Bill Numbers are color coded according to whether we recommend opposing or supporting them or have no recommendation. 

Links to previous year gun bills are given above by year to support those of you interested in the history of who is sponsoring what mischief. A link is given to our synopsis of the bills too.

This bill will eliminate the collection of shell cases for handguns currently required for newly manufactured handguns sold in Maryland.  So called ballistic fingerprinting doesn't work to identified criminals from shell casings left at a crime scene, so the collection of these cases is a waste of money (see the ballistic fingerprinting Brief).  Although Maryland isn't processing collected cases (funding stopped in 2005), the law requiring the collection of to continue.  Since not all manufacturers will provide shell casings, makes and models on the Maryland roster of approved handguns cannot be sold here.  There is also a cost associated with collecting shell casings that raises prices of handguns sold here.  For all these reasons, this bill should be supported.

State's attorney Glen Ivey claimed last year, April 2, 2005, Washington Post article “Ballistics Database Yields 1st Conviction, Oxon Hill Man Tied To Murder Weapon,” that Maryland’s ballistic fingerprinting database was successful in convicting a murderer. The official transcripts of this murder trial allow us to examine police testimony and develop a time line of evidence development to contradict Ivey's assertion here.

Ballistic fingerprinting will never be significantly effective and will never be cost effective in solving crimes. Impacting effectiveness is:
Very few firearms related crimes are committed by the original purchaser of the firearm. Most are committed with stolen or otherwise illegally aquired firearms, for which the new law would have no effect.
Crooks do not use valid IDs to buy guns in stores (only 12 percent of guns used in crime are obtained by the criminal through retail stores or pawn shops.  The rest are virtually impossible to trace).  According to the Carter Justice Department study done by Drs. Wright and Rossi, criminals usually do not leave a paper trail when buying guns.  Without a paper trail, ballistic fingerprinting is useless against criminals.
Most crimes committed by legal firearms owners are easily traced back to the shooter by other means.  These are in the scant minority, however, since the majority of firearm involved crimes are committed with illegal guns.
In October, 2001, a report by California state ballistics experts concluded that ballistic fingerprinting isn't currently feasible.  Automated computer processing of shell casing is needed to make a working ballistic fingerprinting system, but the report says the automated system fails.  According to the referenced report, more than 2,000 rounds from 790 pistols were test fired and compared by computer.  The match failed 38 percent of the time if the cartridges were the same headstamp.  If they were from different manufacturers the failure rate went up to over 60%.  The California Attorney General has confirmed that Ballistic Fingerprinting is not ready for use in a report.  See also report attachments at (big PDF files):
ATTACHEMENT A: Technical Evaluation: Feasibility of a Ballistics Imaging Database For all New Handgun Sales.
ATTACHMENT B: Ballistic Imaging and Comparison of Crime Gun Evidence by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, May 13, 2002 - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
ATTACHMENT C: Comments of Forensic Technology, Inc. on the Technical Evaluation: Feasibility of a Ballistics Imaging Database for All New Handgun Sales - Forensic Technology, Inc.
ATTACHMENT D: Review AB1717 report Technical Evaluation: Feasibility of a Ballistics Imaging Database for All New Handgun Sales.

Maryland already requires ballistic fingerprinting.  So far the automated Maryland system hasn't helped identify a single criminal though more than 50,900 guns sold since January 2000 have been 'fingerprinted' by April 2005.
New York has registered more than 117,000 ballistic fingerprints by 2006, and, once again, not one bad guy has been taken off the street using this scheme.
Maryland, with some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation has one of the highest robbery and homicide rates. Across the river, Virginia (a state/commonwealth that trusts her law-abiding residents as citizens rather than subjects) has one of the lowest.  DC, with the strongest anti-gun laws in the nation, also ranks up there in the top 5.
Ballistic fingerprinting can be defeated by not leaving a shell casings behind. Revolvers regularly do not leave shell casings behind so crooks can return to using these handguns. Since .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolvers are already one of the most frequently used handgun models for crime, many crimes will escape solution by ballistic fingerprinting.
Ballistic fingerprints of guns can be altered by use of common tools applied to the gun if a person wishes to use a legal firearm.  Unlike human fingerprints, ballistic fingerprints are temporary.
Using reloaded ammo would also defeat ballistic fingerprinting of shell casings.
Normal wear on the mechanical parts of a gun will change the ballistic fingerprint.  It has been estimated that firing 600 rounds suffice to do so.
The ballistic fingerprint of any firearm can easily be changed cheaply and quickly by dipping a cartridge at the bullet end into oil and then into fine sand and firing it would cause scratches in the barrel that would change the "fingerprint" of the gun on the bullet.
A similar trick could be done to affect the shell casing "fingerprint" by taking a small file to the bolt face, the extractor, and other parts that create "ballistic fingerprints".
For more information see Jeff Chan's Ballistic Fingerprint Page

The bill will drive small gun dealers out of business and raise costs for large dealers by requiring expensive security features.

The bill also reduces threshold amount of time spent in a mental institution for which a business license to sell guns is repeal from 30 days to 7.  Inasmuch as there isn't a problem with gun dealers who have sought treatment for mental disorder, this is a solution in search of a problem.

The bill returns Maryland to an old legal concept of "misprision of a felony."  The elements of the crime of misprision of felony have been stated to be: (1) a felony was committed, (2) defendant had knowledge of the felony, (3) defendant failed to notify authorities and (4) defendant took an affirmative step to conceal the crime....  Mere passive failure to report a felony has been held insufficient to sustain a conviction.  Under the federal and state statutes embodying the offense, mere silence or failure to come forward is not enough to constitute misprision; there must be some positive act of concealment of the felony.

Maryland has not had a misprision of a felony crime since its criminal code revision in 1972 did not include the crime (see the Maryland Attorney General opinion, 9/8/93 and see State v. Shaw, 282 Md. 231, 232-36, 383 A.2d 1104, 1105, 1978).

Even for misprision of a felony, simple failure to report a crime is not a crime (see, for example, United States v. Gravitt, 590 F.2d 123, 125-26, 5th Cir. 1979, requiring "affirmative action to conceal the crime" for conviction of misprision of a felony).  This bill creates a misprision of a gun loss misdemeanor and does so without requiring an affirmative action as an element of a crime.  Without an affirmative action element, it will be hard to sustain the Constitutionality of the crime and impossible to prove that a crime was committed except for very stupid victims of gun losses (e.g., Oh! I just realized the gun was stolen when you came to ask me where it was Mr. Policeman so I'm reporting it now within minutes of realizing the loss.  Oh! I reported last week to a policeman at the local precinct -- he took my number and said he was busy but would call me back and never did.)

It is hard to imagine criminals reporting the loss of their guns and they wouldn't have to since such a report would subject them to charges for gun possession. So, they have a Fifth Amendment defense against being required to make such reports.

If this bill is truly aimed at gun traffickers, why not charge them with gun trafficking which is already illegal?

This bill will allow the harassment of poor minority gun owners over matters not in their control (living in a high crime area) which seems to be the real target by patronizing Democrats.

Since it has become nearly impossible to own a gun in Maryland without violating some law, it is conceivable that ordinary citizens might also have a Fifth Amendment defense against reporting the loss.  But that is to be expected as alienation between government and governed grows.

The problems of violence in Maryland have been studied by everybody and understood by everyone (see analysis from the Baltimore Sun in Maryland Crime and the short analysis of Maryland homicides). Everyone has known for years that our revolving door court system is a major part of the problem and that defense attorneys such as Delegate Vallario and Senate President Miller regularly defeat efforts to reform courts.

The purpose of having this task force is not understanding, but deflecting responsibility. Obviously, the report from such a force will target firearms and Maryland's law abiding gun owners..

This task force is no more needed than that of HB979. The points presented on that bill apply also to this one.

Talking points for opposing this bill are given by testimony presented previously on similar bills at Talking Points 1 and Talking Points 2. An update of the analysis of risks to police officers from rifles refuting assertions by the Violence Policy Center and CeaseFireMD may be found at Risks to Police from Firearms.