We have a right to know if a violent gun user has moved into our neighborhood.

but I haven't read anything that suggests it's limited to "violent gun users." There's a whole raft of criminal laws involving guns, and many of them have nothing to do with violence.

violent felons regardless of weapon if I were to support the idea.

as long as more and more guns are sold. I bet they give Zimmerman a medal before long.

I hear they're planning to erect a 10-story high statue of Zimmerman in front of their national headquarters. The plaque will read, "For Defending Our Poor Widdle Defenseless Guns - All Honor to Motherland & Zimmerman"

I haven't read a single communication from NRA expressing an opinion on Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. Have they sent any?

unless it's just in their minds.

not just with guns but with anything from a gun to a fish to a wiffleball bat. If you try to harm someone that should follow you forever.

(I'm a PG county resident, and I'm already concerned about what we're going to go through when Woollard finally wins.)

This bill sounds reasonable at first, but my primary objection is that it doesn't distinguish between violent crimes and administrative crimes. In Maryland, we have partial state preemption, which means that *most* gun laws are easy to find in the Maryland Code. On the other hand, counties and municipalities can regulate guns in certain places and for certain people, AND can break preemption entirely if their law was passed before 1985. This means that unless I continually research the Maryland Code, twenty-three county codes, and up to 160 municipal codes, I can't be sure of whether I'm breaking the law or not. Even state law provides for many nonviolent, inadvertent, or even RESPONSIBLE actions to qualify as "gun crimes" that would presumably put you on the registry.

For example:

A Marylander who transports an unloaded handgun to a family member's house because their roommate threatens suicide is guilty of unlawful transportation of a regulated firearm.

A Marylander who moves in with a friend after experiencing domestic violence and brings a handgun with them for protection is guilty of unlawful transportation of a regulated firearm.

A Marylander who brings an unloaded handgun to a family member's house during a holiday trip, because they want to prevent its theft while they're away is guilty of unlawful transportation of a regulated firearm.

A Baltimorean who discharges a gun, at home, in defense of their life, is guilty of violating Baltimore's total prohibition on discharging firearms.

These are not people who deserve to be harassed, continually interviewed, and treated with suspicion by the County.



Maryland wear/carry/transport law is Maryland Code, Criminal Law, §4-203
http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/criminal-law/title-4/subtitle-2/4-203/

Baltimore no-discharge law is Baltimore City Code, Article 19, § 59-2
http://www.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/Charter%20and%20Codes/Code/Art%2019%20-%20PoliceOrds.pdf

...access to that information already.

But wouldn't that be a condition of their probation or parole anyway? Or would this be a lifetime thing?


rocktivity

... since we can't string 'em up on the town square as examples.....

" string 'em up on the town square as examples....."

Not very progressive of you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Say it with me...

"Gun crime" does not equal "violent crime"

We have extreme transportation restrictions, fuzzy laws on prohibited places, dozens of sets of local laws, and law enforcement officials who are vehemently opposed to the individual right to own, let alone carry, guns. There are many ways to be convicted of a "gun crime" without hurting anybody, without intending to hurt anybody, without putting anybody at risk, or even acting irresponsibly. What's so great about putting harmless people on a registry? Know what you're applauding before you applaud it.

Step 2: Arrest people for violating those laws.

Step 3: Harass people forever with registration and police surveillance.

Step 4: Create zoning laws where such registered persons cannot live.

Step 5: Arrest people for violating complex and restrictive registration laws

Step 6: Profit.



All of this, is, of course, MUCH better than legalizing pot.



Since African-Americans are arrested far out of proportion for crimes, this will be be abused just like loitering laws are. And of course we'd be depending on racist cops to apply this law fairly and equally, just like self-defense and loitering violations.

serious criminals who used guns to serious criminals who did not use guns - are violent gun users more like to re-offend than other violent offenders who used different weapons?

I'm also a bit curious to see some evidence to support that "had an impact" claim from DC.

Either way however, without further details I oppose this (even if it's really only about violent gun-crimes, and not all gun-involving crimes). It's one thing to require check-ins and searches when a person is on parole or probation, but this sounds like a long-term and automatic denial of 4th Amendment rights as well as general privacy. And I don't really see how the police could use this, except to 'round up the usual suspects' when an investigation hits a dead end...

What of a spouse, domestic partner over the age of 21 that lives in the same house? Inspection could yield that they are gun owners.

I did not think about how this measure would effect African-Americans. Perhaps a sterling example of why we need an Affirmative Action justice system to correct the imbalance placed by whites upon minorities?

has been passed in order to disarm as many blacks as possible. The Attorney-General's legal team has literally made the case that there is an overriding public interest in specifically disarming urban Baltimore and Prince George's County, in order to promote public safety. That is, they believe the state will be safer if residents of the black parts of the state cannot carry guns, but the white parts of the state will be just fine.

Maryland being one of the four slave states that stayed in the Union? I mean if people are going to knock Alabama in 2012.......................................

and the legislature found that scary as hell. The handgun permit law, specifically, was a reaction to racial violence in 1968, and an attempt to prevent those pesky negroes from menacing "normal" citizens with guns.

As for the registry, it passed the county council unanimously.

Then you can't live within X feet of a school.

Then you can't live within X feet of a park.

Then you can't live within X feet of a daycare.

Then you can't live within X feet of a church.

Pretty soon the only place you can live is down by the rail yard with 3 guys who are on a sex "offender" registry because they got caught pissing in the alley behind some bar.

"Studies show". The slimiest weasel words in the dictionary.