Interview with Delegate Kathleen Dumais

[Mr H]

No, as stated, you can legally transport your weapon so you can make arrangements to drop it off for disposal.

It's all "voluntary", after all........

 

[Kman]

Don't play into this guy (op). He is apparently doing a morning zoo type show and is looking for entertainment value. Dumais wouldn't agree to the interview if there was a chance of her getting a real question that requires a real answer.

Good thing the listening audience is 75 high school kids and work release inmates.

 

[47petey]

But you couldn't even drop it off (i.e., transfer it) to one of those gun disposal drives, etc., without having the HQL (for handguns at least). You'd need it even if you dropped it off at the MSP, not because they can't accept it, but because you need the HQL to transfer the gun and get rid of your ownership.

That's a burden on you to make your house "safer."

 

[Brooklyn]

Ask her if she is really as stupid as she comes across or is it just an act?

I don't think its possible to be that good an actress and still be that stupid

 

[Brooklyn]

That's not an option unless you move out of state. It's illegal to transfer an assault weapon in MD except for ffls current stock to out of state.

No any ffl can get it done under federal law. And you can have it done by an out of state ffl if you desire ...

What you can't do ( most likely ) is list it on a gunbroker type site yourself ( but that's not clear either due to the jurisdictional issues -- I would not do it however ... )

 

[Brooklyn]

Maybe do the interview live in one of Baltimore's worst neighborhoods, and ask her if she feels safer now that it's after October 1st.

In front of a live audience of folks that she claims she wants to help..


Get video for you-tube

 

[Brooklyn]

CDC Recent Data

Age 15-25, causes of death:

56% - Motor vehicle
25% - Poisoning
5.3% - Drowning
1.8% - Other Land Transportation
1.7% - Fall
1.2% - Firearm

Then ask her about MDs UCR (or maybe it's the FBI UCR) from 2011, showing 2 rifle homicides out of 398 total and how banning certain rifles will reduce the homicide rate. 2 out of 398 is not a significant improvement.

If she claims "if only one life is saved" strike back with the 56% Motor vehicle rate could be reduced if we all drove tank-like vehicles at 6 mph, getting 2 miles to the gallon

How about the FACT that 79% of homicides cleared in the city were black, 19% white and why the GA has seen fit to abdicate it's sworn duty to the citizens of the state and keep letting these animals back to the streets to do the SAME thing?

http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/msac/documents/2011_Crime_In_Maryland.pdf Page 17 is the 79%/19% stat.

I'd focus on the FACT that the majority of firearm homicides are gang/drug related and a city problem where the gang members just happen to be black so as not to make it a racial issue.

I can give you examples of MD releasing or pleading out firearm charges again and again and again with the same person. I can even show you a murder charge placed on a stet (inactive) docket. I'd LOVE to hear the explanation for that decision.

Read the crime section of the Sun between now and her being on the show, then run the names here:

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiry-index.jsp

You'll find that 99% are repeat customers on the streets to continue their life of crime. Ask for an explanation. HAMMER that point over and over and over until she is unable to answer why this is happening and why they allow it to continue. Ask if they are planning legislation to address these issues/if the recognize it as an issue that needs to be addressed.

Use the Socratic approach and lead her down the path to a dead end.

Is the right to self preservation a basic human right?
Do we as a society have a moral and ethical obligation to defend ourselves and our loved ones, as well as other, less able citizens?
Do we have a right to have the means to defend ourselves/others?
Ask why the state thinks it has the authority to deprive us of reasonable means of self defense?

Ask if there are any firearms in her home. Typically the elite that have their self defense situation covered (Congress/President/Governor) tell others to "call the police" in case of an attack. Ask why certain folks get armed security, while other are left to fend for themselves. Point out the unequal treatment and ask if some people are just "better" than others.

Ask about "Gun-Free Zones" and once she says it's a good, effective idea ask why the Congress/President/Governor don't dismiss their security detail in favor of appearing in gun-free zones. Compare it to a speed limit sign as far as being effective.

Get her to agree that drunk drivers need to be punished, but then ask why in that case they address the criminal, but when it comes to gun crime, they focus on the object rather than the criminal.

I'm sure you're an experienced interviewer well aware that pols like to reply with non-answers, deflect or segway to a canned blurb spouting the party line. If she does this, just play stupid and state you're not sure what the answer to the question was in the reply.

If some career criminal you bring up stumps her, and we know it will, she may say she doesn't know the unique details of that case, invite her to get the facts and come back to the show. Present it as unfair to her that she should not have the chance to look into the details and you want to be fair to everybody's position and afford her the opportunity to investigate the facts and details.

BUT, use 2 or 3 examples and pin her down in that she WILL return with answers. Put her in a position where she has no choice but to definitely agree to return. Make her sweat, make her work and she'll bury herself.

I'll have to find that murder on a stet, but there is ZERO justification for that disposition.

I'm sorry that I'm not familiar with your show. I'll change that right away. If it's a call-in, I'd like to participate via phone with maybe a question or two no placed on a public forum. Alternatively I'd be happy to come to the studio to either observe or participate live as a citizen, not a member of any group.

I promise to be cool-headed, polite, cordial and civil. The last thing we need is to have ANY gun owners appear to be hot-headed, irrational extremists.

Sorry for the length of the post, but I've been down this road with oath breakers and feel like for any point they try and score, I can show it's logically invalid or trump it with a perfectly clear counterpoint.

Feel free to PM me if I can help in any way; likewise, feel free to disregard this post and reject my input. In either case, best of luck

Sounds like a deposition, jailhouse

 

[Straightshooter]

But you couldn't even drop it off (i.e., transfer it) to one of those gun disposal drives, etc., without having the HQL (for handguns at least). You'd need it even if you dropped it off at the MSP, not because they can't accept it, but because you need the HQL to transfer the gun and get rid of your ownership.

That's a burden on you to make your house "safer."

No. HQL is only needed to purchase a handgun. It's not needed to sell nor does it pertain to assault weapons of any type.

 

[Straightshooter]

No any ffl can get it done under federal law. And you can have it done by an out of state ffl if you desire ...

What you can't do ( most likely ) is list it on a gunbroker type site yourself ( but that's not clear either due to the jurisdictional issues -- I would not do it however ... )

I'm sure you are wrong on that. If they did not possess the banned weapon prior to Oct 1, 2013 they can't touch it even for transfer.I'm also sure that when you sell regulated or banned out of state, you need an in state FFL to ship it. Correct?

(2) A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER MAY CONTINUE TO POSSESS,
2 SELL, OFFER FOR SALE, OR TRANSFER AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT
3 WEAPON THAT THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER LAWFULLY POSSESSED ON OR
4 BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013.

 

[dist1646]

Take her sky diving and ask her if she thinks there should be a waiting period on parachutes just before the jump master shoves her out the door.

 

[Brooklyn]

I'm sure you are wrong on that. If they did not possess the banned weapon prior to Oct 1, 2013 they can't touch it even for transfer.I'm also sure that when you sell regulated or banned out of state, you need an in state FFL to ship it. Correct?

(2) A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER MAY CONTINUE TO POSSESS,
2 SELL, OFFER FOR SALE, OR TRANSFER AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT
3 WEAPON THAT THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER LAWFULLY POSSESSED ON OR
4 BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013.

it does not say may only

federal law allows FFLs to do X it is a lic The court will need to sort this out but MD is going to have a hard time superseding a federal lic. and if they do then it will nor be possible for FFLs to do any business with for example the state police ..


In any case you can take the gun out of state and sell it via an ffl there.

You may or may not be able to ship it without an ffl if you are in state at the time.

If you can leave the state with it, you can get to an out of state FFL. I am looking fwd to the jurisdictional challenge wrt the federal licence. If the court lets this stand a lot of issue would spring up. Any state could have a field day with federal licences for import export for example..


Right now FFL can receive mags of any size in MD for sale out of state or to LE. the line you quoted is intend to make them think that can't but in such a way that it challenged they can pretend they were not challenging the fed, kind of like the 8 day rule ...

 

[JPG]

If she is following this thread you might need another guest for next week.

Don't throw softball questions to her.

 

[ktigerJ]

If she is following this thread you might need another guest for next week.

Don't throw softball questions to her.

I got to thinking about this at the gym tonight. ::puts on tin foil hat::



What if they just wanted to see what we put up so they would know what to expect if she did go on.

 

[kmittleman]

Ask her why, if saving peoples lives is that important to her, she doesn't introduce legislation to end abortion. Ask her to force MD doctors into releasing abortion data to the CDC. Ask her why 34,920 were killed in 2008, the last year MD released data to the CDC. Ask why those lives are so unimportant.

These people are moral relativists - I don't think they believe in these kinds of absolutes. Not unless in serves a personal agenda. And Maryland is pretty liberal, so who would vote for her/them if they took such a stand? If they ACTUALLY cared about saving lives, there would be LOADS of things they could do.

Hey, why not try to clean up Baltimore? It's probably the single reason MD is has always had one of the highest murder rates in the country? What? You need more money to do that? Well, our local officials were able to scrounge up an extra 15 million in revenue in MOCO alone last year........ALL FROM THOSE DANG SPEED CAMERAS!

Many of our elected officials have advanced degrees. They're smart enough to figure these things out, they just don't care

 

[Seth]

Why did the legislature spend so many resources going after an object which is used in half of one percent of homicides in the state of Maryland? Couldn't those resources have gone towards other, more pressing issues or perhaps improving the lives of Maryland residents?

Concealed carry permit holders in the United States have the same average crime rate as sworn law enforcement and a lower rate of hitting the wrong target when engaging his/her firearm. Why is there a higher burden for non-sworn officers? Do meter maids, court officers, and desk jockeys really have G/S?

While those questions may be too specific, here is one that I think should be asked of everyone involved in the debate:
Is gun ownership bad in and of itself? If yes, the person is hopeless. If the answer is no, please follow up with other similar questions. Is murder bad in and of itself? Is the manufacturing of crank bad in and of itself? Is owning child porn (virtual or otherwise) bad in and of itself? This combats the counter argument to 'if gun ownership is outlawed on outlaws will have guns' (well murder is illegal but people still do it, should we make it legal? etc) and really gets the person thinking of the person and not the object. It takes a bad person to commit murder, manufacture crank, etc. A person isn't automatically bad for owning a gun. The 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments grant all citizens a presumption of innocence. Is the presumption of innocence a good thing? If so, why is it ok to judge gun owners based on an act which is not inherently wrong?

My last 'question' could be hashed out much better but it is probably the best one of the bunch.

 

[Long1MD]

Truthfully? Ask her how she considers herself a "Public Servant" when she and her fellow lawmakers continue to do their own bidding instead of upholding the Constitution. After her 10 minute answer that will probably also change the subject, ask her how she would handle someone walking through her house at 2 AM after breaking in. Then ask her how many rounds of ammo she would fire to save a family member's life.

 

[1911A1]

Ask her if she frequently talks at length about subjects she knows nothing about like she did in the State House in Annapolis. I was embarrassed as a resident of the state of Maryland to hear a delegate spout such idiotic nonsense! Also what does it mean for the future of Maryland when uninformed idiots are implementing laws on the State and its residents?

 

[mudskipper]

Or if she has a carry permit/bodyguards

run-of-the-mill statehouse trolls don't have have bodyguards or security details.

The gov and ltgov, yes. The AG, yes. Maybe the Speaker and Senate Pres. Maybe.

Everyone else? No. No they don't. Not unless they hire them themselves, and that's REAL expensive, well beyond the means of most of them.

But they DO get automatic-approval carry permits if they want one.

Shocking, right?


"Guns for me, but not for Thee"

 

[zethon]

This is no difference of opinion. She violated her oath of office and infringed on inalienable rights. She needs to have her crimes and complete lack of logic utterly destroyed on air for the benefit of all of your listeners. If her feelings are hurt in that process, so much the better.

Meh. Poltical discourse in this country so quickly breaks down into "you're anti-American", "you hate America", etc, etc. Do I disagree with the way the woman voted in re: to guns in Maryland? YES! Do I think she's an idiot? No. You obviously think she violated the Constitution, I'm sure she would tell you she didn't. That's why we have the Supreme Court.

Act like an adult FFS.

I intend to "go after her" as best I can on the interview. But I'm not going to disrespect the woman any more or any less than I have other guests in the past, ones I've agree with and ones I haven't.

1. There are many inconsistencies in Maryland gun laws like: AR15s in 5.56/.223 are banned but AR10s are legal; M1As are banned but M1 Garands are not only legal, but can be bought directly from the CMP; mags greater than 10 rounds cannot be bought in the state but can be bought out of state and owned and used here; a fired shell casing must be provided for every new handgun sale, but the MSP don't do anything with them, and the cataloging program was defunded some years ago; etc. How do these MD laws make people safer in light of these inconsistencies?

2. How does she justify banning many semi-auto rifles when they are used so infrequently in crimes?

3. Even before SB281 took effect, Maryland had some of the harshest gun laws in the country along with places like Illinois, but cities like Baltimore and Chicago still have ridiculously high murder rates. In light of that, how can she really believe that gun control reduces gun violence?

4. Why does she think so many Marylanders bought new guns this year as the SB281 effective date was approaching?

5. How does she justify imposing new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners when the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by criminal gun users? How will restrictions on legal gun ownership keep guns away from criminal gun users?

6. What does she say to a poor, single mom in East Baltimore who lives in a violent neighborhood and genuinely needs a handgun to defend herself and her children but who is now facing hundreds of dollars of expense and many hours of time in order to get a license before she can even consider buying a gun for self defense?

7. What does she think should be next gun control steps for the legislature?

I like these and will use some of them. There have been other good suggestions in this thread too. Thank you.

How many of us are going to tune in now to listen if any of these questions we are posing will be asked?

Honestly, I don't care.

There are laws against dumping trash and polluting the bay.

This made me laugh. +1

 

[zethon]

It will be very difficult not to call her "Delegate Dum-ass" though.