Self Defense Is An Alien Concept in Maryland Legislature 3-26-09
When it comes to concepts of self-defense, the Maryland legislature frequently errs on the side of protecting the criminal.
For example, Republican legislators annually introduce a bill to give civil immunity to people protecting their families, homes and businesses from burglars or violent criminals. Known as the "castle doctrine," the bill has passed the House of Delegates four times, but it dies in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee (JPR) and is stalled there again this year.
Yesterday, a self-defense measure was debated on the Senate floor to allow victims of domestic abuse access to an expedited process for obtaining a concealed carry permit. The amendment was added to an Administration bill to require that Judges order the confiscation of firearms when issuing a domestic protective order. The amendment, offered by Senator Anthony Muse, D - Prince George's County, was passed in JPR so that abused spouses who fear for their safety would have the means to protect themselves if attacked. On the Senate floor, Democrats asked that it be separated out for debate and its own vote.
But in the topsy-turvy world of Annapolis, the ensuing debate turned the self-defense argument on its head. Arming a victim could put other people in danger, according to the Senator Pro Tem, who cited the example of a horrible domestic violence incident in which Yvette Cade, was nearly burned to death by her ex-husband at work:
"Thank you Mr. President and members of the Senate. In response to my esteemed colleague from Western Maryland, lets make this observation - Given this scenario, there was a situation in Prince George's County unfortunately of a woman who was abused obviously. And she was at work. And her husband came in and unfortunately and lamentably threw some sort of gasoline mixture on her and set her on fire in her work environment. Suppose she had opted to have a gun in that situation. This is a place of business. And had she attempted to defend herself during this occurence, I just think that it may have been some unintended consequences in people who would be adversely affected . . ."
You can listen to the audio of the Senator Pro Tem speaking here.
The reasoning is a bit convoluted but it appears that the Senator is saying this: we don't want to give the victim the ability to defend herself from being set on fire. Moreover, we are not going to give victims of domestic abuse the resources to defend themselves because they are better off not being able to defend themselves.
Why is self defense such an alien concept to the General Assembly?