Tripwire in depth: What happened to the restoration
of rights proposal in Maryland's General Assembly?
(April 1, 2002) HOW SMALL A CRIME SHOULD TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS?
A proposal dealing with restoration of rights got brief attention in Annapolis this legislative session. The history of this measure gives us insight on just how far gone we are in Maryland.
Background:
Federal law on gun ownership is clear: anyone convicted of a crime that could be punished by over a year in jail is 'disabled,' that is, may not possess any firearm or ammunition. If a crime can be punished by two years in jail, then Maryland adds extra charges for possession of a handgun. But a (decreasing) number of crimes have no prescribed penalty. These are 'common law' crimes, and to determine if one is disabling, the state must look at jail time served. A sentence of less than a year isn't deemed to be sufficient to remove your gun rights.
Enter Attorney General Joe Curran.
Not long ago, Curran issued a directive to police saying his handling of common law offenses would change. He would now interpret someone guilty of such an offense as being disabled no matter what the sentence. Instead of checking if it was less than one year, Curran would automatically remove his rights. State Police, who are rewarded by how many guns they confiscate, answered by eagerly going over gun records. They used their previous approvals of gun purchases as evidence that these instant criminals were in unlawful possession of a gun. Those unsuspecting gun owners could now be charged and their guns confiscated, even though they had paperwork showing police previously approved their purchases. In fact, Maryland will now jail you for illegal gun possession when it never sought jail time for the offense that disabled you in the first place.
Tripwire readers know full well how gun possession laws are applied to boost 'gun crime' statistics rather than jail violent thugs, so Curran's new directive is fully consistent with his published plan to ban private ownership of firearms. This is absurd, but tough to fight. Legislators don't want to be tarred as 'sticking up for criminals.' For example, a person could have been convicted of common law assault for a heated exchange of words in the wrong circumstances, without any contact. But defend him and anti-gunners will paint you as trying to arm violent thugs.
Poster child for absurd gun laws.
The widely publicized case of Don Arnold made it possible for politicians to consider the issue. A vet recently returned from Vietnam in the late 1960's, Arnold served one night in jail waiting to see the judge after a bar scuffle with anti-war protesters who called him a baby killer. His night in jail became his penalty for a conviction of common law assault. Thirty years later, Curran's decree led police to hound Arnold over possession of a gun. But Arnold had spent decades as a civic activist in Baltimore, for which he was declared Maryland Citizen of the Year. He became an embarrassment to a state enforcing the Curran plan. His case brought national attention, and - even though the story of so many other folks warranted it as well - legislators finally got political cover to ask the questions: Had Curran gone too far? How minor an infraction should remove your guns?
Legislators propose a modest step back.
HB 1367 proposed a way to restore rights to some - not all - of those in this absurd situation. Someone whose only conviction was from a common law crime, and whose jail time was under 30 days, and who retained a clean record for another ten years would be deemed to have his civil rights restored. This omits many compelling cases, but represented a starting point for discussion. Long-time pro-gunner Kevin Kelly was the bill's driver, backed by our friends George Owings, George Edwards and David Boschert. It was co-sponsored by Speaker Casper Taylor and Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Vallario, plus traditional champions of gun control, Delegates Dana Dembrow and Ken Montague (all of whose support we appreciated.)
HB 1367 is savaged.
Opposition to any pro-rights measure is always expected, but the zealots who populate our Attorney General's office spared no lies to whip up anti-gun sentiment on the bill. (It didn't help that supposedly pro-liberty extremist groups gave opponents a rallying point by distributing a graphic portraying some legislators as Nazis. This stunt enabled opponents to muddy the water with blather about anti-Semitism, so it became harder for proponents to talk persuasively with delegates about the bill's merits.) In the end, leadership retreated from a threatened attempt to amend the bill to include gun owner licensing. 1367 never got a vote on the floor.
The irony is rich.
HB 1367 would have only fixed old cases. Nothing in it touched recent cases, because in 1996 leadership expanded the number of acts for which you can lose your guns, going well beyond the common law cases being carved out by Curran's chicanery. What bill did this? The Gun Violence Act, which leadership drove through without the slightest edit. "Clean bill!" was the mantra of those who wanted every letter and comma just so, and leadership gave it to them. In 1996 leadership said people like Arnold - and so many more - should permanently lose rights, then they made it so. Yet after national embarrassment in 2002 they express shock and say situations like Arnold's are wrong, but then can't usher their own minor bill through to repair the situation.
Anti-gunners believe no misdeed is too small to prevent you from enjoying all your civil rights. The effect of HB 1367's failure is to drive home how true this has become.