Pipkin fires at opponents about gun rights

Today in my mailbox I received the sixth in what seems to be a continuing series of mailings promoting E.J. Pipkin, and in this one he decided to go negative too.

Maybe this is the sign of a desperate candidate? We know Andy Harris is desperate when he goes negative - according to Pipkin, that is.


(Sorry the picture’s a bit off, I kept getting too much glare from my flash otherwise. I don’t own a professional studio, you know.)

So I decided that he looked at the records, maybe I should too.

Pipkin’s ad noted that Gilchrest “voted for Bill Clinton’s ban on certain firearms owned by millions of law-abiding American citizens” but didn’t give me the exact vote they determined this from. Then he took Andy Harris to task for voting against expanding deer hunting season (HB9, 2002) and not allowing Sunday hunting in certain Eastern Shore counties (SB717, 2007.) But according to the vote tally for the latter bill, Harris did not vote either way on that bill’s third reading, a vote Pipkin did support in the 40-4 decision. Apparently Harris is simply adamantly against Sunday hunting, also voting against another similar bill in 2006. On the other hand, Harris has no problem with the concept of hunting via the internet, as the Senator voted twice against bills that Pipkin supported prohibiting the practice. I look at it this way – as long as someone is there in the field collecting the meat and hide for good use and not just killing for sport there’s no issue in it to me. (Truly I’d never heard of the concept before doing this research.) But the General Assembly felt differently.

But is not allowing hunting on Sunday or letting people hunt via internet truly germaine to gun rights? More important to me is the right to get a permit and carry.

Last year Andy Harris was a co-sponsor of SB762, which would have “(r)epeal(ed) the requirement that the Secretary of State Police find that a person has a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun before issuing a handgun permit to the person.” In other words, shall-issue. Unfortunately that bill got nowhere.

Another bill sponsored in part by Harris (SB10) in 2004 would have “(a)llow(ed) a person to sell, rent, or transfer ammunition for regulated firearms to persons under the age of 21 years who are members of the armed forces of the United States or the National Guard.” Makes sense to me, since they’re in the military anyway!

Not to be outdone, Pipkin sponsored a bill (SB424) in 2005 that would “(repeal) a provision that establishes a procedure for the collection and reporting of handgun shell casing information.” The next year E.J. co-sponsored SB911, which was the predecessor to 2007’s SB762 that Harris sponsored. Why Pipkin dropped his sponsorship of essentially the same bill one year later is a good question.

And Wayne Gilchrest has a decently pro-gun record in some respects. While Pipkin’s mailing didn’t cite the bill that he hammered Wayne on, the Project Vote Smart website shows Gilchrest did vote for defunding enforcement of trigger lock laws and voted for protecting firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability for crimes committed with guns they sold. Not spectacular but certainly not evidence of the gun grabber Pipkin made Wayne out to be.

To turn a phrase then I’d have to say Pipkin’s argument recoils on him when it comes to gun rights. Of course, I’m not seeing where any candidate is in favor of rolling back some of the federal gun restrictions should they assume or remain in the First District Congressional seat, and that’s disappointing to me. A reminder to all of you, please reread the Second Amendment:

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Crossposted on Red Maryland.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

11 thoughts on “Pipkin fires at opponents about gun rights”

  1. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    If you quote the entire text of the amendment, it reminds everyone of the context in which the words were written. It was a time when basically all citizens were part of the Militia to protect the security of the State.

  2. Just in case you weren’t watching the Democrats debate this evening, I just wanted to let you know that Hillary stated clearly that she was against illegal guns.

  3. You need to go back farther with Wayne’s gun control record, he voted for both the Brady law and the assault weapon ban and if I recall correctly, Sarah Brady considered him to be the deciding vote on one or the other of those two laws. He has not been pro gun except when he was going to soon be running for re-election.

  4. EJ just needs to go away and stay away. I wrote him a note and asked to be removed from his mailing list, and yet I have received two more mailings. Wrote Gilchrest about “The Recreational Boating Act of 2007” and called his Washington office and Chestertown office, he will not answer with an opinion on the bill. So much for those two.

  5. the collective right argument is such nonsense. If one takes even a few minutes to read the discussion of this right in the Federalist Papers, etc. it is obvious that this right is an individual right. Even guys like Lawrence Tribe acknowledge this.

    If you take time to read 10 USC you will find that every able bodied male in this country under the age of 45 is a member of the militia.

    And the context is not “basically all citizens were part of the Militia to protect the security of the State” to the contrary the context is one of citizens being armed to protect themselves from an oppressive government.

  6. Are the nuts running around with automatic weapons a “well regulated militia?” Let’s just look at two of those words: “well regulated.” Why do you NRA folks always skip over those words? Let’s narrow down to one to make it easier for you: REGULATED!

    Final Frontier

  7. Umm, apparently I’m a nimrod! Check the NRA position on automatic weapons, genius! That is what I was referring to–try reading a little closer next time. The NRA has taken such an extremist view against any regulation of weapons that it ceases to have any credibility in the debate over the 2nd amendment. Oh, by the way, in 1789 there were no semi-automatic handguns, like the ones that were used to kill 32 people at Virginia Tech. Who is the nimrod now?

  8. Michael,

    I did some research and found out a bit more about Harris’s stance against hunters. Personally, I’m not so much bothered by his position against Sunday hunting (even though I support allowing it) but for his reasons.

    On the Ed Norris show he openly stated that a large part of his reasoning was that the horse farm owners in his district opposed allowing Sunday hunting. However I find it hard to believe that there are more horse farm owners than there are hunters in his district. If he is willing to listen to that sort of minority interest than it worries me about how he would act as congressman.

    I made a basic YouTube vid featuring the audio, link is here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZijl3i2Jpk

Comments are closed.