This statement was released by Maryland Senator John Gianetti at the February 27, 2004, meeting of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in Annapolis. The topic pertains to SB 288, the proposal to ban so-called assault weapons from the state.

After much deliberation, I announce that I will vote against SB 288 if the matter is voted upon by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. Prior to this notice, I have confidentially shared my decision with the sponsor of the bill, the chairman of my committee, the President of the Senate, and the Governor.

I base my decision on the best information I have been able to gather, and I am confident that I have made the right decision on this specific bill in the context of this legislative session.

Process:

In forming my decision in this matter, I undertook the laborious process of seeking detailed, confidential information from various experts in the field, as well as law enforcement officials. Most of those with whom I spoke understood that I was seeking to understand the actual effects and ramifications of the bill, and further understood that I planned to keep our conversations confidential.

During my information gathering, I spoke with a wide array of law enforcement officials. I sought confidential advice by speaking to the State's Attorney for Prince George's County, the State's Attorney for Anne Arundel County, the Sheriff of Prince George's County, the Sheriff of Anne Arundel County, the Chief of Police for Prince George's, and the Chief of Police for Anne Arundel. I also sought the confidential advice of the head of the state Fraternal Order of Police, and, finally, just yesterday, I spoke with the Superintendent of the State Police, with whom I served on the Judiciary Committee for four years.

I also held meetings in my office with gun safety advocates and gun advocates alike, including representatives of CeaseFire Maryland, the NRA, Tripwire, and other organizations. As the issue became publicized, I sought to be as available as possible; I did not intentionally refuse advice from any group or individual, and made all attempts to accommodate every request for meeting time to discuss the legislation.

Further, I spoke to and received telephone calls from current and former members of Congress, two former Governors, numerous former elected officials and representatives of national organizations -- I was unable to receive and/or return all the phone calls that I wanted to. I also talked with many constituents, numerous state Senators, the Governor, and, frankly, anyone else who wanted to give me their advice on the issue.

All this was in addition to the overwhelming number of phone calls and e-mails received on the issue. On many days, I was unable to call into my office and speak to my staff due to the non-stop phone calls into the office on this issue. I knew from past requests that I was unable to get any additional lines strung into my office, and we had to reassign office work duties so that two legislative aides and two interns could be freed to answer the phone calls. At the peak of the phone call barrage, we received more than 250 phone calls per day. Each person that called was asked for a name and address, so we could distinguish between constituents and non-constituents.

Phone calls were, roughly, 95 percent from outside the 21st legislative district, and overwhelmingly against SB 288. Calls from the district were, at first, consistently against SB 288, until last week when we saw a two-day surge of constituent calls in favor of the measure. Overall, calls from the district were evenly split between those in favor of and against the measure.

E-mails were likewise numerous. By early last week, we had already surpassed 1,000 e-mails received. We stopped counting this week, and attempted to sift through e-mails to ascertain constituent communications from non-constituent's. It was not always clear if the sender was a constituent or not. We have attempted to send a reply (though be it a standard one) to each sender. E-mails were overwhelmingly against the measure.

I had an excellent opportunity to hear from my constituents firsthand on this issue, as I held prior-scheduled town hall meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. The Tuesday meeting was held at 7 p.m. in Piney Orchard, Anne Arundel County, and the Wednesday meeting was held at 7 p.m. in College Park, Prince George's County. The gun legislation was discussed at both town meetings, but did not dominate the discussions at either meeting.

Decision-making factors:

SB 288 dramatically increases the number of guns banned under either federal or state law. However, [it] is widely known that the sponsor's ultimate intention was to craft a compromise bill that would create state law that would, in effect, continue to ban the weapons currently banned by federal legislation, that sunsets on September 14. I proposed an amendment that I believed would have a similar effect, in an attempt to evaluate the prospects of passing a less-restrictive bill.

The information I gathered about the bill during the public hearing and confidential advice I received about the bill weighed heavily on my decision. I firmly believe that continuing the effects of the federal ban will not have a significant effect on the safety of the public or the safety of law enforcement officers.

The fact that the Maryland State Police and the Maryland Fraternal Order of Police both opposed the legislation was a significant factor in my decision as I was weighing the public safety implications of the legislation.

I also believe that were the bill to arrive on the Governor's desk, that he would veto the measure in either amended or un-amended form. I firmly believe this. Since this is the case, one must decide whether the legislative wrangling and weeks of work and compromise on behalf of legislators is a worthy proposition in-and-amongst itself, knowing the legislation would never become law.

I believe that the bill would be filibustered on the Senate floor, and that in order to end debate, many conservative democrats would be forced to make votes for cloture, which would potentially hurt them politically in their district. The democratic party in Maryland can ill afford to lose ground in conservative districts.

If the bill receives the cloture vote, it will pass through the Senate with a majority. It will then need to be considered by and voted on by the House, which would provide days of rancorous and partisan debate.

A conference committee would be appointed to work out the differences, followed by another Senate filibuster late in session. The measure would wind up on the Governor's desk, and would be vetoed. I do not want to be a part of this exercise, which would widen the dangerous and growing partisan gap currently seen in the House and Senate.

My constituents have widely divergent views on gun control, and the input from both sides confirmed my suspicion that the 21st district has strong advocates on both sides of this issue.

The threats made by both sides, the gun safety advocates and the gun advocates, were not factored into the decision-making process. Both sides threatened to run candidates against me if I did not "do the right thing" in their eyes. The irony is that the equal and opposite threats gave me the ability to make a decision without being accused of caving into intimidation. This joint pressure only hardened my resolve to independently educate myself on the issue, and to seek confidential advice from those in the law enforcement community.

District background:

My district includes parts of Prince George's County and Anne Arundel County. The district runs the rainbow of liberal to conservative views on gun issues. The residents from College Park tend to be anti-gun, and the residents of Anne Arundel County tend to be widely gun-tolerant.

Laurel and Beltsville, while located in typically liberal Prince George's, both have significant pockets of conservative voters. To illustrate the conservative tendencies of Laurel: District 13-B, which I represented for four years in the House of Delegates, was made up of all Laurel precincts, and drawn mostly in Prince George's County; but by electing, in 1990, then re-electing in 1994, a republican delegate, was the only Prince George's legislative district in 40 years to return a Republican to Annapolis. I give this background of the district to help explain that my district has two distinct poles, a liberal one and a conservative one, with communities of varying stretched in between, which gives me a measure of legislative freedom, knowing that my view will likely be supported (and opposed) by a significant portion of my district. A district as polarized as mine is both a blessing and a burden, but I wouldn't want it any other way.

I hope this document has helped to explain the reasoning of my vote on this matter, if you have additional questions, I will be happy to take the time and expand upon any topic mentioned, or other topics, as is fitting.

I appreciate the efforts of all those who gave me their true and honest opinions about this issue.

Senator John A. Giannetti