Maryland Gov. Abusing Email Privacy to Push Gun Control Agenda

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley seems to have used his power as Governor to utilize the personal emails of hundreds of Marylanders holding hunting licenses in order to push his anti-gun agenda.

Patrick Shomo, the president of the pro-gun rights organization Maryland Shall Issue, told The Washington Times that Governor O’Malley is “tapping the state’s Department of Natural Resources database for hunting licenses” in order to gain access to the addresses.

Marylanders that hold state hunting licenses received an email from Gov. O’Malley on February 7 that was ostensibly informing them about the state’s hunting news. At the end of the message, though, O’Malley suddenly pivoted to an anti-gun message.

“I also want to take this opportunity to address you directly about the proposal we recently introduced to reduce gun violence,” O’Malley wrote. “Our goal is to enact common sense proposals to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, and to try to reduce the risk of a mass shooting like the one that occurred in Newtown. Let me be clear: We are committed to protecting hunters and their traditions. That’s why we specifically carved out shotguns and rifles from the licensing requirements of our bill.”

Of course, O’Malley’s bill is based on banning guns on cosmetic appearances, not actual mechanical factors. In fact, many guns currently used for hunting and target shooting can be altered to look like the sort of weapons that O’Malley thinks should be banned. The line is blurrier than O’Malley claimed in his email.

Shomo felt that the purpose of the Governor’s email was to cleave Maryland’s gun owners into two camps.

“They are not fooled. They know that he is trying to split the herd for now, and hunters know better than any others what happens to those split from the herd,” Shomo said.

As Emily Miller points out, Gov. O’Malley has an uphill battle to enact his gun grab. Marylanders are supporters of their Second Amendment rights. 83 percent believe in their right to self-protection and citizens are against the idea of government deciding which guns are allowed and which aren’t by a 50-39 margin.

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 14, 2013.
Filed under Big government, Constitutional Issues, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Gun control.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • jim_m

    The left will use hunting licenses as a virtual registration. Once they make guns illegal they will use hunting licenses as a tool to track down gun owners and confiscate their weapons.

    • stan25

      There are a few hunters that do not use firearms to hunt with. These are the archery hunters. Yes that can be used as database to confiscate firearms. Then it will be archery equipment that will taken next,

      • herddog505

        High-capacity assault quivers?

        You don’t need a bow with a pull of more than XX lbs to take a deer!

        The Founding Fathers never contemplated that people should be allowed to carry deadly compound bows!

        • jim_m

          Legislators in Vermont (one of only 4 Constitutional carry states in the nation) has already introduced a knife rights bill that will prevent municipalities or other local governments from passing laws that restrict people’s rights to carry a knife.

          In Sept, 2011 the Boston city council took up the issue of passing knife control that would have licensed stores to sell knives and limited the blade length to under 2″.

          So yes, arrow control and knife control might be jokes today, but they are already on the radical left’s agenda for tomorrow.

          • JWH

            The “don’t carry a knife” paranoia is awful. Since I was 12, I’ve considered a small pocket knife (typically a blade no more than three inches long) to be an essential tool. The blade is handy for small tasks, and the other attachments can be useful as well. After all, you never know when you’re going to be out in the wilderness and need to open a bottle of champagne. (Yes, I carried a Swiss Army knife).

            Thanks to knife paranoia, I can’t carry the thing anywhere anymore.

        • Conservachef

          Crossbows. I’ve never used one but I think that they can fire off a faster arrow than a regular bow. Of course, they are a bit slower to reload.

          • jim_m

            Not if they are full auto crossbows!!! Watch this and see why power screwdrivers must be outlawed.

            Money quote “As you know, I love weaponizing Black & Decker tools,”

          • Conservachef

            Assault weapon! I saw a forward grip on that thing!

            /sarc

            That actually looks pretty cool.

          • jim_m

            If you liked that then you will love the 900-MPH Supersonic Ping-Pong Bazooka

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Is it wrong of me to want one of those?

            Probably – but if that’s wrong I don’t want to be right!

          • Conservachef

            Hey you could probably make headlines by taking one to one of those gun buyback programs.. They made headlines turning in a spent rocket launcher tube, so why not this?

          • Oysteria

            I have a scope on my nail gun. I’m just sayin’

          • Conservachef

            That reminds me of the scene in Lethal Weapon (1 or 2? I don’t remember) where Danny Glover took out a bad guy with one of those…

            “Nailed ‘em.”

  • jim_m

    Gov. O’Malley has an uphill battle to enact his gun grab. Marylanders are supporters of their Second Amendment rights. 83 percent believe in their right to self-protection and citizens are against the idea of government deciding which guns are allowed and which aren’t by a 50-39 margin.

    That means nothing. If the dems have the votes they will take away your rights no matter how many of us disagree with them. They will then use our own tax dollars to prosecute us and to defend their unconstitutional law against us.

    The only answer is to start disarming government by convincing gun manufacturers to stop selling and servicing guns for law enforcement agencies in cities and states that are anti gun. A growing number of gun manufacturers are already starting this movement (Including Olympic Arms, York Arms, LaRue Tactical and Templar Arms, all suppliers of assault rifles to law enforcement)

  • herddog505

    Not that I support what this democrat has done, but I don’t think that we can say he’s “abusing” e-mails.

    However, this is spot-on:

    “[Hunters] are not fooled. They know that he is trying to split the herd for now, and hunters know better than any others what happens to those split from the herd…”
    The dems have tried this tactic before. It’s hard to say whether it’s been successful (my guess is that most hunters also like to keep a .45 for personal protection and likely enjoy target shooting with nasty ol’ assault weapons), but obviously the dems think that their usual “divide and conquer” strategy will work here.

    For your consideration: do you think that the recent attempt to portray the origins of the Second Amendment as a slave control measure were an effort to inject race into the debate (“whitey only wants guns to shoot YOU!”), or is it just reflexive liberal hate for the Constitution?

    • Conservachef

      Who was it on here that started that absurd argument- Steve Crickmore? I had a long “discussion” with him about that- meaning I gave him quotes from the Constitution’s authors, and he responded with opinion pieces from “guns are evil” journalists or professors.

      As for your question, I think it’s a reflexive, instinctive action to cry “racist!” whenever they encounter differing opinions. Now, the idea that “we aren’t going to take your hunting guns” is an insult to the 2nd Amendment. That is an attempt to redefine the meaning & intent of the amendment in order to greatly curtail the number/type of firearms out there.

    • jim_m

      Yes, both an intent to inject race into the debate and reflexive hate for the constitution. The left wants to demonize anyone who they disagree with. They disagree with the constitution so it must be made into a document of racism and hate as well.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        It’s seeming almost a pathological response. Guess they’ve lived with the idea that the racism card trumps all logical argument so long they literally can’t cope without it.

  • jim_m

    Remember: The left is in favor of assisted suicide, but the left cites suicides with guns as one of the reasons we need to have stricter gun control.

    This is not about guns or even about saving lives. This is about having total control over people and nothing short of that.

  • LiberalNightmare

    If they just keep telling us how wrong we are, someday we will listen.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    Just remember – they don’t want to take away your guns.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/breaking-mn-democrats-introduce-law-to-confiscate-guns-using-same-language-as-mo-democrats/

    You’ll have 90 days to hand them over. Voluntarily.

    You’ve got to wonder – is this a serious attempt, or just a sop to their base? Well, yeah, it’s a serious attempt, but I don’t see any possibility of it passing short of a collective brain fart in their respective state houses. They can’t believe there won’t be severe repercussions at the next election…

    Or can they?

    (Yeah, I know it’s Gateway Pundit, which doesn’t have the most level-headed way of presenting things. But seriously? I don’t care if the data comes from HuffPo where they’re cheering it, or Mother Jones where it’d be seen as the most progressive thing possible – this is worth sharing.)

    • jim_m

      The DFL has the majorities in both houses of the state legislature. This could very well pass through.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        (Various words, mostly obscene…)

        • jim_m

          2 words: MOLON LABE

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            4 words “Vote the bastards out!”

    • LiberalNightmare

      Democrats dont care about electoral repercussions. If their seat is endangered by a vote, they will rewarded with a sweet appointed position in state govt with a big fat tax payer funded pension.

    • jim_m

      Fear not. Wisconsin dems have just introduced a bill that not only outlaws self defense ammunition but “accidentally” outlaws hunting as well.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        Damn, their hate is making them stupid…

  • jim_m

    The left doesn’t want to take away our guns.

    Honest!!!