Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearms Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated public hearing on proposed firearms restrictions draws legal, safety and equity concerns
Summary
At a lengthy June 9 public hearing on county firearms bills, legal experts, permit holders, faith-community security leads and survivors testified about constitutional risk, disproportionate impacts on permit holders and the limits of buffer-zone proposals; the county heard calls both to strengthen prevention and to avoid policies likely to prompt litigation.
The Montgomery County Council heard extended public testimony June 9 on proposed firearms legislation that would restrict certain guns and create buffer zones near places of public assembly.
Supporters of stronger local limits were represented earlier in the day at a separate proclamation and by advocacy groups; at the public hearing opponents including legal counsel for gun-rights interests, permit holders, and security representatives urged the council to reconsider elements of the bills that they said risk constitutional preemption, operational complications, or disparate enforcement.
Mark Penock, who said he represented Maryland Shall Issue and litigated related consolidated cases, told the council the proposed language ‘‘disregards’’ recent Maryland Supreme Court guidance and, if enacted as written, would likely be challenged in federal court. He warned the county could face more litigation and legal fees if the ordinance is drafted too broadly.
Matt Moore, Maryland state director for Gun Owners of America, said the provisions would not deter criminals and that restricting law-abiding permit holders ‘‘does nothing to address violent criminals.’’ Moore described concerns about a proposed 100-yard prohibition around houses of worship, saying it could force congregations to hire paid security or leave them less protected.
Residents who hold Maryland wear-and-carry permits raised practical objections. John Pekoski, a permit holder of 26 years, said a 100-yard buffer can make everyday movement ‘‘impossible’’ for people who live near a community center or recreational facility. He urged either reinstating a permit-holder exemption or narrowing the buffer to the facility grounds.
The hearing also included testimony from faith-community security personnel. Elis Shimoni, head of security at Magen David Congregation, said the Jewish community has become a particular target of hate crimes and that many rely on highly trained congregants to provide protection during arrival and departure; he said the suggested buffer would ‘‘disarm the very people standing between our community and those who wish us harm.’'
Other speakers urged the council to consider past litigation costs and to demand greater transparency about legal fees and external counsel expenditures tied to prior firearms-related council actions. Esther Wells, a county resident, urged the council to reject one proposed bill as written because, she said, it risks constitutional vulnerabilities and litigation with moderate to high likelihood.
Representatives of county law enforcement described existing screening and hiring standards. Assistant Chief Nicholas Augustine of the Montgomery County Police Department described the department’s existing background review processes, said MCPD has not lowered standards, and urged that any policy change be operationally practical without creating undue hiring delays.
The council closed the public hearing after several hours of testimony. Sponsors said a public safety committee session and additional staff work are scheduled before further legislative action.
