Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Firearms Policy Coalition Has An Easy Way To Comment

February 7, 2013 by 2 Comments

The Firearms Policy Coalition has set up a page that lists each firearms-related bill that has been introduced into either the House or the Senate in the 113th Congress. It gives a brief summary of the bill and whether they support or oppose the bill.

You are probably saying to yourself, “So, you’ve been doing something similar”. Yes but their page contains a link for each bill that allows you to send a comment on that particular bill to your Congressman and Senators. If, for example, you just want to send a comment that says, “I oppose S.150” you can do that. However, if you want to personalize your message – and you should do that – it lets you do that.

In addition to sending a message to Congress, the link also tallies your response with other respondents for the website PopVox. For example on the aforementioned S.150 – Assault Weapons (sic) Ban of 2013 – PopVox shows 97% of respondents oppose the bill.

I am all for easy if it looks like it can be effective. Given that you can personalize the message, I think this can be effective.

Uncategorized

Federal Firearms Legislation Introduced In The Past Week

February 7, 2013 by 2 Comments

Three new firearms related bills have been introduced since the middle of last week in Congress. Two deal with gun trafficking and one is actually a decent bill dealing with amnesty for NFA war trophies.

HR 449 – Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL)
To provide an amnesty period during which veterans and their family
members can register certain firearms in the National Firearms
Registration and Transfer Record, and for other purposes.
Referred to House Judiciary Committee, House Ways and Means Committee, and House Veterans Affairs Committee.

HR 452 – Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Co-Sponsors:
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD] – 2/4/2013
Rep Meehan, Patrick [R-PA] – 2/4/2013
Rep Rigell, E. Scott [R-VA] – 2/4/2013
To prevent gun trafficking. 
Referred to House Judiciary Committee.

S 179 – Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Co-Sponsor:
Sen Kirk, Mark Steven [R-IL] – 1/30/2013
To prevent gun trafficking.
Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee

Unless I am greatly mistaken, HR 452 and S 179 will be a reprise of legislation proposed by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) in the last session of Congress. The purpose of that bill was to deflect attention from Attorney General Eric Holder, the Department of Justice, and BATFE over Project Gunwalker. This time I think it is a cynical attempt to say there is bi-partisan support for gun control.

Reading the press release from Rep. Maloney on HR 452 one can’t help but notice that all the supporters of the bill that she lists are known gun control backers.

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Association of
Prosecuting Attorneys, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Police
Foundation, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement
Administrators, the Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department, the
Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, the Baltimore Police Department,
Prince George’s County Sheriff’s Office, and the Petersburg Bureau of
Police. Also in attendance were representatives from the U.S. Conference
of Mayors, the American Bar Association, CeaseFirePA, the Violence
Policy Center, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

CSGV and VPC? They are the enemies of gun rights. They have always been and always will be opposed to our gun rights. If they are in support of legislation dealing with firearms, it is prima facie suspect.

Sebastian has more on this bill here and suggests we keep our eye on it. I agree. I also think this falls under the rubric of what Michael Bane called flypaper laws in a blog post today. They are a trap for gun owners and are meant to trip us up one way or another.

Uncategorized

Trouble In Paradise?

February 5, 2013 by 1 Comment

An observant reader sent me a link to a new job posting for the Brady Campaign. The posting which appeared on Saturday says that they are seeking a “Chief Campaigns Officer”. He wondered if they were dissatisfied with Dan Gross and cutting him loose after less than a year on the job.

The ad says they are seeking someone with 10 plus years of “senior-level experience” in ” politics, community organizing, political advocacy, nonprofit management, and/or communications.” They want the same amount of experience in staff management along with the usual strong interpersonal skills, organizational skills, etc. Of course, they want a commitment to the mission of the Brady Campaign.

From the position summary and responsibilities:

Position Summary



Senior level decision maker within the organization responsible for
overseeing the organization’s member and constituent engagement, policy
and public health and safety programs. This position works closely with
senior staff and consultants.




Responsibilities



Member/Constituent Engagement

  • Set and direct objectives for the director of legislation and mobilization to engage the American public.
  • Grow the membership of the organization and ensure high level of member activity in advocacy and fundraising activities.
  • Coordinate member engagement with the development department.





Policy Program

  • Set and direct objectives for the director of legislation and
    mobilization and the director of the legal action project related to
    passing and protecting policy.
  • Effectively represent the perspective of the American public in policy conversations at the federal level.
  • Provide resources to state level chapters regarding policy at the state level.


Public Health and Safety Education Program

  • Design and guide public education campaigns and the promotion of those campaigns federally and at the state level.
  • Effectively operate the legal action project.

I’ll be honest in that I can’t quite figure out if they are replacing Dan Gross or adding the equivalent of an ILA’s Chris Cox to the overall NRA’s Wayne LaPierre.

Some of the duties such as setting objectives and directing both the director of legislation and the director of the legal action project belong, in my opinion, to Dan Gross as president of the Brady Campaign. Or, it could be that flush with a reported $5 million in donations, they are seeking to expand their lobbying efforts.

Regardless of whether this is a Dan Gross replacement or an addition to their lobbying efforts, it still will not be enough to allow them to regain their place at the head of the gun prohibitionist table as it is increasingly obvious that Mayor Bloomberg and his Illegal Mayors have pushed them aside.

Uncategorized

About Those Barrel Shrouds

February 5, 2013 by

Barrel shrouds are “those shoulder things that go up” according to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). It is one of the “features” that converts a black rifle into an evil black rifle that should be banned if Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is to be believed.

Against this backdrop, Oleg Volk has an illuminating post up about barrel shrouds. I didn’t know that metal shrouds have been around since the Gewehr 88 or German Commission Rifle of 1888.

But I do now. Read Oleg’s post to find out more.

Uncategorized

Sen. Harry Reid’s S.2

February 4, 2013 by 4 Comments

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced S. 2 – Sandy Hook Elementary School Violence Prevention Act of 2013 – on January 22nd. The bill is a Potemkin Village of a bill: it is a facade with nothing behind it. That is nothing behind it – yet.

And therein likes its danger. The bill as it is written now consists solely of a list of items that “express the sense of the Senate”. The co-sponsors of the bill are the usual Democrats who favor more gun control. I fear that this bill will be used as the aggregator for all the gun control proposals that Reid believes he can get passed. These will come as amendments to the bill and given that it is Reid’s bill, he’ll control the debate and the amendments.

The text of the bill is below:

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 2
To reduce violence and protect the citizens of the United States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 22 (legislative day, January 3), 2013
Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. BROWN, Mr. COONS, Ms. HIRONO, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. MURPHY, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. ROCKEFELLER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To reduce violence and protect the citizens of the United States.

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 `Sandy Hook Elementary School Violence Reduction Act’.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should–

(1) support the efforts of the President of the United States to reduce violence in the United States;
(2) promote common-sense proposals for preventing gun violence;
(3) provide law enforcement officers with the tools necessary to combat violent crime and protect communities, and protect themselves;
(4) ensure children can attend school free from the threat of violence;
(5) support States and local districts to ensure schools have the safe and successful learning conditions in which all students can excel;
(6) provide tools for identifying individuals that pose a threat to themselves or others, so they can receive appropriate assistance;
(7) keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and individuals who are not lawfully authorized to possess them;
(8) promote information-sharing that will facilitate the early identification of threats to public safety;
(9) mitigate the effects of violence by promoting preparedness;
(10) provide training for educational professionals, health providers, and others to recognize indicators of the potential for violent behavior;
(11) examine whether there is a connection between violent media and violent behavior;
(12) enable the collection, study, and publication of relevant research; and
(13) expand access to mental health services, with a focus on children and young adults.

Uncategorized

Another Good Letter From The AK Forum

February 4, 2013 by 1 Comment

The administrators at The AK Forum have really stepped up in providing good letters for communicating with Congress. Their 7th letter reminds elected officials that the police are not required to provide protection as established by the Court’s decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales.


Dear (Elected Official),

I am writing to express my concerns with the recent efforts by the House and Senate to infringe upon my rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, I want you to understand that I am legally responsible for my own defense.

We, as a society, expect someone else to defend and protect us. Isn’t it the job of the police officers to protect us? That which we fail to accept is that it is not. In fact, it is impossible for them to do so. On June 27, 2005, after hearing the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals have no right to police protection under the federal Constitution, thus upholding what is known as public-duty doctrine. The police do not exist to protect individuals directly; they exist only to perform the general duties of deterring crime by general patrol and also to investigate after a crime has been committed to detect the perpetrator. They do not have the resources to provide individual protection to those threatened with criminal attack.

What this means is that I am the one legally responsible to defend and protect myself and my family. With the efforts of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to strip Americans of defensive firearms, how will I be able to defend and protect myself and family? With brooms, mops, and feather dusters? I prefer the firearms that I have today that will give me the advantage required for me to meet my legal responsibility.

In summary, as a law-abiding American citizen I am deeply concerned and fearful of what our elected officials are trying to legislate in Congress. I recommend that all elected officials read and refresh their memory on the content of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. I encourage you to focus your legislative efforts on addressing the problems plaguing the mental health system, not the Second Amendment.

As my elected official, as a law-abiding citizen, I expect your support in protecting my Second Amendment rights. If you cannot support me, then I cannot support you in future elections and will seek another candidate that will fight for my rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Respectfully,

(YOUR NAME)

Here are a few links where you can find the names and addresses of your state’s US Senators and Representatives. First, by state, from the US Senate’s webpage.
Click on the senator’s name to be linked to their home page. From there
you can find their fax and phone numbers. Second, from the House’s webpage, you can find your Congressman by your ZIP Code. Likewise, you can get their fax and phone numbers from their home page. Finally, the NRA-ILA has a “write your
reps” address locator. It can be found here. Whichever way, write them, call them, AND fax them in both DC and one of their local offices.

Uncategorized

Would Internal Passports Be Next?

February 3, 2013 by 6 Comments

One of the things that has always distinguished the United States from the authoritarian countries of the world in that we have the freedom to travel anywhere and everywhere within the country – at will and without any required national documentation. We don’t have internal passports and we don’t have national ID cards.

However, our betters at Pravda on the Potomac (or the Washington Post, if you prefer) think we all should have a universal national ID card with biometric identifiers built into it. They propose this as a means to keep employers from hiring illegal aliens and as a means to deter illegal immigration.

An effective solution would be to issue tamper-proof, biometric ID cards
— using fingerprints or a comparably unique identifier — to all
citizens and legal residents. Last week, both President Obama and a bipartisan group of eight senators
seeking immigration reform urged something along those lines, without
calling it a universal national identity card. That’s a major step
forward.

The Post thinks this is more effective than securing the border. They also dismiss concerns held by civil libertarians.

Critics on both the civil-liberties left and the libertarian right have long resisted such cards as the embodiment of a Big Brother brand of government, omniscient, invasive and tentacular. Their criticisms ring hollow.


More than a third of Americans (35 percent) possess passports, up from just 6 percent 20 years ago — and all passports issued since 2007 contain chips that enable biometric use of facial recognition technology. The proliferation of passports for foreign travel has not encroached on Americans’ civil liberties. Why would another form of ID, used for employment verification, pose such a threat?

I’m surprised that the Post doesn’t argue that we need to be “chipped” just like your dog or cat. Wouldn’t that make it even easier to determine who is legally in the country or is a citizen?

As to the Post’s argument that a national ID card won’t encroach on our civil liberties and wouldn’t pose a threat, that’s BS. It is the height of control by the government. It is their key to our lives, our privacy, and our freedom.

I say thanks, but no thanks.

Uncategorized

OK, We’ve Seen The Picture

February 2, 2013 by 8 Comments

So the White House has now released an actual photo of President Obama firing a shotgun that isn’t photoshopped. Big deal!

I prefer the one below that Scott posted on Facebook.

I doubt the release of the photo will assure any of us that Obama really cares about gun rights, the Second Amendment, or anything else related to us bitter clingers. I think the cartoon below by Hope n’ Change captures that doubt.