Posted on 02/06/2003 7:57:13 PM PST by caa26
Montgomery County Police Chief Charles Moose, known for leading the sniper investigation, voiced support in Annapolis Thursday for three new gun bills.
One would refine the definition of banned "assault weapons" to include specific military features. Supporters say it would close a loophole that allows gun manufacturers to skirt current laws.
"These weapons have no real use in our neighborhoods," Moose said. "The rapid-fire weapons do not improve the livability for the citizens of the state of Maryland."
Another bill would require owners to notify authorities if they lose a gun. Chief Moose said police waste valuable time tracking down the owner of the gun used in a crime, only to be told it was lost or stolen.
"Generally, we report all of our valuables when they are lost or stolen," Moose said. "So why not the same for guns."
The third bill would expand Maryland's ballistics fingerprinting system to include long rifles. Maryland currently only "fingerprints" handguns by recording a bullet fired from the gun into a state database.
Governor Ehrlich's press office released a statement after the event:
"Governor Ehrlich has directed State Police Superintendent Norris to review these three anti-crime bills for an assessment of their effectiveness. If he is convinced these initiatives can directly reduce violent crime in Maryland he will give them strong consideration."
The bills are scheduled for hearings later this month. Chief Moose may testify on their behalf.
As it is dope dealers control neighborhoods and dope is against the law. The police can't control the drugs now so under mob rule how would they control the guns?
When the Constitution was ratified, some states had constitutional provisions which protected the right to keep and bear arms, but that they explicitly authorized restriction on the carriage of concealed weapons. I know nothing that would suggest the Constitution was meant to overrule those provisions.
That being said, I would interpret the Constituion as requiring that states either allow all free people to carry concealed firearms, or allow people to carry ready-to-fire weapons unconcealed without legal harassment. Many states, of course, do neither.
Or for that matter any of our BOR's, - as supposedly they only apply to the federal government.
Well, the First Amendment, by its own language, is only a restriction on the federal government. It was certainly recognized that there were needs for certain restrictions on free speech and press rights (e.g. laws against slander, libel, etc.) but such laws would properly fall within state jurisdiction. Also, IIRC, some states did have established religious institutions when the Constitution was ratified; I see no reason to believe it was supposed to eliminate those.
When the Constitution was ratified, some states had constitutional provisions which protected the right to keep and bear arms, but that they explicitly authorized restriction on the carriage of concealed weapons. I know nothing that would suggest the Constitution was meant to overrule those provisions.
Under the 9th, states can 'reasonably regulate' public acts.
That being said, I would interpret the Constituion as requiring that states either allow all free people to carry concealed firearms, or allow people to carry ready-to-fire weapons unconcealed without legal harassment. Many states, of course, do neither.
I think the USSC could use 'equal protection' to require states to make some reasonable legislation in this area. I won't hold my breath tho.
-------------------------------
There are dozens of the 'states rights' crowd here that will admit, when pressed, -- that they believe states can violate the RKBA's. --- Or for that matter any of our BOR's, - as supposedly they only apply to the federal government.
Well, the First Amendment, by its own language, is only a restriction on the federal government.
Yep, and that caused so much trouble that the 'congress' wording was, in effect superseceded by the 14th, which made it clear that ALL the BOR's apply to ALL levels of government.
It was certainly recognized that there were needs for certain restrictions on free speech and press rights (e.g. laws against slander, libel, etc.) but such laws would properly fall within state jurisdiction. Also, IIRC, some states did have established religious institutions when the Constitution was ratified; I see no reason to believe it was supposed to eliminate those.
The state religion thing was just left to wither away, wisely so, imo.
- But the rest of the 'states rights' controversy came to a head after the civil war, and supposedly was resolved by the 14th. The ratification hearings from '68 are amazing in their detail on how states CANNOT be allowed to violate our basic rights.
Obviously, they failed to make their point then, [IMO, because the 14th was poorly worded] as we still argue them now.
Better do it soon, before they make it illegal to mail un-pc books to public officials.
Ain't that the truth. I was working in Portland then and I remember thinking that the hiring committee in Montgomery County, MD must be a bunch of dolts. He's not fit to be a patrolman, much less Chief. He makes a strong argument against affirmative action.
The First Amendment posed an absolute bar on congressional infringements upon free speech. There's nothing in there about "compelling state interest" or "time, place, and manner" or anything like that. As written, it is very plain and explicit: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...
States clearly had, and continue to have, a need to impose certain types of restrictions on the freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment. To impose the absolute bar on them that was supposed to apply to Congress would be completely unworkable.
The problem is that nothing in the federal Constitution says anything about the scope or exceptions of the rights protected by the First Amendment. If the First Amendment only applies to Congress, there's no need for such a statement except to say that all such rights are absolutely protected from Congress. Imposing such restrictions on the states, however, requires defining what the scope and exceptions are; nothing in the federal Constitution does that.
BTW, one thing that might help the First and Second Amendment debates would be ratifying clarifying amendments to make clear what some exceptions are [all legislation creating the FCC, e.g., is grossly unconstitutional and yet some form of regulation is necessary to make radio transmission useful; ratifying an amendment authorizing the FCC and stating its scope and limitations would be better than just letting courts make up rules as they go along.
Likewise with the Second Amendment, having specifically written exceptions for certain defined types of weapons of mass destruction would be far better than just pretending the Second Amendment isn't written to be a clear and unambiguous bar against anything that would interfere with all free people's right to keep and bear such weaponry--for personal and collective defense--as they see fit.
That's why I'm a registered Republican, not a Libertarian or an independent. I may think a lot like some small-'l' libertarians, but I want to see as much progress in the right direction as soon as possible, and if that means my pet issues don't get stroked immediately, well, that's fine as long as our leadership shows progress in other areas.
It's the lack of progress in ~any~ area that I can see, that keeps me from voting republican today. A vote for RR was my last gasp. I gave up.
That's also why I like George W. Bush. Hs is about winning. He strikes me as someone who like to win as much and as often as possible. And he doesn't have ego issues about what he wins. Very unlike Clinton, who probably is the most intelligent president we have had since WWII, and also the least effective since Carter, Dubya is not about Dubya. That makes him effective. I like that.
Single-issue conservatives and dogmatic Libertarians are what makes the conservative meovement weak, like a tennis player that can always be fooled by a drop shot.
Standing on principle is dogmatic by definition. - And libertarians are not being fooled, in any way I can see.
I can agree with the position of todays RLC, which in effect, was the position/principles of the Goldwater Republicans 40 years ago. The GOP has deserted me, I did not desert conservatism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.