My friend Paul noticed that the Cambridge, MD WalMart wanted to record his ammunition purchases in a log book the other day (my Baltimore WalMart has done that for years now, I put up with it since there’s nowhere else downtown to buy ammo). He found this practice to be a bit suspect, as there’s clearly no Maryland law requiring the tracking of who buys ammunition. He called the State Atty. General’s office for an explanation on this practice, and clarification about whether it was actually something they’re going to try to require. His comments on that conversation were interesting:
The gentleman at the AG’s office said that the state of MD has laws regarding the purchase of ammo (meaning the age requirements) and I asked him how recording my name in a book made me “more legal” than if I just flashed my ID with the DOB on it. He couldn’t answer that but mumbled something about it being for the store’s protection as well.
I asked him if the AG office was going to start asking the liquor stores to keep track of purchases because of under age people and those convicted of DUI making unlawful transactions.
Once again he stumbled…..but I fear I may have sdly put an idea in their head.
Folks, if you’re of the mentality that “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to worry about…”, you probably need to start considering the ramifications of that position. Once the state starts recording your ammo purchases and registering them in a database, it’s not too hard to see what the next step is going to be–prohibition at its finest. We’re on the brink of giving up up quite a bit of liberty in this country in the false hopes of gaining a bit of security; Ben Franklin would not be impressed, and his famous quip that someone willing to give up the former in exchange for the latter deserves neither rings quite true in my mind.
In this discussion, PGP reader Matt interjected a link to our outgoing Atty. General’s position paper on gun violence. I haven’t gotten past the first page, but anyone familiar with Joe Curran (governatorial candidate Martin O’Malley’s father in law) won’t be surprised to see the nonsense that starts this rather foul document with a bang; Curran inaccurately states that gun ownership rates are going down (granted this was written seven years ago, but today we know thanks to the NSSF that gun ownership is at an all time high even though violent crime is declining everywhere), but that’s not the best part by far. He states that gun owners are a minority, and questions how much we should “pay to indulge the minority among us who accumulate firearms?”
Unreal.
Substitute blacks, gays, asians, hispanics, Jews, Muslims, etc. or any minority group you can think of into a statement questioning whether we should allow a certain freedom to exist, and you’ll be drummed out of office on a rail. The fact that Joe Curran got away with this simply shocks me. Some folks will probably interject that Curran is touting a typical liberal line, but I would argue there’s nothing particularly liberal about the discriminatory attitude Mr. Curran has put on display.
Great….I had no idea he was related to MOM, guess I really do need to start paying attention to politics. Problem is, for me it’s got all the attraction of watching sewage flow through a manhole.
Comment by Matt — June 28, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
I’ve been buying ammo at the local gun shop and at Bass Pro Shops and have been asked for my ID. But no one has ever recorded or logged the transaction. Maybe we should consider posting a list of stores that do not require more information than is legally required?
Comment by bear105 — June 28, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
There’s a good thought. I’d love to know if this is just WalMart, or more widespread.
Comment by Administrator — June 28, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
Sebastian,
There is a running followup over at mdshooters.com
MSP representative made no bones about the fact that they review all of the names on the list.
Comment by Paul — June 28, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
Re: Curran’s minority quote
One day while looking for some article on the Second Amendment, I came across a law school discussion assignment that made a really interesting point. The professor wanted his students to expand on the idea that the Left (using broad stereotypes for simplicity here) tend to require absolute adherence to their own favorite amendments, such as freedom of speech or freedom from unlawful searches and seizures, but they were quite willing to use a cost-benefit analysis and regulate other parts of the Constitution, like firearms and states’ rights. The Right was just the opposite: they don’t want the government to touch their guns in the smallest possible way, but are willing to overlook some search and seizure technicalities to bring in more criminals, for example.
It’s interesting how both sides are so adamant about their favorite rights, but are willing to overlook others they don’t think are important or don’t agree with. Of course, both sides say they are all about rights, but neither walk the talk consistently over the entire spectrum. Just something to remember when either side gets self-righteous about what defenders of freedom they are.
Sebastian, it sounds like you’re trying to move to a socially libertarian viewpoint where all rights are respected, and you think the best way to do that is from within the progressive movement. I guess you perceive them as being closer to the goal overall than the conservative movement? I think a case can be made for either, but keep up the good work nevertheless.
Comment by Tim James — June 29, 2006 @ 8:06 am
I think a case can be made for either…
Er…think you mean “Neither”, myself ;>
Comment by Matt — June 29, 2006 @ 8:56 am
As far as current AG candidates go:
* Doug Gansler is MEMBER of the Ceasefire MD “Advisory Board”
* Stuart Simms is also a MEMBER of the Ceasefire MD “Advisory Board”
(both verified this morning at http://www.ceasefiremd.org)
* I personally saw Tom Perez appear in Annapolis back in 2004 to support Quinter’s AWB, and he still shows up at Ceasefire MD events.
Scott Rolle (R) has come out the gate as a strong supporter of the 2d Amendment.
Looks like a hold your nose election.
Comment by K-Romulus — June 29, 2006 @ 9:05 am
My experience in TGR was that he said it was required but wasn’t enforced, and I’ve never been subject to it (”it” being logging ID).
Comment by Matt — June 29, 2006 @ 9:38 am
Matt:
Things must have changed at TGR since the first and last time I went there last year. Good for them if they stopped the logbook nonsense.
Comment by K-Romulus — June 29, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
K-
Perhaps not, I haven’t been there in a year (at least to buy ammo) so perhaps it is something they started. I do know that as I purchased about 22 handguns from them in the span of a year and a half, I did kind of get treated differently as I had developed some measure of a working relationship after all that paperwork.
Matt
Comment by Matt — June 29, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
Interesting attitude from Bill Curran (MD AG). He is guarded round the clock by a security detail. I would like to see his viewpoint change when he is no longer protected (he is on the way out as AG). I too would feel much safer surrounded by armed guards.
Comment by John — June 29, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
Good post, more control is more power, something that should not be given to the government rather than the People.
May I use this post in the Second Amendment Carnival?
Comment by Stan — June 30, 2006 @ 11:51 pm
Yes! Please do, anything I can do to support the cause. Be sure to link back here so people catch your efforts.
Thanks!
Comment by Administrator — July 1, 2006 @ 12:09 pm
I used this account as a source in one of my articles.
http://www.examiner.com/x-3108-Baltimore-Republican-Examiner~y2009m3d18-Maryland-General-Assembly-seeks-to-assail-gun-rights
Keep fighting the good fight.
Comment by Sean O'Donnell, Baltimore Republican Examiner — March 19, 2009 @ 1:37 am