Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. $12 for 12 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

Sun wrong on gun law's consequences

Your recent editorial regarding gun control made a glaring error ("Carroll Co.'s nullification fantasy," May 24). In recounting the new gun law in Maryland, you stated that the only difference for handgun buyers was "that buyers provide their fingerprints as part of the application." The fingerprints are not for the application to purchase a handgun, but for a license that you must apply for before you fill out the application to purchase.

Your fingerprints are then submitted to the FBI, along with a separate form. That fingerprint check could take several months to accomplish and then Maryland State Police has 30 more days to issue the new license, something that has not existed until this new law. The total period of time for issuance of this newly-required license could extend well into four or five months prior to the purchase of your next handgun as of Oct. 1, 2013. Then you take your new license to a firearms retailer and fill out several more forms and wait for MSP to again check your background, every time you buy another handgun.

Since the state police are currently taking three months to conduct a seven-day background check, how in the world will they be able to issue up to 75,000 new licenses next year? They do not have the resources to accomplish this task, especially given that the new law doesn't increase their budget.

Requiring fingerprints to exercise a Constitutional right is just wrong. Perhaps the Sun should submit fingerprints to the state in order to write its editorials. Would you agree to that requirement?

Sanford Abrams, Owings Mills

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Maryland's gun law is working
    Maryland's gun law is working

    The gun lobby's lawsuit against Maryland's life-saving Firearm Safety Act described in Saturday's front page article does not challenge the constitutionality of the key provision of the act — requiring handgun purchasers to first obtain a fingerprint based background check and license...

  • Md. gun law is working [Letter]
    Md. gun law is working [Letter]

    Jack Mccauley's letter belittling the Firearms Safety Act fails to mention the most important parts of the new law — the requirement that handgun purchasers get a fingerprint-based license and the authority for the state police to regulate firearms dealers ("O'Malley, Brown are kidding...

  • Gun law doesn't make Marylanders safer [Letter]
    Gun law doesn't make Marylanders safer [Letter]

    Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown's recent commentary on Maryland's 2013 Firearms Safety Act is disingenuous and deceitful ("Brown: I will enforce gun safety law," Oct. 2).

  • A wasteful death by Uzi [Letter]

    Though I seriously doubt it, I wonder if a gun advocate or a member of National Rifle Association could explain to me why a 9-year-old girl needs weapons training ("An Uzi, a 9-year-old and American exceptionalism," Aug. 31). When I first read about the 9-year-old girl who had accidentally...

  • The city's problem isn't guns, it's gangs [Letter]
    The city's problem isn't guns, it's gangs [Letter]

    While I agree with letter writer Pat Ranney that Baltimore has a serious gun violence problem, she is incorrectly placing blame on an inanimate object. Guns don't pull the trigger, people do ("Baltimore's violence won't end until we stand up to the gun lobby," Aug. 14).

  • Judge's decision on Md. assault weapons ban makes no one safer [Letter]
    Judge's decision on Md. assault weapons ban makes no one safer [Letter]

    U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake's decision upholding Maryland's assault weapons ban isn't a victory for anyone ("A victory for public safety," Aug. 14).

Comments
Loading