Uncategorized

Uncategorized

HR 1558 & S 838 – Changes In Toxic Substances Act Regarding Lead

April 20, 2011 by

Two new bills have been introduced in Congress that would clarify the exemptions for ammunition contained in the Toxic Substances Control Act. These bills, if passed, would moot the Center for Biological Diversity’s lawsuit that is attempting to force the EPA to ban lead based ammunition and lead in fishing tackle.

HR 1558, the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act of 2011, was introduced by Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL) and Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR). It currently has 38 co-sponsors and the bipartisan support of the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus. Rep. Ross had this to say about the bill.

“It’s always important to find a commonsense balance between protecting the rights of hunters, anglers and outdoorsmen and protecting our environment and wildlife habitats for future generations,” said Congressman Ross. “There is no credible scientific evidence that demonstrates traditional ammunition and fishing tackle pose any threat to human health or wildlife populations and this legislation is needed to permanently address this issue once and for all. I’m pleased to join this bipartisan effort and to work to stop the TSCA petition, which is the most recent in a long string of attacks on our cherished hunting and fishing heritage.”

The Senate version of the Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act of 2011, S. 838 was introduced by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Sen. John Thune (R-SD). It has three co-sponsors.

Both bills have the strong backing of the NSSF and were introduced right after they had the Industry Fly-In.

“Wildlife management is the proper jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 50 state wildlife agencies,” said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. “But no one should be misled about what’s truly at stake here. A ban on traditional ammunition will not only affect hunters and sportsmen, but law enforcement, military, self-defense and target shooters who may never go afield. This is precisely why all Americans, not just gun owners, have a vested interest in the passage of the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act.”

The higher costs associated with alternative ammunition will price everyday consumers out of the market. This is evidenced by the low 1 percent market share of alternative ammunition. This would lead to fewer hunters taking to the field and shooting ranges across the United States being needlessly closed.

“The economic growth of America’s firearms and ammunition industry continues to be a bright spot in our country’s still-ailing economy,” continued Keane. “Passing this important legislation will help to ensure that our industry, which is responsible for more than 183,000 well-paying jobs and has an economic impact of more than $27.8 billion annually, continues to shine.”

As I reported last week, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) also has a bill, HR 1445, that removes the EPA’s authority to regulate lead in ammunition and fishing tackle. The text of HR 1558 and S 838 are not yet available so I’ll reserve judgment on which will be the more effective until I’ve had a chance to read both bills.

Uncategorized

Counter-Revolutionaries

April 20, 2011 by 10 Comments

The Asheville area of Western North Carolina is a retirement mecca, a haven for hippies and other counter culture sorts, and a vacation destination for the Obamas.The Chamber of Commerce ran an ad campaign for years called Asheville: Altitude Affects Attitude.

The car of choice in Asheville for both hippies and registered nurses seems to be either the Subaru Outback Wagon or the Subaru Forester. It is often joked that there is a requirement to have at least one of the family cars be a Subaru if you live in Asheville

Bumpersticks are big in Asheville. One of the more popular bumpersticks in town is “Asheville Where Weird Is Normal”. Vying for popularity is “Coexist” where the letters are religious symbols for the major religions as seen below on a Subaru Forester.

 

About a year ago, SayUncle had a post about how Coexist bugged him. He linked to an alternative Coexist for gunnies composed of gun manufacturer’s logos.

I thought it was cool and showed it to the Complementary Spouse. Now she is a crafty one and can make something out of nothing in a heartbeat. So she took the picture, blew it up, printed it out on a color laser printer, and then laminated it. Instant bumpersticker! And given the politics of Asheville, a counter-revolutionary one at that.

We love tweaking the noses of the liberals and gun banners. The best thing about it – they don’t even realize it most of the time. She has explained the symbols to her more conservative co-workers who have to be somewhat closeted about their politics and they just smile.

Uncategorized

“Buyer Power” As A Means Of Gun Control?

April 19, 2011 by 11 Comments

The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence released a study proposal today entitled “Utilizing the “Buyer Power” Strategy to Reform the Gun Industry.” The gist of this proposal is that state and local governments can force gun manufacturers to adopt the regulations suggested by Mayors Against Illegal Guns by refusing to buy law enforcement firearms from those that don’t conform to this “code”.

In theory it sounds good. In reality it ignores two salient facts. First, while large purchases are made by law enforcement agencies, these sales are dwarfed by sales to individuals at retail. Second, any manufacturer that decides to play along – or even engages in such talks – would be hit with a boycott so quick that heads would spin. The authors of this proposal obviously have forgotten what happened to the old Smith and Wesson when they signed an agreement with the Clinton Administration. The remnants of the old Smith and Wesson were sold by their British corporate owners to Smith and Wesson Holding Corporation which quickly repudiated that agreement.

The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence maintains that criminals and “mentally unbalanced individuals” have easy access to firearms with which to perpetrate their crimes. They blame this on two factors.

1) The lack of a comprehensive regulatory scheme to prevent prohibited persons from acquiring firearms, and;
2) The refusal of the gun industry to engage in any type of self-policing to prevent illicit sales.

If the National Instant Criminal Background Check System which is run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and mandated under the Brady Law isn’t a comprehensive regulatory scheme, then what is it? Every sale made by a licensed dealer goes through this system unless the purchaser holds a CCW permit which is accepted in lieu of the NICS check. Even then, that state’s CCW permit had to be expressly approved by the Federal government as an acceptable alternative.

The second “factor” ignores the efforts made by the National Shooting Sports Foundation to educate dealers about straw purchasers. The Don’t Lie for the Other Guy program is aimed at preventing straw purchases by prohibited persons.

Understanding the importance of cooperating with law enforcement, the firearms industry through the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) — the industry’s trade association — has for nearly a decade partnered with the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to assist law enforcement in educating firearms retailers to be better able to identify and deter illegal straw purchases and to raise public awareness that straw purchasing is a serious crime.

The report also accuses “unscrupulous FFLs” of selling firearms “off the books”.  Undoubtedly this has happened but it is so rare as to become a headline event when a dealer is arrested for doing this.

The following are the procedures that the Educational Fund wants implemented.

• All firearms sales are videotaped and these videos are maintained for an extended period of time.
• A computerized log of crime gun traces relating to the retailer is maintained in-house. When a customer who has a prior trace at that retailer attempts to purchase a firearm, the sale is electronically flagged. The dealer has the discretion to stop the sale.
• The dealer posts clearly visible signage to alert customers of their legal responsibilities at the point of sale.
• Customers are prohibited from making in-store calls on their cell phones.
• The dealer requires criminal background checks for all employees that sell or handle firearms in the store.
• The dealer conducts daily and quarterly audits to make sure no firearms are missing.
• The dealer prohibits all sales based on “default proceeds,” which are permitted by law when a background check has not returned an approve/deny result within three days.
• The dealer keeps all firearms in customer-accessible areas in locked cases or secured to gun racks.

Every gun shop that I’ve been in over the last 5-10 years or more has kept the handguns in a locked case. This is nothing new. Dealers also do and would do regular inventories and audits regardless of any regulation. It is simply good business practice.

I do have big problems with the “crime gun traces” requirement and the cell phone requirement. Why should an individual who has been the victim of a theft be made even more of a victim just to appease these gun prohibitionists? With regard to the banning of cell phone usage within a store, that is really a “WTF?” measure.

The proponents of the “buyer power” scheme think that a “grassroots” effort will convince municipal officials to try and force the “gun industry” to go along with them. Using the term grassroots along with gun control is an oxymoron. These groups have no grassroots. Most don’t even have members and those that do lie about how many members are on their rolls.

The Educational Fund’s sister organization, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, has set up a web page with “resources” to be used in this grassroots (sic) effort. It is filled with “reports” from the Clinton era as well as from the Brady Campaign and other well-known “violence” researchers. They also have templates for your letters to the editor and “dear elected official” letter.

I say let them waste the Joyce Foundation’s money on this as I don’t think it is going anywhere. If it does crop up in a locality other than Chicago or New York, I’ll report on it.

Uncategorized

Arizona Citizens Defense League Response To Brewer’s Veto

April 19, 2011 by 1 Comment

The AZ Citizens Defense League, the Arizona pro-gun rights organization, issued this response on their Facebook page to Gov. Jan Brewer’s veto of SB 1467.

SB 1467, the AzCDL-requested Campus Carry bill, was vetoed by Governor Brewer on April 18, 2011.

SB 1467 would simply have prevented the governing boards of colleges and universities from prohibiting the “lawful possession or carrying of a weapon on a public right-of-way.” That covers streets, sidewalks, etc. open to public use. Her press conference cited concerns about the lack of a definition of a “public right of way” that sounded suspiciously similar to the complaints of the anti-rights forces that have been bombarding the governor and urging her to veto the bill. Apparently, the fact that the term “public right of way” is used numerous times throughout Arizona law does not provide sufficient clarity, at least not when it comes to protecting the rights of the law abiding on our college and university campuses.

The anti-rights crowd has pulled out all the stops this year to prevent teachers, staff, and students in Arizona from having a safe learning environment. East Coast based national groups have beefed up their staff in Arizona. At the Capitol, they have spared no expense on lobbying, including holding a closed meeting with “freshmen” legislators in the House (AzCDL tried to attend but we were stopped at the door). On college and university campuses, they have conducted a series of fear-mongering indoctrination sessions, disguised as “forums,” to stop Campus Carry. Sadly, they have also exploited the victims of the January Tucson shooting tragedy in order to intimidate nervous legislators. Now, they appear to have succeeded in convincing an otherwise pro-rights governor to ensure that campuses remain safe havens for criminals and dangerous places for students.

Let’s make sure the governor doesn’t make any more mistakes because she listened to bad advice. SB 1201 is still awaiting action by the governor, and if we act now, we can make sure the anti-rights crowd isn’t the only voice heard.

SB 1201 is the AzCDL-requested bill that says that if a state or local government office (Public Establishment) is going to ban firearms, then security measures (metal detectors, armed guards, etc.) must be in place to ensure that no one is capable of bringing in a firearm without detection. Under current law, all that’s needed is a “No Firearms” sign and a place to lock up your firearm. This has had the perverse effect of disarming the law-abiding while allowing those with no respect for the law to remain armed at will.

It’s time to let the Governor know that you support the passage of SB 1201 and urge her to sign it into law.

Uncategorized

The New Head Of The Democratic National Committee On Guns

April 19, 2011 by 2 Comments

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) was selected to head the Democratic National Committee earlier this month. She will succeed former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine who plans to run for Sen. Jim Webb’s seat.

The choice to be head of the DNC came down to Wasserman Schultz and former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland. Gov. Strickland was pro-gun and pro-life. As Doug Powers said about the choice on MichelleMalkin.com:

I didn’t believe it when I heard that the Democrats chose an anti gun control pro-lifer who’s opposed to the health care law to be the next head of the DNC, and sure enough, my disbelief has been totally confirmed.

UPDATE: The Hill has a full story on new DNC head Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her anti-gun positions. I’m guessing she wants to remain in the Minority while serving in the House of Representatives given these comments.

“It is outrageous that gun buyers evade the background-check system every day, even in broad daylight,” Wasserman Schultz said Monday at a gun-reform rally in Miami sponsored by Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

“While we likely cannot end all gun violence, we certainly can do much, much better,” she added. “We have laws on the books designed to keep guns out of the hands of those that should not have them. We just need to close the loopholes and improve the information available to law enforcement.”

Uncategorized

Gov. Jan Brewer Vetoes Campus Carry Bill In Arizona

April 19, 2011 by 3 Comments

FoxNews out of Phoenix and the AP are both reporting that Gov. Jan Brewer, the Republican Governor of Arizona, has vetoed SB 1467. This bill would have allowed concealed carry on public rights of way on university and community college campuses. The bill would not have allowed concealed carry in college buildings.

“This bill was very sloppily written and drafted, and I believe when it affects not only our education system, all the way from K-12 all the way through the university, and we can’t even find out a definition, what is a right of way? It just wasn’t defined to be able to tell the courts or the policeman how they are going to enforce a law like that,” Governor Brewer told us. (Fox News)

The bill was opposed by university presidents even though it had been gutted in the State Senate. The original bill would have allowed concealed carry in campus buildings. ABC 15 out of Phoenix said on this:

University presidents opposed the bill. They said allowing guns on campuses would endanger employees, students and visitors, and it would be difficult for officers responding to a shooting to quickly identify a wrongdoer.

There are no comments yet from gun rights organizations such as the Arizona Citizens Defense League nor the sponsors in the Arizona legislature. Surprisingly for the Brady Campaign and CSGV, they haven’t issued a press release crowing about Brewer’s veto…yet.

UPDATE: I have embedded Brewer’s veto message below. The chief sponsor of the bill, Sen. Ron Gould, R – Lake Havasu, was none too pleased by the veto nor the veto message.

Gould said he was surprised by the aggressive nature of the governor’s statement.

“I thought it was a very rude veto letter,” Gould said, adding that he thought “her spin on it … is a stretch.” He was referencing her remarks about how it could potentially affect K-12 schools.

The university presidents were all very pleased by Brewer’s veto.

Crow, University of Arizona President Robert Shelton and Northern Arizona University President John Haeger wrote a letter to the governor, asking her to veto the legislation.

Haeger on Monday said that if signed into law, the legislation would have had a “chilling effect” on the university’s intellectual climate. The veto helps protect the safety of faculty, staff and students.

“We are very grateful for the governor’s action,” he said. Crow and Shelton also released statements on Monday, thanking the governor for her veto.

Arizona Board of Regents Chairwoman Anne Mariucci expressed similar sentiments.
“Because of (the governor’s) veto, the universities can focus on their core mission of providing a high-quality education to students without the distraction of the increased opportunities for violence Senate Bill 1467 would have allowed.”

Chairwoman Anne Mariucci’s statement about “increased opportunities for violence” is utter bullshit but typical for what comes out of universities nowadays.

The Brady Campaign must keep banker’s hours because they haven’t responded yet. Ladd Everitt of CSGV who apparently has no social life didn’t waste much time in proclaiming the news on Twitter.

Great news from #Arizona tonight. Gov. Brewer vetoed insane #NRA guns on campus bill! #p2 #politics #congress #AZ http://fb.me/v0HTFNFJ

0418gun Veto
(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

Uncategorized

Connecticut Mag Ban Bill Dies In Committee

April 18, 2011 by 2 Comments

The proposed ban on magazines with greater than 10-round capacities, SB 1094, has essentially died in committee. As the Hartford Courant reports, the bill had to have passed out of committee by this past Friday to have been considered as a stand alone bill. That said, it could be added as an amendment to an existing bill in the future.

SB 1094 would not only have banned the sale of standard capacity magazines, it would have outlawed their possession and would have required owners to turn them into their local police departments within 90 days. Failure to turn in the magazines would have been a felony if the law had passed.

As reported a month ago, the bill attracted a lot of opposition with many people testifying before the Joint Judiciary Committee of the General Assembly. It also brought forth statements from some Connecticut mayors and police chiefs that were studies in willful ignorance.

Senator John Kissell, the ranking Republican on the committee, says that the number of people who took the time to testify against it was an important factor in it dying in committee.

To Kissel, the committee’s decision to let the proposal die proves that public opinion can affect public policy. “We’re always open to listening to our constituents,” he said. “When over 200 people are willing to spend 12 hours at a public hearing, it has a huge impact.”

There is no word yet if the bill’s sponsors will try to attach it as an amendment to another bill. For now, it is a loss for gun control advocates and Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors.