Wednesday, April 13, 2011

The Mirror of Anne Arundel

It's not a surprise that the Washington Post has its panties in a twist over the failure of Maryland's proposed new gun laws to get traction. What's a bit perplexing is that they're hanging their banner from such a particularly weak argument:

For a second time in three years, Vallario (D-Prince George’s) also did not allow his committee to vote on a bill that police and prosecutors in Prince George’s and in Baltimore said was a top priority for reducing homicides: a mandatory 18-month prison term for anyone convicted of carrying a loaded gun without a permit.

Now, let's pretend for the sake of argument that Maryland wasn't currently being taken to the Supreme Court for using its "discretion" to deny all applications for carry permits.

Being a convicted felon or drug addict in possession of a firearm is already a federal crime, and Maryland's permit process doesn't require firearms training.

So this "top priority" law "for reducing homicides" would have the singular effect of locking up noncriminal citizens for a year and a half--and in the process making them felons--for neglecting to pay the seventy-five dollar fee to the Secretary of the State Police before exercising a Constitutional right.

Somebody could take Olympic gold for the mental gymnastics necessary to pretend this harassment of gun owners has anything to do with public safety.


  1. I am sure the cops are promising, probably even with a 'cross my heart' add-on, that the law wouldn't be used to prosecute non-criminals who carry for protection. I'm sure they are saying they only want it to be able to lock up Danny Drug Dealer or Greg GangKid that carries.

    And I believe them how much?

    Yep, as far as I can throw a school bus loaded with cops.

    Isn't it amazing how 'disproportionate impact' doesn't apply to some rights.

  2. What, you're not saying you don't trust the police, are you? Are you?!