Speed camera acceptance is sold under the guise of Public Safety, yet, this is a fiction. The argument is that if the cameras are placed in strategic areas such as school zones and construction sites then the issuing of tickets by a State machine to a privately owned machine will some how change driver speeding behaviorand thus reduce accidents. No empirical evidence is presented to show this theory works. In fact, the state already has increased fines and penalties for speeding in school zones and construction sites. If fines were effective in changing behavior there would be no need for the addition of speed cameras.

 At least, under the current system the fines and the penalties attach to the person driving the car. Under the new system there is no incentive to change behavior for the driver unless they also own the car. Even when the driver is also the owner of the car there is lessincentive to comply because there is no criminal penalty attached with the speed camera citation, no points assessed by the MVA.

 The reason there is no criminal penalty is because our Constitution requires the state to allow a criminal defendant the ability to confront their accuser. This would require that someone would have to show up in court and prove that the speed camera was operating correctly. Instead of arguing about having to comply with Constitutional principles such as Due Process, the State has created a new legal fiction whereby, the State’s machines (speed cameras) can determine if your privately owned machine (your car) is violating a State law and regulation.

 This is where the Governments argument fails. They are doing little to change the behavior of the person responsible for the infraction, the driver, is not the one to whom the penalty is directed. With speed cameras it is the car (not the driver) which is ticketed. The actualowner of the car, whether they are a parent, friend, employer, or a corporation, receives the ticket and the actual driver receives no penalty.

 No matter who is driving, the penalty is given after the event has occurred and does nothing to prevent the occurrence. Speed bumps would actually reduce speed and thus actually protect the individuals whom the State claims it wishes to protect.

 Further proof that speed cameras are about revenue generation and not about safety, fi found in the fact that the legislature rejected an Amendment to the speed camera bill that would havelimited the operation of the cameras to times when construction work or school activities were actually taking place, the Amendment was rejected because the State wants the revenue.

 Now is the time that we, the citizens of Cecil County, must let the County Commissioners know of our opposition to speed cameras. We need to tell them we know that these devices are much more about revenue enhancement than they are about safety. The County Commissioners must realize that the citizens of Cecil County view speed cameras as another infringement upon our personal liberties, thus, while we can’t always stop what happens at the federal level, in Washington D.C. with the deterioration of our liberties we certainly can and will hold our locally elected officials accountable.

 Enough is Enough! While our elected officials can break their promise about raising our taxes and tell us there was nothing to do because “services” to the public took precedent over keeping their promises, in the case of speed cameras the trade off of individual freedom is not acceptable. The one thing we know for sure is once the camera’s are allowed is the area they are allowed in will expand, the speed of the areas they are allowed in will grow beyond the 25 mph areas currently planned and the fines given will increase. If there is a traffic flow problem in front of schools or construction sites there are other ways to address the concerns other than speed cameras, the county can use speed bumps or place officers in the area so there is an immediate notice to the person driving, and responsible for the violation, that they have violated the law.  Currently, if your daughter drives to school and speeds through the speed zone every day for a week, neither you or she would know it until the first of the five or six tickets started arriving in the mail 7 to 10 days later. If the officer was there the behavoir would immediately be corrected and not allowed to continue for a week.

 To protect against any future group of the County Commissioners deciding to place speed cameras in Cecil County we are going to collect signatures to give to the commissioners to let them know the citizens are not willing to so readily give up their rights.

Call your commissioners and sign the petitions if you see them to tell our locally elected officials we do not need nor do we want speed cameras in Cecil County.

The internet can be a useful tool for communicating information, for political debate and for discussion of various topics of interest to the public. Yet, like any tool in the hands of the uninformed or those with an evil intent it can be a weapon of propaganda, slander and just used to smear those you disagree with.  Unfortunately the ability to be anonymous on the net allows the uninformed, ignorant or evil at heart to spew venomous untruths free from accountability.  It takes a certain kind of coward to be intelligent enough to utilize the technology associated with the internet  and to set up a web site, yet to hide their name  and affiliation with the product of their labor.  

For instance, some coward has opened a web site called “Smigiel2010″.  This site has nothing to do with me. They have never contacted or spoken to me to ask me about any of the things they post.  If you were to publish a piece of paper with the exact same information that appear on this Web site, State law would require that there be an “authority line” so a reader would know who the author is and who is responsible for the content. 

There is a loop hole in the law that allows someone to claim to be a journalist and thus claim they are not covered by the State authority line requirements when blogging, on line.  I have some attorneys looking into this matter now to determine if  the fact that the annonymous author is hiding behind a site name that gives the public the impression that the site is associated with me is enough to make the State laws apply. In addition to my attorneys reviewing the matter the appropriate State authorities are reviewing for violations of State law.

Whether the State law applies, there are limits on what people can write, even about public officials.  There will be some suits filed in the near future to reinforce those limitations for those who choose to defame out of malice.  

An example of just how misleading and unfair a malicious coward can be is seen in the most recent posting on the above mentioned website where it was written that:

                         {HOUSE BILL 939, which Smigiel proposed, is as follows

:Requiring the Maryland Public Broadcasting Commission or a division of the Commission, when entering into a contractual relationship with the State or an entity of the State for television broadcasting services, to include a provision in the contract to allow the Commission or a division of the Commission to select the events it will film and broadcast”

It is still before the House.

How can someone portraying himself as a Patriot, and former Marine, propose a Bill before the House that is contrary to EVERYTHING that every Marine or serviceman and woman has died for in the history of this country?}

The language of the bill cited, simply says that the Maryland Public Television will have a clause in its contracts with the State which allows it to go where it wants, when it wants, to film!

What the writer would have known had they called me, is that a few years ago I noticed that  Maryland Public Television never covered the big controversial stories, such as gay marriage or “right to carry”,  but rather would be recording a hearing on some esoteric non-controversial subject, like what should be the State designated eating utensil.  After asking why this was so, I discovered that the Senate President, Mike Miller or the House Speaker, Michael Busch, scheduled where and when the Maryland Public Television crews would tape.

I  therefore offered a bill called the Maryland Public Television Freedom to Broadcast Act.  The purpose of this bill was the exact opposite of what the author of the smear article cited above writes it is.  This bill sought to allow the Maryland Public Television crews to video tape where ever they chose and when ever they chose. This Bill sought to give them freedom not to take away their freedoms.  While the bill did not pass it was effective, in that when I put the Bill in last year, I received a call from the Maryland Public Television representative telling me they no longer had restrictions upon them.  I therefore withdrew the bill because we had accomplished what we had sought to do.

So the moral of the story is that if you are reading something  but can’t find out who is responsible for the content or find the writer spends little time on facts and a lot of time on charachter assasination, you may want to assume you have stumbled upon one of the vermon in the blogo “smear”  who timidly hide in annonimity.  

 As Teddy Roosevelt said in a speech given in Paris at the Sorbonne in 1910

“It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at best knows achievement and who at the worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

As for the anonymous author of the dribble appearing on the web site, I will debate you in any public forum, on any topic, at any time, if you have the guts to crawl out from under your virtual rock and show your face in public.  I will be glad to give you the opportunity to defend your string of factually incorrect blogo “smears”.

 The Montgomery County Gazette published an article this week entitled “Session sets up some for future stardom” by Sean Sedam and Alan Brody. Looking for those whose political stock is on the rise the authors spoke with leadership  and aids of both parties to identify legislators who could be heard from in years to come.  The article discused   two Senators, Garagiola and Pugh and four members of the House of Delegates,  Guzzone,  Kipke, Haddaway and Smigiel.   Concerning Delegate Smigiel they wrote:

Del. Michael D. Smigiel Sr. (R-Dist. 36) of Elkton Always a big voice for Republicans on the House floor, the House Minority parliamentarian found new ways to stand out in 2009, including questioning the governor during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on a death penalty repeal bill and delivering an emotional account of his personal experience with domestic violence during a floor debate.

“Delegate Smigiel is a very forceful floor presence,” O’Donnell said of the second-termer. “He’s very knowledgeable as an attorney. He has the ability to cut through a lot of the fluff.” Smigiel is being floated as a likely state senator candidate should E.J. Pipkin (R-Dist. 36) of Elkton run for Congress in 2010, as is widely expected.

To see the full article click link below.

Session sets up some for future stardom

When signed into law, SB-277  will expand the authorization for the use of speed cameras to school zones and Highway work zones.  Local law enforcement agencies or their contractors may issue citations or warnings to the vehicle owners for speeding at least 12 mph over the posted speed limit.  The maximum fine for a citation is $40. The cameras placed in work zones will be set up on expressways or controlled access highways where the speed limit is 45mph or greater. During the first 30 days after the placement of a speed camera, only warnings will be issued. 

 Despite the fact that numerous delegates offered amendments in committee and on the floor to Senate Bill 277 to remove their counties from the speed camera bill,  the legislation  passed without any amendments and, thus, no one was allowed to remove their county from the bill.

One of  the arguments raised against speed cameras is that they are excessive government intrusions into the privacy of citizens. As I argued on the floor, “Seldom is freedom lost in one fell swoop, it is lost one camera at a time.”  In addition to the loss of privacy argument, there was the argumement that the use of  speed cameras deprives the public of the right to confront their accuser. Supporters of the speed cameras reply that since there are no points assessed for the violation, the matter is civil not criminal and, thus, there is no right to confront your accuser. 

Those of us in opposition to speed cameras also point out that if police officers were used instead of cameras, there would be an immediacy to the lesson.  For instance, if your son or daughter drives to school and each day goes through a camera  it might be five or six days till the first ticket arrives at the home of the owner of the car (most likely Dad or Mom’s address) and a new ticket will thereafter arrive  each day until all five or six have arrived.  Unfortunatly, the opportunity to teach the speeding teenager a lesson by having contact with a police officer on the first speeding event is lost each time we put up one of these speed cameras in a school zone.

One thing is certain, there will be changes to the speed camera law and it  does not take a genius or trained prognosticator to fortell what those changes will be in the future.  The speed at which one must be going over the posted limit before the camera is triggered, will be lowered.  The speed limit areas where the cameras are  placed will be expanded to both lower speed areas and higher speed areas eventually.  While it is inevitable that the speed limits you are allowed to exceed the posted speed by, will come down, it is just as inevitable that the fines issued to speeders,  will go up.  Also,  we will see an expansion of the use of speed cameras into residential areas.

Speed cameras have little to do with safety and much to do with revenue generation for the State and the local  jurisdictions installing them. As the revenues generated are dedicated to continuing governmental obligations and the ability to increase revenues by increasing the number of cameras or the price of  the violation continues to be a viable option,  it is inevitable that governments will pursue those options.  So prepare to smile for a camera coming to a roadway near you.

For the last two years I have been arguing for the Maryland Department of Transportation to establish a single tier, proof of legal presence, Maryland’s driver’s license.  It was in May of 2005 when President Bush signed the REAL ID Act into law. In January of 2008 that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security(DHS) issued the final REAL ID regulations. There are 18 mandatory requirements under the Act, one of the most important of which is the state’s ability to verify that the applicant for a State driver’s license is lawfully present in the United States. 

Failure to comply with the federal mandated proof of presence requirement for issuing a driver’s license would mean that Maryland residents holding non compliant driver’s licenses would not be able to enter federal buildings or fly on airlines without other forms of identification such as a passport.

Those who have made Maryland a sanctuary State have argued and worked to obtain a two tiered drivers license system. As of  April 2009, only Maryland, Hawaii, Utah, New Mexico and Washington supplied state driver’s licenses to those illegally in the country. Under House Bill – 387  Maryland has created a two tiered system, wherein, Maryland would not require any proof of legal presence in order to obtain a Maryland driver’s license.   The Maryland  two tiered system attempts to address the legal presence mandated requirement  by continuing to issue a license to the illegal aliens that is federally non compliant and would not be accepted for entering federal buildings or travelling on airlines.  This two tiered system would cost the taxpayers of Maryland an extra 30 million dollars.

Because applicants for driver’s licenses are given voter registration information, an amendment was offered to prohibit voter registration information from being given to illegal aliens obtaining Maryland driver’s licenses. This amendment was rejected by the supporters of the two tiered system.  Now those illegally residing in Maryland who obtain a driver’s license will also continue to be given voter registration information. Clearly those supporting the two tiered system are more interested in currying favor with the Hispanic community than worrying about homeland security issues.

The bill was not going to pass, because the house members wanted a full amnesty for all those currently issued Maryland driver’s licenses and the Senate was adamant on the single tiered system.   The Senate compromised agreeing to allow those currently with licenses to keep them until 2015.  The House members who supported a two tiered system were against the idea of the compromise  and thus were not going to vote for the bill. Governor O’ Malley had the Montgomery County Delegation taken off the floor and into the legislative lounge area.  The Governor told the Delegation that if they did not vote for the conference committee bill then there would be a special session and the Senate single tier system would be voted in.  The Montgomery Delegation members gave in and enough members changed their minds and voted to accept the conference committee report that the bill passed.   The sad part is the citizens of Maryland will not be safer and the compromise will not last.  Maryland will continue to be known as a sanctuary State and those who follow the rules and attempt to become American citizens through legal channels will have a much harder time obtaining the benefits of being an American than those who just violate the law, and sneek into the country illegally.

It is estimated that there are currently around 300,000 illegal aliens driving around with Maryland licenses.  This session, the Senate voted out a single tiered system and the House voted on a two tiered system.  Because the two chambers came up with different versions of the bill the matter was sent to a conference committee.  The Conference Committee decided to agree to grant amnesty to those persons illegally in the country who have obtained Maryland Drivers licenses until the year 2015.  The unfortunate reality is that sometime before 2015, unless the public demands otherwise, the legislature will most likely eliminate the 2015 ending date or to extend the time to a date further in the future for illegal aliens to continue obtaining Maryland drivers licenses.

This past legislative session was full of very bad news for the citizens of Maryland. I have chosen what I believe to be the worst seven bills to recap for you here.  I will address each separately so as to avoid sending the readers of this blog into the streets with pitch forks and torches or causing them to drink themselves into a drunken stupor.  When all the bad is seen as a whole it can become overwhelming, in this case the whole, being greater than the sum of the parts. Rather than deal with the deficit through real cuts to excessive spending and reducing the size of government, The first and perhaps the greatest disappointment of the 2009 legislative session, is the manner in which the Maryland legislature handled the budget.

According to the Department of Legislative Services we came into this legislative session facing a 2.2 Billion Dollar deficit. We were in deep trouble and to make matters worse the revenue estimates were coming in much lower than anticipated, primarily because we raised taxes in the face of the impending financial crises. There was talk of making real cuts (as opposed to reducing the size of a projected increase and calling that a cut) and of having to reduce the size of government.  That talk was short lived because President Obama shortly there after announced that a new stimulis package would be sending hundreds of billions of dollars out the the State’s for spending on infrastructure needs, (supposedly “shovel ready” projects).

 Governor O’Malley decided instead, to use the 3.8 billion federal government stimulus dollars to expand existing programs and the size of government thus creating  new continuing obligations. Some of the continuing obligations created were spending stimulus dollars to fund the Geographic Cost Education Index (G.C.E.I.), Medicaid expansion, and expanded unemployment benefits.  All of these programs will be need continued funding once the stimulus dollars are exhausted.  

The idea of the stimulus dollars was to provide money to create funding for infrastructure projects.  If almost 4 billion dollars was spent on repairing water systems, bridges and roads then the workers, currently persons being laid off or out of work construction workers, would have an income to pay their mortgages and car payments and the economy would get a kick start. When the funds were exhausted there would be billions of dollars worth of improvements to the State’s infrastructure.  Unfortunately,  progressives define “infrastructure” as a social safety net. Therefore the money from the federal government stimulus package is being spent on programs that will do little to stimulate our economy and will not improve the financial situation of the working middle class so they can pay mortgages and buy big ticket items.  Adding insult to injury, Maryland so mismanaged the stimulus money it received from the federal government that local governments in Maryland are losing $160 million dollars in road money, whereas if the stimulus money had actually been spent on infrastructure needs the local governments would have been sharing in additional billions of dollars.

After the stimulus dollars are spent, Maryland will still be left with a 1.7 billion dollar deficit. This means in 2011 we will need to either make very deep cuts or to raise taxes to cover the new additional continuing obligations. Since the legislature was unwilling or politically unable to make the necessary cuts at this time of financial crises, I expect the choice in 2011 will be the same and that taxes will be raised once again.

I will write and post on the second of the big sins of the 09 legislative session very soon.

The State Senate voted down, 23-24, an attempt to place speed cameras statewide.  Several Counties have chosen to place speed cameras in their counties.  The justification for these cameras is argued to be that they will reduce speed in school zones (so will speed bumps) and protect workers in construction zones.  The reality is that they are a huge money making machine for those counties and municipalities that put them in place.   The way they work is they are set up in specified locations, primarily school zones and construction sites.  The cameras are set up so the picture is triggered when a vehicle exceeds the speed limit by a predetermined amount.  The catch is it does not matter who was driving the vehicle the ticket (and no points) are assessed to the owner of the vehicle.  A fine is given for the violation.

Imagine your child going to school everyday, exceeding the speed limit by 7 or 8 miles per hour and not knowing they were being caught on camera each day violating the speed limit.  After a week or so you receive your first ticket by mail, everyday thereafter for a week another ticket arrives.  At between $40 and $75 a ticket it quickly gets expensive.  If instead a police officer had caught your son or daughter on radar and ticketed them, they would have received an immediate notice to correct their behavoir and it would not be likely that they would have continued the same behavior for a week straight.  

If individual Counties or municipalities choose to place speed cameras in their jurisdictions that is thier choice (I still don’t vote for them because my constituents may be driving through and receive a fine).   I have often said on the floor of the house during debates that  ”freedom is seldom lost in one fell swoop, it is lost one amendment, one bill at a time.”

For now, we are safe from the expansion of this overly intrusive revenue generating idea. Unfortunately, like most bad ideas in Annapolis it will be back again.

The Federal Real ID Act requires that each state establish a policy of  confirming the legal presence of each person receiving a drivers license.  Forty six states are on their way to compliance, four states, including Maryland are not. For the last few years I have been constantly asking the  Maryland MVA why they have been dragging their feet on this issue.  It seemed more important that they not offend the illegal alien population than move to tighten the license issuance procedures so as to enhance national security. 

If Maryland fails to come into compliance, Marylanders will not be able to use their Maryland licenses to get on an airplane, to enter a federal building or to use your ID to enjoy numerous other activities.  Marylanders would have to travel with their birth certificates and or passports if the State fails to comply with the federal Real ID Act.  Currently, Maryland driver’s licenses are not accepted as Id for anything from security issues or even a simple job application in states such as Arizona, Colorado, South Carolina, Oklahoma, (12 states in total) and the number is growing.   According to a study by the Shaffer Center for Public Policy, Univ. of Balt., Feb. 09,  81%  of Marylanders want a single tier auto licensing system.

The easy way to comply, is to simply require that anyone applying for a driver’s license have proof of citizenship in order to obtain a Maryland driver’s license.     The problem is that there are an estimated 300,000 illegal aliens already driving in Maryland with licenses they have been issued without proof of their legal presence.  Proponents of  the illegal alien population argue we should allow these 300,000 people who are already driving on Maryland licenses to keep their licenses and not ever have to prove their legal presence within the country. The argument is that these are people with families and jobs who would be thrown into chaos should we suddenly make it illegal for them to drive. It is also argued that those driving currently would still drive but without insurance.   In response to the first argument I believe that if you illegally purchased a license to drive, or obtained one by false pretenses, you should not be rewarded with an immunity. If you are not in the country legally but have obtained a license, why not say you have five years in which to become a legal resident.  Wouldn’t it be better to encourage compliance with our laws rather than rewarding criminal behavior?

For the last year I have been asking Secretary John D. Porcari of the Maryland Transportation Authority and Mr. John T. Kuo, Motor Vehicle Administration, Administrator,  to explain how many MVA employees have sold driver’s licenses to illegal aliens? How many licenses were sold and what happened to the licenses which were sold?  I specifically have been asking about licenses that were sold to drive school buses. I want to know how many were sold, who sold them, what happened to the employees selling them and what happened to the people who bought them?  I want to know, How many of the illegaly sold licenses to drive school buses are still out there?  Despite persistently pursuing answers to these questions I have received a run around and some nonspecific answers that I am currently following up on.  In addition to not answering the questions about the MVA employees selling driving licenses to illegal aliens, the MTA and MVA have been refusing to get on board with the Real Id Act requirements, Maryland being one of the last states to start complying with the act.

The State MVA eventually reversed its longstanding policy of dragging its feet with complying with the Real ID Act and indicated this year they were in agreement with moving forward with compliance.  Numerous delegates including myself signed onto HB-387, a bill to require legal presence be established in order to obtain a Maryland driver’s license.  Public hearings were held on the bill. On the day the bill was to be voted on in committee, a slick little move was made which gutted the idea of complying with the Federal Real ID Act through requiring proof of legal presence and instead a two tiered system was inserted into the bill which included amnesty for all those currently holding Maryland driver’s licenses who are illegal aliens.  When this amended bill made it to the floor of the House of Delegates, 63 of  the sponsors of the original legal presence Bill all offered amendments to have their names stripped off the amended bill.  This included roughly an equal number of both Democrats and Republicans.

One of  the most telling acts of the House of Delegates was their voting to reject an amendment which would have prohibited any illegal alien who was being given a federally non compliant license to drive in Maryland the motor voter information at the same time they were receiving their licenses.  Why, would we possibly want to give illegal aliens voter registration information?  In the rare instance we have a citizen who just does not have the proper documents to meet the federal requirements, yet they need to drive, they could get the non-compliant license and take care of their voter registration like everyone else who moves or changes affiliation by going to the local election office.  We do not need to be giving voter registration information to hundreds of thousands of people who will be lining up to get their Maryland driver’s licenses.  Maryland is already second in the number of fraud cases related to driver’s licenses.  Drivers license fraud cases rose 500 % between 2003 and 2007.  Nobody seems to want to know how extensive our voter fraud is, most likely because it would then need to be addressed.   If the policy arguments are not enough to get you upset about the two tiered system you should know that SB-369 will save the State money by not having to license  hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, on the other hand the two tiered system should cost the State about 30 million dollars.

If you are outraged by the actions of the Maryland House of Delegates, then you need to contact your Delegates and tell them you do not believe illegal aliens should receive non compliant licenses.  The Maryland  Senate got it right and passed SB-369, a Bill that requires all drivers prove their “lawful presence” in the U.S., meaning that they are citizens or temporary legal residents. Ask your Delegates to vote for SB-369, the Senate version of the Real ID Act. 

The first hurdle will be when the Senate Bill, SB-369 goes to the House Judiciary Committee.   You need to contact the members of that committee to let them know you want the Senate Bill, SB-369 to go to the House Floor unamended and that you do not want the House of Delegates two tiered system that grants amnesty to illegal aliens.

With your help, your voice, we can still stop this insanity and demand that those driving on our roads prove they are legally present in the country.

Whether you are an opponent or proponent of the Death Penalty, you should be very concerned with the mess that the legislature is making of the process surrounding this most important public policy issue.  Two years ago the Maryland Court of Appeals held that Maryland had failed to properly vet the death penalty protocols for administering  the deadly cocktail mixture used to put the condemned to death.  The Governor could have addressed this by simply having the matter sent to the AELR committee which could then hold a public hearing on the protocols .   Because he is against the death penalty, the Governor has ignored the law and allowed the moratorium to continue, through his inaction. 

As a justification for the current effort to eliminate the death penalty, the Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment was established last year to look at the issue. The results of the Commission hearings were not a surprise to anyone.  In fact, last year on the floor of the House of Delegates I argued we could save the State a lot of time and money because the results of the Commission were already known to everyone. I argued the Commission would find that there was racial disparity in the application of the death penalty and that it is  too costly to put people to death and that therefore the death penalty should be repealed.  The deck was stacked and as a  result the findings were a forgone conclusion.   It was a waste of  taxpayer money to go through the motions only to justify the result the majority sought.  A real, impartial investigation, with a committee that was balanced may have found some common ground on which both sides could have compromised. Instead the legislature fell into its normal behavoir of manipulating the process to assure the outcome it sought.

Similarly, when the Senate  Judicial Proceedings Committee failed to pass the current death penalty repeal bill  SB-279 out of the Committee, Senator Miller found a way to bring the bill before the Senate , even thought there were no rules that allowed such a procedure.  The move was justified by some nonspecific relation back to a similar procedure used 30 years ago. Yet, no one explained whether the rules actually allowed such a procedure 30 years ago or whether it was actually outside the rules then and thus the procedure should not be looked at as some kind of justification for allowing the procedure today.

On the Senate floor the there was a motion to send the matter back to committee which was met with a tie vote, the only missing vote was that of  Senator Andy Harris who was absent.  Senator Harris has been a advocate on behalf of keeping the death penalty and thus his absence from this critical vote to kill the death penalty was a most unfortunate bit of timing for the proponents of the death penalty. 

The plan to repeal the death penalty was quickly replaced by a plan to tighten the circumstances when the death penalty could be sought.  The end result was a plan that says the death penalty could only be given if one of three circumstances were found to exist: 

                         First, if there was DNA evidence conclusively linking the defendant to the crime.

                         Second, if there is a video tape of the murder.

                         Third, if there is a video tapped confession to the murder.

The State’s Attoney General, Doug Gansler correctly labled this bill as having been constructed in a “clumsy” way and he stated that the bill should be reworked or abandoned. (3-17-09 John Wagner and Henri Cauvin, Washington Post) The Attorney General pointed out that as written the Bill would not consider ballistics, fingerprints, multiple photographs showing a crime in progress, or a signed confession. (Id)

 The Senate President gave clear orders to the House of Delegates, change a comma in the bill he sent out of the Senate (SB-279) and the Bill dies when it comes back to the Senate.  The problem with this is that it eliminates the Constitutional mandated procedure of having two Houses participate in the process.  It eliminates the imput from the public because the amending of the repeal occured on the Senate floor after the judicial proceedings hearings had concluded on the Repeal  Bill.  There has  been and will be no public debate on the amended bill to limit the death penalty to these three scenarios and there will be no such debate unless the dictates of Senator Miller and subsequently the Governor are rejected by the House leadership.  Unfortunately, the House leadership was all too willing to surrender House independence.  The House of Delegates has been relegated to nothing more than a rubber stamp of the Senate and tool of the Executive Branch  because of  the House leadership’s willingness to be subjugated to that role.

When the House Judiciary Committee addressed the Senate Bill last week (the House Repeal Bill is being scrapped so as not to interfere with the Senate Bill and Senator Miller’s dictates to the House) Governor O’Malley came before us in the Judiciary Committee to also tell us he wanted the Senate Bill to come out of the House Judiciary Committee unamended. When I questioned the Governor about the wisdom of leaving the bill untouched even though it has flaws, O’Malley answered that the question “might be better directed to the President of the Senate”.  (Liam Farell, Capital Gazette, 3-18-09)

I then went on to point out to a few of the outrageous scenarios we will face if the bill goes through unamended.  First there is the scenario where an undercover police officer is wearing an audio tape wire, he or she enters a room with a drug dealer to make a purchase, the drug dealer recognizes the officer and says on the tape “You are a cop, I recognize you! ” “You are dead, I’m going to shoot you!”  On the tape you hear the gun shot, you hear the officer yell.  The police rush in and catch the murderer with the smoking gun in their hand and absent the DNA evidence, or a video recording of the murder or confession, the killer of the Officer would not face the death penalty. Yet, the robber who enters the 7-11 and is caught on video shooting the store clerk who dies, does face the death penalty.

I then pointed out to the Governor a lady who was sitting behind him, Mrs Capano, and explained how her son who was in a Western Maryland prison was strangled by his cell mate who had previously tried to strangle another cell mate and was in serving a life sentence for sex offenses.  I asked what we were supposed to do with those who continue to kill while in prison, whether it be guards or other inmates.  I never did get an answer from the Governor on those questions because he had to get up and leave in the middle of my questions.

The last and perhaps one of  the biggest problems with the current bill is that it leaves contract killing as the prefered method of murder in Maryland.  After all, you are not likely to leave DNA evidence if you are paying someone else to do the dirty deed.  You are not likely to be on  a video recording if you sent someone else and I would think that when it becomes known that the only way the police can get the death penalty is to get your confession on tape, most defendants will stop talking.

In committee last friday we offered numerous amendments to try to address some of the concerns that have been raised by both Democrats and Republicans.  As the Governor and the Senate President requested there were no amendments to SB-279.  The arguments will continue this week, probably Tuesday or Wednesday when the House addresses SB-279 when it comes to the House Floor. Those who have an interest in the death penalty or in learning what is wrong with how government operates in Annapolis may want to listen in to the hearings.  You can either listen live or later by going to the State Legislative Web Site.

HB-1446 is a bill put in at the request of the Maryland State Police which would have required persons engaged in the business of selling ammunition to maintain specified records of sales of ammunition by requiring a person who purchases ammunition to present identification.  The bill would also have required the Secretary of State Police to adopt specified regulations establishing a civil penalty for a violation of  the Act.

The State Police have been taking a beating recently in the legislature for a number of reasons.  First the revelations of their actions in spying on citizens who were merely exercising their Constitutional right to assembly or free speech. HB – 311 seeks to  address this behavior and to guarantee that such actions do not occur again.   At the hearing on HB-311 I asked the State Police, ”What happened to the Officer who was in charge of the spying operations.” I was told he resigned in the summer of 2008.  When I asked, “ Where is he now?”  I was told he was promoted to “Chief Of Operations.”  I pointed out that it was somewhat disingenuous of the State Police to claim they wanted to change their behavoir but in fact had promoted the person in charge of the spying operations. 

The next, faux paus, for the State Police was the position they took on HB296 and HB302, two domestic violence bills which seek to confiscate all firearms from anyone accused of  domestic violence.  In the case of  HB-302 the firearms confiscation can occur even before the respondent has had an opportunity to appear in court and defend himself . There were numerous other problems with these bills, which indicated, that the bills were more about seizing firearms than about protecting abused spouses. 

Nothing made this more clear than the position taken by the Maryland State Police Union when they approached the Judiciary Committee and asked for a “carve out” for police officers.  A “carve out” would have meant that  police officer’s spouses who were given temporary or permanent protective orders would not be entitled to the same protections that all other battered spouses, not married to police officers, were entitled to.  It was a very big mistake for the State Police to ask that they be allowed to keep their guns but that anyone else accused of the same thing have theirs taken.  Needless to say it did not go well in the committee.  As I pointed out in the committee, if these bills were about protecting  battered women then we would be protecting all battered women, not just those who did not happen to be married to police officers.   Even after getting thrashed at the hearing in committee, the State Police attempted to offer a similar amendment on the floor of the House.  I made the same impassioned arguments against their amendment for a “carve out” on the floor and the amendment was defeated overwhelmingly.

Pro Second Amendment legislators spent two days argueing against many of the anti-second amendment bills.  I was the floor leader for the Republicans during the debates and we showed that we would not go quietly into that dark night.  We knew we would eventually lose because we just do not have the votes.  Yet, we did excert our pound of flesh.  It was, in part,  this showing of  a willingness to fight, despite the fact that we did not have the numbers to win, which led to the State Police determining it was not worth going through a fight over a very bad bill such as HB-1446.

HB-1446 would have forced Marylanders to go out of State to purchase their ammunition.  People from out of State who may be coming here to hunt would buy their ammo out of State before coming to Maryland to hunt.  Why would anyone unnecessarily subject themselves to the intrusive questions about what caliber and what amount of ammo they were purchasing?   Not only would the State lose tax revenue that comes from the sale of  ammo and other things bought at the time you are buying your ammo, you also loose the money which comes from the sales which is dedicated to purchasing and preserving parkland under the Pittman-Robinson act.   Why would Maryland want to chase these people and tax dollars away?

 A second problem was that arguably this bill would have only applied to license firearms dealers and since you don’t have to be a licensed firearms dealer to sell ammunition this bill would only adversely effect the licensed firearms dealers and not others selling ammunition.  The State Police would have had the right to enter the firearms dealer’s place of buisness and check their ammunition sales logs. Clearly this would have had a chilling effect on the customers wishing to purchase ammunition.   Just imagine if we were to take the name, address and phone number of everyone who orders or buys alcohole. After all, some people will drink and drive or they are on probation and should not have any alcohole.  I believe most people would find this overly intrusive and to apply it to firearms or ammunition purchases should be seen as  no less intrusive.  The O’Malley administration justifys this intrusiveness because it results in the sale of less firearms and ammunition in the State of Maryland. The administration sees this as being a good thing. It does not matter that legitimate tax paying businesses would be run out of the State or that tax revenue would be lost along with the money being generated to purchase parklands. 

Luckily, for now the State Police realized that there would be a very hard fight against this bill and there would be further damage to their reputation and perhaps they would be hurt on other bills which they may need.  If there is a lesson to be learned it is that even when you know you are going to lose a battle, you fight it and perhaps down the road someone else decides it is not worth the time and effort it will take to fight you on some other battle. 

For now the withdraw of HB-1446 should be seen as not only a victory for second amendment supporters but also for the buisness community and tourism in Maryland.  

The lesson learned here was that even if we do not win a fight on the floor, such as with the two days of domestic violence bills and wanting to allow battered women to obtain permits to carry, we can still win by defeating bad bills that will highlight the other negative problems associated with a sponsor of the bad bill being fought.