Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Who Needs “Extended” Magazines?

February 7, 2011 by

Just as Stephen Hunter said in an op-ed in the Washington Post, defenders needed standard (or large) capacity magazines.

For them, the Glock with a 33-round magazine is the weapon of maximum utility. You can load it on Sunday and shoot it all month. (Nobody wants to reload a gun while being shot at.) It’s light and easy to control. You don’t have to carry it or conceal it; it’s under the bed or in the drawer until needed. When the question arises of who needs an extended magazine, the answer is: the most defenseless of the defenseless.

Those who would ban extended magazines, will say that although hundreds of thousands are in circulation and thousands more will surely be sold before a ban is enacted, it will be worth it if it saves just one life. But the other half of that question must be asked, too: Is it worth it if it costs just one life?

As one would expect, the comments are full of derision for Hunter and his stance. From reading them, you would think all anti-gunners had the shooting skills of Annie Oakley and thus didn’t need more than one or two rounds.

To confirm the need for protection against home invaders comes this video from WSAZ in southern Ohio. The area has seen a large increase in home invasions and residents are stepping up to protect themselves. When even the former Sheriff has to fight off home invaders, you know the thugs don’t care who they attack.

H/T Buckeye Firearms Assoc.

Uncategorized

Illinois Senators Send Letter Supporting Andrew Traver

February 5, 2011 by 1 Comment

It has been a while since we have had any news to report on Andrew Traver – President Obama’s anti-gun nominee to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Thanks to Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL)  and Mark Kirk (Rino-IL), we have something. They sent a joint letter yesterday to Obama expressing their support for Traver.

In a press release that announcing the letter, they urged the NRA to reconsider it opposition to Traver and give him a second look. A different version of the release sent to local newspapers gives the impression that Traver’s nomination was supported by NSSF.

Traver’s efforts to combat gangs and violent crime in Illinois have drawn bipartisan praise, and his efforts to work cooperatively with the firearms industry have been applauded by industry leaders such as National Shooting Sports Foundation Senior Vice President Lawrence G. Keane.

This is incorrect and NSSF has posted a demand for a retraction on their website which could explain the different versions of the press release.  Neither NSSF nor Larry Keane have endorsed Andrew Traver to head ATF and they object to the phrasing of the letter to Obama. The full text of the letter from Durbin and Kirk is below.

February 4, 2011

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. President:

We commend you for nominating Andrew Traver to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). ATF has been without a Senate-confirmed Director since 2006, and this lack of leadership has hampered our nation’s efforts to combat street gangs and drug cartels and to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It is long past time for the ATF Director position to be filled, and we believe the record will show that Mr. Traver is the right man for the job.

ATF is a major federal law enforcement agency with approximately 5,000 officers and field division offices located in 25 U.S. cities and 5 foreign countries. While ATF has a dual role as regulator of the U.S. firearms industry and as primary enforcer of federal firearms laws, ATF performs other vital missions critical to our homeland security. For example, the agency plays leadership roles in combating Mexican drug cartels, coordinating the federal law enforcement security response to potential attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, and investigating incidents involving explosives and arson. ATF additionally serves as a key partner in efforts to combat the violent street gangs that plague many of America’s cities. It is critical that the agency have a Director who can manage the agency’s operations and carry out these functions effectively.

We believe Mr. Traver is an exceptional nominee for ATF Director. A Navy veteran and a cancer survivor, Mr. Traver is a 23-year veteran of ATF who served for the last four years as Special Agent in Charge of the ATF Chicago Field Division. Under his leadership, the ATF Chicago Field Division has spearheaded major investigations and enforcement actions against numerous Chicago-area street gangs, including the Latin Kings, the Gangster Disciples, and the Aurora Insane Deuces. Mr. Traver’s efforts to combat gangs and violent crime in Illinois have drawn bipartisan praise, and his efforts to work cooperatively with the firearms industry have been applauded by industry leaders such as National Shooting Sports Foundation Senior Vice President Lawrence G. Keane. We know Mr. Traver personally and can vouch that he is a no-nonsense, results-oriented leader who takes seriously his commitment to enforcing the laws on the books.

We are aware that the National Rifle Association issued an early initial statement opposing his nomination. We believe the NRA should take the opportunity to hear Mr. Traver present his case for confirmation and to permit a review of his qualifications by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The NRA commendably waited until after hearings had taken place before taking a position on the nominations of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. As a veteran and decorated federal law enforcement officer, Mr. Traver deserves similar respect for the service he provided the nation in and out of uniform.

It is crucial to the security of our nation and our citizens that we enable ATF to effectively carry out its mission and enforce the law. We will urge our colleagues to judge Andrew Traver’s nomination on the merits and are confident that they will find him to be an outstanding nominee. He has served his country and Illinois with distinction and we believe the record will show he deserves to be confirmed.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin         Mark Kirk

Uncategorized

White House Delays “Two-A-Day” Implementation – Again

February 5, 2011 by

The White House has again delayed implementation of the multiple rifle purchase reporting requirement in the Southwest border states. According to an article in the Washington Post, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has extended the comment period until February 14th to give the public more time to comment on the proposal.

Meg Reilly, spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget, said the decision follows President Obama’s directive to curb excessive regulation and “is consistent with the president’s call for more transparency and opportunities for public participation in his recent executive order.”

ATF had planned to use a demand letter requiring the reporting of multiple sales within a 5-day period.  It would require the reporting of sales of semi-auto rifles with a caliber greater than .22 which also had detachable magazines. This emergency requirement would have only applied to FFL’s in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. ATF hoped to get OMB approval for their “pilot project” by early January.

Requiring the reporting of multiple semi-auto rifle sales was a suggestion in the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report on Operation Gunrunner. At the time, ATF Deputy Director Kenneth Melson said he was unsure whether the Bureau had the authority under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to require this.

As I posted in early January at the first delay, it seems that pressure from gun rights groups and Congress was behind the first delay. Three Senators and 35 Congressmen have sent the White House a letter opposing the requirement. I have no doubt that this sort of pressure was behind the second delay of the mult-rifle reporting requirement.

ATF was thrown a bone by the OMB when proposed budget cuts of over 12% to the agency’s budget were restored.

ATF received good news earlier in the week, however, when the OMB made an unusual announcement that ATF had won a budget battle. Early budget documents obtained by The Washington Post showed that ATF would get a cut of nearly $160 million out of a $1.25 billion budget request – a 12.8 percent reduction that would be 3.6 percent below the current budget.

“Even as we make tough choices across the government,” Reilly said, “the 2012 budget includes robust support for Southwest border security, including an increase above current funding levels for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.”

I am sure that ATF cares more about their budget than they do about Mexico, Mexican cartels, and semi-auto rifles crossing the border. Can you say “Operation Gunwalker”? Money, not effectiveness, is the life blood of any modern bureaucracy.

In the meantime, we have until Valentine’s Day to send comments about the multiple-rifle reporting requirement. Let’s use it. NSSF has suggestions on what to include in your letter here. Make sure to send a copy to your Senators and Congressman as well.

Uncategorized

John Lott, Mayor Daley, and Thugocracy

February 5, 2011 by 1 Comment

Mayor Richard M. Daley does not like guns unless they are in the hands of his bodyguards. It appears that he also doesn’t like scholars who challenge his cherished beliefs about the efficacy of gun control.

Heading that list is Dr. John Lott whose book, More Guns, Less Crime, attacked some of the most cherished assumptions of the gun control movement. In 1998, Lott was an Olin Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. It should be noted here that the University of Chicago is a private university and has no formal links with the City of Chicago.

Lott ran afoul of Daley back in 1998 and is only now telling the story. With Daley about to leave office, he felt it was time that the real story be told.

In December 1998, Daley held a conference with other anti-gun mayors to discuss suing gun manufacturers. To get an opposing view, Lott was asked by local Chicago TV reporters to meet and talk with them about the lawsuits. Scheduled to arrive at the venue after the mayors had finished, he arrived to find them running behind schedule. At the suggestion of a reporter, he went in to listen to the mayors’ presentations. Here is where it gets interesting as Lott describes it in an opinion piece for FoxNews.

When the audience started yelling questions, I raised my hand in an attempt to get called on. At that point a woman walked over to me and asked me if I was John Lott from the University of Chicago. I said that I was, and she informed me that I was not allowed to ask any questions — no additional explanation was offered.

This appeared awfully strange, and it bothered me that someone would be singled out in the entire crowd. So after about 10 minutes, I decided to raise my hand again to ask a question. The same woman reappeared, this time signaling to two plainclothes men to come up behind me where I was seated. The woman stated that only the press were allowed to ask questions and that I would have to leave. While she was speaking to me, one of the men gave me a couple of solid hits in my back and then pushed me hard on my shoulder, almost knocking me out of my chair. I told her that I wasn’t leaving, but that I wouldn’t raise my hand again.

Some in the audience noticed. A reporter from the Baltimore Sun (Joe Mathews) had been seated next to me and gave me his card, stating that he thought the whole thing looked surprising.

Not satisfied with having Lott roughed up, Daley went further a few days later.

On December 15, 1998, I learned from Dan Fischel, the law school’s Dean, that Mayor Daley had called up the president of the University of Chicago, Hugo Sonnenschein. Mayor Daley reportedly had told Sonnenschein that he had great plans for the relationship between the city and the school but that my continued presence at the university was going to do “irreparable harm” to that relationship.

I was then faced with two different termination options: immediately resign from the university or stay until July and promise not to talk to the press any more while I was there.

Lott went with Option 2 and kept away from the press until his appointment was to expire. In retrospect, Lott feels he should have resigned and gone to the press. However, at the time, as a young scholar, he was concerned about the impact on his career if he was ousted. Given that he had four kids at home, this was understandable.

As reported in the Illinois Review, a conservative journal, Lott withheld describing this incident in his 3rd. Editon of More Guns, Less Crime because the book is published by the University of Chicago Press. He felt it would have just been edited out. The Illinois Review has audio of his interview with Teri O’Brien here.

There are two issues in this story. First, that Mayor Daley would make threats to the president of a great university such as the University of Chicago and do so knowing he was immune from any backlash. Second, that the president of any university would kow-tow to a thug like Daley on an issue of academic freedom.

That Daley would threaten the president of a university just as if he were some corrupt land developer seeking the city’s approval for a project is not that surprising. It is the Chicago Way and I anticipate it will continue if, as seems likely, Rahm Emanuel is elected the next Mayor of Chicago. However, it is surprising that the president of a great university would roll over on Lott after threats from Daley. Chicago has long had a reputation for academic rigor, for innovative research, and great scholars. Its list of Nobel Laureates who have either attended or taught there is quite long.

The story reminds me of King Henry II and Thomas a’ Becket. When King Henry reportedly said “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest”, four knights of the royal court took that as the command to kill Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. However, unlike the murder of Beckett which outraged England, no one in Chicago seems to be outraged that John Lott was to be sacrificed to satisfy Richard Daley’s pique.

Uncategorized

Nadler’s Attempt To Embarrass Gun Rights Proponents

February 4, 2011 by

Rep. Jerrold Nadler introduced his Keep Kids Safe Act in the previous Congress and it went nowhere. It would seem his motivation for reintroducing this bill is not to protect child victims of sexual abuse but rather to create an issue with which to embarrass the NRA and other gun rights proponents. He can say “See the NRA wants child molesters to have guns” which patently is not the case.

In many jurisdictions, over-eager prosecutors have charged teens with sex offenses for the arguably stupid act of “sexting”. Under the terms of this bill, they would be forever banned from owning, possessing, transferring, or purchasing a firearm if they are convicted.

A person should not be denied an enumerated constitutional right on the basis of a misdemeanor conviction regardless of the nature of the crime. And as distasteful as I find domestic violence, I would include this as well.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 26, 2011
Mr. NADLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

——————————————————————————–

A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to place limitations on the possession, sale, and other disposition of a firearm by persons convicted of misdemeanor sex offenses against children.

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 `Keep Kids Safe Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. LIMITS ON POSSESSION, SALE, AND DISPOSITION OF FIREARMS BY PERSONS CONVICTED OF MISDEMEANOR SEX OFFENSES AGAINST MINORS.

(a) Disposition of Firearm- Section 922(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (8);

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting `; or’; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:

`(10) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor sex offense against a minor.’.

(b) Possession of Firearm- Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (8);

(2) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting `; or’; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:

`(10) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor sex offense against a minor,’.

(c) Misdemeanor Sex Offense Against a Minor Defined- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36)(A) The term `misdemeanor sex offense against a minor’ means a sex offense against a minor punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year.

`(B) The term `sex offense’ means a criminal offense that has, as an element, a sexual act or sexual contact with another, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such an offense.

`(C) The term `minor’ means an individual who has not attained 18 years of age.

`(D) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense against a minor for purposes of this chapter–

`(i) unless–

`(I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and

`(II) in the case of a prosecution for the offense for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried–

`(aa) the case was tried by a jury; or

`(bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise; or

`(ii) if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense), unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.’.

Uncategorized

HR 496 – Typical Overreaction To Tucson

February 4, 2011 by 2 Comments

HR 496 is Rep. Peter King’s bill that would create a gun-free zone around “senior Federal officials” who are conducting official business. That zone is 1,000 feet from the building in which they are, will be within 30 minutes, or left within the last 30 minutes.

Reading the details of the bill, it would seem that if I were driving down Interstate 240 in downtown Asheville and Rep. Heath Shuler was in his Asheville district office, I would be guilty of violating the law if I had a loaded firearm in the car unless I had Shuler’s permission.

Republicans like Peter King who are impressed with their own importance are the reason the GOP lost its majority in 2006. I find it interesting that none of his co-sponsors are Republicans. It seems some people – but not Mr. King – have a clue.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 26, 2011
Mr. KING of New York (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. RANGEL, and Ms. CHU) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

——————————————————————————–

A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the carrying of a firearm near a place where a senior Federal official is holding an official public event or carrying out an official or representational duty, or where any person is campaigning for Federal elective office.

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 `Securing Citizens’ Protection at Federal Events Act’.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CARRYING FIREARM NEAR A PLACE WHERE A SENIOR FEDERAL OFFICIAL IS HOLDING AN OFFICIAL PUBLIC EVENT OR CARRYING OUT AN OFFICIAL OR REPRESENTATIONAL DUTY, OR WHERE ANY PERSON IS CAMPAIGNING FOR FEDERAL ELECTIVE OFFICE.

(a) Prohibition- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(aa)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to knowingly carry a firearm at a place which the person knows is a restricted firearms zone.

`(2) In a prosecution for an alleged violation of paragraph (1), it shall be an affirmative defense, which may be established by a preponderance of the evidence, that, at the time of the alleged violation–

`(A) the person was a law enforcement officer (whether on- or off-duty) authorized to carry a firearm in the line of duty; or

`(B) the person was carrying the firearm pursuant to the permission of a law enforcement officer;

`(C) the person was a designated Federal protectee;

`(D) the person had the permission of a designated Federal protectee in the restricted firearms zone to carry a firearm in the zone while the place that constitutes the zone is treated as such for purposes of this subsection;

`(E) the person was carrying the firearm only on the premises of a business in which the person is employed and authorized by the employer to carry the firearm;

`(F) the person was carrying the firearm only on real property owned or rented by the person;

`(G) the person was a qualified retired law enforcement officer (as defined in section 926C(c)) carrying the identification required by section 926C(d)); or

`(H)(i) the firearm possessed by the person was unloaded, and was in a locked container or otherwise not readily accessible for use; and

`(ii) any ammunition possessed by the person for the firearm was in a locked container separate from the firearm.

`(3) Violations of this subsection shall be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistance may be requested from any Federal, State, or local agency, any statute, rule, or regulation to the contrary (other than section 374 or 375 of title 10, or section 1385 of this title) notwithstanding.’.

(b) Definitions- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36)(A) The term `restricted firearms zone’ means within 1,000 feet of the exterior of any building or structure in which, or at any other fixed place where–

`(i) a senior Federal official is, within 30 minutes will be, or within the past 30 minutes was–

`(I) holding an official event that is open to the public; or

`(II) carrying out an official or representational duty; or

`(ii) a designated Federal protectee is, within 30 minutes will be, or within the past 30 minutes was engaging in campaign activity as a candidate for election for Federal office for purposes of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

`(B) In subparagraph (A), the term `designated Federal protectee’ means a senior Federal official, or an individual who is a candidate for election for Federal office for purposes of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

`(C) In this paragraph, the term `senior Federal official’ means an individual who is the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President, or, if there is no Vice President, the officer next in the order of succession to the Office of the President of the United States, the Vice President-elect, any person who is acting as President under the Constitution and laws of the United States, a Member of Congress, a Member-of-Congress-elect, a member of the executive branch of the Government who is the head of a department listed in section 101 of title 5, the Director of Central Intelligence, a judge or justice of the Supreme Court or of any court created by Act of Congress (other than a magistrate judge appointed under section 631 of title 28, United States Code), an individual nominated for any of the foregoing positions, during the pendency of the nomination.

`(D) In subparagraph (C), the terms `President-elect’ and `Vice-President-elect’ mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of title 3.’.

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

`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(aa) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.’.