Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Senator Grassley Is Asking More Questions

March 25, 2011 by

Senator Chuck Grassley is asking more questions regarding Operation Fast and Furious (aka Project Gunwalker). This time he is asking the questions of the head of Customs and Border Protection. He wants if they knowingly let Jaime Avila and two of those arrested in Columbus, NM “walk” with firearms even though Border Patrol agents had stopped all three.

Grassley Presses for More Answers on Operation Fast and Furious, Allowing Guns to “Walk”

WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley continues to press the administration for answers about the policy that allowed guns to “walk” over the Mexican border. Grassley began questioning the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in January. His requests for information about the involvement of various agencies, including ATF, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection have been stonewalled by the administration.

Grassley is now asking Customs and Border Protection for information about reportedly stopping Blas Gutierrez and Miguel Carrillo near the Mexican border. The two were recently indicted as part of a gun trafficking operation involving the mayor of Columbus, New Mexico. Additionally, Grassley is asking about allegations that Customs and Border Protection stopped Jaime Avila, who was recently indicted as the straw purchaser of weapons found at the scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s murder. In both instances, Border Patrol agents allegedly found the gun runners to be in possession of multiple weapons, but let the suspects proceed for unknown reasons.

“No longer can this administration stand idly by and answer every question by saying that the Justice Department Inspector General is investigating. There is too much at stake. U.S. agents may have been killed because of a tragically ill-advised policy,” Grassley said. “The President said a serious mistake may have been made here, and that, if so, he would hold someone accountable. It is clearer every day that serious mistakes were made. Now it’s time for accountability.”

Grassley’s letter to Customs and Border Protection (March 16, 2011) made a specific request for officials knowledgeable about the agency’s involvement in Operation Fast and Furious be made available at a briefing that was already scheduled to take place with Grassley staff. Customs and Border Protection did not make officials available and there have been no attempts by the agency to schedule a subsequent briefing when officials would be available to answer the questions in Grassley’s letter.

Senator Grassley’s letter to Alan Bersin, Comissioner of Customs and Border Protection, can be found here.

Uncategorized

What The Hell Is Wrong With Judges In New Jersey?

March 25, 2011 by 7 Comments

Jeff Muller was kidnapped from his pet foods store in Newton, New Jersey last year. The five kidnappers from Missouri thought Muller was the man who had swindled one of their friends. The only problem is that they had the wrong Jeff Muller.

Photo by Lake Ozark Police Department

Fortunately, Mr. Muller was able to escape his kidnappers in Missouri when their car broke down. After his return to New Jersey,  he applied for a concealed carry permit in New Jersey as, at the time, some of the kidnappers were still at large. While approved for it by the NJ State Police, he was turned down by Judge Philip Maenza. This denial is at the heart of the Second Amendment Foundation case brought challenging NJ’s concealed carry laws.

Fast forward to today. In Morris County Superior Court, Judge David Ironson denied Mr. Muller’s appeal of his permit denial saying that “failed to provide ‘proof of justifiable need’ to carry a handgun and said he should take his case to a state appeals court.” Currently, four of the five kidnappers are in jail awaiting trial in Sussex County, NJ. However, the fifth kidnapper, Roy Slates, has served his time and is now out of prison.

As Mr. Muller said:

In an interview after the hearing, Muller said he needs to carry a handgun because “there’s the potential” of the five kidnappers’ family members “coming after me to get revenge.”

“They could send anybody out after me,” Muller said, noting that “the way we live has changed” since the ordeal. “Everything’s locked,” he said.

“I think about it every day,” Muller said. “I look at everybody who comes in my store.”

If anyone has ever met the definition of “justifiable need” for the State of New Jersey to approve a concealed carry permit it is Jeff Muller.

Judge Ironson has been on the bench since 2008. Before his being named a Superior Court judge, David Ironson was a personal injury lawyer. You would think that even a pond-scum sucking ambulance chaser might recognize that the concept of “justifiable need” applied in Jeff Muller’s case.

Independence. Integrity. Fairness. Quality Service. Those words are emblazoned under the logo of the New Jersey Court system. Judge Ironson just made a mockery of at least two of them.

Uncategorized

Dove Hunting Comes To Iowa

March 24, 2011 by

The NRA just sent out this release thanking Governor Terry Bransted for signing the bill the allows dove hunting in the state of Iowa. With all their grain fields, I’d wager that Iowa will be a great place for this!

Dove Hunting Ban Lifted in Iowa

Fairfax, Va. – Today, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad signed legislation into law authorizing a mourning dove hunting season. This National Rifle Association-backed legislation passed both houses of the state legislature with broad bi-partisan support despite the heavy opposition of anti-hunting groups such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). With this historic expansion of hunter opportunity, the Governor has further exemplified his steadfast commitment to sportsmen and gun owners.

“The time has come that Iowa’s hunters are afforded the same hunting opportunities as hunters in all six of its border states,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director for NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Because of dove hunting, millions of additional dollars will now go to fund wildlife and habitat conservation in Iowa and thousands of new hunters will be recruited to the state’s fields and forests.”

Originally sponsored by state Senator Dick Dearden (D-34), and managed on the House floor by Representative Rich Arnold (R-72), SF 464 authorizes the Natural Resource Commission to add Iowa to the list of 40 other states whose conservation and local economies are benefited by recognizing this type of hunting. Doves are the most popular and abundant game bird hunted in America and there is no biological justification to continue to deny Iowans the right to hunt them if they choose to do so.

”On behalf of NRA’s 4 million members, I’d like to thank Gov. Branstad and the legislative supporters of this important bill for ensuring scientific wildlife management trumped the emotion of the opposition,” concluded Cox. “Resurrecting dove hunting in Iowa is a great step in continuing to preserve Iowa’s proud hunting heritage.”

Thanks to Rachel Parsons of the NRA for sending me this.

Uncategorized

New Judge For Challenge To Illinois FOID Card

March 24, 2011 by

Mishaga v. Monken, the challenge to Illinois’s FOID Card regulation brought by the Mountain States Legal Foundation, has been reassigned from Chief District Court Judge Michael McCuskey to newly confirmed District Court Judge Sue E. Myersclough. It is a common occurance for new judges to have cases reassigned to them.

I am not sure how this will impact the case. If you will remember, back in November Judge McCuskey denied the state’s motion to dismiss the case. His decison seemed to portend good things for this case as it went to trial.

Judge Myersclough served from 1998 until her confirmation as a judge on the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District. From 1990 to 1998, Myersclough was a Circuit Judge for the Circuit Court of Illinois, Seventh Judicial Circuit. Both of these courts meet in Springfield. She was nominated by President Obama in July 2010 and confirmed by the Senate in February 2011. Myersclough was nominated back in 1995 by President Bill Clinton for a District Court Judgeship but was not confirmed.

Myersclough is a graduate of Southern Illinois University taking her B.A. from there in 1973 and her J.D. from its law school in 1980. According to the public questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, she also did graduate study at both Southern Illinois and the University of Chicago before attending law school.

As to her political leanings, she is a Democrat as would be expected. She had won a few awards from state and local Democratic committees for service over the years. She did run – but lost – for the Illinois Supreme Court back in 2002.

The important thing for us is how she would deal with Second Amendment rights. She did get a couple of questions for the record on Second Amendment issues from Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).

From Sessions with her response:

Do you believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right or a collective right? Please explain your answer.
Response: The Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) hold that the Second Amendment confers an individual right.

a. What standard of scrutiny do you believe is appropriate in a Second Amendment challenge against a Federal or State gun law?
Response: In Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court found a right under the
Second Amendment must be treated in the same manner as any fundamental right identified in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment right to bear arms should therefore not be treated as a “watered down right” subject to “judicial interest balancing.” See Heller, 128 S. C. at 2821; McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3047.

From Coburn with her response:

What limitations remain on the individual Second Amendment right now that it has been incorporated against the States?
Response: What limits remain on the Second Amendment remain open but for those limits expressly set forth by the Supreme Court as presumptively lawful regulations in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). “[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2816-17.

a. Is it limited only to possession of a handgun for self-defense in the home, since both Heller and McDonald involved cases of handgun possession for self-defense in the home?
Response: Both Heller and McDonald specifically found city ordinances unconstitutional that prohibited handgun possession in the home. The Supreme Court has left open for future evaluations examples of other limits on the Second Amendment. But the Supreme Court made clear that core protections are conferred by the Second Amendment. “In Heller, however, we expressly rejected the argument that the scope of the Second Amendment right should be determined by judicial interest balancing, [citation] and this Court decades ago abandoned ‘the notion that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the States only a watereddown, subjective version of the individual guarantees of the Bill of Rights.’[Citation.]” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3047.

I guess that is the best one could hope to hear from any nominee for a District Court judgeship. She does note that it is a “fundamental right”.

Now that she has taken over Mishaga, Myersclough has set the Final Pretrial Conference for December 19, 2011 and the Bench Trial is set to start January 3, 2012. I’m sure both of these dates could change over the coming months. In any event, it will be almost a year before any decision is rendered on whether the denial of Ellen Mishaga’s application for a FOID Card is unconstitutional or not.

Uncategorized

A Study in Willful Ignorance

March 24, 2011 by 1 Comment

The Connecticut General Assembly is considering SB 1094, An Act Banning Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines. This bill would not only ban any magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds but would give owners of these magazines 90 days within which they must turn them in to the police. Failure to do so would be a felony. There would be no grandfathering of magazines that were possessed prior to the enactment of the bill. As usual in these bans, the ban would only apply to the general public and not to law enforcement officers.

The Joint Judiciary Committee of the General Assembly held hearings yesterday on SB 1094. As reported in the Hartford Courant, the hearings drew a great number of people both for and against the bill. Unlike in the old Bill Ruger days, the current President of Ruger Firearms, Michael Fifer came out strongly against the bill. James Debney, President of the Firearms Division of Smith and Wesson, reminded the legislature of the number of jobs that could be lost if the bill passed. He made special note that the state had a number of magazine manufacturers including C Products and MecGar.

However, it is the testimony in support of the bill which contains the wild statements, willful ignorance, and hyperbole. As I noted earlier, SB 1094 does not apply to law enforcement who would continue to have standard capacity magazines.

From Bridgeport Police Chief Joseph Gaudett:

Just as you correctly realized there is NO REASON for the general public to possess Assault Weapons, that same basic logic must be applied to the large capacity magazines.

There is no reason whatsoever that hunters or sportsmen or collectors or the public at large should have large capacity magazines. Their purpose is singular and deadly, and makes no sense at all for general public use.

From State Senator Gary LeBeau, Deputy President Pro Tempore of the Senate:

High capacity magazines are designed to enable shooting mass numbers of people quickly and efficiently without reloading. They have been used in numerous mass shootings, including Tucson, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Columbine and last summer, Manchester, Connecticut. These high capacity magazines are simply not useful for hunting or self-defense

And from the mayors of Bridgeport (Bill Finch), Hartford (Pedro Segarra), and New Haven (John DeStefano) comes this screed. I should note that all three are members of Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors group.

Large capacity ammunition magazines are designed to enable shooting mass numbers of people quickly and efficiently without reloading.

As our work is not done, we must continue our efforts to keep these high-capacity magazines out of the hands of the general public.

The two phrases that come up continually in their testimony are “general public” and “enable shooting mass numbers of people”. When they say “general public”, it tells me the political class – and I add the police chief in this category – does not trust the people of their state. A political class that has so little respect for the people needs to be replaced.

The “enable shooting mass numbers of people” is just hyperbole and willful ignorance. It is right up there with saying a standard capacity magazine is not needed for self-defense because the only reason you need more is that you can’t shoot straight. If that was the case, then why do trained law enforcement officers need standard capacity magazines? Presumably they are trained and must pass marksmanship qualifications on a regular basis.

Uncategorized

A Golden Opportunity For Answers Under Oath

March 24, 2011 by

Next Thursday, March 31st, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Global Narcotics Affairs is holding hearings. The topic is “A Shared Responsibility: Counternarcotics and Citizen Security in the Americas U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations”.

Among the called witnesses is Kenneth Melson, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. If there was a better time to grill Melson on what he knew about Operation Fast and Furious and when he knew it, it won’t be any sooner than this.

The membership of the Subcommittee is listed below. Four of the five Republicans are A-rated by the NRA and Marco Rubio was rated B+. Democrat Jim Webb was rated A when he ran back in 2006.

You would think at least one of these six senators would use this opportunity to force Melson to spill on what he knew, when he knew it, and who else was involved. If they don’t take advantage of this, they should be ashamed of themselves. If you live in a state represented by one of these six, call their office and ask (or demand) that they ask the hard questions that need to be asked of Kenneth Melson and the ATF.

Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Global Narcotics Affairs

* Robert Menendez,
Chairman
* Barbara Boxer
* Jim Webb
* Jeanne Shaheen
* Tom Udall

* Marco Rubio,
Ranking Member
* Mike Lee
* Jim DeMint
* Johnny Isakson
* John Barrasso

H/T CUATF

Uncategorized

Fishing In Washington State

March 23, 2011 by

The Washington State Police are on a fishing expedition. Given that it is Washington State you might think it would be for some of the wonderful salmon that runs up their rivers and is off their coast. That would be incorrect.

Actually, they have sent a letter to every FFL in the State of Washington asking for records and documents dealing with all AR-15’s and AR-15 lowers sold or purchased between July 1, 2010 and now. As you might imagine, this has caused an uproar.

The NRA-ILA has posted an alert on this fishing expedition and has sent a letter to the Washington State Police (see letter at bottom). It alerts dealers that they are under no legal obligation to provide this information.

Dave Workman, editor of Gun Week and a Washington resident, discusses the issue with Cam Edwards on Cam and Company.

National Rifle Association of America Washington State Police Inquiry

UPDATE: The NRA has issued an update on this issue after talks with the Washington State Police.

Uncategorized

McCarthy Crowing

March 23, 2011 by

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is crowing about how her bill, HR 308, has now reached 100 co-sponsors. She includes numerous congratulatory accolades from gun prohibitionists in her press release. Normally, 100 co-sponsors of a gun control bill like hers would be of concern. However, given that the co-sponsors are all liberal, anti-gun Democrats and the House is now Republican majority, HR 308 is merely something to keep one’s eye on and not something that should cause great and immediate fear. While this bill make get a few more sponsors, I think it has come close to its high water mark.

By contrast, HR 822 – the National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Bill – now has 83 co-sponsors in less than a month since its introduction. It probably would have more sponsors added this week if the House wasn’t on break this week for a “constituent work break”. If your representative is having an event in his or her district, that might be a good time to ask them to become a co-sponsor if they haven’t already. If they have signed up as a co-sponsor, make sure to thank them.

And now for some light reading courtesy of Rep. McCarthy.

Bill to Ban High-Capacity Ammo Magazines Reaches New Milestone
Wednesday March 23, 2011

H.R. 308 Now Has 100 Cosponsors in House, With More on the Way

WASHINGTON, DC – Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s (D-NY04) bill to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines has reached a new milestone, with 100 cosponsors now supporting the proposal.

More cosponsors still are expected for H.R. 308, which aims to reduce injuries and save lives by banning the sale or transfer of magazines that allow shooters to fire more than 10 bullets at a time. In the recent mass shooting in Tucson as well as the 1993 massacre on the Long Island Railroad that affected Rep. McCarthy’s family, the shooters were stopped by bystanders only when they stopped to reload their high-capacity magazines.

The 100 cosponsors hail from every part of the country, and represent a broad coalition of Congress members representing urban, suburban and rural areas.

The rapid growth in support behind the bill – which was introduced on Jan. 18 – is the result of a two-pronged strategy being executed by Rep. McCarthy and a nationwide network of advocates.

On one level, Rep. McCarthy is going member-to-member on Capitol Hill making the case personally, reminding her colleagues of her unique perspective as a victim of gun violence herself. Her husband was killed, and son seriously injured, in the 1993 LIRR shooting.
On another level, groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the Violence Policy Center, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence and the Citizens Crime Commission of NYC are working tirelessly with local partners across the country to speak to members of Congress and their constituents directly in their districts.

“The broad and steadily growing coalition of cosponsors for the bill to ban high-capacity magazines is a clear sign that millions of Americans support commonsense measures to address gun violence,” Rep. McCarthy said. “Together with strengthening our background check system so that people known to be dangerous can’t get their hands on deadly weapons in the first place, this proposal is sure to reduce injuries and save lives in our nation.”

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence President Paul Helmke said: “We applaud this new milestone and are encouraged that Congress is waking up to the fact that sensible gun laws save lives. More members of Congress are beginning to understand that restrictions on military-style weaponry are necessary to help prevent mass shootings. We are encouraged by the support of these 100 co-sponsors and are determined to fight for the passage of this proven and effective law to reduce gun violence.”

States United to Prevent Gun Violence Executive Director Andy Pelosi said: “We applaud Rep. McCarthy’s leadership and the growing Congressional support on this issue to re-establish the ban on high capacity ammunition magazines. No private citizen should have access to such high-power lethality. Our state-based gun violence prevention organizations have found wide support for this ban which will save lives.”

Violence Policy Center Legislative Director Kristen Rand said: “Increasing support in Congress for restricting high-capacity magazines demonstrates the public’s recognition that these devices have no legitimate purpose in a civilized society.”

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Executive Director Josh Horwitz said: “Representative McCarthy has shown yet again that she is a tenacious advocate. Reaching the 100 cosponsor mark in such a short amount of time is a reminder that Congress will have to consider this legislation sooner rather than later. Our Coalition has worked tirelessly to develop cosponsors and it is rewarding to see so many Members respond.”

New Yorkers Against Gun Violence Executive Director Jackie Hilly said: “A ban on large capacity ammunition magazines is a sensible step to reduce gun violence and is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. I thank each of the 100 cosponsors of H.R. 308 for listening to the demands of their constituents. The leadership shown by these Members of Congress, particularly Representative Carolyn McCarthy, will help save lives.”

Citizens Crime Commission of NYC and formerBrady Campaign President Richard Aborn said: “The fight for commonsense gun control has never been an easy one, but we’re halfway there with Congresswoman McCarthy’s outstanding leadership on H.R. 308. The issue is simple: this isn’t about Democrats or Republicans, it’s about protecting law enforcement and keeping the public safe. Congress needs to understand that cops should not be outgunned by criminals; it’s not fair.”

Michael Bane made a comment a week or so ago that we as Americans tend to accord victims a special status. McCarthy always wants to play on that status by never failing to mention the murder of her husband on the Long Island Railroad in 1993 by a deranged individual.

Like McCarthy, I was widowed in 1993. My wife died from breast cancer at the age of 42. Neither event was supposed to happen but they did. As harsh as it may sound, life goes on and we need to deal with it. To expect – and even demand – continued sympathy from an event that happened over 17 years ago like McCarthy seems to want to do is sad. It is sad that McCarthy hasn’t really moved on with her life and sad because she is using the tragic death of her husband as a means of political gain.