Month: February 2011

Uncategorized

Brady Campaign Outraged, Outraged I Say!

February 25, 2011 by

It is obvious that the Brady Campaign is upset over the House vote to cut funding for implementation of the “emergency” reporting requirement of semi-auto rifles in a caliber larger than .22 with a detachable magazine.

You know that are upset because they say they are outraged! Oh, my.

Brady Campaign Outraged Over House Vote To Kill Funds To Curb Illegal Gun Trafficking

Helmke testifies before House Forum

Feb 24, 2011

Washington, D.C.- Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke today expressed outrage over the U. S. House of Representatives’ vote last Friday to stop any funds from being used for an Obama Administration proposal to curb gun-trafficking, focused particularly on semi-automatic rifles, from the U.S. to Mexico.

Helmke spoke this morning at the forum on the Impact of Budget Proposals on Justice, Job Creation, Public Safety and Civil Liberties, held in Room 2237 of the Rayburn Building and chaired by Congressman John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Helmke was seated at a roundtable with Rep. Conyers and the leaders of 15 other groups affected by HR1, the funding resolution voted on by the House last Friday and Saturday. Helmke began by noting that others present might wonder what reducing gun violence had to do with the budget process. He explained that the amendment by Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma, which passed on by a vote of 277-149, would prevent the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) from getting reports on multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles from the four states bordering Mexico.

This amendment was attached to the budget at the behest of the NRA and House agreed to limit the Obama administration’s authority after only 10 minutes of debate. Even though the Department of Justice had been going through a formal rule-making process, the House decided to derail that process just three days after the period for comments on the rules had closed.

“Not only are we ignoring gun violence in our country, we are contributing to the disintegration of the nation directly on our southern border,” Helmke said. “The ATF is already woefully under-funded, understaffed, and leaderless. Making the work of these agents harder will do nothing to decrease the violence we have seen from the drug cartels, which is taking more lives on both sides of the border.”

Under the Obama Administration proposal, 8,500 gun dealers near the U.S.-Mexico border would be required to alert authorities when they sell two or more semiautomatic rifles greater than .22-caliber with detachable magazines to the same person within five consecutive business days.

“Our weak gun laws have enabled ruthless Mexican drug cartels to arm themselves with vast military arsenals from American gun dealers, who sell traffickers countless AK-47s and AR-15s in bulk,” added Helmke. “Our leaders in Congress need to explain why they want to shield these sales from law enforcement.”

On February 15, the Brady Center filed comments in support of the Obama Administration proposal to require gun dealers in Southwest border states to provide notice of bulk sales of semi-automatic long guns to the ATF. The proposal would assist law enforcement with investigating and curbing the rampant trafficking of AK-47s and other guns from U.S. gun stores to Mexican drug cartels. Current law requires that ATF be notified of multiple sales of handguns only.

What makes Paul Helmke think that this “emergency” regulation would make a dent in the violence in Mexico when the ATF knowingly allowed suspicious sales to go through and then lost track of an estimated 2,500 firearms? The man is in denial.

Uncategorized

Castle Doctrine Passes Second Reading In NC Senate

February 24, 2011 by

S. 34, The Castle Doctrine, passed its Second Reading in the North Carolina State Senate today. It passed this reading with only one minor amendment that merely clarified the language. It will now go to its Third (and final) Reading.

As mentioned on Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary II Committee approved substitute language which strengthened the bill. Moreover, both the NRA and Grass Roots NC have endorsed the updated bill.

The legislative calendar does not state when the final vote in the State Senate will be held on S. 34. After it passes the Senate, it still must be approved in the State House. As soon as I have more updates, I will post them.

As a sidebar, I was at a training meeting the last two days with limited access to a computer. I love my new iPhone but it is hell to try to do a blog post on it. My thumbs must be too fat!

UPDATE: According to GRNC, the objection of one anti-gun NC State Senator is what held up the 3rd Reading and final vote on S. 34. It will be held on Monday.

UPDATE II: WRAL published a video of the actual debate on the bill in the NC Senate. It is an hour long video so you may only want to skip through it to listen to highlights.

width=576; height=324; wral_insert_video_player_9166807(576, 324);

Uncategorized

Castle Doctrine In North Carolina Is Out Of Committee

February 23, 2011 by

SB 34, the first castle doctrine bill filed, has been reported out of the NC Senate Judiciary II committee. It will come to the floor of the State Senate as early as tomorrow.

As I discussed earlier, this bill had been criticized as not going far enough as it did not cover people in their vehicles nor did it have a “stand your ground” provision. These defects have been remedied as the Judiciary II committee adopted substitute language to strengthen the bill. It now adds both of these provisions.

Both the NRA and Grass Roots North Carolina have indicated their support and approval of the strengthened bill. The NRA released this tonight:

Earlier today, NRA-supported “Castle Doctrine” self-defense legislation was favorably amended and reported by the Senate Judiciary II Committee. The full Senate will now consider this important legislation, which could take place as early as tomorrow.

Introduced by state Senators Andrew Brock (R-34), Doug Berger (D-7) and Kathy Harrington (R-43), Senate Bill 34 would codify the “Castle Doctrine” in the home, as well as establish immunity from civil lawsuits for those who use lethal force to defend themselves or their loved ones while in their home. The bill was amended to add automobiles to the Castle Doctrine protections, as well as “Stand Your Ground” language. This greatly expands the legislation to offer more protections for law-abiding citizens who use their firearms for personal protection.

Please contact your state Senator TODAY and respectfully urge him or her to support your right to self-defense and pass Senate Bill 34 when it comes up for a vote.

From an alert sent out by Grass Roots North Carolina this evening to its members:

Under guidance from Grass Roots North Carolina, the Senate Judiciary II Committee today passed SB 34: “Castle Doctrine” in a stronger version which could ultimately create the most comprehensive such law in the country.

Thanks to the efforts of Sens. Buck Newton (R-, GRNC ****) and Andrew Brock (R-Davie/Rowan, ****), an amendment was made to the bill to incorporate most of the desirable features of HB 74, plus an added protection against crime in the workplace.

GRNC Legislative Action Team members were heavily involved in improving the language of the bill, drafting and reviewing sections, and providing information to sponsors and committee members.

Speaking on behalf of the bill were Sens. Berger, Clary, Daniel, Newton, and Tucker. Raising questions about the bill were Sens. Dannelly and McKissick. Sen. Berger initially offered an amendment to remove workplaces, but later withdrew the amendment and voted for the bill. SB 34 passed unanimously.

Improvements made to SB 34 include:
* Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury when an attacker makes an unlawful and forcible entry not only of a home, but also a motor vehicle and a workplace. Beyond including the carjacking protection long-sought by GRNC, this may be the first law in the country to include the workplace among protected areas
* “No duty to retreat” before using deadly force in anyplace the victim has a lawful right to be.
* Protection against malicious prosecution: Police may not arrest a victim forced to use deadly force unless they have probable cause to believe the use of force was unjustified.

Uncategorized

FoxNews Covers Project Gunwalker

February 22, 2011 by

Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>

David Codrea has more on the story here.

Larry Pratt was interviewed by Megyn Kelly on America Live about Andrew Traver. Pratt also outlined the allegations regarding Project Gunwalker. No video is available on this yet.

To understand the full background of this story, David has prepared what he calls A Journalist’s Guide to Project Gunwalker. The story and timeline gets longer and longer every day.

UPDATE: The video of Larry Pratt’s interview with Megyn Kelly is now available.

Uncategorized

Daily Star Or Red Star?

February 22, 2011 by 1 Comment

The Arizona Daily Star of Tucson has an editorial today calling for a reinstatement of the ban on “military-style assault weapons”.

Banning semiautomatic assault weapons designed to kill lots of people quickly isn’t quite as simple at it may appear on the surface. That must not keep us from trying.

In fact, even given myriad defects in the now-expired federal assault-weapons ban, we could do a lot worse than essentially reinstating it as originally written. Flawed though it was, it reduced the flow of such weapons.

Even better, Congress should consider emulating California’s assault-weapons ban.

According to the Daily Star, the California law has a one military feature and its banned. Frankly, I don’t know if they are correct or not as I haven’t had to deal with the California law. I do know that the good folks at CalGuns.net can tell you all about “bullet buttons” and other ways around the California law.

What the editorial board of the Arizona Daily Star fails to mention is that the overall crime rate has gone down since the AWB sunsetted in 2004. I guess that doesn’t fit the narrative.

UPDATE: Charles Heller of the AZ Citizens Defense League was given an opportunity to write an op-ed responding to the Daily Star. It is entitled Gun Control: Punishing the Innocent.

Uncategorized

HR 822: Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced (Updated)

February 22, 2011 by 10 Comments

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced HR 822 on Friday. It is:

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

The full text of the bill is not yet available and he hasn’t issued a press release describing the bill.

Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) – my Congressman – is the first co-sponsor of the bill. Whatever else I might say about Heath, he is good on the Second Amendment. You also may remember that he came out in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings saying he had a CCW permit and did carry. He also encouraged his staff to obtain a CCW permit.

I will call Shuler’s office tomorrow to see if I can get a copy of the text of the bill as it may be a few days before the Government Printing Office has it available.

UPDATE: Thanks to Paul Flusche of Congressman Cliff Stearn’s office we have the text of the bill. After a quick reading of the bill, I’d see this is a pretty good bill. If a state issues a concealed carry permit, then your CCW is good there subject to the rules for an unrestricted CCW. For example, if your home state allows you to carry in a place that serves alcohol but you are in North Carolina which doesn’t, you have to abide by the NC CHP regulations.

Here is the full text of the bill:

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on (blank)

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.
(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.
(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.
(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed
firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.
(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.
(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.
(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
‘‘§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms‘‘
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that—
‘‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
‘‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
‘‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.
‘‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted
license or permit issued to a resident of the State.
‘‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’’.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
‘‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’’.

(c) SEVERABILITY.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Uncategorized

That’s Hot!

February 22, 2011 by 1 Comment
 

Paris Hilton (seen above with her boyfriend Cy Waits) revealed that Waits stopped an armed burglar from getting into her home last August by pulling a gun on the intruder. Waits held the burglar at gunpoint for a half hour while they waited for police to arrive according to the story. The burglar was armed with “two large knives”.

It is not known whether Waits, a nightclub “mogul”, had one of those rare LA County concealed carry permits or just kept the pistol at Hilton’s house. The discussion about this incident on the CalGuns.net forum seems to indicate that even though Waits was not at his own residence, it was lawful for him to use a firearm to stop the armed intruder.

Neither Hilton or Waits are someone the NRA would want as a spokesperson due to run-ins with the law but I’m glad that a firearm was available for use in stopping an knife-wielding intruder. I am surprised that the LAPD took 30 minutes to get to Paris Hilton’s house given that she is a celebrity.