Maryland stands at a crossroads of an epic issue. Will we govern as a Constitutional Republic or simply a hyper-democracy? Unfortunately, the mere act of taking SB281 to referendun would send the wrong message.  It would suggest Constitutional rights are subject to elimination at the whims of a simple majority… and it would fuel the ambitions of democratic majorities to continue their attacks on our freedoms.

We must not and cannot give any semblance of authority to an “unconstitutional act” or “pretended legislation” disguised as “law”.  Taking SB281 to referendum would do exactly  that.

Consider the implication if voters were to  support SB281.  A constitutionally protected right would be forever lost, and by “buying in” to a referendum process, we would be implicitly endorsing and condoning the misconception that our unalienable rights are subject to majority vote.   This is unacceptable, because in a Constitutional Republic, THE MAJORITY HAS NO AUTHORITY TO TAKE AWAY GOD GIVEN CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS FROM THE MINORITY .

We must never send the message that our God-given constitutional rights are subject to popular vote.

Some may ask, “If not referendum than what?”

We will be holding a series of meetings with distinguished leaders, officials, industry experts, scholars, activists, and constitutional attorneys to propose details of alternate actions designed to (a) restore our Second Amendment Protections; and (b) motivate and organize the sovereigns in Maryland (the people) to reaffirm our government’s commitment to the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson said. “What county can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance.”

Therefore, we the undersigned will not encourage, promote, or participate in any referendum of  SB281.

Delegate Don Dwyer, Jr.

Comissioner Richard Rothschild

More to come…..

AR-15 is a Palmetto Arms, 16″ barrel with collapsable stock

AK-47 is from Arsenal Inc., 16″ barrel with a side folding stock

Both guns are currently at Pasadena Gun and Pawn if you would like to view them and see what other goodies they have!

If you would like to purchase raffle tickets, Please mail a check for the total number of tickets to: Supporters of Don Dwyer , P.O. Box 667  Glen Burnie MD 21061.  Your stubs will be mailed to you.

If you would like to sell tickets for me, Simply email me at delegatedon@gmail.com and let me know how many you are willing to sell. I will mail you the ticket and the stub. After all are sold mail the checks ( Payable to Supporters of Don Dwyer) and the stubs to the P.O. Box above.

Or click here: GUN RAFFLE  to purchase or to get tickets to sell.

The winning tickets will be drawn Saturday July 6th.  Independence weekend. Location TBD

Raffle Rules: You must be able to lawfully purchase and own a firearm- you must be willing to assume the transfer fees.

Out of State winners must have an FFL from their state to handle the transfer and must be willing to assume shipping costs.

Taxes and associated costs other than transfer fees will be covered by Supporters of Don Dwyer.

Proceeds will benefit Supporters of Don Dwyer and will also used in an effort to unseat the Legislators who worked to support, vote for and pass SB 281.

Thanks so much for your support

Constitutionally yours,

Delegate Don Dwyer

Here’s why: In Maryland, the Democrat primary controls for the most part, the elections in three major jurisdictions. Prince Georges, Montgomery County and Baltimore City. If the gun community alone follows me in this strategic plan, we can have a real effect on the next statewide election. What we have been doing for decades is NOT working. We are losing the war on our Inalienable Rights. It’s time we fight back strategically and quickly to save our State.

I am considering registering Democrat in order that I may lead a legitimate movement (www.freestatedinos.com) to VOTE OUT the hard left liberals who are hell bent on taking away our liberties and our Constitutionally protected rights. I will likely make this decision within a few days. If you would like to give me your opinion please visit me on Face Book and respond to my post.

We must do all we can to defend the State & United States Constitutions. I truly fear that we are about to lose yet again more of our constitutionally protected rights here in Maryland.

Maryland politicians have no fear of a few thousand angry and determined Republicans. However, A few thousand angry and determined Democrats can do significant damage to a primary.

For example: Karen Montgomery is a co-sponsor of SB281 that infringes on your right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Sen. Karen Montgomery barely won her primary in 2010 by 116 VOTES!! Can we enlist just 200 DINO’s in District 14 to take her out?

Will you follow me?

For more information go to freestatedinos.com   To join me change your party affiliation NOW- Voter Registration Online

Operation DINO (Democrat in Name Only)

Why?

More Examples- 2010 primary results:

Senate

Forehand is a SB281 co-sponsor.

Jennie M. Forehand 4129

Cheryl C. Kagan 3773

Margin: 356 votes.

Manno is a SB281 co-sponsor.

Roger P. Manno 5892

Mike Lenett 5020

Margin: 872 votes

House:

Luedtke is a co-sponsor of HB 294

Eric Luedtke 3696

Jodi Finkelstein 3154 – closest challenger

Margin: 542 votes

Kelley is a co-sponsor of HB 294

Ariana Kelly 5129

Kyle Lierman 4773- closest challenger

Margin: 356 votes

Today, Delegate Don Dwyer received and delivered to the House Judiciary Committee, about 20 thousand sheets of written testimony submitted by Mr. Mike Endzel of Easton on behalf of citizens opposing the many gun ban bills being heard on Friday March 1^st, including HB 294 the Governor’s so called “Firearms Safety Act”

Mr. Endzel and Chris Dingler created a website www.nationalbands.com to provide a venue for people who are not able to come to Annapolis in person, to submit written testimony for what has become a galvanizing issue for many Marylanders.

Mr. Endzel had not previously participated in the Legislative process, but was moved to do so because of  this issue and had come to Annapolis on February 6 along with close to 4,000 other citizens. He said that his inspiration for the idea came after he stood in line to sign up to testify for over 5 hours but in the end was not afforded the opportunity to speak. Mr. Endzel said that he received emails from disabled veterans who stated that they would not be physically capable of coming to Annapolis to testify in person, thanking him for providing a means to have their voice heard. Mr. Endzel committed to printing the required 70 copies at his own cost and delivering the testimonies to Delegate Dwyer.

“I think it is a wonderful thing he has done. The Legislature has never before seen the amount of emails, phone calls and people out in opposition to these “gun control” bills. I commend Mike for what he has done to help give people a voice in the process.” Said Delegate Dwyer

You numbered so many that they had to close the building for safety reasons at the request of DGS Police and State Police because of the fire code capacity.

This has never happened in Annapolis! And you all did it!

I want to assure each of you that came and signed in but was not able to speak- your name is recorded and entered in the record as opposing this legislation. Please do not go away with the thought that because you couldn’t testify, your voice was not heard, or that your time was wasted. More than individual testimony, it was critically important that you show up in solid numbers, you did and your voice was heard!

I will call on you again- this is not a one day fight, but an ongoing battle. These bills and many others will be heard in the House of Delegates and I will contact you when the date of the hearing is announced. We need each of you to come back and bring more people. We can show them that we won’t back down defending our civil rights.

Constitutionally Yours,

Don H. Dwyer, Jr.

Maryland Sheriffs’ Association

Sheriff Michael A. Lewis

410 Naylor Mill Road Salisbury, MD 21803

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Dear Sheriff Lewis,

In light of President Obama’s intent to infringe the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Citizens across America by way of Executive Orders, I am calling on you and the members of the Maryland Sheriffs’ Association to follow the lead and example of the Utah Sheriffs’ Association in defending the Constitutional rights of Maryland’s Citizens.

 I have enclosed a copy of the letter dated 1/17/2013 and sent by the Utah Sheriffs’ Association to President Barack Obama, whereby they refuse to deny the Citizens of their state, the Constitutional protections of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and are prepared to take all action to defend those rights.

 It is my hope that the duly elected Sheriffs will remember and honor their vow to uphold the Constitution, rather than enforce any unconstitutional laws stripping Americans of their rights.

 On behalf of the Citizens of the State of Maryland,

Constitutionally yours,

 Delegate Don Dwyer, Jr.

Hearing for SB 281

The Declaration of Independence recognizes the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without the right to Keep and Bear Arms, we the people would have no defense against a tyrannical  government. Additionally, without the right to bear arms, we would not have the ability to protect ourselves, our lives, or our property as the Founders so clearly intended.

I have always campaigned with the Second Amendment as one of my core issues.  I not only campaign on gun rights issues, but also sponsor the right to carry legislation in Maryland. In 2007 I welcomed the opportunity to meet and collaborate with Dan Reiley (a Democrat) regarding the Right to Carry legislation. Dan urged me to let him sponsor the bill and gather democrat support for the bill.  From 2007 until now, Dan and I worked with Delegate Smigiel to do our best to pass right to carry legislation in Maryland.  Unfortunately, Dan lost the Democrat primary and as result, I will work closely with Delegate Smigiel and Maryland’s gun community to determine our strategy for the upcoming legislative session.

Constitutionally yours,

Delegate Don Dwyer, Jr.

Office of the Attorney General

200 St. Paul Place

Baltimore, MD 21202

Regarding: Opinion of Law Request on Civil Rights

Dear Attorney General Gansler,

Thank you for your reply regarding the case of McDonald v City of Chicago and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Given that my original request was somewhat generic in nature, I would like to take this time to be much more specific. 

I request an opinion regarding a fundamental civil right – the right to keep and bear arms – within the state of Maryland. Specifically, I request your opinion on the likelihood that one or more provisions of Maryland annotated code may violate the civil rights of Maryland residents.

You are no doubt aware of the recent substantive incorporation of the full text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as a Fundamental Civil Right via the Due Process Clause of the 14^th Amendment, in McDonald v City of Chicago[1] (“the Opinion”).

In summary, I submit the following facts from the Opinion:

1. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
2. The States and their units of local government are bound to respect Second Amendment rights by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment was incorporated via Substantive Due Process as a Fundamental Right of the people of the United States.
3. The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to carry functional handguns in non-sensitive public places for purposes of self-defense. The Opinion holds that “self defense was the central component of the right itself.”[2] (emphasis exists in the Opinion)
4. The Fundamental Right to bear arms recognized by the Opinion is not restricted to the home. The Opinion only notes that – much like the practice of religion or the exercise of free speech – the Fundamental Right to bear arms is “most acute” in the home. Several organizations that advocate the violation of civil rights are erroneously reporting that the incorporation of the Second Amendment was limited to the home. This is facially untrue: there is no text within the Opinion that suggests a limitation of this Fundamental Civil Right to the home.
5. The States retain the ability to regulate the manner of carrying handguns (open or concealed), prohibit the carrying of handguns in specific, narrowly defined sensitive places, prohibit the carrying of arms that are not within the scope of Second Amendment protection, and disqualify specific, particularly dangerous individuals from carrying handguns. These “reasonable restrictions” strike a balance between safety and liberty, and in no way constitute an open door to excessive regulation that would restrict the free exercise of the right to bear arms by law-abiding individuals.
6. The States may not completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense, deny individuals the right to carry handguns in non-sensitive places, deprive individuals of the right to carry handguns in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or impose regulations on the right to carry handguns that are inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
7. The Second Amendment is fully applicable to the states, in it entirety. The Supreme Court, both through longstanding tradition and specifically in this Opinion, rejected “the notion that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the States only a watered-down, subjective version of the individual guarantees of the Bill of Rights.”[3] It is clear that the Second Amendment must be scrutinized as a Fundamental Right like that of other Fundamental Rights – such as the right to free speech, the free exercise of religion, and the like. There is no special “carve out” that exempts the States and their local units of government from recognizing – and indeed, protecting – the free exercise of this fundamental civil right.
8. Individuals cannot be required to prove their “good cause” for the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

My Concerns Regarding Existing Maryland Regulation

I am concerned that existing Maryland regulation violates the fundamental civil rights of individuals within our great state to bear functional arms in defense of their person. Maryland provides a mechanism for the carry of handguns in public by individuals, but regulation requires a finding of heightened need for self-defense apart from the general public in order to qualify for a permit to do so. This regulation now appears in direct contravention of the core principle of the Second Amendment, which Maryland must now respect.

Self-defense is a legitimate cause for carry – indeed, according to the Supreme Court, self-defense is the central component protected by the Second Amendment.

The state’s interest in restricting defensive weapons from particularly dangerous or otherwise unqualified individuals is ably met through other tests already present in regulation. Restrictions on the exercise of a right deemed “Fundamental” require a strict, three-prong test: it must be justified by a compelling government interest; it must also be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest; and it must also be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.

Any “compelling interest” claimed by a State on the theory that “restrictions on the carry of arms by law-abiding individuals are required for the purposes of public safety” fails on the basis of more than two decades worth of data from the Federal and various States’ Departments of Justice, demonstrating beyond doubt that a liberalization of carry standards does not result in an increase in violent gun crime. Quite the contrary – in more than 40 “Shall Issue” States, violent crime has continued to drop despite a sizeable increase in the number individuals who carry arms on their person in public. The “compelling interest of public safety” theory is provably false when applied against law-abiding and otherwise qualified individuals using readily available, neutrally sourced, government data.

There does exist a compelling interest in restricting arms from those who are “particularly dangerous”, of unsound mental condition, habitual drunkards or abusive of controlled substances, or who have demonstrated a propensity for unprovoked violence. Existing Maryland regulation is not narrowly tailored to meet just this need. With regard to Title 5, Subtitle 3 of the Public Safety Article, § 5-306 (a)(5)(ii) (“Qualifications for permit”), the requirement to prove heightened need for self defense from “apprehended danger” results in an overly broad restriction, as an exceptionally small percentage of individuals within Maryland would be able to meet that condition. This regulation results in an exceptionally broad restriction on the right to bear arms by individuals within Maryland.

Other conditions within the Public Safety Article are adequate to answer the true compelling need of restricting arms from dangerous individuals and represent the least restrictive means for achieving this compelling interest, without unconstitutionally burdening law-abiding individuals within our state.

In light of the above, incontrovertible facts, I humbly request your evaluation and response to the following inquiries of law, legal theory and practice of the State of Maryland:

1. Given the fact that self-defense is defined as the central component of the Second Amendment, does it remain the opinion of the Attorney General that Title 5, Subtitle 3 of the Public Safety Article, § 5-306(a) (5) (ii) (“Qualifications for permit”) is Constitutional, considering that it fails to recognize “self defense” as “good and substantial cause” except in cases of documented, “apprehended danger”?
2. Is it the opinion of the Attorney General that law-abiding individuals must demonstrate a unique, heightened need for self-defense apart from the general public in order to exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms in non-sensitive, public places?
3. If it is the opinion of the Attorney General that existing Maryland regulation regarding the denial of carry permits to otherwise law-abiding and qualified individuals who lack a heightened need for self-defense is Constitutional, would you explain the theory of law used in constructing this decision?
4. Is it the opinion of the Attorney General that the Fundamental Right to Keep and Bear Arms must be afforded the same scrutiny as other Fundamental Rights, specifically the First Amendment Right to free speech and the free exercise of religion?
5. Does the Attorney General recognize the supremacy of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution over Maryland regulation?
6. Will the Attorney General support and defend the Fundamental Second Amendment Rights of individuals within Maryland to the fullest extent of his power, with the same scrutiny provided other Fundamental Rights previously recognized or incorporated in Maryland, such as the First Amendment?

I appreciate your timely consideration of these questions and look forward to your response.

Constitutionally Yours,

Don H. Dwyer, Jr.

Delegate

[2] McDonald v City of Chicago, Opinion of the Court, Page 19

[3] McDonald v City of Chicago, Opinion of the Court, pages 17, 39, 41

Read his response to my letter by downloading the pdf. here: Attorney General’s Response