Posted by Phil Lee (149.32.89.229) on September 14, 2000 at 18:07:
In Reply to: Exchange between Mr. Giff Nickol and Senator Ferguson on SB211 posted by Phil Lee on September 14, 2000 at 18:01:
----Original Message----- Date: Monday, March 27, 2000 2:05 AM
From: Giff Nickol
To: fergutr@cct.infi.net
Subject: Re: Smart Guns
Dear Senator Ferguson:
Frankly, I am amazed at your assertion that you beat the Governor, for he got exactly what he really wanted. When Mr. Glendening announced his "smart gun" proposal, I and many others recognized it for what it was: an attempt to ban handgun sales by making it so difficult to sell guns here that gun manufacturers would simply give up, and abandon the Maryland market. That is exactly what will happen, even under your compromise.
Contrary to your assertion, not all semi-automatic handguns have safety switches. I happen to own three such pistols: a Beretta 92D, a Beretta 8045D, and a Kahr K9. All three are well-made, accurate, reliable, expensive, and very safe, and none has a mechanical safety. For your information, Maryland State Police and Maryland Transportation Authority Police use Beretta 96D pistols, identical to my 92D except for caliber (9mm vs. .40 S&W). Baltimore City Police and Harford County Sheriff's Deputies use Glocks, which are prominent for their lack of an external safety. All of these pistols will be banned from sale under your compromise. Furthermore, your e-mail claiming victory does not even mention revolvers. With the exception of some Taurus models, no revolvers have safeties. What about those guns?
In committee testimony, witnesses asserted that no gun maker will undertake a re-design of its products to sell to a small market like Maryland. Whether your compromise requires gun makers to incorporate "smart gun" technology or mechanical locks, the result will be the same: most handgun manufacturers simply will not sell here. That is what the Governor wanted, and that is what you have given him. That doesn't seem like "victory" to me.
(Incidentally, just about all handguns come with trigger locks already. What is the difference between a trigger lock that one can use or not use, and an integral mechanical safety one can use or not use? Given the inclusion of a trigger lock, why require an integral lock at all, unless the real goal is to drive gun makers out of Maryland? That seems like such an elementary point to me, I cannot understand why you legislators apparently failed to see it.)
During the hearings, gun industry witnesses also pointed out that the "ballistic fingerprint" requirement of the Governor's bill would drive them out of Maryland, independent of any other aspect of the bill. Yet you left that requirement in your compromise. Did you think those witnesses were joking or lying? Do you really expect them to go to the trouble of test-firing each gun they make, retrieving the fired bullet and spent shell casing, and sealing them in a package to be turned over to the State Police, for the relatively small number of guns sold here?
Sandy Abrams, from the Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, testified that even if a few gun makers build special guns for sale in Maryland, dealers cannot stay in business selling only a small selection. Do you think the small businessmen who are about to be put out of business see victory in your compromise?
Your compromise requires that citizens wishing to excercise a constitutional right obtain training first. Besides being offensive per se (it reminds of me of literacy tests for voters in the South years ago) it is simply another way to discourage gun sales in Maryland. And though the training requirement is minimal, I do not for a moment believe it will not be toughened in the future.
As originally written, SB 211 had no grandfather clause. After 1/1/03, no handgun that is not a "smart gun" could be sold or transferred in Maryland. If that provision is in your compromise, I cannot sell my guns or even will them to my sons. Gun shops cannot sell used guns. And I cannot buy a collectible older gun. I cannot believe that the omission of a grandfather clause, by people who are experts at drafting legislation, was an oversight. It reinforces my opinion about the Governor's true intentions.
Nothing I have read about this bill -- and nothing you have said in your several e-mails tonight -- makes me want to jump and down and yell "Hooray! We won!" We got nothing in this "compromise", and the Governor got what he really wanted. I have long admired you as a defender of our 2nd Amendment rights. That's why I am particularly disappointed that you -- who pledged to filibuster against this idiocy -- would lend your name to something as reprehensible as this. I am even more disappointed, however, that you think we are so stupid or gullible that we will believe what you have done amounts to "victory".
Respectfully yours,
Giff Nickol