With the support of a new Democratic governor, advocates for a state assault weapons ban said yesterday that they have the legislative backing and momentum to pass a bill this session.
"We are hopeful that the new political landscape will make a difference this year," said Sen. Michael G. Lenett, the Montgomery County Democrat sponsoring the proposal.
So, Michael, how many people who defy your hopefulness are you willing to have state enforcers imprison or kill? That'll sure "make a difference."
9 comments:
Proponents also lauded Maryland for the 1994 passage of a ban on assault pistols but urged that the law be expanded to prevent tragedies such as the 2002 Washington-area sniper shootings.
What the hell is an assault pistol?
Oh, and the snipers? Yeah, this law sure would have stopped them. Not that they got the gun across the country or anything...maybe we should have internal travel documents and checkpoints everywhere so they couldn't have made it to DC...
...oh wait, we're already damn close to that now.
I guess my "assault weapon" would
be my Marlin model 60. I would also like to know what constitutes an "assault pistol."
What the hell would you expect from a state that bought its troopers night vision goggles so they could see at night in order to write more tickets to drivers using the cover of darkness to not wear their seatbelts?
you're kidding right?
damn! I'm running out of states in this "home of the free" that I will step foot in.
Um' my BS detector went crazy when reading this little gem of a quote from the governor in the story...
"Assault weapons are so frequently used in crime that one assault rifle is traced back to a Maryland crime every 48 hours...."
Yeah... OK.
DID ANYONE AT THE PAPER BOTHER TO CONFIRM THIS BIT OF TRIPE?!?!
Noooo! Of course not!
I went to the hearing (along with 210 other PO'd people). A good write-up on the day can be found at ProGunProgressive: http://progunprogressive.com/?p=330
Some background:
Maryland banned "assault pistols" by declaring TEC-9, MAC-10, and UZI -type (yes, if it looks like one of those, it is banned) firearms as banned for sale after 1994. Then-current owners could keep them after registerting with the state police. If you merely possess one in the state after that,you get three years in jail.
The "every 48 hours" claim is based on trace data. Ceasefire MD looked at trace data available before the Souter(sp?) amendment that blocked ATFE from releasing it to non-law enforcement. They mined the data for either the .223/7.72 calibers or the actual name of the firearm being traced. They were unable to say during the hearing just how many of these were actually fired during criminal activity vs. being found during a search vs. found on the side of the road.
ProGunProgressive (again) discussed the study and pointed out its flaws back in sept. 2006: http://progunprogressive.com/?p=220
No hairy hobbit, I am not kidding. Google it. They really did.
K-Romulus,
Thanks for the link.
You gotta hand it to Ceasefire boy, their statistics bending ability is BRILLIANT!
They really put a good spin on that one. It never even occurred to me that you could speak in a context of criminal killings by firearm and then offer instances of illegal possession and supporting evidence of the former.
It's like correlating drunk driving instances to body rot.
These guys are masters of the big lie. But people eat it up.
I just don't understand it???
Post a Comment