(December 2003) Why have a General Assembly when state police can make up the laws on their own?

Parris Glendening enacted a ban on new handguns lacking an 'integrated mechanical safety device' (or IMSD), a measure that took effect January 1 of 2003. Bob Ehrlich now enforces not only Glendening's ban, but prohibits sale of most handguns containing an IMSD too. Next month marks the one year anniversary of both the IMSD restriction and the Ehrlich administration, with no relief in sight - from either.

At least Parris gave a veneer of legality to his agenda by passing a law before his troopers grabbed our guns. Bob, on the other hand, gives his troopers free rein to ban guns without bothering about pesky things like having a law.

Our chief problem is an administration packed with staff who care nothing for our issue. They make promises to get what they need for immediate political needs, but stonewall when the bill comes due. Shoddy administrative and legislative workmanship is not repaired, but rather covered by posturing, finger pointing and blamestorming. Far easier to brand us extremists and send us packing than to own up to their own failures on the job.

Before elaborating on the political mess, let's understand the gun lock situation in detail. There is no more stark example of the administration turning on a core constituency than the IMSD ban.

Integrated Mechanical Safety Devices. IMSDs were born on March 22, 2002, when Parris Glendening famously demonstrated how awkward any gun lock can be to use. With the cameras rolling and thinking this was a chance to promote his smartgun proposal, he was supposed to show (at a police training class) how easy it is to enter an authentication code and enable a sample gun. Minutes passed as he (and the trainers) fumbled with the device. We had a ball with this in Annapolis, and used it to nearly drive a stake through the heart of his legislation. Our ability to filibuster got stronger once Senators had cover like this gaff to play for voters back home.

With his bill teetering on the edge of defeat, Glendening appealed to both Senate President Mike Miller and none other than President Bill Clinton for help. In response, Clinton authorized a key concession to negotiators working on Smith & Wesson's consent agreement - a federal blackmail whereby the company could get out from under lawsuits in return for agreeing to support gun control - then Miller removed 'smartguns' from the Glendening bill, putting in a brand new fabrication called IMSDs. With news of the now infamous Smith & Wesson deal breaking, Glendening claimed his revised bill was scaled back to 'just what industry' accepts. Legislators had less cover to help us, then Tim Ferguson sealed the deal with his sell-out of our defenses. The bill - and IMSDs - became law.

(Ironically, this 'compromise' mandates exactly the sort of gizmology in a handgun that Parris couldn't figure out how to use on camera. Apparently he figured if they were so bad for him, they would be ideal for us.) So what is an IMSD? The definition comes from language that was hastily crafted by politicians seeking political ends, and nothing more. Let's go right to the law itself: "INTEGRATED MECHANICAL SAFETY DEVICE" MEANS A DISABLING OR LOCKING DEVICE THAT: (I) IS BUILT INTO A HANDGUN; AND (II) IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE HANDGUN FROM BEING DISCHARGED UNLESS THE DEVICE HAS BEEN DEACTIVATED.

Okay, there are two ways for a device to be an IMSD. It must be either a "disabling" device or a "locking" device, and in either case there are two criteria that must hold true. The device must be built into the handgun, and it must ensure the handgun won't fire unless you deactivate it. Combination locks meet this definition - they're built into the gun and presumably you can't fire it until you deactivate it. Safeties meet the definition too - they're also built in the gun and won't let you fire until you deactivate it. (Anti-gunners even complained about this at the time!)

Last year as the law's enactment date loomed near, the state's worst anti-gunners were horrified to discover what we knew all along: The overwhelming majority of handguns have a safety which will qualify as an IMSD, making it available for sale. They could not have that, but feared any action that would activate our grassroots in an election year, so the cabal of Kathleen Kennedy, Attorney General Joe Curran, Speaker Casper Taylor and MSP Superintendent David Mitchell stalled. They started a paper trail that only talked about locking, not disabling devices, then tossed it to the Handgun Roster Board for bureaucracy to slow it down until after the election.

Enter the Ehrlich administration. What should have happened with a fresh new - and supposedly friendly - governor was that we start from the letter of the law and enforce it fairly until such a time as he is established. We'd work from there to find how much can be rolled back legislatively under his guidance. Unfortunately, after promising us the administrative fix and contrary to all briefings from us about doing otherwise, Ehrlich's people accepted not only Curran's spin but also his obfuscation putting the matter in the Roster Board's lap - a double win for antigunner's, who snicker up their sleeve at how easily they sucked Bob into oppressing his own base.

We should never make the mistake of thinking about gun control like it is supposed to make sense, but in IMSDs one must ask: if the state's goal was to influence manufacturers into designing some new product (other than guns having safeties) then why did it not speak to the matter for three years between the law's enactment and effective date? That the willful misinterpretation of IMSDs was an election-eve charade was apparent to all - except Bob.

Any spin of this being benign neglect from a struggling new administration went out the window when Ehrlich's administration drafted, promulgated and adopted regulation for IMSD's. This happened entirely on Bob's watch, and not only implements the Curran plan but grabs administrative gun ban authority which was never granted by the General Assembly. The regulations - which mandate gun locks but refuse safeties - became effective in July.

What the heck is he thinking? Bob is thinking about politics, not governing, much less dancing with the ones who brung him. Our beef isn't just over the lock issue (though that would be enough!) Over the last year we've patiently tried to work with his team on many specific matters related to firearm policy, only in the end to have the door slammed in our face. How inconvenient for the Ehrlich 2006 Campaign committee that we pester them for relief on issues when they're busy running for reelection. They say 'We need the votes of Montgomery County liberals, so don't make us touch guns' - unless it is to grab them, of course. Redress of grievances? What's that?

The Ehrlich team is light on understanding policy, but serious about squashing polite dissent, even of those who warn Bob is about to drive the ship of state aground. That's why you increasingly see GOP staff attack our news operation. Any promises of gunowners being at the table in an Ehrlich administration are moot, since there is no longer a table in the statehouse; the frat buddies making up Bob's staff eat their pizza cold over the sink while watching reruns of The Man Show and mocking policy wonks. If it is not about slots - raising revenue in order to fully fund all of Glendening's expensive liberal agenda, including gun control - they don't want to hear about it.

We already hear stock campaign retorts like "Where are you gonna go?" (Meaning, Bob assumes we'll work hard for his reelection in 2006 after he supports gun control, just as long as he isn't as quite the fascist as his opponent.) Their message in 2002's campaign was "We can't help you if we aren't elected, so keep a low profile." Now their message is "We can't help you if we aren't re-elected, so keep a low profile." That's the clear formula for a one-term disaster: Bob won't have the big turnout of his once core constituencies after they learn his word is no good, and neither will he attract liberal voters who may appreciate his pandering in their direction, but won't vote for a cheap imitation liberal when they can have the real thing in Bob's likely democratic opponent.

Especially sad is how the administration's stubborn refusal to work with the community puts friendly legislators in harms way. With Ehrlich virtually inviting gun control debate this coming session, Delegates and Senators in the GOP will be pressed to choose between loyalty to the governor and sound firearm policy. We'll learn who cares for party over issues. We'll learn how many Republican elected officials the Governor is willing to sacrifice over guns in order pander for liberal votes in 2006. Already outted is Delegate Carmen Amedori. Once thought to be a progunner, she now defends Ehrlich to enforce gun control. That can't play well in her Carroll County district.

The worst damage being done to us is in issue advocacy. Any administration should promote issues, not just bills or budgets. Glendening certainly did, which is why Maryland rocked to the left of the spectrum in the last decade. Instead of restoring a sense of balance, Ehrlich seeks appeal among voters already conditioned by years of liberal extremism by saying 'left is okay.' We need leaders at the bully pulpit teaching that conservative views are right, bringing newly enlightened constituents into our voter base. We don't win by supporting the other side's agenda.