More News

Gun advocates have targeted state Sen. Brian Frosh, chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, for not allowing a vote on a bill he calls "deeply flawed" and unnecessary under current laws.

Senate Bill 420 would give immunity to homeowners for damages from injury or death caused to people who break into their homes with the intent to commit burglary or other crimes.

"There are a bunch of problems with the bill," Frosh said. "It's deeply flawed in the way it is drafted and deeply flawed in concept."

Under the state's current law, homeowners already have immunity unless they act with "gross negligence or malice," Frosh said, adding that there is no reason to believe anyone who defends his or her home could be seen as acting with either malice or gross negligence.

The only way homeowners do not have immunity from criminal or civil penalties currently is if they shoot a burglary suspect in the back as the burglar tries to flee, Frosh said. Even then, there could be circumstances, such as if the intruder fires a gun while fleeing, under which the homeowner would have immunity, he said.

"It's like they want the right to act unreasonably," Frosh said.

His office has been bombarded with e-mails and phone calls from people accusing him of placing a hold on the bill, even though Frosh said he has not.

A Web site called www.froshwatch.com, as well as gun groups such as Maryland Shall Issue, have asked supporters of the bill to call Frosh and write local newspapers. One letter writer called Frosh a "tyrant" for not scheduling a vote on the bill.

At a recent hearing, Frosh asked those speaking in support of the legislation to name one case in which a homeowner lost a civil lawsuit to someone injured or killed after breaking in.

"You have a right to defend yourself and your property," Frosh said. "You don't have a duty to retreat. All you have a duty to do is to act reasonably. No one has demonstrated a problem with the existing law."

But even winning a lawsuit can cost a homeowner large sums of money to defend against it, said Matt Moore of Ellicott City, a supporter of the bill who has written newspapers and Frosh on the issue.

But Frosh said even Senate Bill 420 does not take away a person's right to sue the homeowner. It simply says the homeowner has immunity.

Kyle Hopson of Nottingham said in a telephone interview that he was moved to write in support of the bill after seeing accounts on several Web sites of how Frosh was blocking it.

"Over 20 senators have co-sponsored this bill, yet the only thing that matters is Senator Frosh and his continued desire to give criminals the ability to bankrupt law-abiding citizens," Hopson said. "This type of obstructionism flies in the face of representative government and leaves Marylanders vulnerable to losing everything merely because they exercised the right to life. It is worth noting that Sen. Frosh is a partner at a law firm that handles personal injury cases."

But Frosh said many people are ill-informed about how the legislative process works.

Just because the bill received overwhelming support in the House of Delegates does not mean it is good legislation, he said. It is an issue that few people want to challenge because they know if they do they'll get calls and e-mails from pro-gun groups.

"So why pick a fight?" Frosh said. "It's an issue where there are a few people who care deeply."