Read the story here. Topline numbers after the jump.
Marriage leads by 51-44. Gov. Martin O'Malley's numbers also look good with 58 percent approving and 30 disapproving of his job as governor--his highest ratings since winning election in 2006.
In contrast, 56 percent favor the death penalty while 36 percent oppose it, though 60 percent say life without parole is an acceptable option while 33 percent do not. On gun control, 45 percent want stricter laws, 24 percent want less strict laws, and 26 percent favor no change.
Showing posts with label Guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guns. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Post Poll Shows Marriage Leads in MD, O'Malley
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Gun Nuts for Manno (Updated)
Here is a copy of the mailer that pro-gun activists are sending out urging people to vote for District 19 Senate challenger Roger Manno. Don't they understand that this only helps Senator Mike Lenett?
Update: Roger Manno sent us this response.
This endorsement would be laughable if this issue weren't so serious. So let me be perfectly clear: I absolutely reject this endorsement, or any other endorsement from any group that advocates against strong gun controls. Any review of my record on this issue will reveal that I am as tough on gun control as anyone in the legislature.
The timing of this mailer is ironic given the recent tone of Mike Lenett's attacks on me and my family.
Vote for Manno… or Else!
Senator Mike Lenett is implying that these guys want you to vote for his challenger, Roger Manno.
Really?
Lenett has sent out three mailers about the fact that Tripwire, a pro-gun publication, has called on its readers to defeat him. Tripwire said:District 19 (Montgomery County) Gun owners have one long-shot opportunity to help the Cause. It is in the Dem Senate primary, where Roger Manno challenges the incumbent Mike Lenett. Vote for Manno. He isn’t that good, but Lenett is that bad. He built a career on banning guns. He is a champion of licensing measures and worse while in Annapolis. Let’s take out the gun grabbers’ leadership if we can (just as D13 voters did 4 years ago with excellent effect.) The primary will determine this one, so all hands, please: big turnout. (If you’re a republican in this district – why? Your vote decides no outcome. Switch parties well before Aug 24th so you can make a difference!)
After noting this in one mailer, Lenett sent out two more.
Here’s Mailer #2.
And here’s Mailer #3, which includes the picture of the goons above.
It’s clear that Tripwire does not see Manno as good on their issues (especially since he has introduced gun-restricting legislation), but rather as the lesser of two evils. Lenett’s mailer says nothing about that. But the point is not the mailer’s text, which is not technically inaccurate, but the imagery. The allegedly pro-Manno thugs are obviously shown to scare people away from his candidacy. We are reminded of Nancy Navarro’s “Child Behind a Fence” mailer targeting Ben Kramer in last year’s special election. The point of that mailer’s text was to hit Kramer’s voting and sponsorship record, but the imagery was designed to evoke an emotional reaction of outrage. So it is with Lenett’s mail. Of course, Navarro’s mail and Lenett’s mail have one other thing in common: campaign consultant David Goodman helped to design both of them. Navarro’s negative mail backfired in Leisure World. Will Lenett’s?
Manno sent out this email response.Mike Lenett has crossed the line - again
Dear neighbor,
On Friday afternoon Mike Lenett once again sent out an outrageous and misleading mailer asserting that I am backed by the gun lobby. Not only does this make a mockery of a serious issue in the same week gun violence impacts our own community, but even when he is publicly corrected on this issue, he chooses to perpetuate these untruths.
As I mentioned in my first response to Lenett’s attack, I’ve fought hard to defeat concealed carry laws and fought hard to pass laws that keep guns off the streets. It’s why I was named to a Congressional blue ribbon task force to prevent gun violence. In fact, during my first week in the legislature I introduced a bill to break through decades of gridlock between the state and our counties on gun control. And while Mike Lenett and I both strongly support gun control, the truth is, Mike Lenett worked to defeat that bill.
Gun violence is real. We’ve all seen the horrors of it in the news media, and experienced it here in Montgomery County. Unfortunately, for many of our families and youth it’s too real. Growing up in New York City I had a gun put to my head - so I know what it’s like to fear for my life. I’ve mourned with my community as we buried friends, neighbors and classmates who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Mike knows this; he’s researched my record extensively. Yet Mike Lenett chose to send out a second mailer that made a false connection between me and right-wing gun extremists. That’s the difference between us. Mike Lenett wants to win this State Senate race at any cost, even if it means winning dirty.
Check out the facts for yourself, and please visit my website at www.RogerManno.com for more information.
Sincerely,
Roger
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Lenett, Manno Trade Fire on Guns
A pro-gun group has targeted Senator Mike Lenett (D-19) for defeat. But Lenett is returning fire and even spraying some shrapnel at challenger Roger Manno. That prompted Manno to take his own shots.
Here is Lenett's mailing on the gun issue.
The mailer is based on this website post by Tripwire, a pro-gun group. In its voting recommendations, the group says:District 19 (Montgomery County) Gun owners have one long-shot opportunity to help the Cause. It is in the Dem Senate primary, where Roger Manno challenges the incumbent Mike Lenett. Vote for Manno. He isn’t that good, but Lenett is that bad. He built a career on banning guns. He is a champion of licensing measures and worse while in Annapolis. Let’s take out the gun grabbers’ leadership if we can (just as D13 voters did 4 years ago with excellent effect.) The primary will determine this one, so all hands, please: big turnout. (If you’re a republican in this district – why? Your vote decides no outcome. Switch parties well before Aug 24th so you can make a difference!)
Lenett capitalizes on the reference to Manno, saying in his mailer:In a special alert, pro-gun forces have urged their followers to "Vote for Manno" and defeat Lenett, stating, "Let's take out the gun grabbers' leadership."
What Lenett does not say and Tripwire apparently does not know is that Manno also favors gun control. One of his first acts upon arriving in Annapolis was to introduce a local bill allowing Montgomery County to pass additional restrictions on guns that would have gone beyond state standards.
Manno put out this mailer in response, in which he states, "Mike Lenett has gone too far with his recent mailer on guns... Mike Lenett wants to win this Senate race at any cost, even if it means winning dirty."
Looks like this town is not big enough for the two of them. Draw, pahdnah!
Monday, April 20, 2009
Fact Check: Kramer’s Challenge to Navarro on Guns
Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) has shown his displeasure with Nancy Navarro’s negative mailers in recent debates. But one reference to a gun vote has attracted special ire and caused Kramer to issue a dramatic challenge. At stake is Kramer’s entire candidacy – and that’s according to Kramer himself.
Kramer disputes this statement from one of Navarro’s mailers:NRA & the Gun Lobby: Ben Kramer sponsored pro-gun legislation, making it easier to buy handguns in Maryland, that was touted by a Republican blog as a “step in the right direction.” The Washington Post noted “adding guns to an already combustible situation is likely to lead to more violence.”
By the Riderwood forum last Thursday, Kramer began pushing back against this allegation. One of his volunteers quoted him as making the following challenge:If Nancy Navarro can find one bill that I sponsored or voted for that weakens gun control protections, I will resign from this race. But if she can’t, I want her to stand up on Election Day with a sign that says, “I apologize to Ben Kramer.”
I heard Kramer state the challenge in a slightly different way at Friday’s Leisure World debate:If Nancy Navarro can point to a single vote by me to make handguns easier to buy in Maryland, I’ll withdraw from the race. Otherwise, she should apologize with a sign on the street on Election Day saying that “I was wrong about Ben Kramer.”
So did Ben Kramer support weakening gun control protections or making it easier to buy handguns? What are we going to see on Election Day: a big withdrawal or a big sign?
The focus of the dispute is HB 359, a bill that was lead-sponsored by Republican Delegate Tony McConkey (R-33A) and co-sponsored by Kramer and three others. The bill’s fiscal and policy note summarizes its purpose this way:This bill requires the Secretary of State Police to issue a handgun permit to a victim of domestic violence who has been issued a temporary or final protective order, assuming the individual meets other statutory handgun permit requirements. Specifically, the bill adds an individual who has been issued a temporary or final protective order to those individuals who, after meeting other statutory handgun permit requirements, are deemed to have a “good and substantial reason” to wear, carry, or transport a handgun.
The bill was extremely controversial. Advocates claimed it would help abuse victims defend themselves. Opponents claimed it would have unintended consequences. Consider these statements from one Baltimore City Delegate:Del. Cheryl D. Glenn (D-Baltimore), who last week rose on the floor to passionately recount her own experiences as the victim of violent beatings by an ex-husband in the 1970s, urged the bill’s defeat.
The Washington Post had these reservations about a similar Senate amendment:
“I can tell you as a victim, if I had had access to a gun at my most serious instances of domestic violence, I would have used it,” Glenn said. “Killing someone would have changed who I am today.”Victims’ advocates and law enforcement officers have serious concerns about the amendment. They worry that an abuser could discover a firearm hidden by a victim or wrestle away a gun during a dispute. It takes considerable training, police officials note, to be able to effectively wield a gun in self-defense. There’s another wrinkle: An abuser could misleadingly claim to be a victim of domestic violence and file for a protective order. This would rush a gun into the hands of someone capable of violence. And police officers called to domestic disputes could find themselves in greater danger.
In the end, the House bill was defeated 86-51. Kramer and Luiz Simmons (D-17) were the only Montgomery Delegates who voted for it.
Let’s evaluate Kramer’s challenge.
1. Does the bill make it easier to buy guns?
The bill never uses the term “buy.” It does require the Secretary of State Police to issue a permit to “carry, wear or transport a handgun” to applicants who have received a protective order from a judge. (An amendment changed the language to allow the Secretary to “consider” those protective orders as criteria for the permits.)
The bill’s fiscal and policy note states that 17,427 temporary protective orders and 9,104 final protective orders were granted by Maryland judges in fiscal year 2007. The note assumes that 10% of eligible individuals would apply for permits if the bill was passed, resulting in 1,700 to 1,800 additional applications per year. The bill estimates that the state would earn $130,500 more per year in permit application fees but would pay out an extra $240,600-$306,800 annually for the hire of two additional state troopers to process the applications.
Guns can only be obtained in one of two ways: by purchase or by theft. Most abuse victims are incapable of conjuring guns out of thin air. (If they could do that, there would be a lot less abuse!) Furthermore, individuals who steal guns rarely apply for permits for them. It defies common sense that a bill allowing thousands of people to more easily obtain permits would not result in more gun purchases.
Kramer is splitting hairs. Plain and simple, this bill would have allowed more people to legally buy guns – 1,700-1,800 in all per year. Whether those guns would have served a good purpose is a legitimate subject of debate.
2. Does the bill weaken gun control regulations?
Buried in the fiscal and policy note is this statement:DSP [Department of State Police] has questioned whether, after an order has expired, a handgun permit properly issued under the bill would still be valid. If not, the permit and the weapon might have to be forfeited. Because it takes about 120 days for the actual issuance of a printed permit, and because temporary protective orders can only be issued for 30 days, it would seem likely that those persons not issued a subsequent final order will have had the basis for issuance expire.
This is an important point that received no attention during the debate over the bill. A temporary protective order only lasts 30 days, but a gun permit takes 120 days to process. What happens if a temporary protective order expires but the gun permit is issued anyway? The individual who receives the permit would no longer have a legal basis for possessing it. The prospect of hundreds, maybe thousands of individuals obtaining gun permits without a current legal basis for having them is definitely a weakening of gun control regulations.
Kramer’s challenge fails. Will he withdraw?
Update: Ann Marimow really fell down on the job this time. Her rushed Washington Post article makes no reference to the above facts. She did not bother to read the bill or its fiscal and policy note, a serious disservice to her readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
