Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Who Is John Galt?

February 12, 2011 by 4 Comments

Myths about this movie.


To help dispel some common myths floating around about the new Atlas Shrugged movie:

* It will not star Angelina Jole. She was in serious discussions at one point a few years ago, but those plans fell through. Nor will it star Brad Pitt, who was also rumored to be interested. The movie stars Taylor Schilling (as Dagny Taggart) and Grant Bowler (as Hank Rearden).
* It will be neither a feature film nor a mini-series. There was some talk of a mini-series many years ago, but none of the networks signed on for it. The current production is instead a trilogy, corresponding to the three parts of the Atlas Shrugged novel. And it will be released in movie theaters, rather than direct to television.
* The budget is not $5 million. That figure has been cited widely, especially by those disparaging the movie. The final production budget is closer to $10 million, and the full budget is likely to be $25 million by the time the movie is released.
* Vadim Perelman is not the director. He was involved in plans for the movie a few years ago, but they didn’t pan out. The director is Paul Johansson.
* “Hollywood” won’t have a chance to ruin it. Many people have complained that Hollywood will inevitably water down Ayn Rand’s themes, but actually there were no major studios involved. The first part of the trilogy was financed out of John Aglialoro’s pocket. The pre-production, shooting, and post processes were not supervised by a studio representative the same way other movies are.

We’ll continue adding (and correcting) myths on this page as we come across them. If you spot any other myths that need to be dispelled, feel free to mention them in the comments below.

Uncategorized

Fashion Trends And Concealed Carry

February 12, 2011 by 4 Comments

In the concealed carry world, fanny packs and photographer’s vests – while comfortable and effective – have been characterized as “shoot me first” tip-offs. They are obvious. Well, obvious at least to those who have some familiarity with concealed carry and firearms. And, it is said, to crooks.

Now, thanks to high fashion that may be changing at least for the fanny pack. Just don’t call them fanny packs. Fashion designers prefer the new hipper name of “bum bag” or “hands free bag”. The prices also reflect it. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Korean-American handbag designer Sang A Im-Propp sells her alligator “belt bag” for $1,995.

So now, women at least can have the belt bag or bum bag for concealed carry and be considered high fashion.

Uncategorized

CCRKBA Urges Investigation Into “Project Gunwalker”

February 11, 2011 by

From the Second Amendment Foundation’s sister group, the Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms comes a demand that the Senate conduct a full and open inquiry into Project Gunwalker

CCRKBA URGES INQUIRY INTO ATF’S ‘PROJECT GUNRUNNER’
Friday, February 11th, 2011

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is urging its members to contact the Senate and demand a full and open inquiry into a controversial gun trafficking sting operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that may be linked to the December slaying of a federal peace officer.

After Customs and Border Protection Agent Brian Terry was killed in a shootout two months ago, two of the guns recovered at the crime scene were traced to a sale that was part of the ATF’s “Project Gunrunner” investigation. U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has asked the ATF about this case, and has been met by bureau stonewalling. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder this week, Sen. Grassley said it is time to “come clean” about this operation.

“For two years,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “we’ve been hearing from Holder and others in the Obama administration about a so-called ‘iron pipeline’ of American guns across the border. Only after the recent arrests in Arizona did we learn, through court documents, that hundreds of guns were allowed to be purchased by alleged straw buyers, while ATF conducted its investigation. Now, according to various news reports, two of those guns showed up at a crime scene where a federal officer lost his life. What is going on here?

“CCRKBA applauds Sen. Grassley’s persistence in trying to get at the truth,” he continued. “We are asking our members to call their Senators and encourage them to support Grassley’s inquiry effort, and press for a full Senate investigation.

“We also want to know if ATF officials tried to retaliate against agency whistleblowers who have cooperated with Grassley’s office,” Gottlieb added, “and we are delighted that the senator is pushing forward.”

“Wouldn’t it be ironic,” he observed, “to learn that while the Obama administration was blaming our gun rights for the drug war violence in Mexico, its own gun sting operation was a major source of illicit firearms?”

Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Uncategorized

Interview With Mother Of Slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry

February 11, 2011 by

Insiders with whom David Codrea has spoken for his Nation Gun Rights Examiner column dispute some of the assertions made by former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton who was interviewed in the video above.

Former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton reportedly “has seen sting operations like Project Gunrunner in action,” the video informs us. But that is contrary to assertions received by this investigator from an insider source who maintains the only circumstances where this would be an acceptable policy with firearms is in the case of “controlled deliveries…under the strictest of conditions.”

It will be interesting to see, once hearings have begun, if any agent or manager will testify under oath that allowing uncontrolled mass numbers of supposedly monitored guns to escape into the wild is part of any recognized and authorized ATF policy.

Uncategorized

HR 591 – Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2011

February 11, 2011 by

The text of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s HR 591 is now available. It is similar to S. 35 introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) that would have the same title. They differ somewhat in the details but not in substance. Both would require private sales between individuals to be conducted with a FFL as an intermediary.

California has a similar program in place called the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) process which mandates ALL transactions involving firearms be conducted through a licensed entity. Both bills would continue the push for “Californication” of gun laws. If there was ever a reason that we need to pay attention to what happens in California, this is it.

Lautenberg’s bill has added one new co-sponsor – Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado. I guess Bennet’s statements about respecting the rights of gun owners during his campaign against challenger Ken Buck in 2010 were mere fluff meant to placate the gun owning voters of Colorado.

The text of McCarthy’s bill is below:

H.R.591 — Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2011
HR 591 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 591
To require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at gun shows.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 9, 2011
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself and Mr. CICILLINE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
—————————————————————————

A BILL
To require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at gun shows.

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 `Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. GUN SHOW BACKGROUND CHECK.

(a) Findings- The Congress finds that–

(1) approximately 5,200 traditional gun shows are held annually across the United States, attracting thousands of attendees per show and hundreds of Federal firearms licensees and unlicensed firearms sellers; and

(2) gun shows at which firearms are exhibited or offered for sale or exchange provide a convenient and centralized commercial location where criminals and other prohibited persons obtain firearms without background checks and without records that enable firearm tracing.

(b) Definitions- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) Gun Show- The term `gun show’–

`(A) means any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange, or transfer, if 1 or more of the firearms has been shipped or transported in, or otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce;

`(B) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual, at the private residence of that individual, if the individual is not required to be licensed under section 923; and

`(C) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer at events–

`(i) where not more than 100 firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange or transfer;

`(ii) that are conducted by private, not-for-profit organizations whose primary purpose is owning and maintaining real property for the purpose of hunting activities; and

`(iii) that are attended only by permanent or annual dues-paying members of the organizations, and the members of the immediate families of the dues-paying members.

`(37) Gun Show Vendor- The term `gun show vendor’ means a person who is not licensed under section 923 and who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges a firearm at a gun show, regardless of whether or not the person arranges with the gun show operator for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange the firearm.’.

(c) Regulation of Firearms Transfers at Gun Shows-

(1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 932. Regulation of firearms transfers at gun shows

`(a) Registration of Gun Show Operators– It shall be unlawful for a person to operate a gun show, unless–

`(1) the person has attained 21 years of age;

`(2) the person (and, if the person is a corporation, partnership, or association, each individual possessing, directly or indirectly, the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of the corporation, partnership, or association) is not prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 from transporting, shipping, or receiving firearms or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce;

`(3) the person has not willfully violated any provision of this chapter or regulation issued under this chapter;

`(4) the person has registered with the Attorney General as a gun show operator, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Attorney General, and as part of the registration–

`(A) has provided the Attorney General with a photograph and the fingerprints of the person; and

`(B) has certified that the person meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (D) of section 923(d)(1);

`(5) the person has not willfully failed to disclose any material information required, and has not made any false statement as to any material fact, in connection with the registration; and

`(6) the person has paid the Attorney General a fee for the registration, in an amount determined by the Attorney General.

`(b) Responsibilities of Gun Show Operators-

`(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for a person to operate a gun show, unless the person–

`(A) not later than 30 days before the commencement of the gun show, notifies the Attorney General, in writing, of the date, time, duration, and location of the gun show, and the identity of each person who will be a gun show vendor at the gun show;

`(B) before commencement of the gun show–

`(i) verifies the identity of each individual who will be a gun show vendor at the gun show by examining a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)(3)) of the individual containing a photograph of the individual; and

`(ii) requires each such individual to sign–

`(I) a ledger, and enter into the ledger identifying information concerning the individual; and

`(II) a notice which sets forth the obligations of a gun show vendor under this chapter; and

`(C) notifies each person who attends the gun show of the requirements of this chapter, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General shall prescribe.

`(2) RECORDKEEPING- A person who operates, or has operated, a gun show shall maintain records demonstrating compliance with paragraph (1)(B), at such place, for such period of time, and in such form as the Attorney General shall require by regulation, or transmit the records to the Attorney General.

`(c) Background Check Required Before Transfer of Firearm Between Unlicensed Persons- It shall be unlawful for a person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer possession of, or title to, a firearm at, or on the curtilage of, a gun show, to another person who is not so licensed, or for a person who is not so licensed to receive possession of, or title to, a firearm at, or on the curtilage of, a gun show from another person who is not so licensed, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer–

`(1) has entered into a separate bound record the make, model, and serial number of the firearm, and such other information about the transaction as the Attorney General may require by regulation; and

`(2) has notified the prospective transferor and prospective transferee of the firearm that the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act has provided the licensee with a unique identification number, indicating that receipt of the firearm by the prospective transferee would not violate section 922 of this title or State law.
`(d) Recordkeeping Requirements-

`(1) IN GENERAL- A licensee who provides a notice pursuant to subsection (c)(2) with respect to the transfer of a firearm shall–

`(A) not later than 10 days after the date of the transfer, submit to the Attorney General a report of the transfer, which report shall specify the make, model, and serial number of the firearm, and contain such other information and be on such form, as the Attorney General shall require by regulation, except that the report shall not include the name of or other identifying information relating to any person involved in the transfer who is not licensed under this chapter; and

`(B) retain a record of the transfer, including the same information as would be required if the transfer were from the inventory of the licensee, as part of the permanent business records of the licensee.

`(2) LIMITATION- The Attorney General may not impose any recordkeeping requirement on any gun show vendor by reason of this section.’.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(8)(A) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a) or (d) of section 932 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

`(B) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (b) or (c) of section 932, shall be–

`(i) fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both; and

`(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

`(C) In addition to any other penalties imposed under this paragraph, the Attorney General may, with respect to any person who knowingly violates any provision of section 932–

`(i) if the person is registered pursuant to section 932(a), after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend for not more than 6 months or revoke the registration of that person under section 932(a); and

`(ii) impose a civil fine in an amount equal to not more than $10,000.’.

(3) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of contents for chapter 44 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 932. Regulation of firearms transfers at gun shows.’.

(d) Inspection Authority- Section 923(g)(1) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(E) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, the Attorney General may enter during business hours any place where a gun show operator operates a gun show or is required to maintain records pursuant to section 932(b)(2), for purposes of examining the records required by sections 923 and 932 and the inventory of licensees conducting business at the gun show. The entry and examination shall be conducted for the purposes of determining compliance with this chapter by gun show operators and licensees conducting business at the gun show, and shall not require a showing of reasonable cause or a warrant.’.

(e) Reports of Multiple Sales Assisted by Licensees at Gun Shows- Section 923(g)(3)(A) of such title is amended by inserting `or provides pursuant to section 932(c)(2) notice with respect to,’ after `sells or otherwise disposes of,’.

(f) Increased Penalties for Serious Recordkeeping Violations by Licensees- Section 924(a)(3) of such title is amended to read as follows:

`(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), any licensed dealer, licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed collector who knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter, or violates section 922(m), shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

`(B) If the violation described in subparagraph (A) is in relation to an offense–

`(i) under paragraph (1) or (3) of section 922(b), such person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; or

`(ii) under subsection (a)(6) or (d) of section 922, such person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.’.

(g) Increased Penalties for Violations of Criminal Background Check Requirements-

(1) PENALTIES- Section 924(a)(5) of such title is amended–

(A) by striking `subsection (s) or (t) of section 922′ and inserting `section 922(t)’; and

(B) by striking `1′ and inserting `5′.

(2) ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF OFFENSE- Section 922(t)(5) of such title is amended by striking `and, at the time’ and all that follows through `State law’.

(h) Authority To Hire Personnel To Inspect Gun Shows- The Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives may hire at least 40 additional Industry Operations Investigators for the purpose of carrying out inspections of gun shows (as defined in section 921(a)(36) of title 18, United States Code).
(i) Report to the Congress- The Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives shall submit biennial reports to the Congress on how firearms (as defined in section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code) are sold at gun shows (as defined in paragraph (36) of such section), how this section is being carried out, whether firearms are being sold without background checks conducted by the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, what resources are needed to carry out this section, and any recommendations for improvements to ensure that firearms are not sold without the background checks.

(j) Effective Date- This section and the amendments made by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Uncategorized

Comment Period On Multi-Rifle Sales Ends Feb. 14th

February 11, 2011 by

The NRA-ILA sent this out this evening urging everyone to comment on the proposal to require FFL’s in the Southwest border states to report multiple purchases of semi-automatic rifles in a caliber greater than .22 and which have a detachable magazine.

Act Immediately to Block ATF Long Gun Sales Reporting!

Thursday, February 10, 2011

If you’re one of the nearly 71 million Americans who live in the four southwest border states, some of your gun purchases could soon be reported to the federal government. And whether you live in one of those states or elsewhere, your help is needed now to stop the federal government’s plan to register Americans’ gun purchases.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is demanding the authority to require all of the 8,500 firearm dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to report all sales of two or more semiautomatic rifles within five consecutive business days, if the rifles are larger than .22 caliber and use detachable magazines. For example, a dealer would have to tell the government every time a deer hunter in Sacramento or Amarillo finds a good deal on a pair of semi-auto .30-06s like the popular Remington 7400.

The ATF has no legal authority to demand these reports, and the flood of new paperwork will waste scarce law enforcement resources that should be spent on legitimate investigations.

Unfortunately, there are only a few days left to comment on this proposal. Comments will be accepted until Monday, February 14. Every concerned gun owner’s voice should be heard on this critically important issue.

Please send your comments today. Be sure to refer to the December 17, 2010 “Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles.” You can submit your comments to:

OMB
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer
Washington, DC 20503

Please send a copy of your comments to:

Barbara A. Terrell
Firearms Industry Programs Branch
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, N.E.
Washington, DC 20226.

Barbara.Terrell@atf.gov
Fax: (202) 648–9640

You don’t need to reinvent the wheel with your own comments. The NRA’s comments can be found here. While their comments are nine pages long, you can take one or two items that you wish to emphasize and go from there. There is nothing wrong with a little cutting and pasting. That is the beauty of word processing software.

Earlier this week, Gunleaders.com reported that during the original comment period ATF received only 9 comments in favor of the proposal were received as compared to hundreds in opposition. They also have a copy of the letter they sent which is less comprehensive than the NRA’s letter. You may prefer to use their comments as the starting point for your comments.

Uncategorized

HR 591 – McCarthy’s Latest Gun Control Bill

February 10, 2011 by 3 Comments

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced HR 591 yesterday. It would “require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at gun shows.” The text of the bill has not yet been published.

As of yesterday, it had only one co-sponsor – Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI).

While the text of the bill hasn’t been received yet, I am presuming that this is an effort by McCarthy to play off of Mayor Bloomberg’s so-called sting operation at a Phoenix gun show in January. What makes a private sale made in the vicinity of a gun show different from any other private sale between lawful individuals is a question that only the gun controllers can answer.

When the full text is published, I will post it here.

In other McCarthy news, her magazine ban bill, HR 308, seems to have reached a high-watermark in terms of co-sponsors. It remains at 65 and has remained that way since January 26th. Of course, this number could change if President Obama were to make some forceful statement in support of the bill. And pigs could fly, too, I suppose.

Uncategorized

Second Castle Doctrine Bill Introduced In North Carolina

February 10, 2011 by 1 Comment

A second (and stronger) Castle Doctrine bill has been introduced in the North Carolina General Assembly. This bill expands the castle doctrine to include your vehicle. More importantly, it introduces a “stand your ground” provision if one is attacked in any location where you have the right to be.

According to correspondence with Paul Valone, head of Grass Roots North Carolina, this bill was modeled on the State of Florida’s Castle Doctrine bill.

The primary sponsors of this bill are all Republicans. They represent a diverse group including a police officer (Hilton), a retired Clerk of Superior Court (Randleman), a retired Marine (Cleveland), and a medical social worker (Brown).

HOUSE DRH30070-LH-51 (01/19)
Short Title: Castle Doctrine.

Sponsors:
Representatives Hilton, Randleman, Cleveland, and R. Brown (Primary Sponsors).

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT to provide when the use of force or the use of deadly force is justifiable in defense of self, others, or one’s home or vehicle, or in preventing the commission of a forcible felony, and to provide immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action in those circumstances.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new Article to read:

“Article 62.

“Justifiable Use of Force.

“§ 14‑470. Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this Article:
(1) Criminal prosecution. – The term includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) Deadly force. – Force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm. The term includes the following: (i) the firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm and (ii) the firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding. The term does not include the discharge of a firearm, which is loaded with a less‑lethal munition, by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties.

(3) Dwelling. – A building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(4) Forcible felony. – Treason; murder; manslaughter; rape, sexual offense, sexual battery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; felonious stalking; malicious use of explosive or incendiary device; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

(5) Law enforcement officer. – Any person employed or appointed as a full‑time, part‑time, or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, probation officer, post‑release supervision officer, or parole officer.

(6) Less‑lethal munition. – A projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.

(7) Residence. – A dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(8) Vehicle. – A conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

“§ 14‑471. Use of force in defense of person.

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14‑472.

“§ 14‑472. Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

(a) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:

(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(b) The presumption set forth in subsection (a) of this section does not apply if any of the following apply:

(1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or title holder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person.
(2) The person sought to be removed is a minor child or minor grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used.
(3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in a forcible felony or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a forcible felony.
(4) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in G.S. 14‑470, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the lawful performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(c) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

“§ 14‑473. Use of force in defense of others.

A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

“§ 14‑474. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

(a) A person who uses force as permitted in G.S. 14‑471, 14‑472, or 14‑473 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in G.S. 14‑470, who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer.

(b) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (a) of this section, but the agency shall not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(c) The court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (a) of this section.

“§ 14‑475. Use of force by aggressor.

The justification described in G.S. 14‑471, 14‑472, and 14‑473 is not available to a person who is doing any of the following:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself unless one of the following situations exists:
a. The force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant.
b. In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

“§ 14‑476. Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.

(a) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.

(b) Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.

(c) In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section:
(1) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to the following:
a. Canteen purchases.
b. Telephone access.
c. Outdoor exercise.
d. Use of the library.
e. Visitation.
(2) The court shall award a reasonable attorneys’ fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney; however, the losing party’s attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this subdivision, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.
(3) If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsection and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility.

(d) A law enforcement officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less‑lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.”

SECTION 2. G.S. 14‑51.1 is repealed.

SECTION 3. This act becomes effective December 1, 2011, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date. Prosecutions for offenses committed before the effective date of this act are not abated or affected by this act, and the statutes that would be applicable but for this act remain applicable to those prosecutions.

UPDATE: Grass Roots North Carolina sent out an alert this evening regarding this bill – HB 74 – and the other one – SB 34 – which was introduced a few days earlier.

WHAT MAKES HB 74 BETTER?

Last Friday, the NRA issued an alert backing SB 34, sponsored by Senators Andrew Brock, Doug Berger and Kathy Harrington. While the pro-gun sponsors have the best of intentions, SB 34 and its companion bill, HB 52, (Reps. Tim Spear, Bill Owens and Jim Crawford) are dangerously flawed.

SB 34 and HB 52 are substantially similar to SB 928, which passed the Senate in the last session but was killed in the House when Rep. Deborah Ross and former Rep. Hugh Holliman (who was defeated by GRNC in the last election) denied it a committee hearing.

The problem is that SB 928 passed the gun-hostile Senate in a greatly weakened fashion: Although the original Edition 1 offered victims protection both inside and outside the home, particularly in motor vehicles, the amended Edition 2 offered protection ONLY WITHIN THE HOME, meaning it offered little beyond present law.

By contrast, HB 74 is the result of longstanding collaboration between Rep. Hilton and GRNC. Drafted by GRNC in 2005, it was substantially improved by Hilton and legislative staff in the 2009-2010 session, when it was introduced as HB 1131.

The bottom line is that while SB 928 might have been the best bill attainable in the last, gun-hostile session of the legislature, you have worked hard to produce a pro-gun majority this year in both chambers, and you deserve better.

ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS OF HB 74:

* Better definitions, including defense against “forcible felonies;”
* Presumption of reasonable fear to victims of carjackings;
* “Stand your ground” protection: No duty to retreat when attacked outside the home; and
* Better protection against lawsuits: If attackers or survivors file malicious lawsuits which are thrown out of court, they would bear the full cost of litigation, freeing crime victims of tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Uncategorized

Stratfor On The 90% Myth

February 10, 2011 by

Mexico’s Gun Supply and the 90 Percent Myth is republished with permission of STRATFOR.


Mexico’s Gun Supply and the 90 Percent Myth
By Scott Stewart

For several years now, STRATFOR has been closely watching developments in Mexico that relate to what we consider the three wars being waged there. Those three wars are the war between the various drug cartels, the war between the government and the cartels and the war being waged against citizens and businesses by criminals.

In addition to watching tactical developments of the cartel wars on the ground and studying the dynamics of the conflict among the various warring factions, we have also been paying close attention to the ways that both the Mexican and U.S. governments have reacted to these developments. Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects to watch has been the way in which the Mexican government has tried to deflect responsibility for the cartel wars away from itself and onto the United States. According to the Mexican government, the cartel wars are not a result of corruption in Mexico or of economic and societal dynamics that leave many Mexicans marginalized and desperate to find a way to make a living. Instead, the cartel wars are due to the insatiable American appetite for narcotics and the endless stream of guns that flows from the United States into Mexico and that results in Mexican violence.

Interestingly, the part of this argument pertaining to guns has been adopted by many politicians and government officials in the United States in recent years. It has now become quite common to hear U.S. officials confidently assert that 90 percent of the weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels come from the United States. However, a close examination of the dynamics of the cartel wars in Mexico — and of how the oft-echoed 90 percent number was reached — clearly demonstrates that the number is more political rhetoric than empirical fact.

By the Numbers

As we discussed in a previous analysis, the 90 percent number was derived from a June 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico (see external link).

According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.

This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.

The remaining 22,800 firearms seized by Mexican authorities in 2008 were not traced for a variety of reasons. In addition to factors such as bureaucratic barriers and negligence, many of the weapons seized by Mexican authorities either do not bear serial numbers or have had their serial numbers altered or obliterated. It is also important to understand that the Mexican authorities simply don’t bother to submit some classes of weapons to the ATF for tracing. Such weapons include firearms they identify as coming from their own military or police forces, or guns that they can trace back themselves as being sold through the Mexican Defense Department’s Arms and Ammunition Marketing Division (UCAM). Likewise, they do not ask ATF to trace military ordnance from third countries like the South Korean fragmentation grenades commonly used in cartel attacks.

Of course, some or even many of the 22,800 firearms the Mexicans did not submit to ATF for tracing may have originated in the United States. But according to the figures presented by the GAO, there is no evidence to support the assertion that 90 percent of the guns used by the Mexican cartels come from the United States — especially when not even 50 percent of those that were submitted for tracing were ultimately found to be of U.S. origin.

This point leads us to consider the types of weapons being used by the Mexican cartels and where they come from.


Types and Sources of Guns

To gain an understanding of the dynamics of the gun flow inside Mexico, it helps if one divides the guns seized by Mexican authorities from criminals into three broad categories — which, incidentally, just happen to represent three different sources.

Type 1: Guns Legally Available in Mexico

The first category of weapons encountered in Mexico is weapons available legally for sale in Mexico through UCAM. These include handguns smaller than a .357 magnum such as .380 and .38 Special.

A large portion of this first type of guns used by criminals is purchased in Mexico, or stolen from their legitimate owners. While UCAM does have very strict regulations for civilians to purchase guns, criminals will use straw purchasers to obtain firearms from UCAM or obtain them from corrupt officials. Cartel hit men in Mexico commonly use .380 pistols equipped with sound suppressors in their assassinations. In many cases, these pistols are purchased in Mexico, the suppressors are locally manufactured and the guns are adapted to receive the suppressors by Mexican gunsmiths.

It must be noted, though, that because of the cost and hassle of purchasing guns in Mexico, many of the guns in this category are purchased in the United States and smuggled into the country. There are a lot of cheap guns available on the U.S. market, and they can be sold at a premium in Mexico. Indeed, guns in this category, such as .380 pistols and .22-caliber rifles and pistols, are among the guns most commonly traced back to the United States. Still, the numbers do not indicate that 90 percent of guns in this category come from the United States.

Additionally, most of the explosives the cartels have been using in improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Mexico over the past year have used commercially available Tovex, so we consider these explosives to fall in this first category. Mexican IEDs are another area where the rhetoric has been interesting to analyze, but we will explore this topic another time.

Type 2: Guns Legally Available in the U.S. but Not in Mexico

Many popular handgun calibers, such as 9 mm, .45 and .40, are reserved for the military and police and are not available for sale to civilians in Mexico. These guns, which are legally sold and very popular in the United States, comprise our second category, which also includes .50-caliber rifles, semiautomatic versions of assault rifles like the AK-47 and M16 and the FN Five-Seven pistol.

When we consider this second type of guns, a large number of them encountered in Mexico are likely purchased in the United States. Indeed, the GAO report notes that many of the guns most commonly traced back to the United States fall into this category. There are also many .45-caliber and 9 mm semiautomatic pistols and .357 revolvers obtained from deserters from the Mexican military and police, purchased from corrupt Mexican authorities or even brought in from South America (guns made by manufacturers such as Taurus and Bersa). This category also includes semiautomatic variants of assault rifles and main battle rifles, which are often converted by Mexican gunsmiths to be capable of fully automatic fire.

One can buy these types of weapons on the international arms market, but one pays a premium for such guns and it is cheaper and easier to simply buy them in the United States or South America and smuggle them into Mexico. In fact, there is an entire cottage industry that has developed to smuggle such weapons, and not all the customers are cartel hit men. There are many Mexican citizens who own guns in calibers such as .45, 9 mm, .40 and .44 magnum for self-defense — even though such guns are illegal in Mexico.

Type 3: Guns Not Available for Civilian Purchase in Mexico or the U.S.

The third category of weapons encountered in Mexico is military grade ordnance not generally available for sale in the United States or Mexico. This category includes hand grenades, 40 mm grenades, rocket-propelled grenades, automatic assault rifles and main battle rifles and light machine guns.

This third type of weapon is fairly difficult and very expensive to obtain in the United States (especially in the large numbers in which the cartels are employing them). They are also dangerous to obtain in the United States due to heavy law-enforcement scrutiny. Therefore, most of the military ordnance used by the Mexican cartels comes from other sources, such as the international arms market (increasingly from China via the same networks that furnish precursor chemicals for narcotics manufacturing), or from corrupt elements in the Mexican military or even deserters who take their weapons with them. Besides, items such as South Korean fragmentation grenades and RPG-7s, often used by the cartels, simply are not in the U.S. arsenal. This means that very few of the weapons in this category come from the United States.

In recent years the cartels (especially their enforcer groups such as Los Zetas, Gente Nueva and La Linea) have been increasingly using military weaponry instead of sporting arms. A close examination of the arms seized from the enforcer groups and their training camps clearly demonstrates this trend toward military ordnance, including many weapons not readily available in the United States. Some of these seizures have included M60 machine guns and hundreds of 40 mm grenades obtained from the military arsenals of countries like Guatemala.

But Guatemala is not the only source of such weapons. Latin America is awash in weapons that were shipped there over the past several decades to supply the various insurgencies and counterinsurgencies in the region. When these military-grade weapons are combined with the rampant corruption in the region, they quickly find their way into the black arms market. The Mexican cartels have supply-chain contacts that help move narcotics to Mexico from South America and they are able to use this same network to obtain guns from the black market in South and Central America and then smuggle them into Mexico. While there are many weapons in this category that were manufactured in the United States, the overwhelming majority of the U.S.-manufactured weapons of this third type encountered in Mexico — like LAW rockets and M60 machine guns — come into Mexico from third countries and not directly from the United States.

There are also some cases of overlap between classes of weapons. For example, the FN Five-Seven pistol is available for commercial purchase in the United States, but the 5.7×28 armor-piercing ammunition for the pistol favored by the cartels is not — it is a restricted item. However, some of the special operations forces units in the Mexican military are issued the Five-Seven as well as the FN P90 personal defense weapon, which also shoots the 5.7×28 round, and the cartels are obtaining some of these weapons and the armor-piercing ammunition from them and not from the United States. Conversely, we see bulk 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm ammunition bought in the United States and smuggled into Mexico, where it is used in fully-automatic AK-47s and M16s purchased elsewhere. As noted above, China has become an increasingly common source for military weapons like grenades and fully automatic assault rifles in recent years.

To really understand Mexico’s gun problem, however, it is necessary to recognize that the same economic law of supply and demand that fuels drug smuggling into the United States also fuels gun smuggling into Mexico. Black-market guns in Mexico can fetch up to 300 percent of their normal purchase price — a profit margin rivaling the narcotics the cartels sell. Even if it were somehow possible to hermetically seal the U.S.-Mexico border and shut off all the guns coming from the United States, the cartels would still be able to obtain weapons elsewhere — just as narcotics would continue to flow into the United States from other places. The United States does provide cheap and easy access to certain types of weapons and ammunition, but as demonstrated by groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, weapons can be easily obtained from other sources via the black arms market — albeit at a higher price.

There has clearly been a long and well-documented history of arms smuggling across the U.S.-Mexico border, but it is important to recognize that, while the United States is a significant source of certain classes of weapons and ammunition, it is by no means the source of 90 percent of the weapons used by the Mexican cartels, as is commonly asserted.

Uncategorized

Five Questions

February 9, 2011 by 4 Comments

As I reported yesterday, the Department of Justice has replied to Senator Grassley’s letter. The letter was a classic of bureaucratic stonewalling and avoidance.

In a further report on the letter, the AP has this response from Grassley’s office which indicates they are not giving up based on one letter saying “back off” from an Assistant AG.

Grassley spokeswoman Beth Pellett Levine said the Justice Department denied one aspect of allegations presented by whistleblowers and promised to give the senator a briefing. “However, the briefing has still not occurred, and documents provided with the allegations are not consistent with that denial,” she said. “There are many specific questions that need to be answered in full by the Justice Department as soon as possible.”

Mike Vanderboegh has posted five questions that he received from one of his insider sources regarding the letter from Assistant AG Welch. The questions, if asked in a Congressional hearing under oath, are sure to make those in charge at both ATF and DOJ squirm.

1. Has the gun used to murder Border Patrol agent Brian Terry been identified? If so, on what evidentiary basis, including ballistic evidence. If the gun has been identified, the two key questions: (A) has this gun ever been traced before? (B) if so, what do the traces show?

2. What are the locations in Mexico where “gunwalked” firearms were recovered?

3. Were any “gunwalked” firearms used to murder anybody in Mexico? If so, who? Again the Goat (Copulation) questions: (A) have any of these guns ever been traced before? (B) if so, what do the traces show?

4. Did Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer attend any meetings at which Project Gunrunner was discussed in full or in part? If so, provide (1) the date of the meeting or meetings, (2) names of all persons who attended each meeting or meetings, and (3) the unredacted write-ups of what was discussed at each meeting or meetings, as well as private, unpublished notes, e-mails and any other documents that contain information about each meeting or meetings.

[nota bene: I am making a distinction here between ATF and DOJ as institutions, in asking these questions]

5. For each of the 274 firearms recovered in Mexico, describe the extent, if any, to which Mexican authorities were advised these firearms had been transported to Mexico with the knowledge of ATF.

From what we have seen and heard, “Project Gunwalker” isn’t pretty. I think the answers to these questions aren’t going to be pretty either.

I want to repeat what I said yesterday after this affair. It wasn’t the Watergate break-in that doomed Richard Nixon, it was the cover-up. While the mainstream press is less likely to put pressure on the Obama Administration now than the Washington Post was with Richard Nixon in 1972-74, we have the Internet now and we don’t have to rely on the press doing their job. As David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh have shown, we can do it for them.