Blown Away By Gun Supporter's Tactics
Recent Journal coverage on the County Council bill on weapons and gun shows ("Shootout looms on weapons-show ban," Feb. 15, "Went to the gun-show hearing, got my fair share of abuse," Feb. 21, Blair Lee) has been one-sided. Mr. Lee and other supporters of (Silverado Promotions owner) Frank Krasner's have purposely decided to ignore the essence of the issue and the arguments for the legislation. The proposed extension of Montgomery County law to include exhibition facilities and to prohibit funding for these organizations is about two things: taxpayers' subsidies and overall public safety.
As taxpayers, we simply oppose any public funding that directly or indirectly supports the sale of guns in our community. Not only are we entitled to our opinion but our system guarantees that we have the ability to express this opinion, even under intimidating circumstances.
Public safety, and especially the safety of minors, was the reason behind the 1997 law. The proposed extension would affect the gun shows only because they take place at the Montgomery County Fairgrounds, which involves the issue of taxpayers' subsidies. This legislation will not affect Mr. Krasner's ability to take his gun show elsewhere.
With 68 percent of county residents favoring a ban on sales of all handguns in Maryland (Jan. 10 Gazette poll), the proposed legislation by council members Blair Ewing, Derick Berlage and Steve Silverman seems like a reasonable and moderate initiative.
Finally, your Feb. 23 editorial ("Bad Behavior") dismisses the threats and intimidation by Mr. Krasner's supporters against those of us who testified in favor of the bill as simply "mean and bad behavior." I disagree. Armed bullies threatening our leaders and citizens are dangerous.
Lillian Pubillones Nolan
Potomac
Montgomery County Chapter,
Million Mom March
Steve Dirlik Responds To Nolan Letter
Allow me to respond to the gun show letter by Lillian Nolan. According to
her:
"The proposed extension of the Montgomery County law ... is about two
things: taxpayers subsidies, and overall public safety."
As for taxpayer subsidies, she goes on to say:
"The proposed extension would affect the gun shows only because they take
place at the Montgomery County Fairgrounds, which involves the issue of
taxpayers' subsidies. This will not affect Mr. Krasner's ability to take
his gun show elsewhere."
This is simply not correct. The proposed Gun Show legislation would expand
the existing list of "gun free zones" to include a "multipurpose exhibition
facility, such as a fairgrounds or conference center." This would prohibit
gun shows at any fairground or conference center even if that private
facility chose to never accept any taxpayer money from the County. Without
a "multipurpose exhibition facility," where else could you hold a gun show
for 2,000 attendees? Yes Lillian, this really is a gun show ban for
Montgomery County.
As for public safety, after ten years of gun shows, there have been
precisely zero reports of unsafe activities at the Fairgrounds. During the
entire hearing, not a single mention of unsafe behavior was cited by
anyone, including Mr. Ewing, who, while "Striking Back at Gunshows,"
claimed that "It is particularly difficult to be sure that gun control
regulations are being followed at a gun show."
At the hearing, my testimony focused on the council's agenda, and that this
gun show ban is an issue of public policy, not public safety. During the
follow-up to my testimony, Mr. Ewing addressed me directly, on record, and
said:
"Nobody is saying that criminals buy guns at Maryland gun shows. Nobody is
arguing that." (I have it on video tape.)
Apparently even he agrees that this is not a safety issue. Unless, of
course, we are to fear law abiding citizens who exercize their right to
legally purchase firearms.
Which brings me to my last point. Ms. Nolan says, "Armed bullies
threatening our leaders and citizens are dangerous." At the hearing, a
single individual made some threatening and stupid remarks that I, and
virtually all of the gun owners there, soundly rejected.
What would happen if the tables were turned, however? How would the MOMs
react if they saw their Council President marching along with the Tyranny
Response Team or the NRA? What if the Council's attorney sent out
threatening letters to stop them from assembling peacefully? One MOM in DC
became so frustrated with the system that she shot a child who she thought
was her son's killer.
For the most part, gun owners have demonstrated incredible dignity,
patience, and restraint, even while bigots, political opportunists, and
misinformed activists have tried to trample upon their civil rights.
Thankfully, gun owners are an extremely law abiding and peaceful group of
people.
In closing, Ms. Nolan mentions that, simply because 68% of Montgomery
residents would favor banning all handgun sales in Maryland, this gun show
ban is a "reasonable and moderate initiative." An elderly man in my
community once pointed out to me that in the 1950's, our own community had
restrictions on selling homes to "colored folks." I'll bet a majority of
Montgomery homeowners then thought that was a "reasonable and moderate"
policy also. Civil rights must be protected precisely because they are
often unpopular.
Steve Dirlik
10219 Day Ave
Silver Spring, MD 20910
This Information Is From MCSM & The Tyranny Response Team
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message
is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|