Month: April 2011

Uncategorized

HR 1506: A Bill That Needs To Go Nowhere (Updated With Text)

April 16, 2011 by 13 Comments

Rep. Peter King (R-NY-3) introduced HR 1506 yesterday. It is titled a bill to “To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”

I am guessing – and it is only a guess – that this bill is the House version of Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s S 34 – Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2011. The language of King’s bill is not yet available. However, the purpose of the Lautenberg bill is exactly the same as the preliminary title of HR 1506, so I think it is fair presumption.

The 11 co-sponsors are your usual cast of anti-gunners along with one NRA C-ranked Country Club Republican (Lance) thrown into the mix.

Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5]
Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32]
Rep Deutch, Theodore E. [FL-19]
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14]
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17]
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12]
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7]
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC]
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15]
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1]
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30]

While the bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, it will probably get more attention than it deserves because King is the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The bill should be consigned to the dustbin of history but it probably will get some traction thanks to King’s sponsorship of it.

Republican or not, Peter King is no friend of gun owners and made plenty of stupid remarks in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings. His HR 496 would create a 1000 foot “gun-free bubble” around “high-ranking government officials” which, of course, includes Congressmen. If he were a Republican from the Mid-West, the South, or even California, I doubt he could get away with some of the stuff he has said. However, he represents a Long Island district that adjoins the district of Carolyn McCarthy and stupidly confuses gun control with anti-terrorism measures.

UPDATE: The bill now has 14 co-sponsors and the text has been released. The text of HR 1506 is not word for word the same as Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s S. 34 but it is pretty damn close.

In essence, you can be accused of international or domestic terrorism by some unknown accuser and then be turned down for a firearms purchase. If the Attorney General deems it in the interest of “national security”, then he doesn’t need to even tell you why you were denied and you are prohibited from suing to seek answers. This law would strip you of your right to due process.

Here is the text of the bill as reported by the Government Printing Office.

A BILL

To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.

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 `Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.

(a) Standard for Exercising Attorney General Discretion Regarding Transferring Firearms or Issuing Firearms Permits to Dangerous Terrorists- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by inserting the following new section after section 922:

`Sec. 922A. Attorney General’s discretion to deny transfer of a firearm

`The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’;

(2) by inserting the following new section after section 922A:

`Sec. 922B. Attorney General’s discretion regarding applicants for firearm permits which would qualify for the exemption provided under section 922(t)(3)

`The Attorney General may determine that an applicant for a firearm permit which would qualify for an exemption under section 922(t) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’; and

(3) in section 921(a), by adding at the end the following:

`(36) The term `terrorism’ means `international terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(1), and `domestic terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(5).

`(37) The term `material support’ means `material support or resources’ within the meaning of section 2339A or 2339B.

`(38) The term `responsible person’ means an individual who has the power, directly or indirectly, to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of the applicant or licensee pertaining to firearms.’.

(b) Effect of Attorney General Discretionary Denial Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) on Firearms Permits- Section 922(t) of such title is amended–

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by inserting `or State law, or that the Attorney General has determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A’ before the semicolon;

(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting after `or State law’ the following: `or if the Attorney General has not determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A’;

(3) in paragraph (3)(A)(i)–

(A) by striking `and’ at the end of subclause (I); and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(III) was issued after a check of the system established pursuant to paragraph (1);’;

(4) in paragraph (3)(A)–

(A) by adding `and’ at the end of clause (ii); and

(B) by adding after and below the end the following:

`(iii) the State issuing the permit agrees to deny the permit application if such other person is the subject of a determination by the Attorney General pursuant to section 922B;’;

(5) in paragraph (4), by inserting after `or State law,’ the following: `or if the Attorney General has not determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A,’; and

(6) in paragraph (5), by inserting after `or State law,’ the following: `or if the Attorney General has determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A,’.

(c) Unlawful Sale or Disposition of Firearm Based on Attorney General Discretionary Denial- Section 922(d) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (8);

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting `; or’;

(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:

`(10) has been the subject of a determination by the Attorney General pursuant to section 922A, 922B, 923(d)(1)(H), or 923(e) of this title.’.

(d) Attorney General Discretionary Denial as Prohibitor- Section 922(g) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (8);

(2) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting; `; or’; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:

`(10) who has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 922A, 922B, 923(d)(1)(H), or 923(e) of this title.’.

(e) Attorney General Discretionary Denial of Federal Firearms Licenses- Section 923(d)(1) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `Any’ and inserting `Except as provided in subparagraph (H), any’;

(2) in subparagraph (F)(iii), by striking `and’ at the end;

(3) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period and inserting `; and’; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(H) The Attorney General may deny a license application if the Attorney General determines that the applicant (including any responsible person) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’.

(f) Discretionary Revocation of Federal Firearms Licenses- Section 923(e) of such title is amended–

(1) in the 1st sentence–

(A) by inserting after `revoke’ the following: `–(1)’; and

(B) by striking the period and inserting a semicolon;

(2) in the 2nd sentence–

(A) by striking `The Attorney General may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, revoke’ and insert `(2)’; and

(B) by striking the period and inserting `; or’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) any license issued under this section if the Attorney General determines that the holder of the license (including any responsible person) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’.

(g) Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information in Firearms License Denial and Revocation Suit- Section 923(f) of such title is amended–

(1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting `, except that if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(H) or (e)(3), then any information on which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security’ before the period; and

(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: `With respect to any information withheld from the aggrieved party under paragraph (1), the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.’.

(h) Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information in Relief From Disabilities Lawsuits- Section 925(c) of such title is amended by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: `If receipt of a firearms by the person would violate section 922(g)(10), any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security. In responding to the petition, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.’.

(i) Penalties- Section 924(k) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (2);

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `, or’ and inserting `; or’; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

`(4) constitutes an act of terrorism (as defined in section 921(a)(36)), or material support thereof (as defined in section 921(a)(37)), or’.

(j) Remedy for Erroneous Denial of Firearm or Firearm Permit Exemption- Section 925A of such title is amended–

(1) in the section heading, by striking `Remedy for erroneous denial of firearm’ and inserting `Remedies’;

(2) by striking `Any person denied a firearm pursuant to subsection (s) or (t) of section 922′ and inserting the following:

`(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), any person denied a firearm pursuant to section 922(t) or pursuant to a determination made under section 922B,’; and

(3) by adding after and below the end the following:

`(b) In any case in which the Attorney General has denied the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee pursuant to section 922A or has made a determination regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 922B, an action challenging the determination may be brought against the United States. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 922A or 922B. The court shall sustain the Attorney General’s determination on a showing by the United States by a preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General’s determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B. To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security. On request of the petitioner or the court’s own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.’.

(k) Provision of Grounds Underlying Ineligibility Determination by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System- Section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159) is amended–

(1) in subsection (f)–

(A) by inserting after `is ineligible to receive a firearm,’ the following: `or the Attorney General has made a determination regarding an applicant for a firearm permit pursuant to section 922B of title 18, United States Code’; and

(B) by inserting after `the system shall provide such reasons to the individual,’ the following: `except for any information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security’; and

(2) in subsection (g)–

(A) in the 1st sentence, by inserting after `subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code or State law’ the following: `or if the Attorney General has made a determination pursuant to section 922A or 922B of such title,’;

(B) by inserting `, except any information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security’ before the period; and

(C) by adding at the end the following: `Any petition for review of information withheld by the Attorney General under this subsection shall be made in accordance with section 925A of title 18, United States Code.’.

(l) Unlawful Distribution of Explosives Based on Attorney General Discretionary Denial- Section 842(d) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting `; or’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(10) has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 843(b)(8) or (d)(2) of this title.’.

(m) Attorney General Discretionary Denial as Prohibitor- Section 842(i) of such title is amended–

(1) by adding `or’ at the end of paragraph (7); and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:

`(8) who has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 843(b)(8) or (d)(2),’.

(n) Attorney General Discretionary Denial of Federal Explosives Licenses and Permits- Section 843(b) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `Upon’ and inserting the following: `Except as provided in paragraph (8), on’; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:

`(8) The Attorney General may deny the issuance of a permit or license to an applicant if the Attorney General determines that the applicant or a responsible person or employee possessor thereof is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation of, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the person may use explosives in connection with terrorism.’.

(o) Attorney General Discretionary Revocation of Federal Explosives Licenses and Permits- Section 843(d) of such title is amended–

(1) by inserting `(1)’ in the first sentence after `if’; and

(2) by striking the period at the end of the first sentence and inserting the following: `; or (2) the Attorney General determines that the licensee or holder (or any responsible person or employee possessor thereof) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and that the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the person may use explosives in connection with terrorism.’.

(p) Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information in Explosives License and Permit Denial and Revocation Suits- Section 843(e) of such title is amended–

(1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting `except that if the denial or revocation is based on a determination under subsection (b)(8) or (d)(2), then any information which the Attorney General relied on for the determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security’ before the period; and

(2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following: `In responding to any petition for review of a denial or revocation based on a determination under section 843(b)(8) or (d)(2), the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.’.

(q) Ability To Withhold Information in Communications to Employers- Section 843(h)(2) of such title is amended–

(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting `or section 843(b)(1) (on grounds of terrorism) of this title,’ after `section 842(i),’; and

(2) in subparagraph (B)–

(A) by inserting `or section 843(b)(8)’ after `section 842(i)’; and

(B) in clause (ii), by inserting `, except that any information that the Attorney General relied on for a determination pursuant to section 843(b)(8) may be withheld if the Attorney General concludes that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security’ before the semicolon.

(r) Conforming Amendment to Immigration and Nationality Act- Section 101(a)(43)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii)) is amended by striking ` or (5)’ and inserting `(5), or (10)’.

Uncategorized

SAF Sues Massachusetts On Gun Rights For Legal Resident Aliens

April 15, 2011 by 3 Comments

The Second Amendment Foundation along with Commonwealth Second Amendment is suing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts because of their refusal to grant legal resident aliens the ability to obtain a Firearms ID Card or a License to Carry.

As was the case in two earlier suits involving legal resident aliens, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is on shakey legal ground denying them permits. Laws that discriminate based on “alienage” are subject to strict scrutiny. I am a bit surprised that the ACLU of Massachusetts didn’t see fit to bring this case as they did in Kentucky and South Dakota. Here is a link to the Kentucky case for some background on how courts have dealt with denial of gun rights to legal resident aliens.

SAF SUES OVER MASSACHUSETTS GUN BAN FOR LEGAL ALIEN RESIDENTS

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit challenging a law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that denies legal resident aliens the licenses required to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense, or purchase any kind of firearm.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Joining SAF in this lawsuit are Commonwealth Second Amendment, a Massachusetts grassroots organization, and two British citizens who reside in the commonwealth. They are represented by attorney Joseph M. Hickson III of Springfield. Defendants are Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas, Northboro Police Chief Mark k. Leahy and Jason A. Guida, director of the Firearms Records Bureau in Chelsea.

The lawsuit alleges that Christopher M. Fletcher of Cambridge and Eoin M. Pryal of Northboro – both legal resident aliens – have been specifically denied the ability to obtain a Firearms Identification Card or a License to Carry of any kind. Before moving to Massachusetts, Fletcher lived in California, where he had a Basic Firearms Safety certificate and Handgun Safety certificate, which allowed him to purchase and own firearms including handguns. Pryal, who is married to a citizen of this country, and had a shotgun certificate and international dealer’s license while living in the United Kingdom.

“One of the fundamental principles in this country is that people have rights,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Among those rights is the right of self-defense, especially in one’s own home. Christopher Fletcher and Eoin Pryal live here legally, they have been firearms owners, they are productive members of the community, yet they are being denied a basic right by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This is wrong and our court challenge aims to correct that.”

“This lawsuit truly illustrates the contradictory and irrational nature of the Commonwealths’ firearms laws,” Comm2A President Brent Carlton added. “Governor Deval Patrick’s administration has broadly supported the immigrant community and noted our dependence on them for our continued prosperity while Massachusetts law treats those same individuals as inherently dangerous enough to justify their exclusion from certain fundamental rights protected by the Constitution of the United States. This blanket prohibition runs contrary to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and today’s challenge is supported overwhelmingly by well-established legal precedent.”

The Second Amendment Foundation has posted a copy of the complaint in Fletcher et al v. Haas et al here.

Uncategorized

Great Headline

April 15, 2011 by

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal ran the following headline in their Marketplace Section:

Loonie Hinders Canadian Firms

Reading that headline you’d think that an escapee from a mental institution was stalking companies in Canada and causing them trouble. Fortunately or unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

The article was about how the rising strength of the Canadian dollar and how it is hindering some exports. To understand the headline, it helps to know that the Canadian $1 coin has a picture of a loon engraved on it. Because of this, the Canadians refer to their dollar as the loonie.

In a way, that is too bad that it is only about their nickname for the Canadian dollar. The story would have been much more interesting if it did involve a mental patient who was upset that the companies were not polite enough or something like that.

Uncategorized

National Buy A Gun Day

April 15, 2011 by 2 Comments

Today is National Buy A Gun Day. Since it seems everyone is posting pictures of the gun they are going to buy today (or have on order), I thought I’d do the same.

I have a Springfield Armory Range Officer 1911 on order from one of my local gun shops. I thought what a better way to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Model 1911 by buying one. It is as JayG at MArooned calls it, “this 100th year of our Lord JMB (PBUH)”.

The only modification that I plan to make right now is to have a gold bead added to the front sight. My old eyes need a little help! I’ve already spoken to John Harrison at Harrison Customs about that and he assures me it will be no problem.

Now, I just have to wait (or continue waiting) for the pistol to arrive.

Uncategorized

Grassley Fires Another Salvo At DOJ And Holder

April 14, 2011 by

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has fired another salvo at Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department over Operation Fast and Furious (aka Project Gunwalker). In his latest letter, Grassley releases e-mails sent by an unnamed FFL in Arizona to ATF Group VII Supervisor David Voth along with Voth’s replies. They show that at least one cooperating gun dealer was quite concerned that these straw purchases would end up in Mexico.

Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News reports that Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Grassley are sharing information received from the Justice Department. However, as she notes, the response by DOJ hasn’t been very forthcoming.

So far, Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who is also investigating the gunwalking scandal, say they have received little to no meaningful response to their document and information requests from ATF and the Department of Justice. Earlier this week when the Justice Department turned over selected materials to Rep. Issa’s staff, sources say Grassley’s staff were now allowed entry or access to the same materials.

Grassley notes in his letter that the Justice Department has not provided his office or staff with even one page of the requested documents. He goes on to say that he hasn’t requested that Sen. Pat Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issue a supoena or document request because “any such request would be unnecessary and duplicative of the process on the House side.”

The previous responses by the Justice Department from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich brought this from Sen. Grassley.

The Department’s failure to cooperate with my requests is especially troubling in light of the February 4, 2011, reply to my initial letter. In that reply, the Justice Department took the position that those allegations were “false” and specifically denied “that ATF ‘sanctioned’ or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons” to straw purchasers. The letter further claimed that “ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.”

I already provided evidence contradicting that denial in my February 9 and March 3 letters. In addition, attached you will find further documentation undermining the Department’s assertion. Specifically, the documents are emails between ATF officials and a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) in Arizona. These emails demonstrate that ATF instructed gun dealers to engage in suspicious sales despite the dealers’ concerns. The emails refer to meetings between the FFL and the U.S. Attorney’s office to address the concerns being raised by the FFL.

Grassley goes on to say that the Justice Department’s claim that they didn’t authorize or allow the sale of firearms to straw buyers is simply not believable. He then goes on to put Holder on the spot by asking the two following questions. He requests a response by April 20th.

1. Do you stand by the assertion in the Department’s reply that the ATF whistleblower allegations are “false” and specifically that ATF did not sanction or otherwise knowingly allow the sale of assault weapons to straw purchasers? If so, please explain why in light of the mounting evidence to the contrary.

2. Will you commit to providing the Senate Judiciary Committee with documents, or access to documents, simultaneously with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform? If not, please explain why not.

CBS News has video of Grassley discussing his letter and the email on the floor of the Senate.

The emails that have been released definitely show that the FFL was concerned about where these firearms went. He had friends who were U.S. Border Patrol agents and didn’t want them to be harmed by his cooperation with ATF. Beyond just the emails, Grassley’s staff has also interviewed the FFL. They are definitely worth reading to see how the dealers were “played” by ATF in the course of their so-called investigation.

Uncategorized

SB 560 – Greater Protection For North Carolina Shooting Ranges

April 14, 2011 by

State Senator Andrew Brock introduced SB 560 on Tuesday in the North Carolina Senate. The bill says, in effect, that a range that moved from its present location to a new location due to annexation, road construction, zoning changes, etc. would still be considered in continuous operation.

*S560-v-1*
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT A SPORT SHOOTING RANGE THAT RELOCATES DUE TO CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IS STILL CONSIDERED TO BE CONTINUOUSLY IN EXISTENCE SINCE BEGINNING OPERATION AND NOT TO HAVE UNDERGONE A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN USE.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. G.S. 14-409.46 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:
“(f) For the purposes of this Article, a sport shooting range that relocates due to condemnation, rezoning, annexation, road construction, or development:
(1) Is still considered to be continuously in existence since beginning operation at its previous location; and
(2) Is not considered to have undergone a substantial change in use as the result of the location.”
SECTION 2. This act is effective when it becomes law.

The importance of this bill is due to the protections granted in NCGS § 14‑409.46 – Sport shooting range protection. If a range was continuously operated from 1994 onwards without any substantial changes in the use of the range and was in compliance with any noise ordinances at the time the range began operation, then it cannot be sued over noise issues.

With the increasing population growth and increasing suburbanization of North Carolina, ranges that used to be far from residential location are suddenly finding themselves surrounded by housing subdivisions. This protection would be very useful if they do decide to move due to development.

That certainly is the case with the Asheville Rifle and Pistol Club south of Asheville near the French Broad River. There is a new housing development in the last 5 or so years that is just over the ridge from the 200-yard rifle range. See the picture below which is a screen capture from Google Maps. You have to wonder if the developer or the people buying the houses were aware that a rifle range was just over the ridge when they purchased either the land or the homes.

Uncategorized

ATF Shakes Up Leadership Of Phoenix Office

April 14, 2011 by 1 Comment

Allen Lengel at Tickle the Wire is reporting that Thomas Brandon, the head of the Detroit ATF, office will temporarily fill in as head of the Phoenix Field Division.

Brandon will fill in for the Phoenix special agent in charge, William D. Newell, who has been sent to Washington to help prepare and answer questions about Operation Fast and Furious for Congress and the Office of Inspector General, the sources said.

Newell joins Jim Needles, an assistant special agent in charge of the Phoenix Division, who has been temporarily assigned to Washington to also help prepare answers for the various inquiries, sources said. Another assistant special agent in charge of the Phoenix office has taken a sick leave. It is unclear where all the agents involved in the moves will wind up, and whether they’ll return to their old posts.

“Another assistant special agent” would be George Gillett who has requested whistleblower status from Senator Chuck Grassley’s office.It was only yesterday that a leaked memo on CleanUpATF reported the Gillett was acting head of the Phoenix office from Monday through Friday. Things must change fast in Arizona!

To: Phoe-CE Supervisors; Phoe-940Staff; Phoe-IO Supervisors
Sent: Mon Apr 11 13:13:42 2011
Subject: Designation
In accordance with ATF O 1100.168, ASAC George Gillett is designated as the acting SAC for the period of 4/11/11 – 4/15/11. He can be reached at (602) 776-XXXX, or on his cell phone (602) 653-XXXX.

Mike Vanderboegh at Sipsey Street Irregulars takes up the story on the field reaction to Newell and Needles being temporarily reassigned to Washington and on Gillett going on “sick leave”.  Follow the link to his page to read more.

As many have noticed, little has been heard or seen of Andrew Traver throughout this whole scandal. David Codrea’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request did uncover a couple of emails which pointed to Traver. Those give an indication that he may not be so out of the loop on the Headquarters’ reaction as he and the Obama Administration would have us believe.

Along those lines, Michael Bane warns that we need to be watchful that Traver isn’t being repositioned as the clean white knight sent in to clean up the Operation Gunwalker mess.

One thing to watch for is the White House using the current ATF scandal to create the next ATF scandal by shoving Chicago thug Andrew Traver down Congress’ throat as the new head of ATF. Traver’s career is rife with conflict of interests — working with International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Joyce Foundation promoting antigun causes — and overtly lying to the media on the difference between a “semiauto” and a “machinegun.”

His most recent weekly podcast, Downrange Radio, also discussed Operation Fast and Furious as well as Traver.