Uncategorized

Uncategorized

In News From The Country Formerly Known As Great Britain

January 27, 2011 by

A Canadian couple run afoul of airport security at Gatwick Airport recently.

It may be three inches long and made of plastic – but that didn’t stop a toy soldier’s gun being branded a “firearm” by zealous airport officials.

Ken Lloyd and his wife bought the “signaller crouching” figurine during a recent visit to the Royal Signals Museum at Blandford Garrison.

But when the box containing the figure passed through the scanning machine at Gatwick airport, security officials declared the tiny plastic rifle a “firearm”.

 Mrs. Lloyd eventually had to ship the 3-inch toy gun home by mail. However, before she could do that, the Royal Mail insisted that it be scanned by the X-ray machine. The Lloyds did receive the figurine’s SA80 rifle about 5 days after they returned home to Canada.

If these security officials ever get tired of working in the UK, I’m sure TSA has a place just waiting for them!

H/T Cam Edwards

Uncategorized

Good For Pete Brownell For Standing His Ground With ThinkProgress

January 26, 2011 by 3 Comments

Pete Brownell, President and CEO of Brownells, Inc and NRA board member, was interviewed at the SHOT Show by a reporter from ThinkProgress. I think they were trying for a repeat of their “report” supposedly indicating that a number of SHOT Show attendees didn’t see a need for standard capacity magazines. They failed.

ThinkProgress asked Mr. Brownell about a report from the Center for Public Integrity which tried to make a link between monetary support for the NRA and the NRA’s fight against restrictions on standard capacity magazines. The Center for Public Integrity bills itself as a center for investigative journalism in the public interest. The majority of their funding comes from foundations including, as you might guess, the Joyce Foundation.

The CPI report entitled “High-Capacity Magazine Sellers Raise Millions for NRA” attempted to portray the donations from MidwayUSA owners Larry and Brenda Potterfield as payoff of sorts to the NRA in exchange for lobbying against restrictions on magazine capacity. The report also noted that Pete Brownell and Ronnie Barrett serve on the NRA Board and Brenda Potterfield is on the Board of Directors of the NRA Foundation. Given that all three have companies that sell products that the anti’s love to hate, the report took this as prima facie evidence of the NRA kowtowing to “the gun industry.” They quote Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center as their authority on this.

When ThinkProgress questioned Mr. Brownell on connections between NRA stances and his service on the Board, he said:

The NRA has always been active in the public interest. They’ve been a defender of the Second Amendment. It’s not because of financial interest, it’s because they defend the Second Amendment, what the founders, the original people that wrote this, were intending, what they actually wrote down. So they defend the Second Amendment. They don’t necessarily say, “We’re going to do this because someone is writing me a check.” […]

We need leaders to lead organizations, and the one place they get leaders is the military. The other place they get leaders are politicians and really the third place they get them are entrepreneurs. You can’t just get leadership from one area because then you’ll become pretty myopic in that area as an organization.

Listening to the audio recording posted along with the ThinkProgress interview, you could almost hear the disappointment in the reporter’s voice that he hadn’t gotten another “gotcha” interview. Nonetheless, he couldn’t resist throwing in this little tidbit to conclude his article after Mr. Brownell said standard capacity magazines give the defender an advantage:

Indeed, high-capacity magazines are an advantage. And one such clip was an advantage for Jared Loughner in Tucson this month, who was subdued by attendees at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ (D-AZ) constituent event only after he stopped to reload his 31-bullet clip.

People with an agenda just don’t want to get it, do they?

H/T Brownells

Uncategorized

Changes In South Dakota’s Concealed Carry Law

January 26, 2011 by 1 Comment

SayUncle points to a story today indicating that the South Dakota legislature is rethinking its ban on concealed carry permits for non-citizens. As I pointed out in examining a Kentucky case, Say v. Adams, I didn’t think South Dakota had much of a leg to stand on.

As it is, South Dakota has one of the best concealed carry laws short of constitutional carry. It only requires a clean criminal and mental health record. The law also allows 18-year olds to obtain a permit. There are no training or marksmanship requirements.

HB 1149 which would change the law to include legal residents was introduced yesterday. The text of the bill is below:

State of South Dakota
EIGHTY-SIXTH SESSION
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 2011

HOUSE BILL NO. 1149

Introduced by: Representatives Gosch, Blake, Bolin, Brunner, Conzet, Gibson, Hansen (Jon), Hunt, Kirkeby, and Liss and Senators Cutler, Begalka, Brown, Frerichs, Olson (Russell), Peters, and Rave

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to allow legal residents of the United States to obtain a concealed pistol permit.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 23-7-7.1 be amended to read as follows:
23-7-7.1. A temporary permit to carry a concealed pistol shall be issued within five days of application to a person if the applicant:
(1) Is eighteen years of age or older;
(2) Has never pled guilty to, nolo contendere to, or been convicted of a felony or a crime of violence;
(3) Is not habitually in an intoxicated or drugged condition;
(4) Has no history of violence;
(5) Has not been found in the previous ten years to be a “danger to others” or a “danger to self” as defined in § 27A-1-1 or is not currently adjudged mentally incompetent;
(6) Has physically resided in and is a resident of the county where the application is being made for at least thirty days immediately preceding the date of the application;
(7) Has had no violations of chapter 23-7, 22-14, or 22-42 constituting a felony or misdemeanor in the five years preceding the date of application or is not currently charged under indictment or information for such an offense;
(8) Is a citizen or legal resident of the United States; and
(9) Is not a fugitive from justice.
A person denied a permit may appeal to the circuit court pursuant to chapter 1-26.

Rarely would I say that the passage of a bill in any legislature is a slam dunk. However, this bill will be passed.

It is sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans in the South Dakota House and Senate. More importantly, it has as co-sponsors the Speaker Pro Tem of the House and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate. Finally, the Governor of South Dakota has come out in favor of the change. It is good to see a legislature that is so quick to move to correct what is a constitutional defect in a law.

Uncategorized

Lautenberg’s Bills

January 26, 2011 by 1 Comment

Sen. Frank Lautenberg introduced the following three gun control bills yesterday. While the text of the bills is not available yet, I am presuming that S. 32 is a clone of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s HR 308 and that S. 34 is a reiteration of Lautenberg’s proposal to ban anyone on the Do Not Fly list from buying a firearm (or explosives).

S.32 : A bill to prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] (introduced 1/25/2011)
Cosponsors (9)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 1/25/2011 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S.34 : A bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists.
Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] (introduced 1/25/2011)
Cosponsors (8)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 1/25/2011 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S.35 : A bill to establish background check procedures for gun shows.
Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] (introduced 1/25/2011)
Cosponsors (10)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 1/25/2011 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The co-sponsors of the bills above read like a who’s who of gun banners in the Senate. Senators Boxer, Feinstein, Durbin, and Schumer are all co-sponsors of the bills along with an assortment of other lesser gun banners.

Uncategorized

History Wasn’t Made

January 26, 2011 by

Yesterday, Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign called on President Obama to “make history on guns” in his State of the Union speech.

Since the tragic shooting in Tucson, President Obama has been a force for healing, recovery and reconciliation. As a nation, we were reeling. He steadied us. The President has been a profile in understanding and empathy.

He now needs to be a profile in courage.

In his State of the Union speech tomorrow night, he needs to talk about guns.

I can imagine the voices advising him to do nothing of the kind. They have been telling him to avoid the gun issue for two years. After Tucson, however, everything is different. Their arguments now ring especially hollow.

From my reading of the text of Obama’s State of the Union address, I don’t see the word “firearm”, “gun”, or “magazine.” I only see Gabby Giffords mentioned once and Tucson mentioned three times. I even see Forsyth Tech (aka The University of Silas Creek)* in Winston-Salem, North Carolina mentioned more than anything to do with guns.

So for poor Dennis and the rest of his fellow travelers all I can say is that history wasn’t made. Obama did listen to those other voices telling him to avoid the gun issue.

* Forsyth Technical Community College is located on Silas Creek Parkway in Winston-Salem.

Uncategorized

Shilling For Lautenberg’s Gun Proposals

January 26, 2011 by 1 Comment

The Brady Campaign is already shilling for bills that Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) is introducing. According to the Library of Congress’ Thomas legislation tracker, none of his anti-gun, anti-rights legislation has been officially introduced.

Jan 25, 2011

Washington, D.C. – The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence today announced strong support for a package of legislative proposals introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). The three bills seek to close loopholes in federal gun laws and restrict civilian access to large capacity ammunition magazines.

“This important package of legislation is straightforward, reasonable, and long overdue,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign. “We have only a few federal gun laws on the books, and even those have loopholes which allow dangerous people to get firearms all too easily.”

Sen. Lautenberg’s bills would strengthen the Brady background check system by closing the gun show loophole; prevent suspected terrorist from gaining access to firearms; and ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.

The package of bills comes during a month that has seen horrific examples of gun violence. Fourteen police officers have been shot to death in the past four weeks, and a tragic shooting in Tucson, AZ left six dead and wounded thirteen others, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).

Sen. Lautenberg’s bill banning large capacity magazines is identical to a bill offered last week by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). It would reinstate a ban, lapsed since 2004, on the type of ammunition magazines used by the shooter in Tucson. The House bill has already garnered 64 cosponsors.

“There is no legitimate reason for civilians to have 30-round magazines,” continued Helmke. “They aren’t useful for hunting or self defense. And in the hands of dangerous people, they can cause unspeakable damage.”

As to Helmke’s comments that standard capacity magazines aren’t useful for self-defense, what utter bullshit. Let him tell that to a guy who is defending his family against home invaders and see what the home owner’s response will be.

UPDATE: Lautenberg’s S. 32, S. 34, and S. 35 have been introduced into the Senate and have been referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Uncategorized

Eight New Co-Sponsors For HR 308 (updated)

January 25, 2011 by

The following are the latest co-sponsors of Carolyn McCarthy’s HR 308 – the magazine ban bill.

Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] – 1/24/2011
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] – 1/24/2011
Rep Carson, Andre [IN-7] – 1/24/2011
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] – 1/24/2011
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] – 1/24/2011
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] – 1/24/2011

As far as I can tell, all the bill’s co-sponsors are Democrats. The other co-sponsors can be found in this post.

UPDATE:  Two more co-sponsors – both Democrats – were added to the list for HR 308 on Wednesday. They are:

Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] – 1/26/2011
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] – 1/26/2011

Uncategorized

Two Gun Rights Lawsuits Filed In West Virginia

January 25, 2011 by

The West Virginia Citizens Defense League (WVCDL) filed two lawsuits in Federal court on Monday challenging restrictions on firearms in four West Virginia cities.

The first lawsuit, WVCDL et al v. City of Charleston et al, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. This lawsuit challenges the ban on carrying firearms on city-owned property in the cities of Charleston, South Charleston, and Dunbar. It also challenges the City of Charleston’s 3-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun alown with the city’s one handgun per month rationing scheme. Named in the lawsuit are the cities along with their respective mayors and chiefs of police.

The second lawsuit, WVCDL v. City of Martinsburg et al, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.This suit challenges a City of Martinsburg ordinance prohibiting the carrying of firearms in city-owned buildings. Named in the suit are the City of Martinsburg, its mayor, city manager, and chief of police.

The WVCDL’s attorney, Jim Mullins of Beckley, has this to say about the lawsuits to the Charleston Gazette:

“No criminal or deranged lunatic is going to be deterred from committing a crime on public property by the prospect of a whopping 30 extra days in jail for violating a municipal ordinance prohibiting guns on city property,” Mullins, a Beckley attorney, said in a prepared statement.

“Neither will a criminal wait while his intended victim goes through the three-day waiting period Charleston imposes on buying a handgun,” he said. “And if you happened to have bought a handgun recently and it was stolen? Well, that same criminal also won’t wait for you to become eligible to purchase another handgun under Charleston’s one handgun per month rationing ordinance.”

The mayor of South Charleston, Frank Mullens, said his city attorneys would examine the ordinance and Federal law and implied they would change them if needed. Mayor Danny Jones of Charleston was more defiant about his city’s ordinances:

“If it’s illegal for us to do it [ban guns on city property], then it’s illegal for the state Capitol to do it, it’s illegal for the county courts and it’s illegal for the federal courts to do it,” Jones said. “I think we should be able to restrict firearms on our own property.”

He went on to add that he didn’t feel his city’s handgun purchase restrictions were unreasonable saying people can still buy guns.

According to the Charleston Gazette, the restrictions in Charleston, passed in 1993, were a reaction to the drug trade in the city during the 1980s and 1990s. An unintended consequence of the strict gun laws and bans in New York City and other large cities was that a flood of drugs were introduced to West Virginia by drug dealers from those cities seeking guns. Drugs were traded for guns or sold for cash to buy guns through straw purchases.

The complaint against Charleston, South Charleston, and Dunbar can be found here while the complaint against Martinsburg is found here.