(April 2003) All gun bills this session died, good and bad. Understanding how this came about is important so we can kill gun control next time too. Make sure you know what was on the table so you can educate others about it, since that is the starting point for next year. They always want more. The 2004 gun control battle is already under way.

First let's review the main themes to this year's gun bills …

Assault weapons ban: Gungrabbers agitated for a law to do just that … ban private ownership of guns they called "assault weapons." As usual, the bill's title is no indicator of what's inside. Only in the fine print do you discover that a majority of semi-auto firearms would become instant "assault weapons" by the defined scope of this bill. A gun owner who doesn't immediately register his property with police would become a criminal. You would not be able to bring any more such guns into the state, and you would not be able to sell, give or bequeath any such gun - ever. The only thing you could do with a registered "assault weapon" is turn it in to police to melt down.

Never mind what scholarly research concludes, that such extreme policies have no benefit to public safety. Never mind how many people are saved each year by availability of firearms, or how many use such guns for work or recreation. Never mind the infringement on our Second Amendment right. The reality we must deal with is this: over a third of the Senate co-sponsored this bill, as did a quarter of the House. They are coming after us no matter what, and nothing will save us if we don't step up to the task and save ourselves.

Ballistic fingerprinting: This was the topic of several bills. As you know, the present ballistic fingerprinting law bans sale of any handgun for which the manufacturer has not presented a fired shell case to police. It has been in place three years, cost millions of dollars and solved no crimes, contrary to advocates' claims at the time it would give "immediate results." Antigunners saw this as such a victory that they wanted to expand the mandate to sale of all firearms. How can it be a victory if no crimes are solved? Remember, it wasn't enacted to solve crimes but to ban guns, so any program that bars sale of high quality firearms is a success. Gun grabbers know few companies meet Maryland's unique standards, and they know fewer long gun makers could afford to change manufacturing processes for all products just because of us. Long guns would dry up, just like handguns. In fact, the bill would ban all muzzleloaders, since companies would be required to give a shell case for guns that don't take them.

Going the right direction, our profound thanks go to Delegates Smigiel, Costa, Dwyer, Sossi, and Walkup for proposing a ballistic fingerprinting repeal bill!

Mandatory registration of lost/stolen guns: Besides the tired recycling of yesteryear's gun control proposals we saw a new one this year. Antigunners proposed a law to give a gun owner 48 hours to register his guns with police after they are lost or stolen. Failure to do so would be a criminal act.

As 'stepping stone' proposals go, this one is a fairly transparent political ploy. If enacted, how long do you think it would take politicians to propose mandatory registration of all guns, saying "golly, we already register stolen guns so it makes sense that we should save time and register all guns in the first place." This year's 'sensible' proposal only sets up next year's fix of a "loop hole." Remember: the only purpose for gun registration is gun confiscation.

Proponents said this bill would let police go after people who make straw purchases. They say that someone who buys a gun for a criminal shouldn't be able to get off the hook by saying it was lost or stolen. That's the theory. Well, that transfer is already against the law, and what proponents don't tell you is their bill won't address the stated problem. The US Supreme Court held in Haynes v. US that police can't enforce against criminals any registration requirement which would entail self-incrimination. No straw purchaser who buys a gun for a criminal can be held accountable for failing to register a gun under the lost/stolen law, since doing so would expose him as having broken another law against straw purchases. The only burden this law would place is on honest citizens.

The bottom line is simple: we'd end up with a new way for police to get tough with honest citizens, without any new way to touch real criminals. Think about it. Someone who is a victim of theft would be the only one who ends up under scrutiny of police. Other states get tough with criminals who steal from gun owners; Maryland would get tough with gun owners from whom criminals steal. There is no other crime for which the victim has such broad ways to become a criminal himself. It is not a crime for a woman to fail to report she was raped, even though her inaction would let a rapist walk the streets. But in Maryland, a victim of theft could become the criminal, only by virtue of his lost property having been firearms.

Everything else: Prince George's County legislators submitted minor proposals to study how police might impose new business requirements on gun shop owners (squeezing them out of business.) This was done on behalf of activists in College Park who are queasy to know their community includes people who lawfully sell guns.

We also saw a proposal to allow police to once again sell used guns rather than destroy them. Any taxpayer knows this makes sense, even if the bill language didn't go far enough, but why did this become necessary? Glendening's omnibus gun control package in 2000 decreed that the only way police can part with guns is to destroy them. Just like we testified it would, this law makes it more expensive for local governments to upgrade police duty weapons, since they could no longer get trade-in credit with dealers (unless you're Baltimore County Police, which illegally continued the trade-in practice anyway.) Funny thing, some police representatives who testified in favor of this year's bill are on record as supporting Glendening's bill in 2000 (and hence the present ban.) This contradiction confirms what such shills really are, leaving only their price to be negotiated.

On the plus side, we saw a proposal to repeal the so-called 'trigger lock ban', that is, the ban on sale of handguns lacking an "integrated mechanical safety device." Maryland State Police are enforcing this law far in excess of its actual scope, and as described elsewhere the effect is drying up lawful sale of handguns. Our heartfelt thanks to Delegates Smigiel, Costa, Dwyer, Impallaria, Sossi, and Walkup for proposing the repeal!