Del. Glass: “I Believe that an Atmosphere of Armed Citizenry Restrains Evil”

Maryland Republican State Delegate Glen Glass Continues to Fight for the Constitution

Maryland State Delegate Glen Glass, (R-Harford, Cecil), continued to hold firmly to his position on the 2nd amendment.

“I believe, in accord with the founders, that our right to own firearms stands next in importance to the constitution itself. Firearms represent our liberty and are the keystone to our independence. I believe that an atmosphere of armed citizenry restrains evil — and deserves a place of honor and respect in our society,” said Glass.

“I absolutely uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution, and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. I have always supported and defended the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right to gun ownership because self-defense is the key to maintaining life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Glass concluded.

The Governors gun bill, HB 294, is currently being heard jointly with the Judiciary and Health and Government Operations Committee.


  1. Hard to Believe says

    Now that is the way to state your position. Much better Delegate Glass!!

  2. B says

    “We have, I think, helped the company as best we possibly can in terms of them continuing to be able to do business in the state of Maryland,” said Miller, who voted for the bill, although he expressed misgivings about it. “We’ve allowed them to manufacture. We’ve allowed them to sell, and we’ve cut back on their paper work.”

    All of Marylands business owners should take note of Mike Millers thoughts on business. Isn’t it actually the opposite that is true?

    Bye bye Beretta…. And 400 more jobs. This quote is a microcosm of the liberal view on the government/ business relationship in Maryland. So arrogant and very scary.

    These hypocrites want to ban weapons on principal in maryland, but it is ok to manufacture and sell elsewhere.

  3. Gary Ambridge says

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” U.S. Supreme Court : District of Columbia V. Keller, 2008.

    • Kharn says

      You missed the next paragraph:
      “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”” DC v Heller

      The AR15 is the most common centerfire rifle design manufactured in the United States today, with hundreds of thousands manufactured per year.

      The ATF production report for 2011:

      The most well-known AR15-only manufacturers and the number of rifles reported:
      Bushmaster, 38,075
      DPMS, 39,411
      Colt, 16,419
      Stag, 34,211
      Rock River Arms, 33,781
      Smith & Wesson, 156,705
      Armalite, 12,253
      CMMG, 8,165
      Daniel Defense, 6,911
      Palmetto State Armory, 18,163
      Stag Arms, 34,211
      (I excluded Remington and Ruger because they make so many non-AR15 rifles it becomes difficult to determine their actual production numbers; Ruger made 308,282 rifles, Remington 646,008 in that year)

      Manufacturers in Maryland:
      Adcor Defense, 2,572
      Adcor Industries, 911
      LWRC, 5,701

      So between the largest 11 manufacturers, almost 400,000 AR-15s were made in 2011, with over 9,000 being manufactured right here in Maryland. The AR15 was first offered for civilian sale in 1963, so just imagine how many have been manufactured in the last 50 years. The AR15 sets the standard for “in common use.”

      • Because says

        Do you use an AR-15 to go shoot squirrels or rabbits? Was it necessary for you to have the ability fire fire semi-automatically the full complement of ammo onboard because you were being ganged up on by deer, squirrels or rabbits? While I do not dispute your right to own a firearm of any kind there are those among you that would dispute your right to a Barret .50 cal because after all it can penetrate an M2 Bradley. I do not feel my right to possess any firearm is protected by the second amendment, I believe it is protected by the 4th. If I wish to keep a 75mm Pack Howitzer, or a 200 pound Parrot Rifle for home defense that is my right, so long as I can afford the ammunition and do not use it to threaten my neighbors. Do you really think that anyone of the founding fathers would have envisioned that their fellow American “Nut jobs” would gain access to something capable of mowing down a crowd in seconds? Remember, the technology at the time typically permitted a line of musketeers to fire, drop to a knee and reload their muzzle loaders so the row behind them could fire and so on. What is the practical limit of you right to own a piece of ordnance? Would you accept my limit of having access to a 35mm Bushmaster? Nice weapon, I’d like to use it to plink cans.

        In case you can’t tell, I think your concept of common use is absurd and self serving and plays into the fear of law abiding gun owners to have their toys taken away, just as much as the rest of society is afraid of your unrestrained ambition to own something bigger and badder than anyone else.

        • Kharn says

          My AR15 sits in the closet for one purpose: To defend my family against criminals and predators. For that task, I want as much ammunition in the magazine as legally available.

          A .50 would only harm the earliest production Bradleys in the early 1980s, they were all upgraded to withstand the Soviet 14.5mm (a much more powerful round) over the entire 360 degrees.

          The Constitution makes reference to Letters of Marque and Reprisal, have you ever read up on the subject? They were authorization for private citizens (ship owners/captains) to carry out legal piracy against ships of another nation, to do so, they used privately-owned cannons, swivel guns, muskets, rifles and associated melee weapons that they owned and maintained with their own profits. Swivel guns were large shotguns used to maim and kill the deck crews of opposing ships (to prevent maneuvering or opposition to boarding), so they were capable of “mowing down a crowd in seconds.” Grapeshot was used in the main guns to even deadlier affect, given the bore sizes involved. That shows the framers understood and agreed with private ownership of even the largest weapons of the day.

          When it comes to defending my family, why should I chose something less ergonomic, less compact, heavier, more delicate, less accurate, with a smaller magazine, etc? I want the best firearm available, because if I have to use it to defend my home, my family or myself, I want to know it will not fail at a critical moment.

        • Arturro Nasney says

          Please note that Because opens with the questions relative to hunting and then asks if it is necessary… For starters my right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. Read the Federalist Papers and tell me one instance of the mention of hunting. The question of necessity is an invalid question. I hear the left wingers so nicely asking what I need an M-16 for. The only answer is “NUNYA” That is non ya flippin business. Why I need a big car, or a 5,0000 square house or any legal firearm is absolutely none of your business.

        • FightinBluHen51 says

          Ahhhh here we go judging rights based upon end use, purpose, and need.

          I demand that you turn in your comment account, your keyboard, your internet connection & of course, any other social media since your published speech should be limited to only set-type printing presses that were in common use at the time of the founding.

          For, you know, the sake of example and honesty in your argument.

        • FightinBluHen51 says

          Oh, and for your information, the citizen militia of the 1770s did own howitzers, cannons, and even private “ships of war.”

          Thank me for my education of your ignorance.

    • PB says

      “In the opinion of the court,…They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”

      ~~ Justice Roger Taney in the *majority* Dred Scott Decision

      Courts don’t always get it right, and sometimes they’re grossly wrong.

      • Kharn says

        One passage of Dred Scott is quite telling:
        “For if they [blacks] were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [60 U.S. 393, 417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. ”

        When will Maryland recognize my rights as a citizen?

  4. Kharn says

    Delegate Glass:
    Thank you for staying until the wee hours of the morning to hear testimony from the 1300+ citizens of Maryland who came out to oppose the Governor’s gun control bill yesterday and last night.

  5. SEA says

    Delegate Glass fails to acknowledge the first line of the second amendment, which prefaces the right to bear arms. This line “A well-disciplined militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” outlines that our forefathers designed this amendment to the constitution with a militia in mind, not the individual.

    • Kharn says

      US Supreme Court, DC v Heller:
      “Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.”

      Sorry, the Supreme Court’s on the Delegate’s side here.

      • SEA says

        DC vs. Heller took place within the last 10 years. The Supreme Court ruled on the side of individual gun rights for sure. No argument there. We are all legally able to own and use guns.
        The Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment was part, was drafted in 1791. Obviously there was much discussion about the issue of gun ownership. Our fore fathers collectively decided that the 2nd amendment declare that a militia was legal to secure the government in the case of war, until the government’s armed forces could take over. The 2nd amendment is about “securing a free state”. Our freedom is so important that they gave us the right to keep arms to defend it. The 2nd Amendment does not state “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” it says,” 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.”
        Many of our fore fathers, Jefferson included, were in favor of individual gun ownership, especially for self-protection. But they also realized the presence of guns among the people is dangerous. Regulation is prudent. Background checks are important for all sales. Assault rifles and large clips should be limited to trained professionals.

        • B says

          The Bill of Rights is a list of limitations on the powers of the federal government.
          The “free state” the second amendment is to prevent federal tyranny like you are supporting and has nothing to do with the Federal armed forces “taking over”. The constitution itself allows for the federal government to call forth militias to secure the country from invasion.

          The fore fathers didn’t think guns amongst the the people where dangerous, they thought it a necessity.

          Background checks are useless. Little is reported other then criminal record an judgements against some one. More then 20 states report nothing.

          The large magazines you are scared of is liberal crap too. Anyone “trained” can change a magazine instantly.

          Regulation is dangerous, and leads to tyranny.

          “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
          – George Washington

          “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
          – Thomas Jefferson

          “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”
          – George Mason

          “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
          – Patrick Henry

          “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
          – Samuel Adams

          “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
          – Benjamin Franklin

          The last one is just for you. Need more?

          • SEA says

            Here are some regulations designed to keep you and your family both safe and free. Pick out the ones you think are unreasonable:

            Little kids can’t buy guns.

            Your next door neighbor can’t discharge her firearm within 150 yards of your house, even if she is on her own property, unless you give her permission.

            The teens at the bus stop can’t take guns to school.

            A visibly drunk person can’t buy a gun. But he can come back later and buy it when he’s sober.

            A person convicted of shooting other people during a crime can’t buy a gun.

            A person can’t drive around town with a loaded machine gun, but he is welcome to walk around inside his house carrying it.

            These are examples of the “tyranny” of government. Regulations allow us the freedom to live together. The right-wing anarchists prefer lawlessness when it comes to guns. They quote the Founding Fathers and then reject the wisdom of the democracy they created.

        • Kharn says

          Our right to arms is specifically inclusive of those in common use. The numbers above clearly show the AR15 and its 20 and 30 round factory magazines are in that classification.

          Magpul, one manufacturer of AR15 magazines, reports there are over one million of their 30 round magazines on back order as a result of the current buying spree, and they are only one of a number of manufacturers. That does not include the hundreds of thousands that were in the hands of distributors and retailers that sold in the last 2.5 months. That level of demand certainly shows common usage, and thus protected status.

        • B says

          “Our freedom is so important that they gave us that they have us the right to keep arms to defend it”

          This to is wrong. “They” didn’t give us these rights. These rights are natural rights, endowed by our creator. The bill of rights doesn’t grant us rights, it acknowledges those given to us by God, Rights that are inalienable, and shall not be infringed by the goverent.

    • pizzle says

      “The Amendment could be re­phrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”” — SCOTUS 26 JUNE 2008

    • Michael DORN says

      Actually if you read commentary on this there is more support for the opposite, that The Founders main interest was protecting the individual rights, and Madison added the Militia clause as really secondary, Read
      “safeguarding Liberty” by Larry Pratt.

  6. HYDESMANN says

    It amazes me how quickly we allow our reps in Annapolis to take away our constitutional rights. They want to license, tax and infringe on the second amendment. What’s next, a voting tax, a license to speak your mind, finger printing and registration to buy a computer? Hey folks, we’re an big trouble if this bill passes.

    • Kharn says

      I took off from work both yesterday and 6 Feb to attend the hearings in Annapolis, did you?

      • Buy Guns = Stimulus says

        Took the money from the days I worked and used it to buy another gun.
        Thanks for going but this POS bill will pass.

        I can’t even wrap my head around how much money has been spent in the last 2 months on firearms, ammo and accessories.
        That is a stimulus.