. Kelley_(D) [email protected]
_11_ _Paula C. Hollinger_(D) [email protected]
_12_ _Edward J. Kasemeyer_(D) [email protected]
_13_ _Sandra B. Schrader_(R) [email protected]
_14_ _Rona E. Kramer_(D) [email protected]
_15_ _Rob Garagiola_(D) [email protected]
_16_ _Brian E. Frosh_(D) [email protected]
_17_ _Jennie M. Forehand_(D) [email protected]
_18_ _Sharon M. Grosfeld_(D) [email protected]
_19_ _Leonard H. Teitelbaum_(D) [email protected]
_20_ _Ida G. Ruben_(D) [email protected]
_21_ _John A. Giannetti,Jr_(D) [email protected]
_22_ _Paul G. Pinsky_(D) [email protected]
_23_ _Leo E. Green_(D) [email protected]
_24_ _Nathaniel Exum_(D) [email protected]
_25_ _Ulysses Currie_(D) [email protected]
_26_ _Gloria G. Lawlah_(D) [email protected]
_27_ _Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr._(D) [email protected]
_28_ _Thomas M. Middleton_(D) [email protected]
_29_ _Roy P. Dyson_(D) [email protected]
_30_ _John C. Astle_(D) [email protected]
_31_ _Philip C. Jimeno_(D) [email protected]
_32_ _James E. DeGrange, Sr._(D) [email protected]
_33_ _Janet Greenip_(R) [email protected]
_34_ _Nancy Jacobs_(R) [email protected]
_35_ _J. Robert Hooper_(R) [email protected]
_36_ _E J. Pipkin_(R) [email protected]
_37_ _Richard F. Colburn_(R) [email protected]
_38_ _J. Lowell Stoltzfus_(R) [email protected]
_39_ _Patrick J. Hogan_(D) [email protected]
_40_ _Ralph M. Hughes_(D) [email protected]
_41_ _Lisa A. Gladden_(D) [email protected]
_42_ _Jim Brochin_(D) [email protected]
_43_ _Joan Carter Conway_(D) [email protected]
_44_ _Verna L. Jones_(D) [email protected]
_45_ _Nathaniel J. McFadden_(D) [email protected]
_46_ _George W. Della, Jr._(D) [email protected]
_47_ _Gwendolyn Britt_(D) [email protected]

 

[cpileri]

done

Sent an individual letter to each one. Attatched below. it was a little different for haines- included his quote.
C-

Dear State Senator X,

Please contact me and inform me how you voted on the following issues. My vote for you is contingent upon your response and your voting NO on any further gun control legislation.

This state has yet to solve a crime with the ballistic fingerprinting program in place, and does not have the additional $2 million to spend on its worthless upgrade.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Feb27.html
Quit wasting my money!
I am writing therefore to inform you that to earn my voting support you will VOTE NO on

SB 208 (expansion of ballistic fingerprinting)

SB 494 (expansion of assault weapons ban)

SB 528 (makes failure to report lost or stolen guns a felony)

These bills were heard by committee on February 27.

Futhermore, I wish for you to vote no on these future bills:

SB 236 (increased penalties for carrying or transporting a firearm)

SB 280 (so-called ‘Exile’ bill that actually vilifies gun ownership)

SB 389 (another ‘Exile’ bill that will give anti-gun prosecutors a bigger club to use on our community)

SB 471 (make it a crime to carry even something looking like a gun)

SB 634 (start process of squeezing even more gun shops out of business)

To reemphasize, MY VOTE for you IS CONTINGENT UPON YOUR VOTING NO ON THESE ISSUES.

I will be phoning your office today, and hope that I reach you with this information personally.

Please contact me and let me know how you voted on these issues.

Sincerely,

 

[gun-fucious]

heres a report from a Buddy:

Impressions from the testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

1. It does seem that these three firearm related bills were "pre-decided" as evidenced by the committee chairman forcing each of us to testify on all three at one time (rather than presenting separately for each) with a five minute time limit per person. It did seem that the antis got more time each. In fact they were allowed to testify separately for each bill (antis).

2. However, there were some differences (in my opinion) from past years which were notable.

A. The state police had a col. testify. Of the three bills, they took no position on two and on the third (ballistic fingerprinting), they testified not in favor of the bill. Previously, I would have expected them to favor all three - and strongly. Maybe we are starting to see some change in Annapolis - I hope this is just the beginning of a lot of eventual reversal.

B. When one of the antis (MAHA or MMM - don’t care to really get to know them) testified that 23% assault weapons - long guns had been used the previous year to commit crimes, senator Haines (most of the time, our friend) interrupted to say that he had asked the state police to report on that to him and their report showed no assault weapons being used in crime last year. Further, he stated, only thirteen long rifles had been confiscated for all reasons last year and even that certainly was not 23%. There was some, a bit heated, exchange back and forth. Senator Haines also made the comment that he is a deer hunter and next they’ll be after his single shot hunting rifle.

This also came up during the testimony of Johns Hopkins, with similar, but less confrontational, results.

C. This same anti, testifying on another bill stated that "the only purpose for guns was to kill" drew VERY VERY VERY heated condemnation by our good friend Sen. Jacobs. Looking over later, as she sat in the audience, she had a look on her face which was one of anger, surprise and whatever - but clearly not the pleased, almost gloating expression I’ve seen on them before.

D. They had their sacrificial victim testify. Next week, I’ll include some victim testimony for our side.

E. I got into a bit of an exchange with Sen Garagiola. Now, I’m saying this from the position of having to frequently evaluate how to change people’s thinking - that’s what I do very well clinically and usually do very poorly outside of the clinical setting. But, I really believe I might be able to sway his thinking, at least a bit, if I ever get a chance to be one on one with him over lunch, or something. Those more politically savvy than I - any suggestions on how I might be able to make that happen? But, for now, he is a dedicated anti. Apparently Giargiloa went therough Army Airborne training. However, the impression of constanly yelling "Kill, Kill" made an impression on him which he has misinterpretted and has contributed to his being an anti.

F. Someone testified from the Frederick area that he represented a large group of Democrats and that they voted and agreed that "gun control" in Maryland had already gone too far. That drew a response from one of the senators - to the affect "did you all hear that - a Democrat club, perhaps we should really be listening". To which Sen Mooney chimed in that Frederick has a lot of hunters and other pro gun Democrats.

G. Col Wilson did not get to speak. Although he arrived about fifteen minutes before the hearing began, he was denied an opportunity to sign up to testify. I arrived at about 8:30 am to sign up and noticed the first page already full of names for the antis to testify. Suggest we pass around an email so that all of us who go there have the name and address of all of us who intend to show up to testify. That way, the first one there can list us all and we won’t run into a problem if someone gets stuck in traffic, or whatever. However, please also list the time you expect to arrive so that they don’t end up calling your name before you’re actually there.

H. Also interesting to me was that Gansler (MC states atty) testified on another bill before ours were heard. After his testimony, many other legal folks and judges testified that what Gansler had testified to was untrue (loved it). Gansler was also listed to testify on all of the gun related bills (in favor, of course), but didn’t. However, he may have submitted written testimony.

I. Our friend Col. Mitchell - RETIRED was signed up to testify in favor of all three bills, did testify on one and then had to leave.

J. It seemed that the antis had a lot more folks signed up to testify than actually did.

K. Sen. Forehand is a blind lost cause.

L. Really would like to see a lot more folks testifying with us. You do not have to submit written testimony - you could just go to the mike and say "I, a citizen of the United States oppose Bill XXX". You could also submit written testimony early in the day (20 copies) and testify verbally (or written testimony only). Or, PLEASE DO phone, fax and mail something to each of the senators - it DOES matter and does have an impact. Would love to see forty or fifty of us there to testify (all at our own expense, representing ourself - or some made up organization - or one of the many real ones we have locally - or JPFO, LEAA, MCDL, MCSM (Steve Dirlick testified for MCSM) - Takoma Park rifle and Pistol Club, etc. etc. Maybe we should have those who are going and who do belong to these testify as reps for them (like I belong to the Takoma Park rifle and Pistol club).

M. Next Tuesdays bills include: SB83, SB236, SB243, SB280, SB323, SBSB471, SB369. You can go to WWW.DIRECT-ACTION.org and to WWW.ASSOCIATEDGUNCLUBS.ORG and of course very complete info at WWW.MCRKBA.ORG to get more info on them.

N. AGC Baltimore overlooked HB302. I mentioned it to John Josslyn and he may post a correction on AGCBALTIMORE SITE. So, keep in mind that next are the House Bills, HB127, HB177, HB178, HB302, HB579, HB583, HB696, HB744, HB836, HB843, HM844, HB858

You can write to them at "Then Honorable Senator XXXXX" or "Senator XXXXX", James Senate Office Building (except Frosh and Green are in the Miller Senate Office Building), Annapolis, Maryland, 21041

You can phone them by calling 1-800-492-7122 and then asking for(or entering) their extension.

Or, by dialing 301–858-their extension, or 410-841-their extension.

Their extensions are:

Senator Miller (Chairman) - 3700

Senator Brochin 3648 (pressure here)

Senator Gianetti 3141 (pressure)

Senator Frosh 3124

Senator Green, 3631

Senator Garagiola 3169

Senator Hughes 3656

Senator Forehand 3134

Senator Haines 3683

Senator Jimeno 3658

and thank-yous to

Senator Jacobs 3158

Senator Mooney 3575

Senator Haines 3683

 

[cpileri]

so far, only one reply

So far, the only reply I have received is this:

I am a strong supporter of gun control.

[email protected]

So there's another lost cause perhaps?
C-

 

[gun-fucious]

http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/05sen/html/msa12233.html

email her if she has ever heard of Cas Taylor