(December 6, 1999) What is an Attorney General opinion worth? In 1997, Montgomery County implemented "Gun Free Zones," still unchallenged. At the time, proponents were (justifiably) concerned about state preemption --- a law saying the state reserves unto itself the right to enact firearms regulations. To overcome those fears, they sought the protection of an opinion from Attorney General Joe Curran. Naturally Curran blessed the ban, and in weasel-wording around that pesky state preemption law, his office outlined an example of what could not be done under preemption.

Lo and behold: two years later Takoma Park proposes for real exactly the situation that the AG's 1997 opinion said was proscribed. In fact, this 1997 opinion was used in forming part of our own briefs in suing for injunctive relief.

So did Curran's 1997 opinion have meaning this year? Where did Curran stand on Takoma Park's proposals? In his own words: "I strongly endorse the efforts of Takoma Park citizens to ban handguns within 100 yards of places of public assembly. I encourage all registered voters in Takoma Park to vote yes on the proposed charter amendment."

Maryland's Attorney General endorsed social engineering that two years previously his office had panned as illegal, on a ballot question that a judge has now ruled unconstitutional. Yet there he was in Takoma Park, stumping for a ban, mugging for cameras and drawing state-wide funding to their hateful cause. (From one donor alone, Citizens Against Handguns got a check greater than all we've received in our Legal Attack Fund to date.)

So ... what's a Curran opinion worth? You be the judge!