Usually lawmaking is left in the hands of legislators but that won't be the case if Attorney General JB Van Hollen gets his way. Van Hollen has said he won't pursue an agenda but let's look at some of the substance.

In an pre-primary campaign mailer, Van Hollen sported the endorsement of the NRA.  Would they not expect something in return?  If Van Hollen didn't anticipate fighting for the NRA legislative agenda, why would he have sported to endorsement on a mailer?

He said "I favor passage of the personal protection act" which is another way of saying he favors the law that cops unanimously oppose — legislation that would legalize carrying a concealed weapon.

And if Van Hollen won't pursue an agenda, why did he come out in support of the death penalty?  Isn't that advocating an agenda?  Is somehow legitimizing the state to take a persons life not an agenda item?

This is another classic case of a Republican saying one thing, and doing and advocating another.