Month: January 2011

Uncategorized

History Wasn’t Made

January 26, 2011 by

Yesterday, Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign called on President Obama to “make history on guns” in his State of the Union speech.

Since the tragic shooting in Tucson, President Obama has been a force for healing, recovery and reconciliation. As a nation, we were reeling. He steadied us. The President has been a profile in understanding and empathy.

He now needs to be a profile in courage.

In his State of the Union speech tomorrow night, he needs to talk about guns.

I can imagine the voices advising him to do nothing of the kind. They have been telling him to avoid the gun issue for two years. After Tucson, however, everything is different. Their arguments now ring especially hollow.

From my reading of the text of Obama’s State of the Union address, I don’t see the word “firearm”, “gun”, or “magazine.” I only see Gabby Giffords mentioned once and Tucson mentioned three times. I even see Forsyth Tech (aka The University of Silas Creek)* in Winston-Salem, North Carolina mentioned more than anything to do with guns.

So for poor Dennis and the rest of his fellow travelers all I can say is that history wasn’t made. Obama did listen to those other voices telling him to avoid the gun issue.

* Forsyth Technical Community College is located on Silas Creek Parkway in Winston-Salem.

Uncategorized

Shilling For Lautenberg’s Gun Proposals

January 26, 2011 by 1 Comment

The Brady Campaign is already shilling for bills that Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) is introducing. According to the Library of Congress’ Thomas legislation tracker, none of his anti-gun, anti-rights legislation has been officially introduced.

Jan 25, 2011

Washington, D.C. – The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence today announced strong support for a package of legislative proposals introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). The three bills seek to close loopholes in federal gun laws and restrict civilian access to large capacity ammunition magazines.

“This important package of legislation is straightforward, reasonable, and long overdue,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign. “We have only a few federal gun laws on the books, and even those have loopholes which allow dangerous people to get firearms all too easily.”

Sen. Lautenberg’s bills would strengthen the Brady background check system by closing the gun show loophole; prevent suspected terrorist from gaining access to firearms; and ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.

The package of bills comes during a month that has seen horrific examples of gun violence. Fourteen police officers have been shot to death in the past four weeks, and a tragic shooting in Tucson, AZ left six dead and wounded thirteen others, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).

Sen. Lautenberg’s bill banning large capacity magazines is identical to a bill offered last week by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). It would reinstate a ban, lapsed since 2004, on the type of ammunition magazines used by the shooter in Tucson. The House bill has already garnered 64 cosponsors.

“There is no legitimate reason for civilians to have 30-round magazines,” continued Helmke. “They aren’t useful for hunting or self defense. And in the hands of dangerous people, they can cause unspeakable damage.”

As to Helmke’s comments that standard capacity magazines aren’t useful for self-defense, what utter bullshit. Let him tell that to a guy who is defending his family against home invaders and see what the home owner’s response will be.

UPDATE: Lautenberg’s S. 32, S. 34, and S. 35 have been introduced into the Senate and have been referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Uncategorized

Eight New Co-Sponsors For HR 308 (updated)

January 25, 2011 by

The following are the latest co-sponsors of Carolyn McCarthy’s HR 308 – the magazine ban bill.

Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] – 1/24/2011
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] – 1/24/2011
Rep Carson, Andre [IN-7] – 1/24/2011
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] – 1/24/2011
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] – 1/24/2011
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] – 1/24/2011

As far as I can tell, all the bill’s co-sponsors are Democrats. The other co-sponsors can be found in this post.

UPDATE:  Two more co-sponsors – both Democrats – were added to the list for HR 308 on Wednesday. They are:

Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] – 1/26/2011
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] – 1/26/2011

Uncategorized

Two Gun Rights Lawsuits Filed In West Virginia

January 25, 2011 by

The West Virginia Citizens Defense League (WVCDL) filed two lawsuits in Federal court on Monday challenging restrictions on firearms in four West Virginia cities.

The first lawsuit, WVCDL et al v. City of Charleston et al, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. This lawsuit challenges the ban on carrying firearms on city-owned property in the cities of Charleston, South Charleston, and Dunbar. It also challenges the City of Charleston’s 3-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun alown with the city’s one handgun per month rationing scheme. Named in the lawsuit are the cities along with their respective mayors and chiefs of police.

The second lawsuit, WVCDL v. City of Martinsburg et al, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.This suit challenges a City of Martinsburg ordinance prohibiting the carrying of firearms in city-owned buildings. Named in the suit are the City of Martinsburg, its mayor, city manager, and chief of police.

The WVCDL’s attorney, Jim Mullins of Beckley, has this to say about the lawsuits to the Charleston Gazette:

“No criminal or deranged lunatic is going to be deterred from committing a crime on public property by the prospect of a whopping 30 extra days in jail for violating a municipal ordinance prohibiting guns on city property,” Mullins, a Beckley attorney, said in a prepared statement.

“Neither will a criminal wait while his intended victim goes through the three-day waiting period Charleston imposes on buying a handgun,” he said. “And if you happened to have bought a handgun recently and it was stolen? Well, that same criminal also won’t wait for you to become eligible to purchase another handgun under Charleston’s one handgun per month rationing ordinance.”

The mayor of South Charleston, Frank Mullens, said his city attorneys would examine the ordinance and Federal law and implied they would change them if needed. Mayor Danny Jones of Charleston was more defiant about his city’s ordinances:

“If it’s illegal for us to do it [ban guns on city property], then it’s illegal for the state Capitol to do it, it’s illegal for the county courts and it’s illegal for the federal courts to do it,” Jones said. “I think we should be able to restrict firearms on our own property.”

He went on to add that he didn’t feel his city’s handgun purchase restrictions were unreasonable saying people can still buy guns.

According to the Charleston Gazette, the restrictions in Charleston, passed in 1993, were a reaction to the drug trade in the city during the 1980s and 1990s. An unintended consequence of the strict gun laws and bans in New York City and other large cities was that a flood of drugs were introduced to West Virginia by drug dealers from those cities seeking guns. Drugs were traded for guns or sold for cash to buy guns through straw purchases.

The complaint against Charleston, South Charleston, and Dunbar can be found here while the complaint against Martinsburg is found here.

Uncategorized

Morally Outdated?

January 25, 2011 by

A few days ago the Russian Defense Minister, Anatoly Serdyukov, began a firestorm of controversy in Russia (and in the blogosphere) by saying that the Kalashnikov and Dragunov SVDs sniper rifles are “morally outdated”. He made it worse by saying he was thinking of buying foreign weapons.

Somehow I don’t think these guys in this recruiting video for the Russian airborne, the VDV (vozdushno-desantnie voiska), would agree.

I still like my AK-74 but think those blue berets and blue-striped undershirts are a little…uh, different.

H/T SayUncle

Uncategorized

Why Is ATF Involved And Not DEA?

January 25, 2011 by 4 Comments

I’ve subscribed to the press releases from BATFE headquarters and certain of their field divisions. I think it is smart to keep tabs on what they are doing. I got the following press release sent out by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois.

McHenry County Man Charged with Federal Drug Trafficking Charges

ROCKFORD — PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, together with ANDREW L. TRAVER, Special Agent-In-Charge of the Chicago Office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and KEITH NYGREN, McHenry County Sheriff, today announced:

A federal grand jury in Rockford yesterday returned an indictment charging BRIAN M. BLUM, 31, of McHenry, with two counts of distributing cocaine. If convicted of the offenses charged, Blum may be sentenced up to 30 years of imprisonment, as well as a fine of up to $2,000,000, for each count. Blum will be arraigned on January 19, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney in the federal courthouse in Rockford.

The case was investigated by Special Agents of the Rockford Office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department with the assistance of the United States Marshals Service. The case will be prosecuted in federal court by Assistant United States Attorney Joseph C. Pedersen.

Members of the public are reminded that an indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving that defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Beyond the self-serving nature of this press release, why is ATF involved in a drug case and not the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration)? It would seem outside of their assigned mission of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. Am I missing something here?

Uncategorized

Permanent Injunction Issued Against California AB 962

January 25, 2011 by

From Chuck Michel regarding Parker et al v. California where the Fresno Superior Court today issued an Order of Permanent Injunction against the handgun registration act.

January 24, 2011 – Today the Fresno Superior Court issued an Order of Permanent Injunction in the NRA – CRPA Foundation funded legal challenge to AB962, Parker v. California. The order permanently prevents the state and its agents from enforcing the provisions of AB962 (Penal Code sections 12060, 12061, and 12318). A copy of the Order is here. The Order comes following a dramatic ruling giving gun owners a win in a National Rifle Association / California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation lawsuit. On January 18th, Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962, the hotly contested statute that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered, was unconstitutionally vague on its face. By enjoining enforcement of these statutes, mail order ammunition sales to California can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law. A formal written ruling from the court will be issued soon.

The lawsuit was prompted in part by the many objections and questions raised by confused police, ammunition purchasers, and sellers about what ammunition is covered by the new laws created by AB 962. In a highly unusual move that reflects growing law enforcement opposition to ineffective gun control laws, Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Other plaintiffs include the CRPA Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, ammunition shipper Able’s Ammo, collectible ammunition shipper RTG Sporting Collectibles, and individual Steven Stonecipher.

In addition to these plaintiffs, Mendocino Sheriff Tom Allman, along with ammunition shippers Midway USA, Natchez Shooters Supplies, and Cheaper Than Dirt also submitted declarations in support of the lawsuit.

The ruling comes just days before the portion of the law that bans mail order sales of so called “handgun ammunition” was set to take effect on February 1, 2011. The lawsuit, Parker v. California is funded exclusively by the NRA and the CRPA Foundation. If it had gone into effect, AB 962 would have imposed burdensome and ill conceived restrictions on the sales of ammunition. AB 962 required that “handgun ammunition” be stored out of the reach of customers, that ammunition vendors collect ammunition sales registration information and thumb-prints from purchasers, and conduct transactions face-to-face for all deliveries and transfers of “handgun ammunition.” The lawsuit successfully sought the declaration from the Court that the statute was unconstitutional, and successfully sought the injunctive relief prohibiting law enforcement from enforcing the new laws.

The lawsuit alleged, and the Court agreed, that AB 962 is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it fails to provide sufficient legal notice of what ammunition cartridges are “principally for use in a handgun,” and thus is considered “handgun ammunition” that is regulated under AB 962. It is practically impossible, both for those subject to the law and for those who must enforce it, to determine whether any of the thousands of different types of ammunition cartridges that can be used in handguns are actually “principally for use in” or used more often in, a handgun. The proportional usage of any given cartridge is impossible to determine, and in any event changes with market demands. In fact, the legislature itself is well aware of the vagueness problem with AB 962’s definition of “handgun ammunition” and tried to redefine it via AB 2358 in 2010. AB 2358 failed in the face of opposition from the NRA and CRPA based on the proposal’s many other nonsensical infringements on ammunition sales to law abiding citizens.

Constitutional vagueness challenges to state laws are extremely difficult to win, particularly in California firearms litigation so this success is particularly noteworthy. Even so, an appeal by the State is likely, but the Court’s Order enjoining enforcement of the law is effective – February 1, 2011 – immediately regardless.

Despite this win for common sense over ill-conceived and counter productive gun laws, additional legislation on this and related subjects will no doubt be proposed in Sacramento this legislative session. It is absolutely critical that those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms stay informed and make their voices heard in Sacramento. When AB 962 passed there was loud outcry from law abiding gun owners impacted by the new law. Those voices must be heard during the legislative session and before a proposed law passes, not after a law is signed. To help, sign up for legislative alerts at www.nraila.com and www.calnra.com and respond when called upon.

Uncategorized

Woollard v. Sheridan – Amended Complaint Filed

January 24, 2011 by 1 Comment

At the end of 2010, Judge J. Frederick Motz partially denied the State of Maryland’s motion to dismiss the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge to Maryland’s concealed carry law requirement of “apprehended danger”.  He did, however, dismiss that portion of the case claiming violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it did not make a claim upon which relief could be granted. Fortunately, he gave the plaintiffs until the January 21st to file an amended complaint correcting this defect.

Alan Gura filed the amended complaint on January 19. The amended complaint follows the original complaint word for word up until the statement of a claim in Count II.

Maryland Public Safety Code § 5-306(a)(5)(ii)’s requirement that handgun carry permit applicants demonstrate cause for the issuance of a permit impermissibly classifies individuals with respect to the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. The provision creates two classification of individuals. Applicants who have demonstrated to Defendants’ satisfaction that a handgun carry permit is “necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger,” or that they face a greater than average level of danger, are given permits; applicants who cannot satisfy that burden are not given permits. The classification system is inherently arbitrary, irrational, and deprives individuals of their fundamental right to bear arms based on criteria that cannot be justified under any means-ends level of scrutiny for the security of a fundamental constitutional right. The provision thus violates Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law, damaging them in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to permanent injunctive relief against the enforcement of this provision.

Bold text represents the addition to the complaint.

The most significant part of this restating of the claim is that it argues that under any level of scrutiny the Maryland requirements are unconstitutional. A “means-end level of scrutiny” refers to the rational basis level of scrutiny which is the lowest used in consideration of constitutional rights. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Chester calls for intermediate scrutiny – or a level higher – as the minimum in Second Amendment cases.