Carroll Commissioners to Testify in Annapolis Against Proposed Gun Bill

“There are already an excessive number of gun regulations on the books and the state should focus on criminal activity and not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens." --Commissioner Doug Howard

Carroll County Commissioners Richard Rothschild and Robin Frazier will be in Annapolis this afternoon to testify in opposition to SB 281, otherwise known as the Firearms Safety Act of 2013.

The Board of Carroll County Commissioners recently voted unanimously to oppose SB 281.

If passed, the bill would make several changes to existing gun laws including tougher restrictions on authorization for a person to wear, carry, or transport a handgun. The act would also designate specified firearms as assault weapons and prohibit a person from transporting assault weapons into Maryland, according to a county news release.

Read the proposed bill here.

Commissioners Rothschild and Frazier will be testifying in opposition to this bill at hearing in Annapolis today, Wednesday, Feb. 6 at 1 p.m.

Commissioner Rothschild said the bill had little to do with safety.

“In Baltimore last year, only 2 of the 217 homicides were committed with a long gun, and there is no indication either of these would be affected by the bill," Rothschild said in open session last week. "Furthermore, in the consumer market, there is no such thing as an 'assault' weapon. Fully automatic weapons are not available to the general public."

“The Second Amendment is a restrictive covenant against government," Rothschild said. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Commissioner Haven Shoemaker added, “The majority of crimes committed with guns are by criminals that already have a record.”

Commissioner Doug Howard said lawmakers should focus on the criminals instead of more gun laws.

“There are already an excessive number of gun regulations on the books and the state should focus on criminal activity and not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens," Howard said.

Delegate Justin Ready (R-Carroll) said in an email to constituents earlier this week that he opposes SB 281 although he does believe "there are some worthy ideas to explore on how to keep mentally unstable people from obtaining firearms."

"To be clear, I oppose further restriction on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns," Ready said. "It seems wrong to me that we would do this because of the actions of a handful of deranged individuals who committed evil actions."

Ready offers a breakdown of "O'Malley's Gun Control Bill", or SB 281, on his website.

Do you believe Maryland needs stricter gun control laws? Tell us in comments.

Newkirk February 11, 2013 at 10:40 PM
@Brad- That is absolutely the beauty of a Republic! It's just extra nice when the majority agrees with us.
Tdolce February 11, 2013 at 11:11 PM
Why is it when sane people bring up slaughtering kids with assault weapons, you guys come up this esoteric BS. I suggest you educate yourself in being a human being with some concern for the lives of your felliw citizens, rather than engaging in a totally wasteful day of justifying gun violence, which is exactly what you're doing by rationalizing handing out any weapon to anyone who wants one. Of course, being in a fringe party puts your views even more in the margins. And what. Did the constitution write itself? It was written by men and can be changed by men.
Newkirk February 12, 2013 at 12:05 AM
Sorry again, not a member of any political party. And no, I haven't justified "gun violence" at all. In fact, I've stated that all violence is wrong. I was simply pointing out your factually incorrect statements regard this country's framework documents. The constitution was written by men, based on their understanding of Natural Law. You don't have to like it, but their writings show that it is a verifiable fact. Also, if you would like to change the constitution, there is an established procedure of amendment. Knock yourself out. However, you don;t just get to "say so" and make it happen. I also like your assumption or projection about me not having concern for others lives. Never said that, never insinuated that. Actually, I feel that others lives are as important as my own. That is why I choose not to infringe on their Rights. Not a single thing that you have proposed would put a stop to "slaughtering kids". Sorry, it just won't. People were murdered before firearms. Or you can look up the concept of "Democide" - the fact that in the 20th century, Governments killed more of their own citizens than were killed in all wars and crime. And before each of those acts of Democide, the populace was disarmed. Verifiable fact. I get that people owning firearms terrifies you. And I pity you in that respect. It must be horrible to live like that. Always afraid. Always projecting inadequacies....
Newkirk February 12, 2013 at 12:09 AM
Oh, I like how you keep using the subtle insults. You, by the virtue of your position, are sane. Therefore, any who disagrees with you is insane. Very cute. Maybe if you had any facts to back up your assertions, you wouldn't have to stoop to such actions? They aren't helping your cause. Thanks for the practice debating a troll! You've been a great help!
Brad Smith February 12, 2013 at 01:00 AM
No one has justified gun violence, I have spent the past few days invalidating all of the typical liberal crutch arguments that you are repeating and if I was taking whatever class you are teaching I would be doing the same there. No one said all weapons should be handed out to anyone that wants one either, this is a common distracting technique for liberals to use where they can only speak in extremes and absolutes. To show what a fallacy your last statement was, you've implied school with kids (majority/plurality), so what kids at the school were shot with an Ar15 (you've defined that earlier as an assault weapon). How many were killed with an Ar15? As Bill said, the constitution was based on Natural Law and the Bible (of which Natural Law echo's the Bible) and the rights that come from them are not man made. You cannot change Natural Law and you could try to amend the Constitution, but the Constitution should always correlate to Natural Law and removing someone's right to self defense breaks that correlation. It stems from a lust for power and lust for control over others, as well as a lust to receive edification from forcing others to see and validate your point of view through the legal system, against their will. This is a selfish and arrogant action, only eclipsed by the lack of foresight to see how detrimental this type of behavior can be in the long run. Liberals/Democrats love people like you, you're the reason they've stayed in power as long as they have.
Brad Smith February 12, 2013 at 01:03 AM
This is the typical hypocrisy of liberals, he said the conversation ends when someone insults him, but he does not hold himself to his own standards. This is echoed all the way up to the current administration and this topic where you would not see our president giving up his right to have armed guards for himself and his kids, or asking them to carry six shooters and shotguns as Tdolce has stated should be what is allowed.
Brad Smith February 12, 2013 at 01:05 AM
And so now that I've defined you inside and out, you should read and reread what I've written and do a moral inventory to ask yourself why you are the way that you are. What happened in your childhood or early adult life that caused you to have aforementioned lusts for power and why? This would be the first step in working towards resolution for your lust for power and control, as that's a self defeating and terrible personality characteristic to live with.
Steve February 12, 2013 at 07:52 PM
"Gone nowhere on the national stage" Have you been hiding under a rock? Polls show that the majority of the country is in favor of stricter gun control. It's the vocal minority like the couple of hundred protestors that showed up in Annapolis that aren't.
Steve February 12, 2013 at 07:55 PM
Almost every home has a gun in Cuba. It's part of their culture. They also have a national registry.
Steve February 12, 2013 at 07:57 PM
The definition of the militia back then was "able bodied males between the age of 18 and 45" So that would mean no guns for women, old farts, fatties and gimps.
Tdolce February 12, 2013 at 08:00 PM
You guys are flat out looney tunes. How about Get A Life!
Tdolce February 12, 2013 at 08:20 PM
Hey Brad. You know what?.....you're right!!! Ok?? now, tell if you ever graduated from the third grade.
Brad Smith February 13, 2013 at 12:26 AM
There is a lot of irony in you asking me if I've graduated from the third grade, yet forgetting to use a pronoun in your sad attempt at an insult. Proper English, the kind I learned in fourth grade, would be: "OK?? Now, tell [me or us] if you have ever graduated from the third grade" So then the next logical question is, if I'm correcting you again (as well as being "right" about the subject at hand), what does that say about your education or intelligence? Quote from Tdolce @ 3:20pm on Tuesday, February 12, 2013 "Hey Brad. You know what?.....you're right!!! Ok?? now, tell if you ever graduated from the third grade"
Tdolce February 13, 2013 at 12:31 AM
Brad, you are priceless! and soooo easy to get a rise out of. I'm laughing reading your inane reply. Thanks for that. Now, do you even have a JOB, since all you seem to do is hang out spewing your nonsense all day on this silly forum?
Tdolce February 13, 2013 at 12:37 AM
You are funny, man. Thanks for the great laugh! I'll ask you the same question I asked your new protege, BRAD: Do you even have a JOB? You do know what a JOB is, right? Since all you seem to do is waste your time on this silly forum, that about 8 people read.
Brad Smith February 13, 2013 at 12:44 AM
That's a sad retort, I'll take it as an admission to defeat. You can put your head in the sand and pretend that everyone is laughing with you, ignoring the reality that everyone is actually laughing at you. I know liberals like to repeat things over and over again hoping that will make them eventually true, but that won't be allowed here.
Tdolce February 13, 2013 at 12:47 AM
Whatever, Brad. So, are you employed or are you on the public dole, that me and others support you through our taxes. Do you pay taxes, Brad?? You're not one of the moochers Romney was talking about, are you?? To quote the great Brad, "Answer the questions."
Brad Smith February 13, 2013 at 01:12 AM
Completely irrelevant aside from the fact that I am proud to be a maker and not a taker. Again, this has nothing to do with you losing this argument, not to me but because you are in a self defeating position, and your viewpoint is that of a losing one before the discussion ever started. If you don't believe me, have your students anonymously rate your discussion points and mine (putting aside personal bias) and see what the results are.
Tdolce February 13, 2013 at 01:37 AM
What's the argument, again, Brad? And bad move calling something irrelevant because you don't have the balls to answer it. but, as you say, I'll take that as an admission of defeat. My ARGUMENT, BRAD is that I am opposed to assault weapons in the public square. That's it. You and Mr. Bill can take all the ridiculous libertarian clap trap, whatever, and your Federalist papers BS and take a hike. As Samuel Jackson said, and this certainly applies to you and your ilk (look it up), "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
Brad Smith February 13, 2013 at 02:07 AM
I answered your question, although it was irrelevant and I wanted to point that out. You can't use the invention on the inventor, although that was a good try but it was anticipated and squashed ahead of time. Again, it has nothing to do with this topic, it's a sad defeated man's attempt to try and personally attack someone when they've lost the argument based on the issue(s). Your argument is that you feel your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is more valuable then my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Mine is that they are equal and mutually exclusive. Assault weapons are not in the public square, so that argument is illegitimate and inappropriate at best. You can tell that subconsciously you realize you've lost, because all of your responses have a condescending or snide remark in them. Psychologically, this is done when someone is trying to elevate a fragile and declining self worth (in the current arena), as a hollow attempt to restore pride and self esteem. I could go through this discussion and copy/paste all of the condescending snide innuendos but patch only allows so many characters per post and sadly enough I believe it would be 2 or 3 posts. The only avenue that you believe you have left is an ad hominem argument, but in reality you do not even have that crutch. :D ps - My challenge for your students is still open
Tdolce February 13, 2013 at 02:27 AM
Whoa, ad hominem! Big word for you, Brad. You're silly attempts to analyze me are quite humorous. And all of this uninformed bile that you keep spewing out tells me that you actually believe what you're saying. Wow! What a perfect portrait of self delusion. You might want to try to analyze yourself, or better yet, get a pro to do it.
Brad Smith February 13, 2013 at 02:49 AM
And there is another example of a snide and condescending remark. That's a sign of weakness, you can do better. I've analyzed myself for a while now and it has helped me to become much better at articulating why I hate when others try and control me and why I love freedom, among many other things. It's also part of the reason why I can analyze you. But our opposing views are just an example of one person trying to elevate their own rights over the other (you) and one person saying that both sets of God given rights are of equal value and mutually exclusive (me). But this is not the point of this article, although it is what drives freedom removing bills like these and the support behind them. It's important for you to understand why you are trying to control others and why you value your own rights more than you value others rights. If you can grasp this, you may be able to see the selfishness of this mindset and change. If you (and people that share your lust for control) could do that, it would be easier to collectively come up with proper solutions to challenges for a society, ones that do not elevate one groups rights over another. You'd be amazed at how amicable people can be when they don't feel you are trying to control them, force your beliefs on them or belittle them by attempting to elevate your rights above theirs. Poll your students for an anonymous and unbiased opinion ;)
John Smith February 22, 2013 at 06:34 AM
Let me get this straight, so your right to life transcends my right to own an arsenal. Well by that logic my right to property should supersede your right to speech. Since people like you and the ideas you spread are a direct threat to my personal property (yes I am referring to the idea of natural rights) then you should not have a right to say anything that may potentially effect my owning something. Why do you even care? Seriously, if you do not own a firearm and do not wish to own one, fine, I do not care live your life the way you see fit. When you try and take my rights away when I have done nothing to warrant such an attack, then we have a problem.
John Smith February 22, 2013 at 06:46 AM
By your logic I should be allowed to take away your right to free speech since my right to property, which is also a natural right up there with life, is directly effected by the things you say and convince others to say. Why do you even care? If you do not want to own a gun then do not own one. Live your life the way you want to and I will live my life the way I want to. Well regulated militia at the time of the drafting meant any able bodied male. It was not a formal thing it was an average citizen who heard a call and grabbed his gun and went to fight. Technically we are all "the well regulated militia" by that standard. Finally, I believe that the second is of equal importance to the first, it was put there for a reason. Just like a slave cannot speak freely, a slave cannot own a gun. This country was founded on the idea of a free, individualistic, society. Think about what you are saying, think hard, because many men and women have fought and died for the very right you would have destroyed and the very right you utilize now, some of those were my friends. You can say patriotism is for scoundrels all you want, but then what does that make those who would not risk their life for what they believe in? I say those are the people who sit back and let better men then themselves carry them, those are the people who are truly pitiful because when the world throws them bad situations, all the can do is hope that a better man will have their back.
Tdolce February 22, 2013 at 08:00 AM
@ John Smith. So, you have no problem with me having a nuclear bomb in my house, right?
Seeker February 22, 2013 at 12:33 PM
How can I find out who Tdolce is?
2aSupporter February 22, 2013 at 12:39 PM
I dont agree one bit with Tdolce, but that is to far!
Tdolce February 22, 2013 at 01:18 PM
What are you going to do? Come over and shoot me?? LOL!! So, what's the answer?? Why is that different from an assault weapon? When the black helicopters come by to take my guns, I can nuke them all at once. Where do you gun nuts draw the line ?
Tdolce February 22, 2013 at 01:55 PM
Just to remind you "gentlemen," that Maryland is a huge majority democratic state and the great majority of people in this state agree with me. Not with you.
Tdolce February 22, 2013 at 05:01 PM
ok, I know you guys are wired for fear, so full disclosure.....I don't really have a nuclear bomb in my house....


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »