Look, I think the gun freaks are over-reacting here. We’re not talking about OWNERSHIP here, only temporarily restricting where you can BRING certain weapons. We already have certain restrictions in this regard. You can’t bring a rifle into a school or a church, etc. What’s wrong with law enforcement saying please don’t bring a rifle into the middle of a sniper hunt?
For real people, it isn’t like there is too much hunting you can do in PG County anyway. If you absolutely need to discharge a rifle, drive an hour north and do it in Baltimore County.
I doubt the gov. is somewhat saavy of the laws, and has knowledge of the fact that any such arrest under this provision or contests of the law would ultimatly win. I can’t help thinking that he enected the provision with full knowledge that he didn’t have a legal leg to stand on, but given the emergency situation, wisdom dictated buying some time and relative quiet. Any contest or violation will take a while to wind through the system, and he hopes that by that time, the sniper situation will be resolved.
I’m sure a judge could strike down the order today. I doubt any judge in those counties would be willing to do that, feet would be dragging.
Never post before that first cup-a-coffee. I meant that the gov. knows it won’t stand up, he’s just buying time.
Well that’s constructive. And as a gun freak, I see no real problems with Glendening’s Executive Order. But that’s just a personal statement. We’ll hafta see what happens in 30 days if this killer remains at large.
However, the legitimate question has been raised, does the governor have the power to actually do this? I think that’s should be the focus of this discussion. The relatively speculative consensus so far, seems to indicate that he does.
Collounsbury of course the sniper changes position. What I’m asking is does his pattern have anything to do with where hunting actually takes place? The sniper is not going into the middle of acres and acres of woods where there is nothing to shoot but deer and where there is no easy escape route. I ask whether or not it is so paranoid and irrational to expect the police to weed out 911 calls for guys in safety orange who are far from human targets or decent escape routes; and you answer yes. I’m afraid a simple yes will not suffice.
Diogenes is correct in saying that people shouldn’t be allowed to take guns into the middle of a sniper hunt. However, this begs the question: Are legal hunting grounds actually in the middle of the sniper hunt? If so, is the sniper hunt properly focused? Are legal hunting grounds actually within (or any where near) rifle shot of gas stations and other victim locations?
Lets keep in mind, good places to shoot deer and good places to shoot people are probably mutually exclusive. The police should know this even if the public (911 callers) doesn’t.
[quoteThe sniper is not going into the middle of acres and acres of woods where there is nothing to shoot but deer and where there is no easy escape route. I ask whether or not it is so paranoid and irrational to expect the police to weed out 911 calls for guys in safety orange who are far from human targets or decent escape routes; and you answer yes. I’m afraid a simple yes will not suffice. [/quote]
Obviously, if someone unconnected to any hunting activity hears a gunshot then the shooter is probably not “in the middle of acres and acres of woods where there is nothing to shoot but deer”.
In that case, it is not clear to the police that the shooter is a hunter. It could very well be “the” sniper changing tactics and locations.
We don’t know that this person is driving a white van/truck for certain. Therefore, it would be fairly easy for this person to escape undetected from a more sparsely populated area.
AND as we’ve already seen in the case of the little boy who was shot in Bowie, MD - the sniper is apparently comfortable shooting from a wooded area.
I think it is perfectly reasonable (and I hope legal) for the Governor to issue this emergency proclamation.
The sound of a gun shot travels much father than the bullets. And yes the difference in that distance, would cover multiple acres.
Not all wooded areas qualify as legal hunting areas. That was basicly the point of my original question. Does anyone on this thread have any info on the afore mentioned wooded area being legal hunting grounds?
As I already stated in my first post, I don’t think what the govenor has done is anything for the NRA or anyone else to panic over. If the state’s constitution has an elastic clause similar to that of the Federal Constitution, then it’s probably legal. However, I do question whether this Executive Order, which at first might sound like a no brainer, actually makes sense.
Well chuckles let’s examine your logic, such as it is.
Well, the counties in which this has been declared are… get this… four suburban counties. Now, hold onto your pants, by your logic, they are not “where hunting actually takes place.”
Well, given in these four counties, to my knowledge, limited as it is, are heavily suburban, your fear for “deer hunters” is deeply misplaced.
Unless of course there are foolish hunters who perhaps are not hunting deer etc.
Well, chappie, given (a) the sniper has shown a great degree of flexibility in siting and striking (b) phone calls will not ipso facto id “guys in saftey orange” I think what we have here is an irrational and paranoid reaction humping along a straw man as it quibbles in fear.
WEll, shots travel as you note seperately, “weeding out” is likely to be dangerous and inaccurate, and given that there are presently ** no good leads**, this seems an eminetly logical move to reduce the possibility of false 911 calls such that the massive response tactic can be used more effectively.
Now, our old Beer has reacted in a rational, non-paranoid manner: I rather submit that he should not associate himself (rational pro-gun owner) with the irrational paraniod reaction here to a rational, clearly defined and limited emergency action. It’s idiocy like this that gives gun owners a bad image.
Okay to Shah Jehan , as far as I know, you can still bear your arms in the same fashion you could before the ban, so this particular order doesn’t really touch the 2nd amend. The whole neighborhood scenario was to show that there are already many places you can’t discharge weapons, and it is not viewed as an infringement. So basically, the government is just expanding what it’s already doing. As for the Montana Freeman, again, I don’t think this restriction will affect them in any way 
To Kalishnikov , I was trying to think of things besides target shooting and hunting that would cause you to discharge a weapon outside. It was a silly reference to all the gun toting people you see in news clips firing into the air in celebration. It is dangerous. I know that. Nobody fire their gun in the air.
So once again, we are talking about restricting the DISCHARGE of a weapon, a restriction that has existed in many, many places.
Since this post started, I have heard that the military is using aircraft that supposedly can spot a weapon being discharged. I am much more nervous about military survelliance than the gun thingy.
I say increase survelliance and drop most of the laws. That way they can catch you doing something, but it won’t be illegal
I’m too lazy to post the original quotes
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Collounsbury said:
Let’s cut to the chase here, Collounsbury. You know better. Is that the worst insult ever to hit the planet? No. But it is obviously a demeaning and uncalled for statement. So cut it out. Now.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Well, I promised to return with actual cites, and taking advantage of my unfettered Westlaw access, I am here to deliver! 
I give you Md. Code Title 3 Governor and Lt. Governor, Subtitle 4, Executive Orders.
What is Article 41 Sec. 2-101 you ask? Oh, I got that too, but to save the hamsters I’ll spare you the whole thing. In salient part it says…
So the answer, it seems, is that the Governor has been authorized to make executive orders that will persist for as long as the emergency continues. There is another section of the title that I won’t quote unless someone wants to see it that deals with consultation with the legislature on said orders etc… It also provides that violation of such an order shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or six months in jail.
But did he actually proclaim an emergency?
Absent such a proclamation, sub-sec ‘C’ does not apply?
The body seems to be contingent upon such a declaration:
the Governor may proclaim a state of emergency…
Good question HH. I would assume that who ever drafts the actual order will include the proper language. The link on page one was just to a press release, the actual order will most likely meet the statutes requirements.
Oooooh… a nice little slap on the wrist for Collunsbury
To further address the issue of hunting areas vs. suburban areas:
I think some of you are operating under the erroneous assumption that all of the legal hunting grounds in MD are very far from suburban areas.
It is legal to hunt deer anywhere in Maryland, provided the following conditions are met:
1)It is illegal to shoot on, from or across any public road.
-
It is illegal to hunt or shoot at wildlife within 150 yards of an occupied structure or camp without permission of the owner or occupant.
-
It is illegal to hunt deer out of season.
-
It is illegal to hunt in state parks except in designated areas.
As you can see, this leaves room for error. It would be quite easy for someone to get permission from one landowner to hunt on their grounds but not from the adjoining landowner. When the adjoining landowner heard the shots, they would quite naturally become alarmed and call the police.
Given these regulations, it is not quickly and easily evident to the police that the person(s) doing the shooting is just a hunter of game.
(All information obtained from this site ( http://www.dnr.state.md.us/huntersguide/hpp.html http://www.dnr.state.md.us/huntersguide/geninfo.html ) and from a helpful Wildlife and Game employee whose name and number I will not post bcause I don’t want to be responsible for a deluge of calls to this person. But feel free to pick a person their and call to confirm.)
Well I don’t know what Maryland law is on the ownership and use of firearms, but I do know that the Second Amendment has never been held to bar a state’s regulation of firearms–it applies only against the federal government. Whether the governor is authorized to take this (eminently reasonable, IMHO) step is simply a function of Maryland law. Anyone know what the story is there?
Minty Did you see my post? I think I hit all the high points on MD law…
Dang it, I missed that somehow. Sorry. 
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I never made any such assumption. I merely asked the question.
Naturally, this question was based on my experience that hunting does not typically occur in densly populated areas.
It was also somewhat based on a similar sniper case from about 12 years ago. This one happened in Suffolk County, NY. There are quite a few places to hunt in Suffolk County and there are also many places which are too densely populated for hunting. I know that because I lived there for 20 years. I no longer remember what time of year it was, so the hunting issue might not have come up. However, given where this guy was operating, no reasonable person would have mistaken him for a hunter (though he did shoot from wooded areas), nor would any reasonable person mistake a hunter in the pine barrens for the sniper. That doesn’t mean that there wouldn’t have been 911 calls reporting hunters, but the police would have been able sort out the obviously frivolous calls from legitmate leads. Which BTW the police in Maryland are already doing anyway.
Also, changing location, which the current sniper has done everytime, is very different from changing MO, which the current sniper has not done in any fundamental way over 11 shootings. Typically criminals of any kind (at least those who are eventually caught) do not fundamentally change their MO, that’s how the police catch them.