(April 15, 2001) We've known the truth for years: until we take care of business in state elections, we're never going to pass laws we want on straight gun issues. Things like restoration of right to carry, for example. It's not in the cards. But for a long time we've tried to squeeze what we could on the edge of our issue, sadly without much success.

One notion in particular has been close to our heart: Protect citizens who use deadly force in self defense against a home invasion. They should be presumed to have been in fear of immediate death or severe injury, code words to deny prosecutors a chance to make an example out of the homeowner for surviving an attack. Equally important, survivors should be free from civil liability. If you hurt a thug while defending yourself, you shouldn't become a blank check when he (or his estate) subsequently sues you for not giving up your life to his home invasion.

In 1998, we got this in as HB 1249, with the gracious sponsorship of Delegates Schade, Baldwin, Burns, Ports and Rzepkowski. It didn't go far, killed in committee. In 1999, we got in as HB 652, sponsored by Delegates Boschert, Greenip, Rzepkowski, Baldwin, Guns, Owings, Leopld, K. Kelly, W. Baker and Amedori. Again, shot down.

Fast forward to this year, when bill SB 901 set a land-speed record, rocketing through the Senate in slightly over two weeks. It's crossfiled House bill (HB 1462) also had a host of co-sponsors. These bills have almost the same language as we sought before, so the differences between this and previous years are quite instructive.

First difference: This proposal was filed shortly after a highly publicized defensive shooting in Baltimore, where a business owner shot and killed one invader, and helped capture two others. He's now facing charges and civil suits galore for not just leaving the door open for thugs to repeatedly break and enter his place of business. The second difference is that … err … the legal protection this legislation gives would apply only to business owners.

Silly me! You'd think by now I'd have figured out how things work in Annapolis. You and I wouldn't enjoy legal protection from this measure in our home. If you or I shoot someone in a home invasion, we're likely to be forced to prove our innocence at great cost to our families. Ahh, but when it comes to the place of business, now we're talking about the mother's milk of politics: money. Cash puts on the green lights for all sorts of measures.

What made the difference for this bill, publicity or cash? Apparently the cash. Four days after the Baltimore event a 45 year old Suitland firefighter successfully defended himself from a violent home invader. Judging from reports published concerning his survival he could be the poster child for our original legislative proposals, yet nobody in leadership cites his case as the basis for greasing a bill through legislature. The difference was business, aka cash.

[It's kind of like right to carry. MSP won't issue a carry permit for you and me to protect ourselves from thugs on the street. They won't give it to someone with a physical disability that would make him even particularly open to an assault. But they will give it to a businessman carrying large sums of cash. Cash is the reason to issue a permit. Message to citizens: leadership loves our money more than it loves us.]

We're not knocking the bill itself. Of course any businessman should have this protection. Just like we should in our homes. Some sponsors are strong pro-gunners, and we're happy they seized the opportunity once leadership signaled it was receptive, at least in part. The measure languished in the House after sprinting through the Senate.

Nevertheless, I hope I sound frustrated, because I'd hate to feel like this and not have it show. This legislation demonstrates once again that Annapolis directs public policy by listening to crying moms (instead of experts), by reading headlines (instead of strategic plans) and by plotting party gambits. Money talks and we haven't come up with enough cash to buy into the game. Those of us who are just-plain-folks will never really be at the table. Not until we decisively take care of business at the ballot box, that is. That takes cash too, but remember, in that case we not only get to sit at the table … we get to hold some of the cards too.