comments in () by the same
http://www.spw-duf.info
Weekly Reminder: HR 45 has not even gained one co-sponsor in committee
and S 2099 died nine years ago. It is not necessary to forward the
hysterical mailings to me.
Friday, January 23, 2009
U.S. Representative Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) recently sponsored H.R. 45,
also known as "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act."
The bill is, at its core and as its name implies, a licensing and
registration scheme.
The measure calls for all handgun owners to submit to the federal
government an application that shall include, among many other things:
a photo; an address; a thumbprint; a completed, written firearm
safety test; private mental health records; and a fee. And those are
only some of the requirements to be licensed!
The bill would further require the attorney general to establish a
database of every handgun sale, transfer, and owner's address in
America. Moreover, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a
"qualifying firearm" -- defined as "any handgun; or any semiautomatic
firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device…"
without one of the proposed licenses.
Additionally, the bill would make it illegal to transfer ownership of
a "qualifying firearm" to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or
collector (with very few exceptions), and would require "qualifying
firearm" owners to report all transfers to the attorney general's
database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to
record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours, or fail to report a change
of address within 60 days. Further, if a minor obtains a firearm and
injures someone with it, the owner of the firearm may face a
multiple-year jail sentence.
H.R. 45 is essentially a reintroduction of H.R. 2666, which Rush
introduced in 2007. H.R. 2666 contained much of the same language as
H.R. 45, and was co-sponsored by several well-known anti-gun
legislators--including Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.
H.R. 45 currently has no co-sponsors.
Rest assured that NRA-ILA will continue to monitor this bill closely,
and will keep you informed of any developments if they materialize.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4329
Friday, May 29, 2009
In the last few weeks, NRA-ILA has received hundreds of e-mails
warning us about "SB-2099," a bill that would supposedly require you
to report all your guns on your income tax return every April 15.
Like many rumors, there's just a grain of truth to this one.
Someone's recycling an old alert, which wasn't even very accurate when
it was new.
There actually was a U.S. Senate bill with that number that would have
taxed handguns - nine years ago. It was introduced by anti-gun Sen.
Jack Reed (D-R.I.), and it would have included handguns under the
National Firearms Act's tax and registration scheme. This has nothing
to do with anyone's Form 1040, of course.
Fortunately, S. 2099 disappeared without any action by the Senate,
back when Bill Clinton was still in the White House. We reported
about it back then, just as we report about new anti-gun bills every
week. Now, it's time for gun owners to drop this old distraction and
focus on the real threats at hand.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4925
---
ObamaCare Could Threaten Self-Defense: …It is nearly certain that
coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs,
exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous
activities. And, given Sebelius' well-established antipathy to the
Second Amendment - she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor
of Kansas - we presume she will define these dangerous activities to
include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible
that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any
kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.
The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish
Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to
charge them higher insurance premiums. (What constitutes an unhealthy
lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.) Don't be
surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking
to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on
any American who owns "dangerous" firearms… (This link will allow you
to generate a letter or an e-mail to your senators.)
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=14152471
---
More on Recent Polls: …Rasmussen Reports in a survey conducted earlier
this week shows that 39% of Americans want stricter gun laws against
50% who are opposed to such a measure. Previous surveys suggested that
citizens were narrowly divided on the topic making the new margin of
eleven-percentage points noteworthy. Women continue to be evenly
divided on the topic but men oppose stricter laws by 23%. Nearly
two-thirds of Democrats (65%) are in favor of tighter restrictions but
69% of Republicans and 62% of those unaffiliated feel differently. 71%
of Americans believe the second amendment to the U.S. constitution
guarantees their right to bear arms. Just 13% believe the constitution
does not make gun ownership the right of the average citizen. Nearly
seven in ten Americans (69%) also do not believe that city
government's have the right to prevent their citizens from owning guns
with 52% of Democrats in agreement, 72% of unaffiliateds and 87% of
Republicans. The loudest shot fired comes from a Gallup poll released
just this morning. According to the survey a new low of just 44% of
Americans say that laws covering firearm sales should be stricter.
That total is down from 49% earlier this year and indicates a steady
decline from its peak in 1990 when 78% of the public favored stricter
laws against firearm sales. That peak perhaps coincided with the
steadily growing number of handgun related deaths in the United States
in the early-90s. By late-1992 the number had grown to a record high
of nearly 14,000. By 2001 the number had been reduced to around 8,000
with only a minor spike in that total in the years since…
http://www.examiner.com/x-13600-Philadelphia-Opinion-Polls-Examiner~y2009m10d9-Poll-Support-for-stricter-gun-laws-is-dwindling
http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-poll-majority-of-americans-against-stricter-gun-control-r-1255120998
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/New-poll-Support-for-tougher-gun-laws-at-lowest-point-in-decades-63920207.html
---
Do Gun Shows Have Loopholes?: Thursday's Nashville Tennessean
newspaper's lead story headline is "NY slams gun show 'loophole' in
Tenn." The story is about a purported undercover investigation of gun
shows done by the City of New York. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has long
been an anti-gun activist… The article spotlighted one gun show held
in Nashville that attracts 250 gun dealers and up to 10,000 people
every month. Gun dealers must be licensed by the Bureau or Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Background checks on buyers must be
performed by dealers. Penalties for selling guns to felons can include
fines and imprisonment for the dealer. The New York investigation
showed that most dealers were law-abiding and that most sales were
legitimate. So, where is this alleged "loophole" in the law? It's
found in individual liberty and property rights… The solution for
crime reduction is rescinding all gun laws that prohibit or restrict
the rights of any person to keep and bear arms. Armed populations are
polite populations. Ask Switzerland. Criminals are far less likely to
commit a crime when there is the likelihood that the victim (or
someone nearby) will be armed. So, three cheers for individual liberty
and property rights! Hip, Hip, Hurrah!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/longcore7.1.1.html
---
Training Yes, Mandatory No: …My second resolution was a bit more
controversial. In it I suggested that, while training in the safe,
legal, and appropriate use of firearms is strongly supported and
should continue to be encouraged, government mandated training is
anathema to liberty. I pointed out that there is no statistical
evidence that firearms accidents, mistakes, or abuses are any more
likely in states requiring little or no training than they are in
states with extensive training requirements. The resolution put on the
record the GRPC delegates' opposition to government-mandated firearms
training and their support for rolling back existing requirements
where feasible. I was careful and specific with the language of the
resolution because there is much more to the training controversy than
might be immediately evident. First there is the issue of encouraging
training. There can be no doubt that the better trained a person is
with their firearm and its safe and effective use, the better off we
all are. Likewise, the more a person knows about the laws relating to
carrying arms and use of deadly force, the safer they are going to be
carrying on the street. We, the "gun culture" understand that training
and education are good things and are absolutely necessary… (The NRA
tends to support training requirements for licensed concealed carry,
probably because, directly or indirectly, it is the source for most of
the training.)
http://www.ohioccw.org/200910094633/training-yes-mandatory-no.html
---
North Carolina Appellate Judge Holds FFL: The N.C. Supreme Court
attracted national attention a few weeks ago as the first court in the
nation to rule that a convicted felon has a right to own a gun. What
drew little notice is that Edward Thomas Brady, the justice who wrote
the 5-2 decision in August, is a federally licensed gun dealer and gun
manufacturer who has collected more than $5,000 a year from gun sales
since 2007. Legal experts split over whether Brady was properly
bringing his perspective to the case or should have recused himself
from the decision. "I don't think gun dealers should be deciding the
constitutionality of gun laws," said Dennis Henigan, vice president
for law and policy at the pro-gun control Brady Center to Prevent Gun
Violence in Washington… Other legal scholars, however, countered that
the decision was narrowly written to resolve that particular case and
likely wouldn't apply to many others. Two former state chief justices,
one a Republican and the other a Democrat, said they saw no need for
Brady to recuse himself… Mitchell said he would make the same argument
regarding a judge who is an automobile dealer. He said conflicts arise
when a judge has a financial interest or personal connection to a
case. No such connection existed with Brady and the gun case, he said…
(Will the Brady Bunch request Justice Sotomayor to recuse herself from
McDonald v. Chicago?)
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/story/134741.html
---
Texas Senator Boosts RKBA Stance: Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison went to a
shooting range Friday to remind voters of her support for gun rights
by pointing out her plans to weigh in on an upcoming U.S. Supreme
Court case. With gunfire popping in the background, Hutchison said she
will help lead a bipartisan group from Congress in filing a legal
brief urging the court to rule gun ownership is an individual right
that applies at the state and local levels, in addition to the federal
level. Both Hutchison and Gov. Rick Perry, who are squaring off in the
March Republican primary, say they support gun ownership rights,
something dear to Texas GOP primary voters. Representatives of both
candidates say they own rifles and handguns and that they are hunters.
Perry's spokesman, Mark Miner, said the governor has a Texas license
to carry a concealed handgun. The senator's spokeswoman, Jennifer
Baker, said Hutchison does not. Miner said the governor has always
been a strong defender of the Second Amendment, which addresses the
right to bear arms…
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6660608.html
---
Any Victory in Illinois…: An Illinois Supreme Court decision that gun
owners can carry weapons in consoles and other storage boxes built
into their cars won't make much difference to law enforcement
officers, Sangamon County Sheriff Neil Williamson said Thursday.
Illinois law lets people carry guns in their cars if they are unloaded
and enclosed in a case or other container. The question was whether a
compartment for items like CDs and sunglasses meets the legal
definition of a "case" for carrying guns. In issuing its ruling
Thursday, the Supreme Court overturned a 2003 appellate court decision
that said a glove compartment is not a "case" under the law.
Williamson said the change doesn't concern him. "All the officers and
deputies are trained all the time to constantly be thinking of the
possibility of a gun in the car," he said. "And it's not the honest
citizen I'm worried about, it's the crooks," Williamson added.
"They're going to have the gun anyway -- they're not going to care if
there's a law on the books or not. We could have a jillion laws on
books outlawing guns. They're going to carry them anyway." The ruling
was prompted by a Peoria case in which a man had been sentenced to
21/2 years in prison for carrying two pistols in his car's storage
compartment…
http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x593076129/Illinois-Supreme-Court-OKs-storing-guns-in-car-consoles
http://www.illinoiscarry.com/
---
Maryland State Police Classify .22 Plinkers as "Assault Weapons": The
following .22 caliber rifles (and perhaps others) have apparently been
listed as "Assault Weapons" and are therefore subject to the 7 day
waiting period and background check required for regulated firearms:
German Sport Guns GSG-MP5
Umarex USA / Colt .22 rimfire rifles
The Maryland State Police (MSP) have apparently still not issued a
formal written bulletin to the firearms dealers informing them of this
new requirement. It is entirely possible for a dealer and/or buyer to
be arrested, charged, and prosecuted for violating an unwritten policy
established in secret by Maryland State Police Licensing Division. If
the MSP policy is overturned by the courts, it is becomes an open
question whether or not the MSP will purge their data base of these
firearms and their owners. Don't hold your breath. (One list member
has opined that, the growing popularity of these military- or
police-looking plinkers puts them into "common use," a phrase we saw
in the Heller ruling. I will keep that in mind the next time I see a
GSG-5 [sic] at one of the local gun shops, which seems to sell a fair
number of them. The quality of the Umarex Colt-licensed gun has been
challenged but Ruger is offering the SR-22, a 10-22 made over to
resemble their SR-556.)
South Florida GOP Range Session – the Rest of the Story: Armed with
handguns and AK-47 and AR-15 assault rifles, the members of the
Southeast Broward Republican Club abandoned the usual community center
for their club meeting this week, and gathered at a gun range where
they fired bullets instead of political bombshells. The aims, said
club president Ed Napolitano, were to have fun, educate club members
who were new to shooting - and send a political message. "Why are we
here? Because we're Republicans and we appreciate the fact that we
have the right to bear arms," Napolitano said. "Without the Second
Amendment, I don't think the other amendments would hold up. I think
they would just be suggestions that the government would decide to do
whatever they want." …Zelden, like Spages, said he knows Democrats who
enjoy shooting at gun ranges. And Democrats who feel differently
probably won't be shocked. "I don't think there are a log of Democrats
that are going to do much more than roll their eyes. It's not as if
they're acting out of character for Republicans. They're Republicans.
One assumes that they're going to be more conservative. They're going
to be more pro gun." …(This is apparently the event at which a
contender for a Congressional seat fired at a target marked with the
initials of the Democratic incumbent.)
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2009/10/broward_republicans_head_to_th.html
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/312641
---
Only in DC?: …Later on, I walked away from the demonstration to meet a
friend and fellow Second Amendment Sister a few blocks away. While we
were standing on the sidewalk taking, two LEOs approached me, one of
them, I think a DHS officer, was bending over sideways to look at my
holster. He asked me to come over to where he was so he could "talk to
me" so our whole group moved closer to him. He didn't like that much,
but he asked me if I had a weapon and I responded that I was aware of
the prohibition on guns in DC. I explained that the holster was a
"silent protest" to the gun ban in DC. He then said that he would have
to ask me to remove my holster and I got the distinct feeling that he
intended to confiscate it. When my husband pulled the video camera out
of the bag, he changed his tone only slightly and asked me again to
remove the holster, this time saying that I needed to "put it away". I
asked him why and he told me that it was illegal to have "gun
paraphernalia". I told him that I had no guns, no ammunition and no
magazines and that the holster was only a piece of leather and not
against the law. He again insisted that I take the holster off, this
time stating that it made it look like I had a gun. He said that he
was pro-gun but still insisted that I need to take the holster off. I
asked him why, since it was not against the law and he said that
someone might see it and, thinking I had a gun, shoot me! One of my
companions asked him how that could happen, since guns were not
allowed in DC! As the situation progressed, the other LEO, either DC
or Capital police, pulled out his cell phone and took my picture or
videotaped portions of the incident…
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/10/09/second-amendment-sisters-washington-dc-police-and-empty-holsters/
---
Open Carry Debated: …I have long felt that open carry, if you have
some other choice, is a political mistake, and for this very reason.
There are lots of Americans who have discomfort or misgivings about
gun ownership. They may know that lots of Americans have concealed
handgun permits, and that they are probably walking the streets with
people that are armed. But it isn't obvious; the gun isn't proclaiming
its presence. The visceral reaction that some Americans have to seeing
people openly armed is not going to win you any friends – and may turn
some people against gun ownership… If we reach the point where we need
to be armed to engage in the terrifying scenario that the Second
Amendment was written to make possible – the overthrow of a tyrannical
government – then I expect everyone who loves his country to be armed
and ready. But as a form of political statement, in cities, and
especially in proximity to the President – this is just dumb. It makes
gun owners look crazy, and drives some people who are indifferent into
opposition to gun ownership. Don't be stupid. (Clayton Cramer is the
author of "The Racist Roots of Gun Control"
[http://www.lizmichael.com/racistro.htm] and Armed America, a book
that resulted from his successful efforts to debunk Michael
Bellesiles' fraudulent Arming America.)
http://www.shotgunnews.com/cramer/
…Open carry scares people? Good. It ought to. Perhaps they'll be
reminded of the fact that when "democracy" turns to tyranny, firearms
owners still get to vote. And they should understand that they don't
want to go down that road. But how will they get the message if we
don't deliver it because we are made too timid by some misplaced need
to be liked? Free men don't need to be liked. They don't ask to be
liked. They don't care if they're liked. They do insist upon being
respected. The reason we find ourselves in this position right now is
because we haven't insisted on exercising our rights. We haven't
demanded respect from people who have been picking our pockets and
shoving us around… Clayton, this isn't about media PR anymore. It is
not about being liked. We are two peoples with two distinct and
violently different world views, two visions of the future that are
mutually exclusive. The other people need to understand that they will
continue to push us around at their peril… (Mike Vanderboegh proudly
calls himself a "three percenter," a term which I believe was coined
by Jeff Knox, in a remark that only three percent of American gun
owners are truly prepared to take up arms in defense of liberty.
Personally, I prefer concealed carry, from a tactical perspective and
am reconsidering my objections to open carry as a political statement
since the recent high-profile incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona.
All I can firmly say at this point is if you choose to carry openly,
do so in a holster designed to resist attempts to take your gun.)
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/10/clayton-cramer-tries-to-whistle-past.html
---
Bank Manager Fired for Shooting at Robber: A former bank manager said
Thursday that a life or death decision got him fired. The manager said
he pulled a gun on a bank robber and fired shots at him, forcing the
robber to flee. Police credited the manager's actions to the arrest of
the suspect William Hunt. Wesley Hallman said it was common knowledge
that he carried a pistol. The former manger said he felt safer with
the gun when he opened the bank. Hallman said when he saw a would-be
robber holding a gun in an employee's face, he challenged the man with
his gun. The robber turned, so Hallman said he fired a shot. The
robber fired a shot, ran and then fired two more shots. Hallman said
he was called into the bank the next day and fired. Hallman said there
is a bank policy that employees can't carry weapons. The former branch
manager said he knew violated company policy but he didn't violate the
law. (I have been told that employers are generally advised by
attorneys that it is cheaper to cover the deaths of employees through
workers compensation insurance than to risk possible lawsuits if they
allow the employees to defend themselves.)
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Bank_Manager_Pulls_Gun_on_Armed_Robber_100809
---
Pilot Whose Pistol Discharged Rehired: A pilot who was fired after his
gun discharged in the cockpit is back at work after an arbitrator
ordered him reinstated. US Airways said Friday that Jim Langenhahn
resumed training on Monday after an 18-month disciplinary suspension.
The airline said as part of the federal arbitrator's decision to
reinstate Langenhahn, he will be barred from carrying a gun in the
cockpit. After the 2001 terror attacks in which hijackers armed with
knives seized four jetliners, pilots lobbied for the right to carry
guns in the cockpit. A 2002 federal law allowed pilots to carry
handguns on board if they took part in a program run by the
Transportation Security Administration, which includes a week of
weapons training. Langenhahn's gun fired shortly before landing on a
March 2008 flight from Denver to Charlotte Langenhahn, a former Air
Force pilot, said he was putting his .40-caliber pistol away when it
discharged… Langenhahn's case was strengthened when the Department of
Homeland Security faulted the design of holsters used by pilots who
carry their weapons on board planes. The department's inspector
general said the design increased the chance of accidental discharge
when pilots inserted their guns in the holsters. The inspector general
recommended that the TSA halt use of the locking holster and consider
other methods for armed pilots to stow their weapons. The holsters
have been in use since 2006… (I generally avoid verbiage such as
"pistol discharged" but, in this case, the discharge appears to have
been influenced by a rule that the pistol be secured prior to landing
and the use of a holster in which a lock passes through the trigger
guard once the pistol is holstered.)
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-10-09-pilot-rehired-after-gun-goes-off-on-plane_N.htm
---
Rule Four Reminder: A man who thought there was an intruder in his
house shot and killed his fiancee the day before they were to be
married, police said Friday. "Right now everything points to a tragic
accident," Police Chief Kevin Brunelle told The Associated Press,
adding investigators were awaiting forensic results. John Tabutt, 62,
told investigators he got his gun when he thought he heard an
intruder, then fired at a figure in the hallway, according to
Brunelle. It was Tabutt's live-in fiancee, 62-year-old Nancy Dinsmore,
who family members say he was going to marry Saturday. Tabutt told
authorities he thought she was next to him in bed the whole time…
(Rule Four: Always be sure of your target and what's beyond it. Inside
the home is one of the times when I may make sense to mount a light on
a firearm although one should not use a weapon-mounted light for
searches as that generally results in the muzzle crossing anything
that is illuminated directly. I always keep a flashlight next to my
handguns when I go to bed.)
http://townhall.com/news/us/2009/10/10/police_fla_man_kills_fiancee_on_eve_of_wedding
---
Melaine Hain Death – Details Emerge: Authorities say a Pennsylvania
mother who became an unlikely gun-rights advocate was fatally shot by
her husband while she was on a video chat with a friend.Lebanon County
officials say Meleanie Hain was shot several times Wednesday in her
kitchen by her husband, Scott. He later killed himself. Officials say
the online friend saw Scott Hain fire several times. Meleanie Hain
became a voice against gun control last year when she fought for the
right to carry a holstered pistol at her 5-year-old's soccer games.
Other parents complained, prompting a sheriff to temporarily revoke
her gun permit. Officials on Friday said her gun was in a backpack
when she was killed. Scott Hain, a parole officer, owned the 9 mm
handgun he used to kill her… (It's ironic that Mrs. Hain did not see
fit to wear her holstered pistol at home.)
http://www.wusa9.com/rss/local_article.aspx?storyid=92176
---
NRA-ILA Alerts: List members are encouraged to check the alerts for
the week, posted on the NRA-ILA website.
