Gov. O’Malley Muzzled MD State Police Commander During Gun Control “Debate”

Former MD State Police Commander Jack McCauley (courtesy linkedin.com)

Get your surprised face ready. watchdogwire.com reports that MD Governor O’Malley’s Deputy Legislative Officer ordered State Police Commander Captain Jack McCauley [now retired, above] not to answer a simple question posed to him by a legislator in the run-up to the state’s post-Newtown civilian disarmament bill. Would the [then] proposed ban on “assault rifles” and “high-capacity” ammunition magazines reduce crime? McCauley describes his response in an affidavit in a case aimed an over-turning the law (good luck with that): “Shocked that I would not be allowed to respond to a question asked by a member of the General Assembly . . .

“especially after being designated for the ostensible purpose of answering those questions at the meeting, I requested an immediate clarification of her directive. Ms. Paskel then reiterated in no uncertain terms, that I was not to respond to the delegate’s question.”

The response he would have made . . .

Had he been able to answer, McCauley said he would have told the committee that the law would have no effect on crime in Maryland, that banned weapons were almost never used in crimes in the state, it would have no impact on mass shootings, and that those wishing to acquire a magazine with a capacity greater than ten rounds would purchase one out-of-state, rendering the ban ineffective, except to restrict the choices of firearms and magazines by law-abiding citizens.

After the hearing ended, according to McCauley, is when Paskel explained to him in a hallway outside the hearing room, the reason she ordered him not to answer the question because the bill was it was “not about policy; it is just votes.”

McCauley inferred from her that the O’Malley administration was pushing the law “solely to garner political favor” and that they law would have no effect on crime and mass shootings or “didn’t care.”

McCauley finished his testimony stating that he believed Paskel’s statement was an extension of the O’Malley administration’s treatment of firearms issues.  McCauley stated that during his time with the MSP Gang Enforcement and Firearms Enforcement units he was involved in the seizure of a number of firearms not involved in crime, and very few of which were banned by the law.  “Emphasis was placed,” McCauley said, “on the seizure of these firearms as the Office of the Governor wished to focus solely upon the firearms seized, and not decreasing crime.”

Raise your hand if you’re surprised. Thought so.

It’s been said before. It needs to be said again and again: the antis do not have the facts on their side. They know this. So they use every “trick” they can to forward their agenda: mischaracterization, misdirection, emotional blackmail and outright lies. The friends of firearm freedom must never miss a chance to tell the truth about guns. Those who do are not its friend. [h/t DCW]

comments

  1. avatar El Mac says:

    One wonders how he looks at himself in the mirror. What would have been the worst thing that could have happened to him if he had reached down and reminded himself that he is a man FIRST, and a political lackey SECOND? Gutless. Spineless. This is what is wrong with America 2014.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      What happened to his oath to defend the State and U.S. Constitution?

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @RF, exactly. Sadly, in modern America, oaths don’t mean shit.

      2. avatar Taylor TX says:

        I think most politicians lately have chosen between a sort of ad libbed version of that oath.

        I _____ do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the _______ against all enemies _____.

      3. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

        The problem is that there is now an inherent contradiction between the two. The State and the Constitution are at odds with each other and “public servants” must make hard and often confusing choices between the two.

        It’s time we just stated the truth: The State–both the Federal Government, and most state governments—is currently in a state of open rebellion against the Federal Constitution, most state constitutions, and the People who created the State.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          Oathkeeps.

        2. avatar pyratemime says:

          As a federal employee I have to take issue with part of what you said. Making the choice between what is right and what is expected is often hard (in that the repercussions can be dire and good feelings don’t pay the bills) but they are seldom confusing. Not testifying truthfully in a legislative hearing is not a confusing choice no matter how hard it may be to deal with the career ramifications afterward.

        3. avatar borg says:

          If he was concerned about losing his job he could have stated simply that his employer threatened him with termination if he were to answer truthfully.

        4. avatar Jus Bill says:

          And just who do you think that he would be stating this to? Oh, his employer. Right…

    2. avatar Danny C-W says:

      He did leave the MSP right around the time O’Malley signed the FSAof2013 into law. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @Danny C-W, then he should have nutted up and done the right thing.

        1. avatar Danny C-W says:

          We need him though. There’s a second lawsuit against the licensing requirements that were instated last year too. He’ll likely have valuable and damning input should he be summoned to depose.

        2. avatar MSI VP says:

          It wouldn’t have made a difference for two reasons.

          1. O’Malley, the President of the MD Senate, and the Speaker of the MD House, threatened the Demeocrats on the joint committee with loss of committee appointments and loss of discretionary funding to their districts, if they did not support this bill. Up until the night before the joint committee vote in the House, the joint committee had decided to take the entire bill, shove it and start with a working group to study the issue and report back.

          2. Had Captain McCaully gone against the directive of the Governor’s Office, he would have been pout of a job, out of a pension and out of anyway to support his family after 30+ years working for the the citizens of the State of MD. We also would not have had his testimony to use in our lawsuit against the state, with regards to the AWB and magazine limit. (Kolbe v O’Malley)

          On another note, Captain McCaully was, and has been, the only commander of the MSP Licensing Division to actively work with Maryland Shall Issue (MSI) and other 2A organizations in the state of MD, with regards to working to protect lawful firearms owners in the state.

  2. avatar ST says:

    This is an important data point to use. Gun laws aren’t about fighting crime any more then registering cars is about stopping car theft.

    Those gun laws exist for one honest purpose-to enforce the victim culture by denying the tools we are legally guaranteed to have.

    Stopping CRIME? Without appealing to the ghetto rat 2 strikes demographic, O’Malley and her kind would be unemployed!

    1. avatar notaTTAGreg says:

      Gov. Martin O’Malley is a he.

      1. avatar Jeff says:

        Technically.

      2. avatar El Mac says:

        @notaTTAGreg, well “he” doesn’t act like a “he”.

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      MOM’s off to Iowa today to try to pretend there’s a chance to try to become President. Let’s hope the ticket is one-way.

  3. avatar ChrisB says:

    FYI, it is now much easier to get a firearm in Washington DC than in Maryland, Cali, Connecticut, Mass.and several other states.

    There is no handgun legal in Maryland that is also not also legal in DC. There are way more handgun models legal in DC than in California or Mass.

    I know for a fact it is faster to get a hangun in DC (10 days from date of ordering one on the net to be shipped the DC FFL) than in Maryland or NJ (average time to FOID 60 days)

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      … except last I heard there were no (as in zero) Federal Firearm Licensees in Washington D.C. making the acquisition of a firearm impossible.

      1. avatar ChrisB says:

        Well like a lot of things people say about DC gun laws that is 100% false. Much of the info on handgunlaw and even more info on the NRAILA site is completely wrong. I know, I have six guns registered in DC

        The FFL is right in the main DC police station down the hall to the firearm office, and he has been here for 6 years.

        And you need no DC FFL if it is a long gun. You just go to any FFL seller like Dicks, Bass or a LGS in Virginia, Maryland buy the gun , fill out a form, go to the DC firarms office to pick up permit and return to the store ten days later to pick upi the long gun.

        For handguns you just buy anywhere on the net and have it sent to the FFL, which again, is and for years has been, an office in DC police station. You go ten days after the date you ordered, spend about 90 minutes with aperwork (less if it s your send gun) and leave with your handgun.

        Again DC laws are EASIER than NJ, NY, Cali, Mass, Maryland and a bunch of other states

        1. avatar ChrisB says:

          By the way my DC registered guns include a mini-14, a 10/22, a semi-auto baretta shotgun, a 2p29, and my dad’s 1911.. I have an ARES SCR on order

          Maryland, California and Massachusetts allowed handgun list are shorter than what we can own in DC.

        2. avatar SAS 2008 says:

          “return to the store ten days later to pick upi the long gun.”

          How ridiculous. I feel sorry for all of you in states with such laws. I have visited the LGS over lunch and saw something I wanted. 10 minutes later I walked out with either a handgun or a rifle.

        3. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Riddle me this:

          How is one to get the gun from the FFL (MPD pickup point [and knowing them it had BETTER be insured for when it’s “lost”]) to your house if you haven’t reregistered or don’t want to put up with the BS and cost (time and money) associated with trying to get a DC carry license?

          Teleportation?

        4. avatar ChrisB says:

          “Jus Bill says:
          “Riddle me this:
          How is one to get the gun from the FFL (MPD pickup point [and knowing them it had BETTER be insured for when it’s “lost”]) to your house if you haven’t reregistered or don’t want to put up with the BS and cost (time and money) associated with trying to get a DC carry license?
          Teleportation?”

          Jus Bil, in DC you can legally take the bus, subway, taxi or your own car back home with the gun — just like the 99% of US gun buyers nationally who don’t have a Carry Licence and transport guns daily. As long as the gun is in a locked pouch, or locked small gun box inside your backpack, and ammo is separate, you are 100 legal in DC.

          With a long gun you don’t need to to the DC FFL at all

          and why are you saying the DC FFL would “lose” it? Does your FFL lose a lot of guns?

          I don’t get the “riddle me this” attitude.” I am not defending DC laws but as I said I have fire purchases and one transfer while in DC. I don’t applaud their law but it is easier than NJ, Mass, whee I have lived, or Maryland where I have many friends.

          In New Jersey I had to get two letters from my neighbors, stating I was a good guy with no moral turpitude, to take possession of my dad’s handgun — and the processing time was almost three months — that is a possession NOT a carry permit.

          With teh new laws in Cali and NY, over half the country is now worse than DC

        5. avatar ChrisB says:

          “How ridiculous. I feel sorry for all of you in states with such laws. I have visited the LGS over lunch and saw something I wanted. 10 minutes later I walked out with either a handgun or a rifle.”

          It is ridiculous, but in DC if you decide on Jan 1st you want to own a handgun, even first the very first time, , and know what model, you have one in your hands a home on Jan 10 or latest Jan 12th. In Maryland, BEFORE the laws o’malley passed, if you decided on Jan 1, you would have to wait 5 to 10 weeks. Just check it out on mdshooters forum

  4. avatar borg says:

    If I were the police commander I would have told the truth when asked and I would have ended by saying I fully expect to be fired as retaliation for telling the legislators the truth.

    1. avatar El Mac says:

      @borg, exactly.

    2. avatar Montana Dan says:

      Then you never would have gotten the job in the first place, people don’t roll out of bed to find that their moral compass is mysteriously off.

  5. avatar launchpadmech says:

    This is MD we are property of the State. They feed,cloth and medicate us.All we need to do is OBEY!.When we don’t they put us in jail or chase us out in other ways. The courts are full of it. But, right now it’s everywhere.

  6. avatar ChrisB says:

    Part of the reason we oppose CDC studies is the bogus comparisons on gun laws and crime that have bieen proffered by the anti gun rights researchers seeking to get underwritten via our tax dollars at the CDC. We got absurd comparisons of Alaska v haiwii, Mass vs Louisiana to attack our rights.

    The most apt and sober comparison for gun laws and crime is Maryland Vs. Virginia. They have stunningly similar demographics on age, income, education level, They are in th same region, and in fact share suburbs with the same major city (DC) as well as having their own cities.

    In fact Maryland and Virginia are used by social scientists, because of their similarities.

    Maryland:
    -Way more gun control laws even before these new laws.
    – Way LESS general population gun owners
    – Stunning less concealed carry permit holders

    Maryland:
    – Nearly DOUBLE the violent crime and murder rate of Virginia

    You know how the gun violence researchers hand this “problem”? Every single comparison they give includes gun suicide as gun violence, which makes the difference in the important number (murder) less stark. Yeah there are less legal guns in Maryland so there is less gun suicide. But there is no less actual suicide by all means

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      Effin’ CDC hack liars.

      And of course, the only studies that will be heard from the discriminating blinder wearing parrots in the mainline progressive media will be from the CDC and similar anti-gun crowd sponsored “studies”, bogus and flawed as they will be.

      1. avatar ChrisB says:

        My favorite CDC study was the one showing firearms owning home are more dangerous to members of the domicile.

        Almost all those deaths of people in homes with guns turn out to be criminals, gang members and drug dealers who own illegal guns, and their family members . If you leave out suicide by gun, and control for criminals and gang embers, the remaining gun owning homes turn out to be safer. Yet they flogged that study, which spawned other studies, and claim you are in more danger owing a gun. When the question out to be: “are you an armed meth dealer?’ If you are your household members are at high risk. If not, owning a gun actually slightly reduced your risk of being a victim of violence.

        The gun suicide numbers were as idiotic to include as the criminals shot in their own homes. If you own a gun and commit suicide it is most likely by gun. If you don’t own a gun you are as likely to commit suicide — just not by gun

        So 72% of gun deaths in “gun owning homes” are suicide but irrelevant. And over 90% of the remaining people, shot by someone else, at a “gun owning home” are themselves criminals or living with a criminal. Yet we taxpayers paid for a study implying that this was about the average gun owning person and used to reduce our rights.

        1. avatar Roscoe says:

          Exactly!

          Speaking of suicide, hypothetically, why would a gun owner with a collection s/he wished to pass on to their heirs even consider also leaving the legacy of suicide by their own hand with a gun?

          Goes against the grain, and speaking of passing on an evil omen…just sayin’.

        2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Right. That’s the infamous “43 times more likely” study, the one that claims that a gun in the household is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder. That study has been refuted and discredited by multiple other academic studies. In particular, that 43 Times study failed to account for defensive gun uses that didn’t involve killing the intruder.

          That skews the data set by ignoring the majority of actual outcomes and thwarts interpretation of the lethal outcomes in the proper context. The irony is that if lawful firearms owners were anywhere near the bloodthirsty savages that the antis portray them as being, then a the bulk of those numerous nonlethal DGU’s against intruders would result in dead intruders, providing a higher body count volume to counter their already misleading “43 times” conclusion.

        3. avatar ChrisB says:

          ” In particular, that 43 Times study failed to account for defensive gun uses that didn’t involve killing the intruder.”

          Yes that one made all three mistakes:
          1) counting suicide
          2) counting criminal gun owners, siblings or kids or stepkids of armed gang members and drug dealers, etc
          3) not counting the 99.9% of defensive gun use that are showing gun, brandishing gun, or firing in the air (“Bidening”, a felony in my town).

          ALL subsequent studies or meta-studies use one or more of those deeply misleading canards to create a false impression.

          Now can you imagine if the CDC were spending millions and millions and coming up with reports saying that people with a criminal record (armed or not), either parents or siblings, should not even be allowed to live in a home because they found higher rates of harm to children increased if the parent or sibling had a criminal record? You think the CDC would dare tell that truth?

  7. avatar Gregolas says:

    I wonder how he sleeps at night knowing he followed an order to use the Constitution and the truth as toilet paper just to save his pension?
    The legislature should have him up on perjury charges and the legal chick for suborning perjury.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      Unfortunately, probably quite well.

      Our country seems to be transitioning from Shakespeare to Mel Brooks:

      “Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown” to “It’s good to be the king!”

    2. avatar MSI VP says:

      Those who testify in front of any committee of the MD House or MD Senate are not sworn in, so there is no perjury issue.

      As to the pension comment, I would like to know how many on here would throw away 30+ years of pension and benefits and not support their family?

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        “As to the pension comment, I would like to know how many on hear would throw away 30+ years of pension and benefits and not support their family?”

        That’s what a number of cops have said about enforcing gun and magazine bans. They said that would would have no problem confiscating guns, ammunition, and magazines from citizens, arresting them, and putting them in jail. It’s the law, and if the law said “take ’em all” (assault weapons ban, anyone?) they would. They said that they aren’t risking their pensions.

      2. avatar Bob4 says:

        I have to say it. I wonder how many Nazi’s did it for their pension or some other job perk. No job perk gives a person the right to stomp on the rights of another. I look forward to the day when those who would enforce an unconstitutional law or regulation on an innocent populace face prison for their deeds. if history is any indication, it is more likely than they know.

  8. avatar launchpadmech says:

    The way these people sleep? It’s not me. But there’s money in it.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      That and large doses of alcohol and/or drugs.

  9. avatar Rich Grise says:

    Well, it’s gonna get worse before it gets better.

  10. avatar Mina says:

    Right, because they are all #LyingLiar Leftists. And it will never change.

  11. avatar cubby123 says:

    I’m raising my hand!

  12. avatar DerryM says:

    This just goes to show that the Democratic Socialists are totalitarians at heart.

    1. avatar El Mac says:

      @DerryM, hopefully that wasn’t your first clue.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        No it wasn’t, but does it seem to you a lot of people keep pussy-footing around calling-out the Obama Administration, “Blue State” Governments, the Political Correctness Storm Troopers, Jay “Baghdad Bob Jr.” Carney and a whole host of others for being the totalitarians, liars and cheats they are?
        So, I just make a point of saying it every time I can, in the hope more people will wake-up and get radicalized by how unacceptable this situation has become. Thanks for tipping me off I am not doing it forcefully enough.

  13. avatar borg says:

    He could have stated truthfully that his employer threatened termination if he were to answer truthfully.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      That, I think, would have been a good approach.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        And if you watched the proceedings on YouTube, you would have noted that the “show debate” was entirely rigged, as was the illegal second, complete vote.

        Truly worthy of a totalitarian state Parliament, not the Free State [IRONY ALERT] Legislature.

  14. avatar Gun_Chris says:

    Is stuff like this admissible in court for challenging these laws? It seems like the specific intent is to deny people their rights through color of law.

    Granted we all know that this is why they do it, but it’s not every day you have them admitting so.

    1. avatar notaTTAGreg says:

      IIRC this excerpt is taken from his deposition for the trial, which the state wants withdrawn.

      1. avatar Gun_Chris says:

        Oh good, and upon rereading the article I now see where it says that.

    2. avatar MSI VP says:

      Captain McCaully offered this Affidavit for our lawsuit against the state. (kolbe v O’Malley)

  15. avatar MoltElevator9 says:

    I am not a fan of these “catchy” headlines. The author/editor is clearly trying to make the reader assume that the LEO was swept with the muzzle of a gun, when in fact, he was told to shut up. You guys are better than this. Why must you sensationalize things?

    1. avatar scott says:

      Um, no, I doubt the author/editor tried to make any of us assume that. Muzzled pretty much means no using your jaw and mouth, much like a dog might be muzzled. Sheesh…

    2. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Just in case you’re not being facetious, the term was used in the same sense as muzzling a dog.
      And anyway, isn’t sweeping someone with the gun muzzle referred to as “lasering,” or even “sweeping?”

  16. avatar borg says:

    Apparently he was willing to follow orders blindly. Would he have gunned down the legislator that asked the question if ordered to do so by her?

    1. avatar MSI VP says:

      He did not follow blindly. This was actually the last straw from the Administration, that cause the Captain to submit his retirement papers. He was the only Captain in charge of the MSP Licensing Division to work with Maryland Shall Issue (MSI) and other 2A organizations in the state to help protect legal firearms owners from over reach.

  17. avatar Jus Bill says:

    I expected no less from an official minion of the State of Maryland. Check your morality and ethics at the state line and pick up your Democratic Party membership card.

  18. avatar borg says:

    I realized that he may have followed orders reluctantly to buy time to retire so that he would not lose his pension by being fired.

  19. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    Response could have been: “I have been ordered by the office of the governor not to tell you that the law would have no effect on crime in Maryland.”

    Then let’s see what would have happened.

  20. avatar borg says:

    He could have said that the governor considers the legislature his slave.

  21. avatar borg says:

    His unique perspective opens the door to federal investigations regarding the criminal color of law and/or conspiracy to deprive of rights that all involved could be charged with.

  22. avatar Mark says:

    So much for testicles being a requirement on a male State Police captain in Maryland. Who are Paskel and the like trying to kid? It IS all about politics and control. They know the anti gun laws are un Constitutional and do not work however they must be seen to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING so that the liberal politicians can look good. Results matter little of anything.
    I lived in Maryland for many years. The amount of disregard paid to the Maryland gun laws wasamazing. Many transfers between private citizens both for handguns and so called “assault weapons” took, and are taking, place.

  23. avatar Enthusiast says:

    Capt. McCauley is a staunch 2A supporter. I’ve spoken with the man on several occasions, have all of you claiming he needed to “nut up” ever even met him? He did what he was ordered to do by someone he perceived as his superior in the Maryland government during a hearing that is not under oath. Trust me, you can spew any bullshit you want in those hearings and not suffer for it one whit. Capt. McCauley’s SWORN deposition in Kolbe vs. O’Malley is what matters and it may have been volunteered by him. It provides solid evidence of shenanigans by the state government and will be damaging to O’Malley with his delusions of Presidency.

    FWIW Dr. Koper and Daniel Webster both spewed utter bullshit in the public hearings because they work for a Bloomberg funded organization. Their testimony was destroyed by actual experts and citizens using real data from FBI-UCR and other sources. When deposed under oath for Kolbe vs. O’Malley both did a complete 180 from the unsworn testimony in front of the legislature.

    Maryland politics is about as dirty as it comes, go to testify and when you get home you feel unclean simply for being in the same building as most of those cretins.

  24. avatar the2AinMD says:

    The captain is now retired. this incident was his line in the sand apparantly. this story is based on his testimoney for the 2A supporters suing the state to overturn the ban. what he said or did back then wpuld not have effected the outcome of the bill, what is important in the lawsuit is what the governor’s lawyers did, and the retired captain has come forward to share the story, and testify to the malfeasance, and support the lawsuit.

  25. avatar CV76 says:

    Imagine that, a piece of carp, protecting the governor but to hell with our liberty. You are one sorry SOB, Captain No-Nutz.

  26. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

    Gee whiz guys, why are you being so hard on this man? He told the truth in the eventually, once doing so didn’t involve the risk of losing his taxpayer funded retirement check, isn’t that good enough?

  27. avatar borg says:

    He had to take care of his family and he did so by retiring and had he gotten himself fired by defying orders we would not have the potent testimony that he provided.

  28. avatar Bill Russ says:

    How my thousands of tax payers dollars are being used in O’Malley’s bid for President. O.K. he get’s a couple of days off a week just like the rest of us. I am sure some of his campaign advisers are State employees on state time. You know his MSP security detail is following him around and I am sure they are being paid by the State government.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email