MD Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Bill on Mag Limits Today

I just sent off this letter to the members of the Maryland Senate Judiciary Committee that will be debating and hearing testimony on a magazine capacity limit (limiting to 10 rounds down from the current State's law of 20 rounds).  

Honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee:

I am writing this letter in very strong opposition to Senate Bill 162, Firearms - Detachable Magazines - Maximum Capacity for Ammunition.

While I understand that this bill is primarily a reaction to the abhorrent tragedy that occurred last month in Arizona, it is my firm believe that this bill erroneously and incorrectly limits freedoms enjoyed by law abiding citizen. I wish to make it clear that the efforts of this state to protect its citizens and legislators should be focused on the actual acts of violence and the perpetrators thereof, instead of focusing on the tools used to commit such acts. Considering that the tool in question here (guns and their detachable magazines) are used for lawful purposes by those whom follow the law, I must question whether this bill will have any impact in effecting a decrease in criminal activity, specifically mass public homicides.

As you convene your committee hearing this day, please consider the following views of this constituent.

Arms in common use: Currently, Maryland law restricts the capacity of any ammunition feeding device to an arbitrary 20 round limit. While this law does not currently limit most arms that honest citizens can acquire and use for sporting and, more importantly, Constitutionally protected self defense, a decrease to ten rounds would almost assuredly cause a decrease in the supply of firearms within the state of Maryland. While some members of the committee might think limiting access to arms is a noble goal, it does nothing to address the potential for criminal homicides, regardless of the weapon used.

Further, with many law enforcement agencies in the state choosing to use handguns that often carry in excess of 10 rounds of ammunition, please note that even our government agencies agree that more rounds equals more opportunities to win in a self defense battle. Please recall that last year this committee enacted legislation to exempt homeowners from liability suits brought by the criminally negligent. Why do we want to regress in terms of defense of family and self by arbitrarily limiting the amount of ammunition one can use in any firearm at any time?

Economics: While we do not economic means test enumerated civil rights, it is hard to ignore the impact to small and local business that sell detachable magazines and the arms that operate with them. Considering the current economic climate, we should foster every opportunity to promote and encourage sales growth, cost savings, and business opportunities, as well as tax receipts to the state. At present, limited capacity magazines are both expense, produced in small numbers, and not widely available on the shelves of Maryland gun dealers. When cash flow for a small business can mean the difference between keeping the doors open or going out of business, we can ill-afford to upset this delicate balance as we force dealers to liquidate their products on hand, and replace them with something that may not even sell.

Looking to other "model" states as a product of such bans (California and Massachusetts), one sees that such magazine capacity restrictions impact the consumer as well. Manufactures of magazines are forced to produce a product they would not otherwise produce, thus limiting supplies and increasing the cost of both the magazine and the arms that use them. I would hope that you note that this will disproportionately affect the classes of people whom need them most to level the playing field against stronger criminals. Elderly, poor and economically stressed persons, as well as those living in under-privileged, crime ridden neighborhoods would effectively be priced out of the market place here in our state. Even if you don't agree with the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the Second Amendment and its Incorporation, shouldn't we all strive to increase exercise of freedom afforded by all civil rights?

Impact Upon Crime: In the days after the Arizona tragedy, critics of firearms were quick to point out that these types of magazines were banned under the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Unfortunately, what the firearms critics failed to point out was that even the FBI was never able to correlate a reduction in crime statistics for those ten years to the reduction in "assault arms" and their accessories. If it is the attempt of this committee to decrease mass public shootings, I suggest we focus on mental health and criminal intent by better data-basing of crime reports and mentally deficient adjudication records before enacting legislation which only a law abiding citizen will follow.

As this legislation is discussed, the four surrounding neighbor states of Maryland should serve as an example to the ineffectiveness of this legislation. All four states currently do not impose arbitrary capacity restrictions limiting detachable magazines to 20 round, and all four states have lower crime rates than that of Maryland. Let us be realistic in this assessment however and not fail to realize that the culture and demographics of our neighbors is different from that of Maryland's, but from a straight forward correlation of more magazine capacity related to criminal shootings, it is nearly impossible to make such a connection.

In summary, I strongly urge the committee to discard this bill and withhold it from the full Senate. As outlined above, it is easy to see an increase to the arbitrary magazine capacity limit will do nothing to prevent crime, nothing to deter crime, and will only act to put further restrictions upon a civil right that is enjoyed by many Marylanders.

Thank you for considering the input from this concerned citizen as you hear today's testimony.


Sincerely,


FightinBluHen51

Jews Should Soundly Be Against Gun Control

Of any people on the face of the planet who should be against gun control, Jewish people should top the list.  Of course, those who live outside of Israel itself, seem to favor left of center, pro-grabber policy pitchmen, instead of participating in the freedom of self defense that those within the Jewish state practice on a daily basis.




H/t to New Zeal.

Justification for High Cap Mags

As the attack upon our ammunition feeding devices comes into sever question upon Capital Hill, and the marginally legal Executive Branch pushes shotgun import restrictions (all the while controversy swirls the agency itself), it becomes imperative to seek out the truth with regards to lawful firearms ownership. 

In a story that is more than a decade old, we can point out the benefits one can achieve with multiple standard capacity magazines and common use arms.  The Beckwith Incident shows how a 65 year old gun store owner was able to confront seven armed thugs, aged 16-21, by himself, AND (as a bonus) use restraint to limit the defense of his shop to one justifiable homicide.  Had Mr. Beckwith been restricted to just 10 rounds of ammunition in any magazine, chances are, he would have been run over while reloading by the car he stared down while using his AR-15.  This would have allowed the criminals to flee the scene before the police arrived, and chances are thousands of dollars worth of arms and ammunition would have ended up in the hands of countless criminals.  This article shows how lawful use of Class III weapons in the hands sensible and responsible gun owners can level the playing field against multiple threats, and that using such weapons is not directly related to mass murder (but quite the contrary).

Read the article (and if anyone has the original, please send a PDF scan of it my way and I'll see if I can't get in contact with the author and publisher to host it), take note, and use it in your letters to your representatives. 

Hat tip to AK Fan. 

Stark Reminder of USA Gun Rights

Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws are something that most of us here in the USA take for granted.  We are very fortunate to have not only the law on our side, but also legal precedent to enforce and codify the civil right enumerated in both our Constitution and our history.  

Unfortunately for our northern neighbors, the Canucks aren't as lucky.  As can be read about here, the legal precedent and enumerated protections are both not part of the Canadian legal system.  Further, and what is worse, even though historical right to self defense exists for the citizens of Canada, the doctrine isn't necessarily recognized or held with such convictions for their government overlords.  These believes are evidenced by the over zealous, anti-gun, anti-freedom prosecutors to our North who arrange deals with criminals by trading reduced sentences for testimony against gun owners who use arms in self defense.

I would not only call this a failure of justice, but more appropriately the persecution of the lawful.  (After all, no criminal would ever have reason to lie to avoid more jail time when sanctioned by a prosecutor, right)? 

Take note of two things from this article: 1) That a citizenry that doesn't exercise or stand up for their rights looses them on a prima facia scale, and 2) For as much fighting against our enemies and infighting that our various supporters and groups have, we are still have the best laws and the best lobbying, education, legal, and training groups in the world (save for maybe Switzerland or Israel).  The point being, that as Canada lurches more left on the individual freedom afford by arms and the defense they provide, We The People, continue to move forward.  Let this remind us (along with the events of the last several weeks) that progress is not a constant.  Nor is progress easy, but as long as you aren't moving severely backwards, the end goal of advancing freedom can remain in our sights.  (Gun pun intended). 

Michael Bane on School Board Shooting

I obviously have no reason to reblog anything of Michael Bane's simply because he is so wide read, but I do feel a need to add an addendum to this post from Wednesday. 

Michael and his colleagues made it quite apparent that the situation that occurred in the Florida school board meeting is a very real and very realizable for anyone.  Unfortunately, as is discussed in the linked post, most states have felt the need to restrict "sensitive places" and carve out gun free niches in the purview of compelling interest.  As illustrated this week, those gun free zones turn into "willing victim zones."  Most of us in the gun blogging and pro-self defense community would agree that the best way to stop this attacker would have been to demand peaceful disarmament through compelling request (read good guy with a gun shouting for compliance) followed by superior firepower if the request was not honored.  Unfortunately, that was a solution that could never manifest itself since the "rules" altered the game of the "gun fight." 

Which leads to Michael's question posed:  What do you we need to learn from this event?  Unfortunately, the answers from the professionals leave a lot to be desired, simply because there is no clear cut answer.  Every one of us can simply say the law needs to be changed.  True.  As the common sense world has shown, there is no such thing as a "gun free zone" when there is a bad guy with a gun meaning to cause good people harm.  But what should the individual do to mitigate this problem?  How should you or I prepare to deal with a potentially disastrous situation when we are forced to be unarmed? 

I have noted before that, currently, I have the choice made for me on a statewide level since I am a Maryland resident.  Permit Unobtainium is a serious problem where I reside.  That said, several of us in the Maryland community have come across this theoretical question before.  In Mr. Bane's post, I noted that several of the top tier trainers implied that they would consider disregarding the law and/or signs that create gun free zones.  I can assume that the saying goes that it is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.  However, my libertarian mind works in mysterious ways; meaning, my rights stop at your door step.  That applies to both "state" owned property and or private property and business that don't wish for you to be armed.

The biggest issue I take from some of the responses is this avocation for "bending" the rules.  Considering there are varying degrees of punishment depending upon what state you are in, I don't know if I can agree with that assessment.  My initial assessment of the Maryland Shooters thread with a "private gun free zone" was to ignore the sign, keep it concealed, and not get caught, thinking that the most that would happen would be a request to leave and or a potential trespass charge.  In Virginia (where I carry the most) that would not be the case.  Violation of a private property posting would result in the loss of the permit, and a potential weapons charge since a permit is no good where the permit is no good (sorry for the bad English).  Further, as we learned this summer, that can compromise you when you end up the unwilling victim of bad police work and corporate policy.

Considering that there are a lot of issues that need to be worked out in a post-Heller/McDonald world, it is hard to completely agree with "bending the rules."  If a permit violation were as cheap as a small civil fine and "don't do it again," I would completely agree with ignoring signs that create no gun zones.  However, in states like Virginia, where the charge could be a high level misdemeanor that results in the loss of a permit as well as the potential to make me a prohibited person in the state of Maryland, the loss of the rights is my risk to the reward of remaining alive.  Following the law should not allow someone to loose their life, but in the tyrant state, that's the rules as they have been carved out.

Currently, it is hard to feel completely unsafe in the United States.  We are still extremely fortunate that crime has not degenerated into mass levels like seen in Mexico or even Argentina.  That said, as the economy continues to degenerate, we will see the degenerates attempt to keep their money for nothing scheme alive.  Desperate people will do desperate things, or as was illustrated in the Florida school board shooting, crazy people will do crazy things.  Meaning?  Be prepared!  

Update:  Fortunately, as I typed this, Michael Bane in his good ways, has an updated "what we've learned" post on how to deal with this type of threat.  While the carry aspect of it does not fit in with the Maryland Permit Unobtainium, everything else in his latest post does.  Some of his helpful tips are bulleted here in summary here: 

• Always be aware of your surroundings!  ALWAYS!
• Stay in a conditioned yellow (or moderate awareness) until you are certain you are in a safe environment.  Don't look at people, but look at actions, emotions, and the "tell" of someone meant to do yourself, your family, or others harm.
• When a bad situation does present itself, don't just react for the sake of reacting, but be calculated in how you react.  Non-action is the worst and almost always results in death or harm.  Do something, even if that something is wrong.
• Every time you enter a new room, assess the situation.  Where are exits?  Where is cover?  (Adding my own here)  Where is the best place to stay out of the mass rush?  People get trampled when panic sets in and flight takes hold.  Evading a gunman only to be crushed by the sheep won't bring you home safely.
• Read the others on both posts for a complete understanding of what professionals would do if in this kind of a situation.

Who Needs a Gun? Fortunately, a Happy Ending

A very frightening and disturbing story linked to me by a friend is shared here. 

Police say two men who broke into a New Hampshire home and held a woman at gunpoint may have accidentally targeted the wrong home.

Disturbing in the least, terrifying if you are the victim.  The rest of the short update blurb on the link states that the perps may have been looking for money and/or drugs.  Fortunately, the lady who was attacked, lived and was unscathed. 

Obviously, it just goes to show, when second count, sometimes your gun is too far out of reach.  I'm sure most of the readers here have arms for personal protection and self defense, but when you are home, where do you keep them?   While it isn't practical to stash guns all around the house in various locations for a multitude of reasons, it makes you think that perhaps, you should be a little more strategic in the storage of your home defense arms.  We can certainly speculate as to whether or not this lady had any tools to protect herself or not or if it was even close enough to make a difference, but it does make us think that we should re-examine our personal "castle doctrine." 

Just goes to show that the world is a dangerous place, no matter where we live.