Maryland: Civil Immunity Legislation Heading to Governor O’Malley!

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5713

On Saturday, April 10, the State Senate passed Senate Bill 411, concurring with the House amendments by a margin of 47 to 0. The bill now heads to Governor Martin O’Malley (D) for his consideration.

Sponsored by State Senator Mac Middleton (D-28), SB411 would provide civil immunity from damages when force, including deadly force, is used and reasonable under the circumstances to repel an attack in the person’s dwelling or place of business.

This will be interesting. The bill passed unanimously in the State Senate but O'Malley has an F rating from the NRA. One may expect O'Malley to be opposed to the bill, but if he vetoes it an override is a near certainty. Governors and presidents don't like to have vetoes overridden so they tend to avoid vetoing legislation that has passed overwhelmingly.

Is O'Malley willing to spend political capital on a futile gesture?

[jeepnstein]

1. Considering the support in the Senate...

I would think the Governor would either jump on the bandwagon. If I were advising him I'd have him sign it in the presence of a large gathering of legislators.

[SteveM]

2. A veto would mean he thumbs his nose at fellow Democrats. nt

[Bold Lib]

3. Ann Richards did it in Texas - twice.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. And look how well *that* turned out!

W used those vetoes as his ticket to the governor's office.

Some people just don't grok 'cui bono'...

[TheWraith]

7. And if she'd allowed the referendum to go forward, and the people of Texas to decide...

...we might never have had a President Bush.

Gun control: a Republican's best friend.

[jazzhound]

8. Thank you.

I've always believed that but for the unstudied Democratic position on gun control, Bush would have never made it to the White House.

[GreenStormCloud]

9. Lots of otherwise good Democrats have bit the dust over gun control.

We lost big-time in 1994 because of the AWB.

[krispos42]

4. It would also protect people that use non-gun measures to defend themselves.

More civilized things like clubs and knives, I guess.


Actually, I would think that a resident that defends himself with something besides a gun would need the protection against civil lawsuits more than with a gun. If an intruder is shot, the odds are good he'll simply die, or take wounds to the extremedies. However, if an intruder is clubbed into unconciousness or stabbed with a knife, the odds are much higher of that intruder surviving with severe injuries that may require a lifetime of expensive medical care to treat.

Not to mention that an intruder facing a gun is more likely to retreat and thus avoid any kind of bodily injurty at all. An intruder might get angry that some puny homeowner nervously clutching a 9-iron would dare to try to stop him from stealing, or might decided to turn a robbery into a robbery-and-rape of a woman with a baseball bat.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. Good points. N/T