Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Dave Hardy’s Thoughts On The Tucson Shootings

January 13, 2011 by

Dave Hardy, attorney and blogger, lives and practices law in the Tucson area. He is one of the most thoughtful and insightful bloggers around on Second Amendment issues. He just posted some thoughts on the shootings in Tucson and on the shooter Jared Loughner.

From all accounts, the shooter appears to be schizophrenic, probably paranoid schiz, and was giving significant signs of being dangerous long before the shooting. Fellow students and teachers were fearful enough to where the college suspended him unless he could provide a psychiatric evaluation showing he wasn’t dangerous, and they sent campus police to make sure he got the message. But nobody seems to have given a thought to getting the guy committed for treatment — perhaps because doing so would have been so burdensome that running the risk of his going violent was the easier course.

Go here to read the rest of this very insightful post at Of Arms and the Law.

Uncategorized

100 Bad Ways To Die

January 13, 2011 by

Outdoor Life magazine’s website has a feature on the numerous critters in the wild that can kill you. Some are obvious like sharks and crocodiles. Some are not.

Whitetail deer aka Bambi kill more people than any other game animal in the United States mostly due to auto accidents.

While we don’t have puff adders or death adders or green mambas or black mambas in North America outside of zoos and reptile collections, it is still interesting to read about all the ways Mother Nature can get back at us for not paying attention.

Uncategorized

Rasmussen Poll: Majority Say Stricter Gun Control Would Not Prevent Shootings

January 13, 2011 by

The Rasmussen Poll conducted a telephone poll of 1,000 American adults on January 10th and 11th. Included in the poll were questions asking about opinions on gun control.

1* Does the United States need stricter gun control laws?

2* Does the U.S. Constitution guarantee the right of an average citizen to own a gun?

3* Would stricter gun control laws help prevent shootings like the one in Arizona?

4* Does anyone in your household own a gun?

Only 29% of adults think stricter gun control laws would prevent tragedies like the Tucson shootings of Congresswoman Giffords, Judge Roll, and the others. By contrast, 62% disagreed overall and 76% of those whose household includes at least one gun owner disagreed with Question No. 3 above.

Moreover, opposition to new gun controls is at high even with the shootings in Arizona. 56% say that they oppose new gun control laws as opposed to 36% who think the U.S. needs stricter gun control. If gun ownership is factored in, both numbers rise. 76% of gun owners oppose stricter gun control while 53% of those without a gun in the house would be in favor of stricter gun control.

The previous high for opposition to new gun control was 51% in July 2010. While the gun banners are trying to score points on the Tucson shootings, people are voting with their pocketbook and buying more guns as a result – at least in Arizona.

Uncategorized

Insurrectionist Ideology?

January 13, 2011 by 3 Comments

Since it appears that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence doesn’t want to be left out of the frenzy surrounding the Tucson shootings, they released this on Monday but with their own unique spin:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 10, 2011

MEDIA CONTACT:
Ladd Everitt, (202) 701-7171, leveritt@csgv.

STATEMENT OF CSGV ON TUCSON SHOOTING RAMPAGE

Washington, DC—Those of us at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence are deeply dismayed at the horrific shooting rampage that occurred in Tucson this weekend. Our thoughts and prayers—and the thoughts and prayers of all our member organizations—are with the victims and survivors of this terrible tragedy. We hope for a full recovery for all of those who lie wounded today.

Sadly, Saturday’s tragedy was both predictable and inevitable. Insurrectionist rhetoric—which posits that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to take violent action when they believe that our government has become “tyrannical”—was once confined to the dark corners of gun shows and the Internet. In today’s America, however, it has become a “mainstream” idea that is widely promoted by movement conservatives, high-profile media figures, and even elected officials and candidates. Tucson was not unique—since the conservative wing of the Supreme Court embraced the insurrectionist idea in the D.C. v. Heller decision in 2008, there have been numerous threats and acts of violence against government officials.
Additionally, America’s weak gun laws continue to allow individuals who are obviously deranged to legally purchase semiautomatic firearms with high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Jared Lee Loughner’s history of mental illness, substance abuse and violent threats was well-known to law enforcement, the U.S. Army and his educators at Pima Community College. None of this, however, was detected by an instant, computerized background check that takes just a few minutes and involves no actual investigation of the gun purchasers.

If we are to avoid future massacres, our elected officials must institute policies that prioritize public safety and human life over gun industry profits. And they must speak out in no uncertain terms against poisonous insurrectionist ideology that threatens the integrity of our democracy itself.

Insurrectionist ideology? I guess Josh Horwitz and Ladd Everitt don’t know much about history and prefer to live in their own Wonderful World. If they need some help learning history, I’d be glad to suggest some books such as the two books from David Young dealing with the origins of the Second Amendment and the founder’s intent in putting it in the Bill of Rights.

Uncategorized

CRPA Files Pretrial Briefs In Suit Against AB962

January 13, 2011 by

While the two lawsuits in Federal court against the California ban on mailorder sales of handgun ammunition were dismissed, the case in California Superior Court still continues. That case, Parker v. California, was brought by the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation with help from the NRA.


FINAL PRETRIAL BRIEFS FILED IN NRA / CRPAF
LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA BAN
ON MAILORDER AMMO SALES

On January 7, 2011, the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation (CRPAF) filed a Reply brief and supporting materials for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment in their case challenging AB962. A trial is set for January 18, 2011 – just days before the portion of the law that bans mail order sales of “handgun ammunition” is set to take effect on February 1, 2011. The lawsuit, Parker v. California is funded exclusively by the NRA and the CRPA Foundation. It seeks a court order declaring the statutes enacted by AB 962 to be unconstitutional, and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting police from enforcing the new laws.

The lawsuit alleges that AB962 is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide sufficient notice of what ammunition is “principally for use in a handgun,” and thus is considered “handgun ammunition” that is regulated under AB 962. It is practically impossible, both for those subject to the law and for those who must enforce it, to determine whether any of the thousands of different types of ammunition cartridges that can be used in handguns are actually “principally for use in” or used more often in, a handgun. In fact, the legislature itself is well aware of the vagueness problem with AB 962 and attempted to fix it via AB 2358 in 2010. The attempt failed in the face of opposition from the NRA and CRPA.

Constitutional vagueness challenges to state laws are extremely difficult to win, particularly in California firearms litigation. While we are cautiously optimistic, ammo suppliers and sellers must also be ready to comply with the law if the court upholds it. A Compliance Guide is forthcoming, but unfortunately the law raises more questions than it answers, and the California Department of Justice Firearms Bureau is providing no assistance. Nonetheless, the Compliance Guide will include information obtained from DOJ through this litigation and much more, along with template forms which can be used by ammunition vendors. The Compliance guide will be released and distributed no later than January 18, 2010 on www.calgunlaws.comwww.michellawyers.com. Sign up at www.calgunlaws.com to be notified.

The Parker lawsuit is the only remaining court challenge to AB962. A federal judge last month dismissed two other cases (OOIDA v. Lindlley and State Ammunition v. Lindley) challenging AB 962 on other grounds. NRA was also a party to and sponsor of the OOIDA case.

Significantly, the Parker briefs argue that a heightened standard of certainty should be applied to the court’s vagueness analysis because of AB 962’s impact on the fundamental Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Generally, statutes are subjected to heightened scrutiny under the vagueness doctrine only where cases “impact,” “relate to,” or “implicate” constitutionally protected conduct. The Parker case presents a novel question of law that could set a precedent for future vagueness challenges because such heightened standards of legislative clarity have thus far only been applied in cases involving statutes impacting other constitutional rights such as freedom of speech, the right to choose to have an abortion, and the right to travel. Here however, it seems that blanket prohibitions on how “handgun ammunition” is purchased, and a thumb print requirement for every purchase of such ammunition, necessarily “implicates” or “relates to” the right to maintain an operable handgun to exercise the fundamental right to self defense. So in addition to the obvious benefit of AB 962 being declared unconstitutional, a ruling that statutes that impact Second Amendment rights deserve heightened Due Process court scrutiny would be helpful in the development of Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Win or lose, additional legislation on this and related subjects will no doubt be proposed in Sacramento this legislative session. It is absolutely critical that those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms stay informed and make their voices heard in Sacramento.

Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby. Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA “Local Ordinance Project” (LOP) – a statewide campaign to fight ill conceived local efforts at gun control and educate politicians about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The NRA/CRPA LOP has had tremendous success in beating back most of these anti-self-defense proposals.

In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating dozens of cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment. In the post Heller and McDonald www.crpafoundation.org. All donations made to the CRPA Foundation will directly support litigation efforts to advance the rights of California gun owners.

Also, please register at www.CalGunLaws.com and www.crpa.org . www.CalGunLaws.com is produced by the law firm of Michel & Associates, P.C. as a pro bono effort to keep attorneys and interested firearm owners informed on the existing laws and latest legal developments in California. It includes a link to the highly effective www.calnra.com California legislative status and grassroots action page.

C.D. Michel
Senior Counsel

Uncategorized

Is There Something Toxic In Long Island’s Water?

January 12, 2011 by

Something must be in the water of Long Island that causes politicians to say and do stupid things when it comes to firearms.

First, we have the Queen Bee of gun control, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY-4), saying that standard capacity magazines must be banned so we don’t have a repeat of the Tucson shooting. She goes on to say that if the “Assault Weapons Ban” (sic) had still been in place fewer people might have been shot. This is despite the AWB only banned the manufacture and/or importation of new magazines. Existing magazines were easy to find and buy.

Next we have Rep. Peter King (R-NY-3) whose district adjoins Mrs. McCarthy’s. He wants to create a gun-free zone of 1,000 feet around all high-ranking government officials. No word on how this could be done nor just who is considered a high-ranking government official. Speaker Boehner has indicated he would not support such a bill.

Finally, we have news today that Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY-5) has introduced a bill to close the “fire-sale loophole.” According to The Hill, the bill would require recently unlicensed gun dealers – that is those who have surrendered or lost their FFL – to still conduct background checks on all buyers as if they were still licensed. Ackerman, the story notes, has introduced this bill every session for a number of years. He says:

“After this weekend’s tragedy, it’s clear that Congress must close troubling loopholes in federal gun control laws that let firearms fall into the hands of convicted felons, fugitives, domestic violence perpetrators and severely emotionally disturbed individuals,” Ackerman said in a statement. “Every gun sold should require a background check, period.”

The story on this bill in The Hill does say that Jared Lee Loughner purchased his firearm through a licensed dealer and would not have been prevented from purchasing it with what this bill proposes. This does not prevent NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg from endorsing Ackerman’s bill.

“Pharmacists who lose their licenses can’t sell prescription drugs to people without prescriptions, yet gun dealers who lose their licenses can sell off their inventory — without even conducting background checks,” New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement endorsing Ackerman’s bill.

As I said earlier I don’t know what is in the water of Long Island that causes politicians to say and do stupid things when it comes to firearms. One thing I do know is that all three are engaging in shameless pandering to the press and to the gun control lobby. None of these bills would have stopped the tragedy in Tucson and none will keep either criminals or lunatics from obtaining a means to injure innocent people.

Uncategorized

TV Appearances Are Very Time Consuming

January 12, 2011 by

It must take a lot of a Congressman’s time to appear on TV talk shows and news shows. We have been hearing of new bills promised since the Tucson shootings that would alternatively ban standard capacity magazines, ban free speech, and ban anyone from being within 1,000 feet of a “high-ranking” government official with a firearm.

Checking the Library of Congress’s Thomas database which contains information on all bills introduced in either the House or Senate, I find nothing on the above.

From Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) who has promised a new ban on standard capacity magazines, nothing.

From Robert Brady (D-PA) who has said he’ll introduce legislation that would make it a crime to use symbols or language that could be construed as threatening to a Federal official, nothing.

From Peter King (R-NY) who has said he’ll introduce legislation that would ban anyone from possessing a firearm within 1,000 feet of a high-ranking government official, there is only a private bill “For the relief of Alemseghed Mussie Tesfamical.”

From Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) who has said he’ll join with Carolyn McCarthy to ban standard capacity magazines, there is only a resolution “to permit the Senate to avoid unnecessary delay and vote on matters for which floor debate has ceased.”

Like I said, it takes time to appear on CNN, MSNBC, etc. Let’s hope that they continue to be consumed with hearing their voice and seeing their face on TV and leave legislation alone. I doubt it but one can hope.

Uncategorized

Oprah Has Colin Goddard On As A Guest

January 11, 2011 by 3 Comments

Oh, joy of joys. I’m stuck at home today due to the snow and am stuck with the vast wasteland of daytime TV. Oprah is on and is featuring an interview with Colin Goddard, Virginia Tech survivor and the Brady Campaign’s Assistant Director of Federal Legislation.

She is talking about his film “Living for 32”.

Oprah asks him if he has found “his calling” after this. He says he had to do this after the massacre.

Oh, jeez!