Maryland Sportsmen Up In Arms Over Proposed Gun Ban

blindndead

NES Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
3,744
Likes
809
Location
Dartmouth MA
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-23-2007/0004511261&EDATE=
ANNAPOLIS, Md., Jan. 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Mere hours after the
Assault Weapons Ban legislation was introduced, concerned sportsmen were
calling and emailing their state Senators in protest. Approximately half of
the homes in Maryland have at least one firearm, and almost every gun owner
in the state would be affected by the retroactive legislation. Maryland
already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and the
highest favorable rating from the Brady organization. However, possibly
because of those restrictions, Maryland has the highest robbery rate in the
nation and is now tied for the highest murder rate.
Since 1991, 23 additional states loosened restrictions on the concealed
carrying of guns by law-abiding citizens, bringing the total 'shall-issue'
states to 40. These states have all experienced a drop in violent crime,
while over the same time period Maryland's violent crime increased.
Historian Benedict LaRosa noted the same effect in D.C.: "In 1976,
Washington, D.C., instituted one of the strictest gun-control laws in the
country. The murder rate since that time has risen 134 percent (77.8 per
100,000 population) while the overall rate for the country has declined 2
percent."
Recently, two large federally-funded studies could find no benefit from
any of the gun control laws, including previous federal and state assault
weapons bans. Even the Maryland State Police testified against Assault
Weapons Ban legislation.
According to Senate Bill 43, introduced last Wednesday by freshman
Senator Mike Lenett, an "assault weapon" is simply a semi-automatic firearm
(not a fully automatic machine gun) that has some scary-looking cosmetic
features such as a folding stock; a bayonet mounting lug; a thumbhole
stock; etc. It is not caliber, ballistics or function that defines an
"assault long gun" but simply appearance. If passed, the legislation would
also ban some shotguns and nearly all pistols, except possibly revolvers.
ProGunProgressive.com blogger Sebastian Sassi says, "If anything, 'assault
weapons' are under-represented in violent crime" noting that according to
the FBI's Uniform Crime Report data more people are killed with knives, or
baseball bats, or simply with fists and feet than with rifles, let alone
specific "assault weapons."
The rifles that would be banned by the legislation are used for hunting
and for marksman competition sports such as the popular NRA High Power, and
the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The CMP was created by the U.S. Congress
in 1916 for the purpose of providing civilians an opportunity to learn and
practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later
called on to serve the U.S. military.
Liberal legal scholar, Professor Alan Dershowitz said, those " ... who
are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming
it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety
hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster
by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the
Constitution they don't like."
In total contrast to the currently proposed Assault Weapons Ban,
Maryland legislation passed in 1642 decreed: "Noe man able to bear arms to
goe to church or to Chapell or any considerable distance from home without
fixed gunn and 1 Charge at least of powder and Shott." The murder rate and
danger to citizens on the street in Maryland now is far worse than it was
when all citizens were required by law to have and carry guns.
Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. is an all volunteer, non-partisan effort
dedicated to the preservation and advancement of all gun owners rights in
Maryland, with a primary goal of CCW reform to allow all law-abiding
citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense; and to the
education of the community to the awareness that 'shall issue' laws have,
in all cases, resulted in decreased rates of violent crime.
 
I detect a faint whiff of change in the air regarding the attitude of people in general to the gun ban crowd.

When Alan Dershowitz makes the statement:
Liberal legal scholar, Professor Alan Dershowitz said, those " ... who
are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming
it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety
hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster
by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the
Constitution they don't like."

That means people are cluing into the fact that if we allow certain groups to say that the 2nd amendment does not detail the right to bear arms by ordinary citizens - then maybe other pieces of the bill of rights don't mean what we think they mean - like maybe the 1st one.

This is a side effect of the Bush presidency and the "designated protest zones" and McCain and his legislation to disallow free speech on the internet before an election. Now even the liberals are starting to get a little scared and are cluing into what the pro 2nd amendment crowd has been saying all along.

We need to make them feel the pain - then maybe they will finally "get it".
 
We need to make them feel the pain - then maybe they will finally "get it".

Calsdad-

True enough. I don't think Dershowitz is the best example though (in
terms of representing the liberal demographic) as at least he appears to
have his head screwed on straight most of the time, unlike most of
the loony left. Most liberals only pay lip service to the
constitution and other civil rights issues because they use them as
carrots to give their platform legitimacy. (EG, "gay marriage" is a perfect
example of this... they frequently try to massage it into being a civil
rights issue.... ).

I think most of the "liberals" out there (which are really statist authoritarians
in disguise) are so damned dumb that they will not "get it" until they get put
into an internment camp or something. (say, for example, because the
government didn't like something in one of their blogs) Something is needed
to shake the "it won't happen to me" excuses/mindset.

-Mike
 
Thanks for the find. I was not aware of this bill and my family and I have many, many firearms that will be affected should this legislation pass. Will be watching it closely for sure now, I'm not hopeful that it would be defeated in the legislative process but perhaps in the judicial process. Retroactive banning of "assault pistols"? At least with the long guns they will give a 2 month window to register.
 
Thanks for the find. I was not aware of this bill and my family and I have many, many firearms that will be affected should this legislation pass. Will be watching it closely for sure now, I'm not hopeful that it would be defeated in the legislative process but perhaps in the judicial process. Retroactive banning of "assault pistols"? At least with the long guns they will give a 2 month window to register.

You're in MD, vellnueve? Are you and your family registered to vote? Then call your legicritters and voice your disgust over the bill.
 
I detect a faint whiff of change in the air regarding the attitude of people in general to the gun ban crowd.

When Alan Dershowitz makes the statement:


That means people are cluing into the fact that if we allow certain groups to say that the 2nd amendment does not detail the right to bear arms by ordinary citizens - then maybe other pieces of the bill of rights don't mean what we think they mean - like maybe the 1st one.

This is a side effect of the Bush presidency and the "designated protest zones" and McCain and his legislation to disallow free speech on the internet before an election. Now even the liberals are starting to get a little scared and are cluing into what the pro 2nd amendment crowd has been saying all along.

We need to make them feel the pain - then maybe they will finally "get it".


That's an older (mis)quote made by Dershowitz in 1995

The actual quote was...

"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."
 
No, I used to live in Maryland and may be returning there if I get accepted into a graduate school there, but my family lives there and so does a large collection of firearms that fall under this law (including some that I own and store there because of the Boston AWB).
 
This is a side effect of the Bush presidency and the "designated protest zones" and McCain and his legislation to disallow free speech on the internet before an election.

My emphasis added. I'm not crazy about McCain, but either he's a moonbat for propose something like that, or you're a tin-foil-hat wearing moonbat for pinning something like that on him. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt. Got a link?
 
My emphasis added. I'm not crazy about McCain, but either he's a moonbat for propose something like that, or you're a tin-foil-hat wearing moonbat for pinning something like that on him. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt. Got a link?

Ask and you shall receive:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/13/mccain-war-on-blogs/

http://www.policyalmanac.org/government/pr/campaign_finance_001.shtml

http://tapscottscopydesk.blogspot.com/2006/04/mccain-says-clean-government-more.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman55.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/casey2.html


Pay close attention to this guy - the kinds of things he is proposing would have direct effects on us here on NES..
 
OK, I read through those links, and I didn't see anything pertaining to McCain's "legislation to disallow free speech on the internet before an election."

The first link you posted is in regard to a bill McCain filed targeted at child pornography. I read the bill and didn't see how it could be construed towards anything other than kiddie porn. Yeah, if I run a blog or a web forum, and somebody posts some kiddie porn, I have an obligation to drop a dime on them. What does that have to do with "legislation to disallow free speech on the internet before an election?"

The second link pertains to a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Cato Institute in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, which is a case before the Supreme Court asserting that portions of the McCain-Feingold bill, now codified as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) violate the 1st amendment. I read the link and I even read most of the brief, but I didn't see anything about "legislation to disallow free speech on the internet before an election," although I infer what you may be talking about are electioneering communication prohibitions, which, as far as I can tell, deal mostly with funding and disclosure obligations. I get the impression from the brief that the BCRA may prohibit labor unions and corporations from spamming my inbox before an election, and that they will be required to disclose where the spam originated. However, I ran out of steam before I was able to locate the BCRA and plod through sections 201 and 203 of the BCRA, although I will if you think that's where the problem lies.

The third link is a brief quote from McCain on Don Imus' show where he essentially said he'd prefer a clean governement than a corrupt government that respects first amendment rights. Yeah, that was a stupid thing to say, and it foreshadows that a McCain presidency could truly be a frightening thing. Still, nothing about "legislation to disallow free speech on the internet before an election."

The fourth link has a small bit that compares McCain and the BCRA to John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts, in that they both trampled on the 1st amendment. But that's about as detailed as that link gets.

The fifth link concerns a piece of McCain-sponsored legislation called the Localism in Broadcasting Reform Act of 2005. The author opines that this legislation would put us on a slippery slope and one step closer to a state-controlled media.

So based on my review of what you posted I agree that McCain is a little too authoritarian for my tastes but it is my opinion that his legislation - which, like the pavement on the path to hell, was crafted with good intentions - focused on cleaning up the electoral process (which I think we can all agree needs some fixin') and going after child pornographers. I still want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I haven't anything that leads me to believe your earlier assertion that McCain filed "legislation to disallow free speech on the internet before an election." Do I need to read through the BCRA stuff, or were you exaggerating just a wee bit?
 
Last edited:
While he does have bills aimed at cleaning up child pornography the main bill that I have seen criticized as impinging on free speech is his campaign finance reforum bill. The links I gave previously maybe didn't make a good enough case - I should have looked a little harder:

http://www.examiner.com/a-279321~Br...in_Feingold_does_censor_political_speech.html

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/11/mourning_the_lo.html

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122203.htm


Maybe the difference here lies with the fact that when I read stuff like this I immediately imagine worse case - based on past experience, whereas you are willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt. I see this as being better safe than sorry - while I do believe that government has some serious cleaning up to do I do not think that this is the way to do it. It is like putting a band aid on a big bleeding wound whose only real cure lies in getting to the root causes of the wound - not trying to cover up some of the symptoms.
 
Back
Top Bottom