Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Two Hundred!

May 7, 2011 by 5 Comments

A mere 37 days after HR 822 – the National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Bill – hit 100 co-sponsors, the bill now has hit 200 co-sponsors. This makes it the third most co-sponsored bill in the House of Representatives. The only bills that have more co-sponsors deal with tax-payer funding of abortion (HR 3) and the repeal of 1099 filing requirements for small business transactions (HR 4).

I attribute the growth in the number of co-sponsors to Representatives hearing from their constituents. If you look at when significant numbers of co-sponsors sign on to the bill, it is usually within a few days after the House has had a break for members to work in their districts or a recess. For example, the Spring Recess was the last two weeks of April and now in the first week of May there are 29 new co-sponsors.

Breaking down the co-sponsors, you find 16 out of the 25 “official” Blue Dog Democrats are listed as co-sponsors. Of the nine remaining Blue Dogs, five are Californians including Adam Schiff and Loretta Sanchez who have always trended anti-gun. There are a number of other non-Blue Dogs Democrats who have always been pro-gun such as John Dingell (former NRA Board member), Larry Kissell (D-NC), and a number of the Democrats in the Mid-West, Mountain West, and Pennsylvania. Then there was Steve Cohen of Memphis who I wrote about yesterday. I can’t figure out his support but I will take it anyway!

I was pleased to see every Republican and three Democrats from North Carolina listed as co-sponsors of the bill. This leaves the four North Carolina Democrats who rarely see an anti-gun bill that they don’t eventually support.

With the amount of support that this bill has garnered, it is a bit disappointing that the leadership of the House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security haven’t moved this bill. Maybe if Chairman Lamar Smith and Subcommittee Chair James Sensenbrenner were less concerned with the PATRIOT Act and kiddie porn and were co-sponsors of this bill, we might get some movement towards hearings on this bill.

Below is the list of those who have signed on as co-sponsors to Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. If your congressman is not on this, give him or her a call and ask why not. Do this even if they are ardently anti-gun. I remember something that Colleen Lawson – one of the plaintiffs in McDonald v. Chicago – said to me at the NRA Annual Meeting. She said her Illnois State Representative said she and her husband David were the only two that called his office in support of concealed carry in Illinois. Don’t let that happen here.

Alphabetical with date of becoming a co-sponsor

Rep Adams, Sandy [FL-24] – 3/8/2011
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] – 3/29/2011
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] – 4/13/2011
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] – 4/7/2011
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] – 3/16/2011
Rep Austria, Steve [OH-7] – 4/14/2011
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] – 4/15/2011
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] – 3/2/2011
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] – 3/8/2011
Rep Barletta, Lou [PA-11] – 4/13/2011
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] – 4/13/2011
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] – 4/13/2011
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] – 3/2/2011
Rep Bass, Charles F. [NH-2] – 5/2/2011
Rep Benishek, Dan [MI-1] – 3/3/2011
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] – 4/15/2011
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] – 3/11/2011
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 4/7/2011
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] – 3/3/2011
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] – 4/8/2011
Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] – 3/2/2011
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] – 3/2/2011
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-7] – 4/14/2011
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] – 4/5/2011
Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5] – 4/5/2011
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 4/8/2011
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] – 3/15/2011
Rep Bucshon, Larry [IN-8] – 4/13/2011
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] – 3/2/2011
Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] – 4/4/2011
Rep Canseco, Francisco “Quico” [TX-23] – 3/8/2011
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] – 4/7/2011
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] – 3/2/2011
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] – 4/13/2011
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] – 3/3/2011
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] – 4/13/2011
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] – 5/6/2011
Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] – 3/2/2011
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] – 5/2/2011
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] – 3/2/2011
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] – 4/5/2011
Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12] – 3/11/2011
Rep Cravaack, Chip [MN-8] – 4/15/2011
Rep Crawford, Eric A. “Rick” [AR-1] – 5/3/2011
Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] – 3/15/2011
Rep Critz, Mark S. [PA-12] – 3/17/2011
Rep Cuellar, Henry [TX-28] – 4/14/2011
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] – 4/14/2011
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] – 3/3/2011
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] – 4/14/2011
Rep Denham, Jeff [CA-19] – 4/4/2011
Rep Dent, Charles W. [PA-15] – 3/16/2011
Rep DesJarlais, Scott [TN-4] – 4/14/2011
Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario [FL-21] – 3/2/2011
Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-15] – 4/15/2011
Rep Donnelly, Joe [IN-2] – 4/13/2011
Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] – 3/29/2011
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] – 3/2/2011
Rep Ellmers, Renee L. [NC-2] – 4/5/2011
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] – 3/8/2011
Rep Farenthold, Blake [TX-27] – 4/14/2011
Rep Fitzpatrick, Michael G. [PA-8] – 4/13/2011
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] – 3/11/2011
Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] – 4/5/2011
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] – 3/29/2011
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] – 3/8/2011
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] – 3/30/2011
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] – 3/2/2011
Rep Gibbs, Bob [OH-18] – 3/15/2011
Rep Gibson, Christopher P. [NY-20] – 3/2/2011
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] – 3/2/2011
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] – 5/2/2011
Rep Gosar, Paul A. [AZ-1] – 5/2/2011
Rep Gowdy, Trey [SC-4] – 5/6/2011
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] – 3/3/2011
Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] – 3/2/2011
Rep Graves, Tom [GA-9] – 5/2/2011
Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] – 3/10/2011
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] – 5/2/2011
Rep Griffith, H. Morgan [VA-9] – 3/15/2011
Rep Guinta, Frank C. [NH-1] – 4/5/2011
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] – 4/13/2011
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] – 3/3/2011
Rep Hanna, Richard L. [NY-24] – 4/15/2011
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] – 4/14/2011
Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] – 3/10/2011
Rep Hartzler, Vicky [MO-4] – 5/5/2011
Rep Heck, Joseph J. [NV-3] – 3/30/2011
Rep Heinrich, Martin [NM-1] – 3/3/2011
Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] – 3/2/2011
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] – 3/30/2011
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] – 3/3/2011
Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] – 3/3/2011
Rep Huelskamp, Tim [KS-1] – 3/2/2011
Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14] – 5/2/2011
Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-52] – 3/29/2011
Rep Jenkins, Lynn [KS-2] – 3/8/2011
Rep Johnson, Bill [OH-6] – 4/13/2011
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] – 3/14/2011
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] – 3/3/2011
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] – 4/7/2011
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] – 3/11/2011
Rep Kelly, Mike [PA-3] – 4/8/2011
Rep Kind, Ron [WI-3] – 4/13/2011
Rep Kinzinger, Adam [IL-11] – 3/14/2011
Rep Kissell, Larry [NC-8] – 3/3/2011
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] – 3/8/2011
Rep Labrador, Raul R. [ID-1] – 5/2/2011
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] – 3/2/2011
Rep Landry, Jeffrey M. [LA-3] – 4/13/2011
Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] – 5/2/2011
Rep Larsen, Rick [WA-2] – 5/2/2011
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] – 3/8/2011
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] – 4/13/2011
Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] – 3/14/2011
Rep Long, Billy [MO-7] – 4/14/2011
Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] – 4/4/2011
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] – 3/29/2011
Rep Lujan, Ben Ray [NM-3] – 4/8/2011
Rep Mack, Connie [FL-14] – 4/7/2011
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] – 4/5/2011
Rep Marino, Tom [PA-10] – 4/15/2011
Rep Matheson, Jim [UT-2] – 4/14/2011
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] – 4/14/2011
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] – 5/2/2011
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] – 3/8/2011
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] – 5/2/2011
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] – 3/8/2011
Rep McKinley, David B. [WV-1] – 4/4/2011
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] – 3/3/2011
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] – 4/14/2011
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] – 3/16/2011
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] – 3/3/2011
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 3/2/2011
Rep Mulvaney, Mick [SC-5] – 3/8/2011
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] – 4/5/2011
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] – 5/2/2011
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] – 4/14/2011
Rep Nugent, Richard [FL-5] – 3/17/2011
Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] – 5/2/2011
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] – 4/13/2011
Rep Owens, William L. [NY-23] – 3/2/2011
Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4] – 3/15/2011
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] – 3/2/2011
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] – 3/3/2011
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] – 3/8/2011
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] – 3/29/2011
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] – 3/29/2011
Rep Pompeo, Mike [KS-4] – 3/17/2011
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15] – 3/3/2011
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV-3] – 3/3/2011
Rep Reed, Tom [NY-29] – 4/4/2011
Rep Rehberg, Denny [MT] – 4/8/2011
Rep Renacci, James B. [OH-16] – 5/2/2011
Rep Rigell, E. Scott [VA-2] – 5/3/2011
Rep Rivera, David [FL-25] – 3/11/2011
Rep Roby, Martha [AL-2] – 5/3/2011
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] – 4/14/2011
Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] – 5/5/2011
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] – 3/2/2011
Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] – 3/14/2011
Rep Rokita, Todd [IN-4] – 5/5/2011
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] – 4/7/2011
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] – 4/8/2011
Rep Ross, Dennis [FL-12] – 3/11/2011
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] – 3/2/2011
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] – 4/4/2011
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 3/29/2011
Rep Schilling, Robert T. [IL-17] – 4/14/2011
Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH-2] – 3/2/2011
Rep Schock, Aaron [IL-18] – 3/29/2011
Rep Schweikert, David [AZ-5] – 4/15/2011
Rep Scott, Austin [GA-8] – 5/5/2011
Rep Scott, Tim [SC-1] – 5/2/2011
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] – 4/7/2011
Rep Shuler, Heath [NC-11] – 2/18/2011
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] – 4/4/2011
Rep Smith, Adrian [NE-3] – 4/14/2011
Rep Southerland, Steve [FL-2] – 5/5/2011
Rep Stivers, Steve [OH-15] – 4/13/2011
Rep Stutzman, Marlin A. [IN-3] – 5/6/2011
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] – 3/29/2011
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] – 3/30/2011
Rep Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] – 4/5/2011
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] – 3/16/2011
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] – 3/16/2011
Rep Tipton, Scott [CO-3] – 5/2/2011
Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] – 3/8/2011
Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] – 5/2/2011
Rep Walsh, Joe [IL-8] – 4/15/2011
Rep Walz, Timothy J. [MN-1] – 3/29/2011
Rep West, Allen B. [FL-22] – 3/3/2011
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] – 3/2/2011
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] – 4/14/2011
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] – 3/8/2011
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] – 3/10/2011
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] – 3/30/2011
Rep Yoder, Kevin [KS-3] – 4/8/2011
Rep Young, Don [AK] – 3/2/2011
Rep Young, Todd C. [IN-9] – 3/30/2011

Uncategorized

Always Whining About Something

May 7, 2011 by 4 Comments

I hate to say it but Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign, is a whiny loser. The press release below is because NRA News sent a cameraman to the Brady Campaign’s press conference where they announced their state “score cards”. That cameraman doubled the attendance at the press conference. What really must get Mr. Helmke is the realization that the media, though openly sympathetic to gun control, considers the Brady Campaign irrelevant.

In yet another sign of how out of touch it is with how people interact in a civilized society, the National Rifle Association is apparently so wrapped up in its paranoid view of the world that it planted an undercover cameraman at our news conference at the National Press Club on Wednesday when the Brady Campaign released its annual Scorecard of State gun laws that can help reduce gun violence.

This is not the first outrageous NRA attempt to spy on us when they’ve been worried that our information might dampen support for its pro-gun agenda.

A few years ago, the corporate spy Mary McFate, also known as Mary Lou Sapone, tried to campaign and then talk her way onto the Brady Board. She failed to get nominated or elected to a board seat. McFate was later outed in 2008 by Mother Jones magazine as an NRA mole who spent a decade starting in the late 1990s infiltrating various national gun violence prevention groups.

On Wednesday, when the undercover NRA cameraman came to our news event, he lied and said he represented CBS. He claimed his name was Julio Luzquinos, but we cannot verify it. The phone number he listed is a non-working number and a D.C. assignment editor for CBS News said it doesn’t have anyone by that name working for it.

A few hours after the news conference, a host on NRANews.com bragged on Twitter that NRANews had a cameraman at the Brady Campaign news event. Footage from the news conference was quickly posted onto the NRA website.

I don’t know how much the undercover poser was paid to sneak into our news conference, but it certainly was too much. If the NRA had called us, we probably would have invited him in for free. I’ve done interviews before for NRA cameras and have no problem making my points to most anyone who asks.

We want the NRA bosses and their backers to hear how their reckless push to undo or prevent sensible gun safety laws puts communities at risk. We urge them to take the information from our news conferences and disseminate it widely to their supporters and friends. It is no secret to millions of Americans that – after years of NRA efforts pushing more guns into more places – gun violence threatens their lives. The facts, as presented at Wednesday’s news conference on state laws, don’t lie.

California topped the Brady Campaign State Scorecard, earning 80 of 100 points for its strong efforts to protect its citizens from gun violence. It also has one of the lowest gun-related death rates – 33rd in the nation – according to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The next five highest ranked states on our Scorecard finished 45th, 46th, 47th, 48th and 50th for rate of gun deaths. Perhaps, this is the information that the NRA fears getting out.

Gun safety laws help prevent gun violence. Weak gun laws simply make it easier for dangerous people to get firearms and destroy lives. Because strong laws in one state can be undermined by weak laws in neighboring states, we need action at the federal level as well as the state level to protect the public.

We remain horrified that a young Arizona man who was clearly unstable suspected was able to easily buy a large-capacity ammunition magazine and the gun he used to kill six people and wound 13 others, including Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson on January 8. Yet, it is chilling that there are no laws in Arizona that might prevent a similar tragedy from occurring again.

As the Brady Campaign State Scorecard shows, Arizona has the weakest gun safety laws in the nation, earning a “0″ score along with Alaska and Utah. Everything that the Tucson mass shooter did up until he pulled the trigger at Giffords’ constituency outreach event was legal.

Arizona does not ban, as most top-ranked states do, the purchase of ammunition clips capable of firing multiple rounds. The shooter fired 32 times in 15 seconds.

Loaded concealed weapons can be carried by anyone without a permit in Arizona, so the shooter was able to take a handgun into the midst of a public gathering without anyone seeing the threat coming.

Arizona’s weak background checks and poor record-keeping requirements make it difficult to identify and block people who exhibit behavior that would raise questions on whether they should be permitted to own a firearm or buy ammunition that would allow them to quickly target multiple people.

The NRA bosses pretend such shootings are unrelated to easy access to guns and weak regulations. But there is a connection. Arizona has the worst gun laws in the country and one of the highest gun-related death rates – 9th.

This correlation is also seen in other states that adhere to the NRA agenda of putting more guns and ammunition within easy reach. Alaska, another “0″ state on the Brady Scorecard, has the third-highest gun death rate in the country. The other top five states with high gun death rates – Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Nevada – also ranked in the bottom for gun regulations on the Brady Scorecard.

The NRA, for some reason, didn’t choose to air those substantive parts of our news conference, instead just showing some of my opening statements and then putting its own spin on things. The information we presented does not work to the NRA’s advantage. The numbers clearly shows that weak gun laws make citizens vulnerable to gun violence. Polls show Americans want more common sense gun laws, not the free-for-all the NRA promotes.

The NRA doesn’t need to resort to its sneaky tactics of “gotcha TV” to get our information. It’s news we want and need to get it out. We urge lawmakers to take notice, too, of the connection between weak gun regulations and gun deaths – then act to do what most Americans want done. We need a strong background check system, restrictions on assault clips and military-style weapons, more support for law enforcement and other laws that have been shown to make people less vulnerable to gun violence.

###

All I would say in response to Mr. Helmke is w-AH.

Uncategorized

Don’t Always Judge A Book By Its Cover

May 6, 2011 by

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN-9) represents the Memphis area in Congress. His Congressional district is majority African-American and is considered one of the safest Democratic seats in the country. A win in the Democratic primary is tantamount to winning the election.

Cohen is also extremely liberal. According to the website, ProgressivePunch.org, his lifetime score is 95.84% which puts him ahead of such liberal icons as Nancy Pelosi and the Queen Bee of Gun Control, Carolyn McCarthy. It is hard to find anyone more liberal than Cohen and he tends to wear his politics on his sleeve. Indeed, Cohen caused a stir back in January when he said “Republicans are like Nazis” when discussing healthcare.

Unsurprisingly, Cohen is listed as one of the co-sponsors for Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s HR 308 which seeks to ban standard capacity magazines and eliminates the grandfathering that the Clinton-era AWB had.

So you can imagine my surprise when I was checking the co-sponsors of HR 822 – the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill – and saw his name listed as becoming a co-sponsor this week.

I don’t know how and I don’t why he decided to become a co-sponsor but I certainly welcome his support. It may have something to do with his comments after the Tucson shooting when he said he was planning to apply for his Tennessee CCW permit. According to the Memphis Commercial-Appeal, Cohen did vote for right to carry legislation as a State Senator and has said he owns a pistol. I might even suggest he contact Tom Givens at RangeMaster for his CCW permit training.

The upshot of all of this is that sometimes strange and unusual coalitions can form around gun rights legislation. It is a mistake to think that all Democrats and all liberals are for each and every gun control measure put forth. Sometimes they are and and sometimes they aren’t.

As to HR 822, it now has 197 co-sponsors including 26 more so far this week. The leading gun control measure, HR 308, is stuck at 107.

Uncategorized

ISRA Exec. Director On Concealed Carry Vote

May 6, 2011 by

Richard Pearson is the Executive Director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. He has spent many years in Springfield fighting for gun rights in the state of Illinois. He released this statement late last night on the failure of HB-148 – the Illinois concealed carry bill – to get the super-majority needed.

5 May 2011

I know you are all down in the dumps about today’s vote but you should not be. I’m not saying you should be happy either. Be pragmatic. That will be hard for everyone on our side of this issue, I realize.

We put 68 votes on the board our first time out. That is great. I know in the end we wound up with 65 and we needed 71. The Mayor and the Governor were threatening everyone they could and we only missed by a few votes. We had promises that weren’t kept, because the threats from the mayor carried more weight than we could deliver, today.

That’s life in Springfield. I know many of you and many of our members see things in black and white. If you ever come across anything in Springfield that is either pure white or completely black run away as fast as you can. It’s a trap. Ask some of our former Governors!

We know who voted one way or the other and why. We will take care of it. I’m not saying that some people shouldn’t be put in the spot light, but not all should because that will solidify their position against us. Some need to be finessed.

If there were a few legislators that need to be in the spotlight, Farnham, Crespo, and Monique Davis would be the three that I would pick.

So where are we? The bill was put on postponed consideration. That means it can be called anytime between now and the second Wednesday in 2013. Now that we have probed and found out the weak spots we can begin working on the bill again.

Firearm owners in Illinois are not the second class citizens Mayor Daley makes us out to be. He asked today for a publicly funded protection detail, once he is retired! Once he is retired, he is a common citizen just like the rest of us. I can’t get the state of Illinois or my city to provide me with armed guards to watch out for me and neither should he.

Fox News Chicago reported this evening that NRA will file a law suit against the state of Illinois and there will be NO input from the Legislature once litigation commences. I am not sure what their sources are, but it was alluded to during the closing statement at the end of debate.

Representative Phelps put a lot of work into this bill. He invited all sides in to negotiate any issues they had with the bill. Conspicuously absent from those discussions was the city of Chicago. They were invited, but never even gave the courtesy of a response.

ISRA Members and our supporters are not quitters and we’re not done. Adversity makes us stronger! We WILL WIN THIS!

Uncategorized

Wisconsin Legislature Begins Efforts On Concealed Carry

May 6, 2011 by 2 Comments

The NRA-ILA has just released information on two concealed carry bills that are due to be introduced into the Wisconsin legislature. One will allow a Vermont or Arizona style constitutional carry. The other is a “shall issue” concealed carry permit.

Wisconsin: The 2011 Personal Protection Act Has Arrived!
Committee Hearings Have Been Scheduled for Next Thursday!

Thursday, May 05, 2011

Now is Time for You to Act!

The good citizens of Wisconsin have been denied their right to self-defense for too long and the time has now come to make the Personal Protection Act a reality! It is time that Wisconsin joins Free America and the 48 other states with concealed carry laws. The bills have been circulated for sponsorship and it is critical that you contact your state Representative and state Senator to urge them to cosponsor this legislation.

There are two bills being introduced in the 2011 legislative session that allow Wisconsinites to carry concealed weapons for personal protection. The first is known as “permitless carry” and it simply eliminates the current prohibition against law-abiding citizens carrying concealed firearms. Many citizens already carry openly and this will allow them to conceal their firearms. It also eliminates the “cased and unloaded” requirement for handguns in motor vehicles. State Senator Pam Galloway (R-Wausau) has introduced this bill in the Senate and there is currently no companion bill in the Assembly. Its designation before assigned a bill number is LRB 2007 and both senators and representatives are able to cosponsor it.

The second is a “shall issue” carry license bill that allows Wisconsinites to obtain a license from the state Department of Justice (DOJ) in order to carry a concealed weapon. This license bill offers some additional benefits. These include the ability to use the license to carry a concealed weapon in many other states while traveling and the ability to carry concealed weapons in school zones (1000-foot area surrounding school grounds). These zones are prolific and it is virtually impossible to navigate populated areas without entering them while engaging in routine activities. The federal penalty for a school zone violation is up to five years in prison and a fine. State Senator Pam Galloway (R-Wausau) and state Representative Jeffrey Mursau (R-Crivitz) are the sponsors of this bill. The current Senate Bill designation is LRB 2027 and the Assembly Bill is LRB 2033.

When contacting your state legislators to request that they cosponsor the Personal Protection Act, please also ask them to oppose any amendments that restrict your ability to defend yourself or place unnecessary hurdles in the process required to obtain a concealed weapons license. Too many legislators are acting as if there are not 48 other states with such concealed carry laws and that there is no way of determining what works and what does not. The time for guessing has ended!

We have provided two documents that will further inform you about this fight for your rights. One is a summary of the bills, with details regarding the “shall issue” carry license bill, and the other is a comprehensive Questions and Answers document

A search of the Wisconsin legislature’s website does not yet list either bill. I believe that is because they are being circulated to obtain sponsors and co-sponsors.

.

Uncategorized

Vote On Illinois HB 148 – 65 to 32

May 5, 2011 by 3 Comments

The Illinois State Rifle Association just posted this on their Facebook page.

The bill failed to garner the necessary 71 votes, (65 Yea) and has been placed on postponed consideration. That means the bill is still active and is not dead.

I guess the good news is that it isn’t dead. Still it would be nice to see Illinois join Free State status.

UPDATE: Thirdpower at Days of our Trailers has more on what went on today here. Also read the comments on the bill below from Randian and David Lawson.

Uncategorized

Maybe He Should Apply For A Concealed Carry Permit

May 5, 2011 by 2 Comments

Now that Mayor Richard M. Daley is leaving office he wants to keep a few perks of the office. Namely, he wants to keep at least three (and preferrably five) of his Chicago Police Department bodyguards to protect him in retirement. It is also reported by Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed that Daley is requesting two cars to be put at his disposal – one for him and one for his wife.

The head of the local Fraternal Order of Police took issue with Daley’s request for these bodyguards. It should be noted that the Chicago PD is now over 2,300 officers short of its authorized strength.

The head of the police union called the mayor’s request for bodyguards after he leaves office ill-timed and “ridiculously excessive.”

“It’s another example of excessive use of manpower and resources during an extreme shortage,” said Michael Shields, president of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Daley, as might be expected, disagreed and said his request was “appropriate”. His predecessor, Harold Washington, died in office and Washington’s predecessor, Jane Byrne, wasn’t given a bodyguard when she left office. I guess appropriate is in the eye of the beholder.

I’d normally suggest that if Mayor Daley is concerned for his safety and that of his family then he should apply for a concealed carry permit. However, due to the efforts of Mr. Daley and his Chicago Democratic Machine, the State of Illinois still doesn’t have concealed carry. And if Governor Pat Quinn – another politician from the Chicago Democratic Machine – is true to this word, HB 148 will be vetoed even if it does pass the Illinois House and Senate.

Life can be tough out in the real world. Daley’s efforts to keep the people of Chicago and the State of Illinois unarmed and defenseless are now coming back to bite him. As they say, payback is a bitch.

Uncategorized

Divergent Editorials On Concealed Carry In Illinois

May 5, 2011 by

With HB 148 – the Illinois right-to-carry bill – probably coming up for a vote today, I thought it would be interesting to contrast the divergent viewpoints on the issue from Chicago and Southern Illinois newspapers.

The Chicago Tribune ran an editorial on Wednesday entitled “Street Heat? Say No”. The editorial does acknowledge that Illinois is an outlier when it comes to concealed carry but then goes on to say “Outlier or not, we still think it would be a mistake to encourage people to walk around with guns.”

The Tribune editorial glosses over the research that shows crime rates decline or, at the very least, do not go up when concealed carry laws are implemented.

Bottom line: Concealed-carry laws don’t seem to have a significant impact on violence one way or the other. The odds aren’t much greater that you’re going to wind up successfully defending yourself with a gun on the street, or that you’re going to mistakenly or intentionally plug somebody with a bullet. There are cases, though, where licensed holders do commit violence.

They claim the HB 148’s authors recognize the potential for “mayhem” by restricting where concealed carry would be allowed under the bill. They then go on to attack all the places where concealed carry would be allowed.

Finally, despite being endorsed by the Illinois Sheriffs Association and the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police along with organizations for the Chicago PD’s sergeants and lieutenants, the editorial claims CCW  raises public safety concerns for local cops. I believe that by this they mean the hierarchy of the Chicago Police Department and no one else. They conclude their editorial opposing CCW by saying:

We see more problems here. The background check procedures for issuing a state firearm owner’s identification card are not foolproof. The state lacks enough control over the private sale of guns.

This bill needs an extraordinary majority to pre-empt local authority and to survive a veto from the governor. We urge lawmakers to reject it. The safety and well-being of the people of Illinois doesn’t start with the power to pack heat on the street.

In stark contrast to this fear-mongering editorial from the Chicago Tribune is an editorial in today’s Belleville News-Democrat. They take strong exception to Governor Pat Quinn playing the “fear card” when he says concealed carry will “to more danger and more bad things happening.”

That line might work if Illinois were the first state to consider concealed carry. But 48 of the 50 states already have concealed carry, with no horrible impact on public safety. That’s because the people who apply for a concealed-carry permits and are willing to undergo the required background checks and training are not the people out robbing and killing. They want this law to enhance public safety, not hurt it.

Whether HB 148 would improve safety is a matter for debate, but it’s safe to say that passage of the bill would not make Illinois a more dangerous place.

While stopping short of endorsing the bill, the editorial recognizes that CCW will not make Illinois like the so-called Wild West and that criminals are already carrying concealed. It is interesting to note of the nine comments on this editorial, eight support concealed carry and only one opposes it.

Uncategorized

Sen. Chuck Grassley’s Prepared Statement At Hearings Yesterday

May 5, 2011 by

At the Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearings on the Department of Justice yesterday, Senator Chuck Grassley read  a prepared statement. I have omitted the parts not dealing with ATF and Operation Gunrunner.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s oversight hearing. It has been over a year since this committee last held an oversight hearing with the Attorney General so there is much ground to cover. In that intervening year, many developments at the Justice Department have raised serious questions about whether the department is putting politics before the interest of the American people. These are serious issues and I plan to ask a number of questions about why the department has applied the law inconsistently in certain areas, such as prosecuting national security leaks, and whether the department has provided apparently false information in response to congressional inquiries.

ATF Investigation:

I am extremely disappointed in the Justice Department’s response to my inquiry into the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). I sent a letter to the ATF on January 27, 2011, seeking a response to allegations I received from whistleblowers that the ATF was allowing guns to be illegally smuggled to Mexico. Rather than allowing the ATF to respond to my letter, on February 4, 2011, I received a letter from the department which claimed the whistleblower allegations were “false” and that “ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.” I personally expressed my concern to the Attorney General about the accuracy of the department’s replies to my inquiries in our telephone conversation on Monday, May 2.

I was stunned that just a few hours after our conversation, the department sent another letter repeating the denial in slightly different words. According to Monday’s letter, “ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious did not knowingly permit straw buyers to take guns into Mexico.” It is particularly disturbing that the department would renew its denial at this late date in light of the growing evidence that the department’s claims are patently false.

Documents and witness testimony from employees at ATF show that the ATF knowingly allowed the sale of semi-automatic weapons to many straw purchasers, even after the ATF knew that guns they previously purchased were recovered in Mexico. I have in my possession a document which the ATF specifically requested be drawn up on March 29 of this year, apparently in response to this controversy. This document shows that just 15 defendants indicted on January 25 were responsible for purchasing one thousand, three hundred and eighteen (1,318) guns from Arizona dealers after being identified as targets in the ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious investigation. Of those guns, only 250 have been recovered in the United States. And that’s just from these fifteen straw buyers—the ATF enabled this pattern to recur many more times through additional buyers and guns. At the very least, this means that over 1,000 semi-automatic weapons are on the street because the ATF decided to wait and watch rather than getting in the way of the criminals’ plans.

The ATF also clearly knew that these guns were being exported south of the border to Mexico. According to internal ATF correspondence, as of June 15, 2010, the ATF was aware that at least 179 guns—traced back to sales which the ATF allowed to occur—had been recovered in crimes in Mexico.

While it appears that the ATF did make an effort to tally the number of the guns they allowed to walk, the reality is that those recovered represent just a small percentage of the total number of these guns the ATF has lost track of. Worst of all, on December 15, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in an incident at the border where two of these weapons that the ATF knowingly allowed to be sold to criminals were found at the crime scene. At best, the ATF was careless in authorizing the sale of thousands of guns to straw purchasers; at worst our own government knowingly participated in arming criminals, drug cartels, and those who later killed federal agents.

Aside from categorical denials that are clearly contradicted by the evidence, I have received absolutely zero substantive information from the department on this issue. On the contrary, the Department of Justice has intervened in every inquiry I have made with other agencies under the department and instructed them that the Justice Department alone is allowed to respond. The actions of the Department have only served to impede and frustrate this investigation. In fact, I have provided more information to the Attorney General than he has provided to me.

After ten letters to the department or the ATF, I have received five responses—two which provided false information, one which provided no information, one which sought to deter me from seeking information from other sources, and one which partially responded to my concern about attempts to prevent communications between whistleblowers and Congress.

Although the ATF is a separate entity, it has done these things under the Attorney General’s watch. The witnesses that were interviewed under subpoenas from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have made clear that Acting Director Melson was intimately involved in Operation Fast and Furious, lauding it as an extremely successful operation. However, even more troubling is that it is clear that individuals at the Justice Department were involved in certain aspects of Operation Fast and Furious.

The evidence that I and Congressman Issa have gathered is clear—the ATF sanctioned the sale of guns to straw purchasers that were then used in crimes on both sides of the Southwest border. Officials at both the Department and ATF knew of and approved the operation. Now, the Attorney General argues that this congressional investigation threatens the ongoing criminal prosecution of the straw purchasers. Yet, the department and the ATF chose to wait and watch those same straw purchasers do business for over a year before charging them with any of the criminal conduct. It was only after the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry that the straw purchasers were finally charged. I take exception to the notion that Congress must hold off on an investigation on the grounds that discovering the truth could hinder prosecutions. The goal of a trial is a search for the truth. The department is required to turn over any exculpatory evidence to criminal defense attorneys in any event. If our system of justice works the way it should, then the department cannot ultimately prevent the truth from coming to light. Congress should not allow its fact finding efforts to be stonewalled just because the details might be embarrassing to certain officials in the Justice Department.

Further, the department has tried to avoid questions by referring to the Acting Inspector General’s investigation. That inquiry does not preclude an independent congressional investigation. Moreover, it has become clear that conduct by attorneys at the U.S. Attorney’s office has been called into question. As you know, that is a matter that the Inspector General is statutorily precluded from investigating. So, unless the Attorney General has requested an independent review by the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, the questionable conduct by department attorneys may go unchecked.

The conduct in question by both the ATF and the department is serious. It may have led to the death of at least one federal agent and countless other crimes in the U.S. and Mexico. The department should not stonewall Congress or seek to intimidate whistleblowers or other potential witnesses in congressional proceedings. This cannot simply be swept under the rug. I plan to continue my work with the help of Congressman Issa and get to the bottom of who signed off on this operation that failed so tragically.

I would also note that in the video from the hearings that I have seen of Attorney General Eric Holder testifying you will see over his left shoulder Asst. AG Ron Weich. Weich is the one who has continually sent the kiss-off letters to Senator Grassley.