The bill before us would impose a stiffer penalty if the violation of our public accommodations law was malicious.
“What does that mean?” asked the representatives of restaurant owners and small businesses as they testified in opposition to the bill.
I was tempted to respond by saying that Justice Scalia would rely upon the dictionary definition of malicious – its plain meaning.
But then the restaurant spokesman said that there was a bill before the Congress that would set a reasonable requirement for structural changes to meet the needs of customers with a disability.
“Is that bill supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights?” I asked.
The witness knew that the business community supported the bill but didn’t know about the Leadership Conference’s position.
I’ll find out before my subcommittee acts on House Bill 935.
Better to rely upon my liberal roots than my conservative baseball friend, Justice Scalia.
In Heller v. District of Columbia, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the following in his majority opinion:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
My bottom line: The law should benefit people or prevent them from being harmed without unduly burdening the rights of those whose conduct is being regulated or criminalized..
One example is voter fraud.
To what extent should we impose barriers to the exercise of this fundamental right when seeking to prevent individuals from voting illegally?
The Congress struck the proper balance when it enacted the Help America Vote Act in the wake of the Florida recount in 2000.
In addition to official government documents, proof of residency can be demonstrated by a person’s address on a rent notice or a utility bill.
My legislation, which was enacted, adopts that federal standard when an individual’s right to vote is challenged at a polling location.
A second example of that balancing act is gun control.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
Who wrote that? It was Justice Scalia in his majority opinion striking down DC’s gun control law.
When the members of the Congress, the General Assembly, or any other legislative body seek to prevent the loss of life due to firearms, we must do so without violating the 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners.
During tonight’s floor debate, one of my colleagues said, “The rights protected by the 2nd Amendment are inalienable. They can’t be restricted by the governor, the legislature, or the courts.”
Justice Scalia ruled otherwise in the majority opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia.
“Like most rights,” he wrote, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
“Should I respond?” I asked my seatmate, Delegate McIntosh.
“Wait til tomorrow when the final vote on the bill will be taken,” she advised.
I agreed.
—
I wrote too soon.
Shortly after I posted the above, one of my colleagues said that our Second Amendment right came from God and is unalienable.
I had to speak.
“None of the protections in the Bill of Rights is absolute. The first Amendment says that ‘Congress shall make no law’ but there are limitations on the rights of free speech and a free press.”
More than once this session, one of my Judiciary Committee colleagues has declared that the 2nd Amendment prohibits regulation of weapons in common use.
When he said it again in a small group meeting about the Governor’s gun bill, I found this excerpt from Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in the Supreme Court decision that struck down a ban on handgun possession in one’s home.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller [a prior Supreme Court decision] said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Translated from legalese: Dangerous and unusual weapons can be prohibited, even if they have been in common use.
I read the decision out loud and told my colleague that his statement was misleading.
He disagreed.
I expect we will discuss this again – in full committee and on the House floor.
“The NRA is very good at what it does,” I declared.
I was a guest on the Marc Steiner show.
“The existing law is riddled with loopholes, thanks to the NRA,” I continued. “For instance, agents of the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms can make only one inspection per year of a licensed gun dealer.”
Some of the other points I tried to make.
“President Obama and Governor O’Malley are not claiming that their legislation would be a panacea [as another panelist had asserted]. What they’re seeking are reasonable limitations on access to certain firearms and magazines that will reduce the risk of deadly violence upon innocent children and others.”
“Chiefs of police overwhelmingly support gun control laws.”
In response to the claim that the 2nd Amendment would be violated by these restrictions, I read from Justice Scalia’s opinion in the case striking down a District of Columbia statute because it violated an individual’s right to possess and use a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
“From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases” the law was understood to mean that the Second Amendment “was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
—-
I had this dialogue with a veteran lobbyist who was about to seek co-sponsors for a bill we are working on.
“It’s good to have a champion on the committee,” said the lobbyist.
“No, it’s essential,” I replied.
“I’m getting too old to get a lot of co-sponsors.”
“Young or old, seeking co-sponsors who are not on the committee hearing the bill is the biggest waste of time in Annapolis.”
I have been rightly accused of introducing legislation after reading an article in the New York Times.
Not this time.
Tuesday morning, I wrote the Jewish Times, responding to a letter contending that Roe v. Wade would survive a Romney-Ryan administration.
After I emailed my letter, I read the views fit to print on the editorial page of the NY Times.
My letter and a link to “If Roe v. Wade Goes” are below.
Dear Editors:
Two words explain why the right-wing cares so much about who will fill the next vacancy on the Supreme Court.
Citizens United.
That’s the name of the plaintiff in the decision where the court cast aside precedent to hold that there can be no limits on campaign contributions by an individual, corporation, or association.
Justice Antonin Scalia hopes that abortion is the next issue where the Court reverses itself.
Despite Governor Romneys recent efforts to move to the center on reproductive freedom, if elected, he is certain to nominate for the Court only those who meet an anti-choice litmus test.
Even if this doesn’t result in five votes to discard Roe v. Wade, there would surely be a further erosion of a woman’s privacy right.
In his recent letter to the editor, Dr. Morton M. Mower writes, “I can assure you that no one is about to reverse Roe vs. Wade.”
In this instance, a subsequent opinion by the Supreme Court could render that advice woefully wrong.
Your right to privacy extends beyond your home, whether the police are using a wiretap, tracking your movements with a GPS device, or learning the location of your cellphone calls.
Yesterday, the Justice wrote a majority opinion holding that before the police attach a GPS device to a suspect’s car, they must get a warrant.
Two years ago, I introduced a bill requiring the police to get a warrant before they learn where you used your mobile communications device by obtaining the records from your service provider.
I will now reintroduce my legislation. Before the bill hearing, I’ll meet with the advocates and opponents from two years ago. This time, with Justice Scalia on my side.
This was not my only high tech encounter today.
If the Maryland Lottery begins selling online, software can determine where you are when you make your purchase.
Under existing law, to play to win, you gotta be in the state.
I was in the Ways and Means hearing room when I learned that. At a public hearing.
