Posted by Phil Lee (216.250.238.101) on January 28, 2001 at 11:19:
The response to Senator Middleton below should be corrected to say "There were 21 who voted against SB211 final passage." The significance of this exchange of E-mails is that it show Sen. Middleton hopes his constituents do not learn of his vote on Rule 43.
Dear Senator Middleton,
My sources have you voting in favor of the Rule 43 motion to bring the bill out of committee. That act virtually guaranteed the passage of the bill. There were 19 who voted against SB211 in final passage. With that level of opposition, a filibuster could have been sustained. Please explain how the filibuster did not happen and how your vote on Rule 43 was justified given that you really opposed SB211.
As to nasty E-mails, you must lead a sheltered life.
Sincerely,
Philip F. Lee
-----Original Message-----
From: Senator Thomas McLain Middleton
[mailto:Thomas_McLain_Middleton@senate.state.md.us]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:27 PM
To: 'Phil Lee'
Subject: RE: SB211 Repeal
Dear Mr. Lee:
Before you start sending out nasty e-mails I would suggest that you do your
homework and check on how legislators actually vote on issues. I have
always been a supporter and defender of responsible gun ownership. If you
reevaluate your records, you will see that I, in fact, voted against SB 211.
My Dad always advised me that you can catch more flies with sugar than salt.
I believe that is sound advice and I think you could be more helpful to
Legislators like myself in convincing those legislators who want to take
away all gun ownership and rights by being a little bit more positive
instead of so insultingly negative.
Senator Mac Middleton
----------
From: Phil Lee[SMTP:pflee at wdn dot com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 12:20 AM
To: thomas_mclain_middleton@senate.state.md.us
Subject: SB211 Repeal
Dear Senator Middleton,
My gun owning friends have asked me to write to support repealing the
Ballistic Fingerprinting provisions of last year's Senate Bill 211. That
provision has created a de facto gun ban in Maryland. Delegate Kelly has
actually introduces such a Bill (HB 185).
It is not enough to repeal just the Ballistic Fingerprinting provisions
since the internal gun lock provision is likely to cause the same problem
when it takes effect. Moreover, the requirement for training represents a
prior restraint on a right of the people and is objectionable too.
So, I ask that all provision in SB211 be repealed.
That said, I expect you take no action at all in SB211. I object to your
previous legislative actions to deal with violence (and safety) with guns.
Your wrong headed legislative actions will cost lives. But I don't expect
you to make good choices.
The average lawful gun owner is a pretty patient person and it is difficult
to stir them to action. Perhaps, your poor judgement as a supporter of
SB211 will finally motivate them to register and vote to turn you out of
office. I hope that happens.
Sincerely
Philip F. Lee
12921 Two Farm Dr.
Silver Spring, MD 20904