I'm planning on sending the following to Pipkin with suitable greeting and closing. I think it may be too long and wordy. Thoughts? comments?
-------
I'm writing today in opposition to SB 144.
Given the potential for abuse of protection orders(footnote 1) particularly temporary exparte orders, combined with research which shows that restraining orders are generally ineffective in preventing future physical violence as it is(footnote 2), this bill would seem to be an opening to allow gross misuse simply for the purpose of disarming what could very well be innocent law abiding citizens.
The denial of the right to self protection in such a way falls into the "slippery slope" category and can lead to an increase of crime against individuals that may have otherwise had an effective means to prevent it. If the claims made in a petition for protection from abuse order are indeed well founded and the respondent of such has actually committed a crime of violence then they should be punished in accordance with law already existing for such a transgression. As pointed out in the fiscal and policy notes for the prior incarnations of this bill in past legislative sessions, only a fraction of hearings result in a temporary or interim order being granted and it appears that only about half of those actually result in the granting of a permanent order.
In addition to the denial of self protection, lawful gun owners that were forced to surrender their firearms under this proposed law and subsequently reacquired them could potentially end up with arms which are greatly de-valued, broken, unusable, or even absolutely worthless and useless since there is no liability assumed for their condition resulting from storage and handling. This would essentially equate to deprivation of property without compensation, and questionably without due process of law. To add insult to injury the hypothetical gun owner in this situation would be charged a storage fee for the privilege of getting his or her damaged and/or unmaintained property back. Just on it's face this bill seems to be a violation of Articles 21 and 24 (possibly 20 and 26 as well) of the Maryland Constitution Declaration of Rights.
The other problem with this bill is that it would perpetuate the rampant fiscal irresponsibility that seems to plague Annapolis as of recent years.
From the Fiscal and Policy Notes of 2006 session HB 824:
"If a respondent does not request the return of surrendered firearms within three years
from the date of the last protective order, the law enforcement agency with control of the
firearms may dispose of or destroy the firearms. A law enforcement agency may charge
a reasonable fee that does not exceed actual costs for firearms storage. A law
enforcement agency may not be held liable for damage or deterioration to a firearm from
storage or transport if the agency exercises due care in the storage and handling of the
firearm.
...
Local Expenditures: Expenditures could increase to the extent that local governments
would need to allocate more time to retrieve, process and store firearms. Charles,
Montgomery, Prince George’s and Somerset counties all advise that the bill’s provisions
would not have a fiscal impact. Baltimore County advises that additional expenditures
for the purchase of firearms storage would be required and it would cost about $65.70 per
weapon for processing. Frederick County advises that it expects to attain $18,000 in fees
to cover the cost of firearms storage. Total additional expenditures of $337,136 would be
needed for additional personnel to complete firearms intake, for mileage, packaging,
humidifiers, storage, and firearms destruction."
I'd be interested to know how the fiscal report changed from a significant cost noted in 2006 to no mention of any notable fiscal effect in the note of the 2008 session SB 42. It seems obvious that this bill would cost more to implement (administration, paperwork, LEO time - both in fulfilling the bill requirements and loss of time otherwise spent on other arguably more worthwhile LE activities, storage costs, legal system burden, etc.) than it would be worth (storage fees charged to those eligble for return of surrendered firearms, "social costs" - prevention of additional violence to victims; perhaps a fractional percentage of reduction in homicides). A cost of several hundred thousand dollars just in a single county for something that may have no impact on violent crime whatsoever is an undue burden on the citizens of the state, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and unfortunately seems to have become the status quo of the state government in general.
As for legislation which I believe would accomplish the same end objective as well as generally lower the crime rate in Maryland while at the same time likely be an income item rather than expense, the "shall issue" bill (HB 2 for the 2008 session) which Delegate Riley will present again in the House that unanimously passed only to be "desk drawer" vetoed in the Senate by not being brought up for a vote there. I ask for your support in at least getting Delegate Riley's "shall issue" bill on the Senate floor for a vote this year.
Footnotes:
(1) - http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-Restraining-Orders.pdf
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-A-Culture-of-False-Allegations.pdf
(2) - http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-Why-DV-Programs-Fail-to-Stop-Abuse.pdf
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/416086/...-Partner-Homicide-Final-Report---January-2001
-------
I'm writing today in opposition to SB 144.
Given the potential for abuse of protection orders(footnote 1) particularly temporary exparte orders, combined with research which shows that restraining orders are generally ineffective in preventing future physical violence as it is(footnote 2), this bill would seem to be an opening to allow gross misuse simply for the purpose of disarming what could very well be innocent law abiding citizens.
The denial of the right to self protection in such a way falls into the "slippery slope" category and can lead to an increase of crime against individuals that may have otherwise had an effective means to prevent it. If the claims made in a petition for protection from abuse order are indeed well founded and the respondent of such has actually committed a crime of violence then they should be punished in accordance with law already existing for such a transgression. As pointed out in the fiscal and policy notes for the prior incarnations of this bill in past legislative sessions, only a fraction of hearings result in a temporary or interim order being granted and it appears that only about half of those actually result in the granting of a permanent order.
In addition to the denial of self protection, lawful gun owners that were forced to surrender their firearms under this proposed law and subsequently reacquired them could potentially end up with arms which are greatly de-valued, broken, unusable, or even absolutely worthless and useless since there is no liability assumed for their condition resulting from storage and handling. This would essentially equate to deprivation of property without compensation, and questionably without due process of law. To add insult to injury the hypothetical gun owner in this situation would be charged a storage fee for the privilege of getting his or her damaged and/or unmaintained property back. Just on it's face this bill seems to be a violation of Articles 21 and 24 (possibly 20 and 26 as well) of the Maryland Constitution Declaration of Rights.
The other problem with this bill is that it would perpetuate the rampant fiscal irresponsibility that seems to plague Annapolis as of recent years.
From the Fiscal and Policy Notes of 2006 session HB 824:
"If a respondent does not request the return of surrendered firearms within three years
from the date of the last protective order, the law enforcement agency with control of the
firearms may dispose of or destroy the firearms. A law enforcement agency may charge
a reasonable fee that does not exceed actual costs for firearms storage. A law
enforcement agency may not be held liable for damage or deterioration to a firearm from
storage or transport if the agency exercises due care in the storage and handling of the
firearm.
...
Local Expenditures: Expenditures could increase to the extent that local governments
would need to allocate more time to retrieve, process and store firearms. Charles,
Montgomery, Prince George’s and Somerset counties all advise that the bill’s provisions
would not have a fiscal impact. Baltimore County advises that additional expenditures
for the purchase of firearms storage would be required and it would cost about $65.70 per
weapon for processing. Frederick County advises that it expects to attain $18,000 in fees
to cover the cost of firearms storage. Total additional expenditures of $337,136 would be
needed for additional personnel to complete firearms intake, for mileage, packaging,
humidifiers, storage, and firearms destruction."
I'd be interested to know how the fiscal report changed from a significant cost noted in 2006 to no mention of any notable fiscal effect in the note of the 2008 session SB 42. It seems obvious that this bill would cost more to implement (administration, paperwork, LEO time - both in fulfilling the bill requirements and loss of time otherwise spent on other arguably more worthwhile LE activities, storage costs, legal system burden, etc.) than it would be worth (storage fees charged to those eligble for return of surrendered firearms, "social costs" - prevention of additional violence to victims; perhaps a fractional percentage of reduction in homicides). A cost of several hundred thousand dollars just in a single county for something that may have no impact on violent crime whatsoever is an undue burden on the citizens of the state, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and unfortunately seems to have become the status quo of the state government in general.
As for legislation which I believe would accomplish the same end objective as well as generally lower the crime rate in Maryland while at the same time likely be an income item rather than expense, the "shall issue" bill (HB 2 for the 2008 session) which Delegate Riley will present again in the House that unanimously passed only to be "desk drawer" vetoed in the Senate by not being brought up for a vote there. I ask for your support in at least getting Delegate Riley's "shall issue" bill on the Senate floor for a vote this year.
Footnotes:
(1) - http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-Restraining-Orders.pdf
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-A-Culture-of-False-Allegations.pdf
(2) - http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-Why-DV-Programs-Fail-to-Stop-Abuse.pdf
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/416086/...-Partner-Homicide-Final-Report---January-2001
