(Click for details of legislative gun control proposals)
(Click for details of administrative gun control proposals)
(April 2003) After all major issues were placed on the table (see other insert) the political situation remained fixed throughout session. Legislative leadership - chiefly anti-gunners cheered by zealots in the Montgomery County delegation - wanted to play a political game of piling gun control bills on Governor Ehrlich's desk, but they are smart enough not to put their legislators on the record for bills that might not advance. You see, in order to succeed, leadership would need to draw in the votes of moderate Democrats in non-urban districts; this would risk those seats in next elections, since the act of voting for gun control would expose them to … err … us. Leadership wouldn't pay that cost without knowing they'd get the bigger prize: Ehrlich deciding a gun bill. No conservative Democrat wants a gun bill anywhere near the floor, where they would be forced to choose between their party politics or angry gun owners having a demonstrated ability to oust them next election.
So what would make leadership question whether a gun control bill would go the distance? You. We have enough pro-gun Senators (from both parties) that we should be able to sustain a filibuster, and everyone knows what we did to Tim Ferguson last fall because of his failure to lead a filibuster in 2000. As a result, 'unit cohesion will be strong' this term. As more than one legislator stated: "Nobody wants to be the next Tim Ferguson or Cas Taylor."
Ultimately leadership knew that the only way a gun bill would not get bottled up and cost them dearly is if Ehrlich himself gave a sign it might succeed. That invited extensive bartering. Senator Brian Frosh, head of the Judicial Proceedings Committee and one of the most anti-gun legislators, held Exile hostage, demanding approval of his gun control as ransom. They came close to agreement on the reporting obligation for a lost or stolen gun, but in the end, Ehrlich wanted a violation punished by civil penalties, whereas Frosh held out for a criminal penalty.
The session closed with deadlock on negotiations over how much new gun control to advance. Nevertheless there was one skirmish of note on the House floor. When the budget came up, Delegate Michael Smigiel proposed an amendment to withhold funding for the failed ballistic fingerprinting program. Bravo! Why throw good money after bad? But Delegate Joan Cadden, darling of the Maryland State Rifle & Pistol Association, rose in defense of ballistic fingerprinting. Parroting the straight anti-gun line about why the program was needed, she stated she was proud to have worked with former Speaker Cas Taylor to protect ballistic fingerprinting. The amendment failed, but not without even more surprises. A number of "pro-gun" legislators abstained - some of them conspicuously the same who muscled freshmen legislators not to put in pro gun legislation this year. In the end, we still have fully funded ballistic fingerprinting program - but not enough cash for schools or road construction.