Testimony opposing SB281

I also had my say on the gun-grabbing bill.

**********
Testimony in opposition to SB281:
Firearm Safety Act of 2013

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate:

Let me begin by saying I find this bill to be improperly named, because its passage will not make Marylanders any safer.

As members of the General Assembly, you are charged with making laws. By definition, criminals break them.

Yet I predict this bill will make criminals out of law-abiding citizens.

Otherwise this law will deny the right to self-protection from many thousands of Maryland residents your government claims to be looking out for: the poor and disadvantaged among us. If one were to purchase a handgun after November 1, not only will they be responsible for the price of the gun but also hundreds of dollars’ worth of licensing fees, classes, and other costs associated with this law. They’ll be faced with a choice: self-protection or starvation. Is the state going to step in further and pay for gun safety courses for the poorest among us, waiving the $100 licensing fee on a sliding income scale? Of course not.

Certainly at this point you’re shaking your head at the crazy example I point out above, but I shook my head in disbelief when I saw this bill for what it is: a kneejerk response to a tragedy this law would not have prevented. Again, by definition criminals break laws. The very first victim of the Sandy Hook tragedy owned her weapons – the ones stolen to be a means for committing these murders – legally.

Logic and reliance on facts aren’t generally the strong suits of those who would take away the access to weapons, though, so that truism is lost on those who pushed for this bill in the name of “safety.” As you probably know – and will likely hear often throughout this day of testimony – the Second Amendment clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It does not go on to say “…shall not be infringed, except when they put scary-looking enhancements on the weapon” or “…shall not be infringed, except for the payment of $100 and taking of a training course.” I would further argue that the people aren’t the “well regulated militia” but the “over-regulated militia.”

It’s rather unfortunate that I can’t be there today to deliver this in person, to see the reaction on your faces when I take a page out of the old saw many of us grew up hearing, “Question Authority.” It’s the people’s job to do so when authority oversteps its bounds and turns a right into a privilege for the chosen few.

I understand this bill probably has enough votes to clear the Senate based on the number of co-sponsors; furthermore, I’m sure it’s no coincidence that this hearing was scheduled at a time when President Obama would be nearby.

But I guarantee to you that I speak for thousands and thousands of law-abiding gun owners in Maryland who have never fired their weapon in anger; in fact, I would wager that most have not fired their weapons in the last year. Luckily, society is still civil enough that the need for self-protection is a rare occasion for most of us.

Like the tool you may have in the bottom drawer of your toolbox – the one you only use once in awhile but the one you find indispensable when the need arises – having a gun for self-protection is something that those who wrote the Constitution knew in their minds would be necessary for succeeding generations. Their intent was not to make self-protection unworkable through exorbitant fees, time-consuming and expensive training, and registration of weapons so those who would be king knew just where to go for confiscation.

Gun ownership is a right, not a privilege. The Constitution makes it so, and regardless of all the sob stories and heartbreak you may hear about today, emotion does not change this fact. I daresay building your gun-grabbing platform on the coffins of 26 victims is an insult to their memory because the guns were not the cause. Let’s not use death as a way to advance the aims of overreaching government.

In time, I believe this law, if passed, will create far more than 26 innocent Maryland victims from those no longer able to defend themselves from lawbreakers. Don’t fall for the emotion and hype – say no to Senate Bill 281.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael Swartz
Salisbury, Maryland

**********

So what do you think? Wonder how Slow Joe Biden liked that one?

Testimony supporting HB106

I submitted the following for consideration before the House Environmental Matters Committee.

**********
Testimony in favor of HB106:
Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012 – Repeal

Ladies and Gentlemen of the House:

In the interest of restoring the primacy of local government, I stand as a common citizen in supporting this bill.

There is little doubt that Chesapeake Bay defines Maryland as a state, and, while there are differences in opinion as to the best course to take in preserving the quality of the estuary for future generations, the goal for all is a cleaner Bay. These concerns have already been addressed on many fronts, with assistance from both the state and federal governments.

That assistance is not at question here, because the law which this bill aims to repeal is not a bill to directly clean up Chesapeake Bay. Rather, HB106 corrects an ill-considered measure which, if not changed, will permanently and adversely affect the farmers who create much of the wealth in rural areas of the state like the local government as elected by the people of Wicomico County.

When the county places land in a tier where development is permanently limited by the newly-created law, I believe the landowner is harmed as the potential value of his property is decreased via the lack of development options. Though some landowners have already given up development rights, which was their decision, I do not believe this can be a one-size-fits-all approach as the state is dictating. Instead, I believe that farmers are the best stewards of their land and many have already taken common-sense measures to protect both their investment and the health of the Bay, with planting cover crops being one prime example.

Because they realized our job is to allow farmers and the agricultural industry to engage in the practices they find best, at the end of last year our County Council considered a provision which would allow an agricultural landowner to voluntarily opt into a Tier IV designation. But Maryland Department of Planning and Zoning Secretary Richard Hall made it plain that, “The law pretty much makes clear that agricultural zones are to be in Tier IV, and so to opt in or opt out is not what’s in the legislation.”

This attitude exhibited by Secretary Hall brings us to the second part of my objection, the idea of local control.

As I stated above, all of us agree Chesapeake Bay is worth preserving. Local governments are just as steadfast toward that goal as those who would dictate to us in Annapolis, and what the Wicomico County Council was proposing was simply another form of public input. It seems to me that’s the goal of good government, but this law as interpreted by Secretary Hall seems to reveal the true intentions of the state as sole arbiter of all issues regardless of the local situation.

As county residents we trust our local Planning and Zoning Department would come up with a sound comprehensive plan which addresses Wicomico County’s current and future needs. All the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012 has accomplished is to place another state mandate on what should properly be a local issue. Certainly we know what works in Wicomico County may not necessarily be the best approach for Montgomery County, and vice versa.

To that end, I ask that HB106 be adopted and local counties be allowed to resume the procedures they have found to work best for their local needs.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael Swartz

**********

Later this evening I’ll publish the testimony I wrote on SB281. It’s more biting than this one.