Feb. 10, 2011, in the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee was what committee chairman Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery) termed "Gun Day". It was a day where a total of six proposed bills dealing with the regulation of firearms and the people who use them to commit their crimes were heard, with testimony from various people from all walks of life in the state speaking for and against -- gun rights adovocates, law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, clergy, and past victims of gun violence included.
I tried to listen to as much of the hearing as I could, all the while trying to get a sense of what all these different bills would do. Basically, the bills do the following. There's one bill that would closely monitor the record-keeping practices of gun dealers in Maryland (SB 161, cross-filed with HB 1043), another that would limit the magazine capacity of certain guns in Maryland and in some cases even ban the manufacturing of such guns (SB 162), another that would prohibit peoeple from carrying loaded handguns on themselves or in a vehicle under "specified circumstances" (SB 239, HB 252), another that would make the penalties for possession all types of firearms as severe as those for carrying handguns (SB 240, HB 241 -- this bill would also increase from 5 to 15 years the maximum penalty by which someone can be sentenced if they are caught with possessing a firearm and have already been previously convicted of a violent crime). And then of course, there is SB 173 (cross-filed with HB 172), which would limit the amount of good-time credit that convicted felons who use guns in the commissions of their crimes could receive toward early release. Additionally, there is another bill (SB 174) that would "prohibit the use of specified firearms in the commission of crimes of violence or felonies."
Sen. Frosh, who has steadfastly refused to act on legislation that would limit good behavior credit for violent offenders, has actually sponsored two of the six bills being proposed in the Senate, SB 161 and 162. These just happen to be the two bills that attempt to keep tabs on gun dealers and the firing capability of certain guns. This is not surprising to me. Frosh's passion for gun control has long been known to those who have followed his career. What is disconcerting about this, although again not surprising, is that while legislation to regulate firearms themselves has Frosh's backing and thus will presumably be voted on in committee and moved to the Senate floor, there is no way to know at this point how Frosh will act on the bills that deal with the prosecution of people who carry these weapons and/or use them to commit crimes.
Second Amendment rights activists often view politicians like Brian Frosh as Public Enemy no. 1. Often, these activists like to say that "Guns don’t kill people, people kill people." They are also fond of saying that "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Although I'm hardly an NRA member or gun enthusiast myself, I have nonetheless always found some truth in these arguments. After all, guns don’t go off by themselves, and if law-abiding citizens with no criminal record or history of mental illness want to have firearms for protection or self-defense, I don’t necessarily see why they shouldn’t have them, provided they can demonstrate that, among other things, they'll train themselves how to use and store them properly.
And while I don’t disagree with the concept of reasonable regulations on gun dealers or putting restrictions on magazine capacity or firing capabilities, it is reasonable to wonder whether Sen. Frosh, a trial attorney by trade, is more interested in regulating the means by which violent crimes are committed, and not so much in passing legislation that would prosecute the actual criminals themselves. And that doesn’t really do us much good. Because if you don’t prosecute violent offenders to the fullest extent of the law, it's not going to matter how many gun control measures you pass. Violent felons who are intent on causing their mayhem always find ways to get guns by any means necessary. So… ban guns, don’t ban guns… I don’t think it really makes a difference. You still have to keep the criminals themselves locked up if you want to reduce the potential for repeat violent crimes.
But there's another element to this that has struck me as rather odd, and that is the stance -- or lack thereof -- of some so-called "gun clubs" in Maryland, such as this one and this one. Predictably, both of these organizations oppose limits on magazine capacity and gun dealers, but they have also taken no position on the legislation that would limit gun offenders' good behavior credits. Why is this? I mean, you would think that even the most ardent second-amendment absolutist would want to keep violent criminals, especially those who use guns to hurt innocent people, in prison longer time, right? What gives? Why aren't these pro-gun enthusiasts taking a stand here? I'd like to know this. Perhaps I should ask them.
The Maryland House of Delegates is going to have their "Gun Day" hearings this coming Tuesday, March 8. I am not planning on attending but will be paying close attention to what transpires, of course. If I hear anything interesting coming out of this hearing, beyond what I already know or have gotten out of the Senate hearings, I will share it with you.
How will this all play out is anyone's guess. As I mentioned already, the two bills sponsored by Frosh will almost certainly be moved out of committee. The other bills are probably fair game, but SBs 173 (the good behavior credit bill) and 174 have the backing of Gov. Martin O'Malley, which I'm told may increase their chances of passing. Whether anything gets passed in the House may be a trickier proposition, what with House Judiciary Committee chairman Joseph Vallario's perennial aversion to passing common sense legislation being almost legendary.
Once in a great while, the top lawmakers in Annapolis will do the right thing and move legislation that might actually be good for the people of Maryland. But it usually only happens when they are pushed into doing so by strong outside forces or more powerful lawmakers and power brokers breathing down their necks. So be it. Whatever works.
As always, stay tuned.
-- David
