Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Why We Care About Who Sits On The Supreme Court

November 17, 2010 by

I had a post yesterday which featured a letter from one of my home state U.S. Senators, Kay Hagan (D-NC). The letter to me was in response to emails and letters I had sent opposing the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. I was, and still am, incensed that it took four months since Kagan was confirmed and probably six months or more since I first wrote to get a response. This is, of course, in an era of modern communications totally unacceptable.

A reader sent me a comment on my post on Hagan’s letter saying, “With all the crap going wrong in America today, why would you get so worked up over a Supreme Court Appointment? Relative to jobs, the economy, our deficits, our nation being screwed by its bankers … the make up of the Supreme Court is background noise.”

The reason to get “worked up” over a Supreme Court appointment is simple. The Justices on the Supreme Court, through their decisions, have affected virtually all aspects of life in America. With a Court that is divided 5 to 4, one new Justice can change the whole complexion of the law for generations to come.

Without Justice Souter being replaced by Justice Alito, the Second Amendment would not be an individual right in fact and law. We would have lost the Heller decision. Without that win we would never have even had a McDonald decision.

If you don’t think the Supreme Court impacts every aspect of American life, let me give you some examples.

Until Brown v. Board of Education, separate but equal was still legal.

Until Heart of Atlanta v. United States, blacks could still be denied service in a restaurant or hotel due to the color of their skin.

Until Griswold v. Connecticut, you could be prosecuted for using birth control in many states.

Until Roe v. Wade, abortion was generally outlawed.

Until Gray v. Sanders, one man, one vote was not the law of the land.

Until Lawrence v. Texas, gays (and straights as well) could be prosecuted for engaging in consensual sex acts.

Justice Kagan is 50 years old and has a lifetime appointment. Justice John Paul Stevens whom she replaced retired at age 90. She may very well be on the Court for the next 20, 30, or even 40 years.

THAT is why it is important.

With regard to the letter from Hagan, any elected official who doesn’t respond to a constituent’s concerns within a reasonable period of time is treating him or her with disrespect.

The late Senator Jesse Helms, love him or hate him, was well known for responding to constituent concerns very quickly. Liddy Dole, who was defeated by Kay Hagan, did a decent job at responding to my letters, calls, or emails. Even the philandering John Edwards wasn’t too slow in his response. I have been appalled from the start by how lightly Kay Hagan treats responding to constituent letters and emails sharing their concerns.

With modern computers and software, not to mention their franking privilege (or free postage), there simply is no excuse for it to take months to receive a reply from a Senator or Congressman. The form letter or email with canned talking points is better than waiting months and months for any response. It is a matter of simple courtesy and respect for the people of their state or district as well as an acknowledgment of their concerns.

Uncategorized

USAMU and MGM Targets Sponsor Junior Action Shooters Camp

November 16, 2010 by 1 Comment

The U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit at Fort Benning, GA and MGM Targets co-sponsored their 3rd Annual Action Shooting Camp for junior shooters in late October. This three-day shooting camp featured instructors from the USAMU Action Shooting Team including SGT Travis Tomasie, SPC Lee Dimaculangan, SPC Daniel Horner, PFC Shane Coley and PVT Tyler Payne.

The camp was open to any junior shooter who had competed in a USPSA, IDPA, Cowboy Action Shooting, or Steel Challenge match. The goal was to improve their shooting, gun handling, and movement skills in order to make them better competitors. Sixty juniors and an accompanying parent or guardian attended this three-day camp.

The camp was not free but the cost was quite reasonable. The cost including lodging and breakfast for all three days was $250. Much of the cost of the camp was paid for by USAMU and MGM Targets. MGM also provided scholarships as did the USPSA.

Junior shooter Jake Denno relates his experiences attending the camp at 3-Gun Nation. He points out that the shooters ranged from a 17-year old Grand Master to an 11-year old newbie.

I think this is a fantastic program which I hope will get more attention and support. Programs like this are grooming the next generation of competition shooters as well as future instructors and armed citizens. They anticipate having next year’s camp around the same time in October.

H/T The Outdoor Wire

Uncategorized

Caleb’s First Post for Cheaper Than Dirt’s Shooters Log

November 16, 2010 by

Long-time gun blogger Caleb Giddings is now affiliated with Cheaper Than Dirt. Caleb was on the History Channel’s Top Shot reality TV program this past year and just spent a few months in Washington State working for as a Field Director for the NRA. He will still have his blog at GunNuts Media in addition to the work he is doing for Cheaper Than Dirt.

In his first blog post for them he talks about the do’s and don’ts of your first handgun training class. He goes into more than just hardware and ammunition in what you need to do to prepare for your first training course. Mainly he says you need to go in with an open mind and to realize that the purpose of your first course isn’t to make you a High Speed, Low Drag Operator. Rather, it is “to make you more effective at using your concealed carry firearm if you ever find yourself in the middle of a defensive shooting.”

Congratulations to Caleb on the new gig. And can he get fellow gun bloggers free ammo?

Uncategorized

And We Have Another Four Years of This

November 16, 2010 by 5 Comments

I got the following letter by email today from Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC). The letter dated November 16th was in response to emails and letters I sent Hagan opposing the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court in May and June. Is it any wonder that we have problems in Washington, DC when we send someone there who takes almost six months to respond to a constituent’s letter? If I had sent the same letter or email to Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), I would have received a reply within two weeks. I may have even had a phone call from one of his staff explaining Burr’s position on the issue.

Oh, by the way, Hagan did vote for Kagan. And to think, we in North Carolina – as well as the rest of the nation – have to deal with this for another four years before she comes up for re-election.

     November 16, 2010
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of then Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important nomination.  I apologize for my delayed response.
On May 10, 2010, President Obama nominated Solicitor General Kagan to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings, beginning on June 28th, to closely examine Solicitor General Kagan’s record and ask questions of her and a variety of witnesses. On July 20th the committee approved her nomination, and she was confirmed by the full Senate on August 5th. I voted in support of her nomination, along with a bipartisan majority of my colleagues. On August 7th, she was sworn in as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
After attending Princeton University, Oxford University, and Harvard Law School, Justice Kagan worked as a clerk on both the Federal Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court under Justice Thurgood Marshall. After working in private practice, Justice Kagan began her career as a professor, teaching at the University of Chicago Law School. In 1995, she worked under President Clintion as Associate White House Counsel and then was named Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council. After her service in the White House, Justice Kagan returned to academia, becoming a professor at Harvard Law School and in 2003 she became the first women ever to be named Dean of Harvard Law School.
While I understand your concerns regarding several issues on which Justice Kagan commented during her tenure as Dean of Harvard Law School and as White House Counsel, I believe she will be a moderate and thoughtful Justice on the United States Supreme Court. She has repeatedly insisted that the military had full access to the students at Harvard Law at all times. In fact, during her tenure as Dean, the number of military recruits actually increased, not decreased. Additionally, the American Bar Association (ABA) unanimously found Justice Kagan to be “well-qualified,” which is the highest rating the ABA gives to judicial nominees. Finally, she was endorsed by many prominent figures from both parties, including the eight Solicitors General that preceded her, a group comprised of members from the Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush administrations.
I want to make my position on Supreme Court nominees clear – I believe a justice’s duty is to uphold the law, not make the law. In analyzing a nominee’s record, I do not impose any litmus test, but I do pay particular attention to where he or she stands on privacy, civil rights and liberties granted under the Constitution.
I believe Justice Kagan will be an extremely well-qualified, mainstream justice. Given her commitment to the rule of law, along with her wide range of work in academia, the federal judiciary, and the White House, I believe she will make an excellent addition to the United States Supreme Court.
Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Signature
Kay R. Hagan
Please do not reply to this email. Instead, if you have further questions, please visit www.hagan.senate.gov and fill out my web form for your inquiry. Thank you.
Uncategorized

Who Is Andrew Traver?

November 16, 2010 by 13 Comments

Note: Much of this was written two months ago. Yesterday, Obama nominated Traver to be the Director of ATF.

With the pressure from the Brady Campaign along with editorials in the New York Times, the Obama Administration is being pushed to name a permanent Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. ATF has not had a permanent Director since Carl Truscott who resigned in 2006. The leading candidate seems to be Andrew Traver who is currently the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the ATF’s Chicago Field Division.(Traver was nominated yesterday)

Traver at a 2008 news conference with then-Rep. Mark Kirk

I’ve printed speculation about Traver being the leading candidate here and here. According to my tracking software for this blog, I have had numerous visitors from the Department of Justice doing a Google search using “Andrew Traver ATF”. I even had a visitor about two weeks ago (now two months ago) from the Executive Office of the President searching for what was being said about ATF and a new Director. A screen shot of that visit can be seen here. Traver has also been mentioned frequently on the dissident ATF insider’s website CleanUpATF as being the defacto candidate for Director. (And now is the actual candidate.)

So who is Andrew Traver and why should we care?

As noted above, Traver is the SAC of the ATF’s Chicago Field Division. He is an Illinois native and a graduate of Northern Illinois University with a degree in Criminal Justice (summa cum laude). After college, he was commissioned as a Naval officer through Officer Candidate School and served as a gunnery officer on USS Benjamin Stoddard, DDG-22. Upon leaving the Navy in 1987, he joined ATF as a Special Agent.

His ATF career to date is as follows:

  • 1987 – Chicago Field Division, Criminal Investigator and a member of the Entry Control Team.
  • 1993 – Philadelphia Field Division, Group Supervisor
  • 1998 – Assigned to ATF Headquarters, Washington, DC
  • 2000 – Assistant Special Agent in Charge, New Orleans Field Division
  • 2002 – Assistant Special Agent in Charge, San Francisco Field Division
  • 2004 – Special Agent in Charge, Chicago Field Division
  • 2006 – Promoted to Senior Executive Service, still SAC, Chicago Field Division

Personal Life

Traver is married and has three sons in their early to mid teens. He and his family currently live in the Chicago suburb of Naperville.

Traver is a prostate cancer survivor and it seems to have had a profound impact on him as one would well imagine. In 2008, at the age of 44, he was diagnosed with stage T2 prostate cancer. He ended up having a radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) at the Mayo Clinic. Post-surgery and recovery, Traver became active in ZERO- The Project to End Prostate Cancer. He has done presentations for them and has urged all the male agents in his Field Division to be tested.

In addition to his work with ZERO, Traver is the Veterans Outreach Coordinator in the Chicago area for The Mission Continues. This is an organization that works with and supports wounded vets from Iraq and Afghanistan.

From a story about his work with ZERO:

Andrew’s personal and professional relationships with Congressmen Mark Kirk and Jesse Jackson Jr., and Ken Bennett, state director to then-Senator Barack Obama, figured heavily into his recovery. All three men closely followed Andrew’s ordeal from initial diagnosis through the first post-RRP follow up visit to Mayo. He received telephone calls from Congressmen Jackson and Kirk themselves while at Mayo and while recuperating at home. Just prior to and again shortly after his surgery, Andrew and Mr. Bennett met for morale and spiritually uplifting lunches.

 Connections to Joyce Foundation

Traver has significant connections to projects of the notoriously anti-gun Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation provided $675,000 in funding for the International Association of Chiefs of Police – IACP – to put on the 2007 Great Lakes Summit on Gun Violence. Traver was a participant in this meeting along with such gun control notables as Gary Wintemute, Director of UC-Davis’ Violence Prevention Research Program, Nina Vinik and Robyn Thomas of the Legal Community Against Violence, and David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health. There were also a number of representatives from some of the local gun control organizations and a selection of anti-gun politicians and police chiefs including Mayor Richard Daley.

It is important to note that Traver was not a mere attendee at this meeting, he is listed as an advisor to it along with others like Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center and Nina Vinik of LCAV. The acknowledgments thanks the advisers who “worked tirelessly to help us design and accomplish a powerful policy summit by attending many meetings and events and by voicing their invaluable counsel as we moved forward with this important initiative.”

Out of this conference came a report entitled Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities. Contributors to the report included Tom Diaz mentioned above and Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center. The report made a number of recommendations which, to put it mildly, are anathema to those who believe in gun rights. Included in the recommendations were:

  • Requiring that all gun sales take place through Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders with mandatory background checks
  • Enacting an effective ban on military-style assault weapons, armor-piercing handgun ammunition, .50 caliber sniper rifles and other weapons that enable criminals to outgun law enforcement
  • Repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which hinders investigation of illegal gun trafficking
  • Destroying guns that come into police possession once their law enforcement use has ended
  • Mandating safe storage of firearms by private citizens and providing safe facilities where gun owners can store their weapons
  • Mandating reporting of lost and stolen firearms
  • Develop a best practices protocol for voluntary gun surrender programs
  • Congress should restore funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program for state, local and tribal agencies to investigate and prosecute cases of gun trafficking and gun violence
  • The federal government should increase funding to ATF for personnel and technical assistance to combat gun violence
  • Congress should enact legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry

 Opinion of Traver within ATF

CleanUpATF.org is a forum for dissident ATF agents and staff to vent their frustrations with the organization and with management. Reading the comments there on a regular basis gives you an idea of what the agents in the field think. Their comments on Traver are both revealing and discouraging.

Word is the Vetting process found some pretty scary skeletons in Mr. Travers closet. We are in trouble if this is true. Hopefully Mr. Obama has an alternate plan or we are done. Another 6 months w/o a Director and we will all be carrying Homeland security badges.Word is Mr. Traver has some issues with the truth. More to follow. Guess Steve Martin will be retiring after all. (Oct. 11)

Somebody explain The Andy Traver selection please.Everyone that has worked with him has the same opinion. A nice guy, as vanilla as they come and a marginal performer at every level of his career. The only plus being championed is “at least he’s a gun toter”. In other words, our first AGENT Director. Seriously? We have 2500 agents many of whom are quiet legends, to include reitred prior “gun toters”. With all due respect he had ONLY 2 ASACs under his command, and one was driving a Government owned Cadillac and he DIDN’T notice? She abused her authority and misappropriated funds and is still an ASAC? (Sept 30)

Hearings into ATFs regulatory functions cancelled with allegations looming that Chief Counsels office knowingly and willfully have tried to circumvent Federal law and artificially impact statutory import procedures. If Mr. Melson cannot reign in the Executive leadership with his vast education and experience, what makes anybody think Andy Traver is more capable? (Sept 15)

Somebody please advise when and where Traver had ever been battle tested or command tested? Why is Jim Cavanaugh chiming in on ever commentary? SAC Traver is a decent man but was at best a marginal agent with limited street time, a borderline non-committal supervisor and a non-descript manager. He is middle of the road and doesn’t have an opinion ATF has not told him he was allowed to have. Director? Seriously Mr Obama and Holder? (Aug. 4)

View PostDoc Holiday, on 08 July 2010 – 01:13 PM, said:
Very marginal agent, uninspiring manager. Nuff said. Great guy to have as a neighbor, but has never had an original idea and doesn’t have an opinion that he hasn’t cleared with superiors.
Is this going to be an infusion of Chicago style politics into ATF management? (July 8)

Heard the same thing. Grapevine has it that he was really kissing up to Obama or his folks before and after the election and then strutting around about how he was going to be the next Director.
I have to wonder if he knows Blago. (July 8)

You can add Andy Traver, in Chicago to that list of young, incompetent SAC’s at the age of 40ish. Here is a recent example of his “leadership”! Chicago just held a Fantasy Agent Draft! They took approximately 75% of the Agents, only the ones located in the Chicago land area (because we can’t afford to move anyone) and moved them from group to group based on their popularity with a Supervisor! They even had a pre-draft meeting where the Supervisors were told the rules and order of which they were to make their selections! The Supervisors were able to “protect” 1-2 of their favorite agents (read between the lines: good-old boy-club). The dry erase board went into overdrive as the Supervisors threw agents under the bus and argued with other Supervisors in-order to trade agents! It was the most unprofessional processes you can imagine. Traver threaten discipline on any Supervisor who leaked what actually went on inside the trades! Yet, Traver, his front office team and supervisors thought it was a great idea. At the same time, Traver had his Supervisors meeting where he basically tore up HQ’s and showed his continued disdain and lack of respect for all his bosses. Yet, he wonders why not one of his management team respects him. For that matter, none of Andy’s counterparts (SAC’s) respects him. He leads by example…No interest in ATF nor any respect for bosses! If only the agents could get a dry erase board and select their Supervisors, ASAC’s and SAC. I bet the only survivor would be the Supervisor who just returned from exile, Fargo North Dakota. If only someone in HQ’s gave a damn about the sinking ship in Chicago, they would clear out the front office and all participating Supervisor in this fantasy draft!! (Oct 21, 2009)

 Conclusion

Traver has been the rumored candidate for the Director of ATF from the moment that Obama was elected and now is the nominee in fact. He has been in bed with the anti-gun forces including the Joyce Foundation since the moment he became the Special Agent in Charge of the Chicago Field Division. As seen by the comments above, he is not widely respected by the ATF field who consider him a nice enough guy but marginal when he was in the field and even more marginal as a manager.

Traver makes a nice personal interest story and I’m glad his cancer is in remission. That said, I don’t want someone like him in charge of ATF and I sincerely doubt he would clean out the culture of corruption that seems to exist in ATF’s management. It is time for the Senate to just say no.

UPDATE: Other blog’s take on Traver

The Truth About Guns plus this earlier post

Sipsey Street Irregulars (who first broke the story back in July)

SnowFlakesInHell

Armed and Safe

St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner


National Gun Rights Examiner

Void Where Prohibited

Dad29

Extrano’s Alley 

Eyes Never Closed plus this

Of Arms and the Law

Sharp As A Marble 

View From North Central Idaho

The Breda Fallacy

Uncategorized

Maryland AG Asks For Status Conference In Woollard Case

November 15, 2010 by 1 Comment

The Maryland Attorney General’s Office has asked U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Motz for a status conference in the Woollard case according to a letter they sent on Friday. This case was brought on behalf of Raymond Woollard by the Second Amendment Foundation over the state’s denial of the renewal of his concealed carry permit. The State Police and the Maryland Handgun Permit Board contend that Mr. Woollard failed to show “apprehended danger” and thus was denied a renewal of his permit.

Maryland is requesting the status conference because Alan Gura indicated to them on Thursday that he intended to file a motion for summary judgment.

Defendants believe that engaging in summary judgment practice at this stage of the litigation is premature, and have communicated that to plaintiffs. Defendants understand that plaintiffs nonetheless intend to file a motion for summary judgment as soon as today. In light of that, defendants request that the Court hold a status conference in the near future to address the issue of the timing of filing summary judgment motions. Plaintiffs have stated that they do not believe there is any need for a scheduling conference at this time.

So far in the case, Maryland has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of abstention, questions on the standing of the Second Amendment Foundation, and a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge to one of the counts. This was responded to by the plaintiffs and then a reply to the response from the defendants. At no time has either side engaged in discovery nor has the State of Maryland argued that their law doesn’t violate the Second Amendment. A motion for summary judgment is brought when the facts of the case are known and a ruling is being sought on the application of the law to the known facts.

Commentators on the Maryland Shooters forum speculate that Maryland has been dragging their feet on the case and the plaintiffs are making a strategic move to get them moving. They well could be right. This will bear watching.

UPDATE: Alan Gura was true to his word and filed his Motion for Summary Judgment this morning.

He also filed a letter in response to the Maryland Attorney General’s Office request for a status conference. He says that he didn’t think that “the routine filing of a cross-dispositive motion does not occasion a status conference.”

His letter examines the rules for filing motions for summary judgment. He notes that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c)(1) he could have filed a motion for summary judgment at the same time he filed the complaint in this case. If the state thinks his motion is premature, Gura says they can file a motion under Rule 56(f) to seek discovery which would identify which facts it expect discovery to produce. Nonetheless, he goes on to say that his motion is “aimed exclusively at a legal, not a factual, dispute” and that Rule 56(f) would not apply.

He goes on to add:

Indeed, even if this Court were to grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss and deny Plaintiffs’ motion as moot, the appellate courts would prefer a complete record. For example, the leading Second Amendment case, District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), saw both the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court grant a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that the district court did not reach, as it had granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. Had the summary judgment motion not been filed, that case would still be unresolved.

He concludes by saying that if the rules and well-established practice allow his motion and if the State of Maryland objects, then the rules give them a way to make that argument. In the meantime, the plaintiffs are entitled to ask for relief and to put it on the record.

I will post on the Summary Motion after I have had time to read it. It is a darn shame when paying work gets in the way of blogging!

UPDATE II:  On Wednesday, Judge J. Frederick Motz sent a memo to both the plaintiffs and defense attorneys. He ordered a status conference to be held by phone on Friday, November 19th at 11am. While the court records indicate that the status conference was held, nothing was said about any agreements, schedules, or any other item.

Uncategorized

The Devil Is In The Details

November 14, 2010 by

On Friday, the NRA-ILA sent out a Grassroots Alert on the recent Department of Justice Inspector General’s report on ATF and Project Gunrunner. As many are aware, the OIG’s report criticized the effectiveness of ATF’s Project Gunrunner. Great attention has been put on this report by the media and by bloggers with reference gun traces and the smuggling of firearms from the U.S. to Mexico. I did a post on this on Wednesday urging people to read Marko Kloos’s response to the BBC’s take on the report.

However, the NRA-ILA’s Grassroots Alert deals with an item embedded in the document that hasn’t received much attention. That is, a proposal to make multiple long-gun purchases within a 5-day period reportable to the ATF. Currently, only multiple handgun purchases are required to be reported to the ATF per the Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)). The multiple purchases of handguns that must be reported can take place at one time or any time over a period of five business days.

Let’s examine the report to see what the DOJ IG and the ATF had to say on this. First, from the Executive Summary:

We also found that while reports of multiple sales of handguns produce timely, actionable investigative leads for ATF, the lack of a reporting requirement for multiple sales of long guns – which have become the cartels’ weapons of choice – hinders ATF’s ability to disrupt the flow of illegal weapons into Mexico. p.iv.

From Part II: ATF Firearms Trafficking Intelligence and Information:

The Gun Control Act requires that gun dealers report multiple sales of handguns (defined as two or more handguns sold at once or during any 5 consecutive business days) to ATF.50 As discussed below, these multiple sales reports provide ATF with timely, actionable leads that can enable it to more quickly identify suspected firearms traffickers and disrupt their operations.51 However, gun dealers are not required to report multiple sales of long guns to ATF.52 Because long guns have become Mexican cartels’ weapons of choice, multiple sales reporting has become less viable as a source of intelligence to disrupt the illegal flow of weapons to Mexico. p.36

Multiple sales of long guns are not subject to the same reporting requirements as handguns. Yet, long guns have become the Mexican cartels’ weapons of choice. p.37

Because reporting multiple sales of handguns generates timely, actionable investigative leads for Project Gunrunner, and because long guns have become Mexican cartels’ weapons of choice, we believe that the reporting of multiple sales of long guns would assist ATF in identifying firearms trafficking suspects. Our analysis shows that many long guns seized in Mexico have a short time-to-crime and were often a part of a multiple purchase. We therefore believe that mandatory reporting of long gun multiple sales could help ATF identify, investigate, and refer for prosecution individuals who illegally traffic long guns into Mexico. p.39-40

Recommendation

We recommend that ATF:

2. Work with the Department to explore options for seeking a requirement for reporting multiple sales of long guns. p.40

From the Conclusion and Recommendations:

In this report, we make 15 recommendations to ATF to help improve their efforts to combat firearms trafficking from the United States to Mexico. Specifically, we recommend that ATF…Work with the Department to explore options for seeking a requirement for reporting multiple sales of long guns. p.94

 And finally, from Appendix V: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ Amended Response which was sent by Kenneth Melson, Deputy Director (currently the highest ranking official in the ATF and former Acting Director). Listed under ATF’s response to OIG’s recommendations is this:

2. Work with the Department to explore options for seeking a requirement for reporting of multiple sales of long guns.

ATF concurs, but notes that this may require a change to the Gun Control Act which is beyond ATF’s and the Department’s authority. ATF will explore the full range of options to seek information regarding multiple sales of long guns. p.108

One wonders what are the “full range of options” that Mr. Melson plans to explore. Will they come up with a “voluntary” plan to have Federal Firearms Licensees send that data to ATF? And what happens if a FFL does not “voluntarily” report multiple sales of long guns? Will their annual inspection be that much tougher or will there be showcase raids of gun dealers who are “suspected of trafficking” in guns to the Mexican drug cartels?

As to long guns being the firearm of choice of the narco-terrorists south of the Rio Grande, I have no doubt. As trainer Clint Smith says, you carry a handgun to fight your way back to the rifle you shouldn’t have put down in the first place. That said, I would wager house money that most of their arsenals come from just that – a Mexican Army arsenal. Or a Venezuelan Army arsenal courtesy of Hugo Chavez.

I don’t know about you but I can think of a few times when I would have been reported to ATF for multiple long gun purchases within a 5-day period. For example, I’ve been to local auctions where I got lucky and won multiple bids. I don’t think the Mexican drug cartels are interested in Savage Model 1921’s in .250-3000 Savage or Mannlicher-Schoenauer Model 1910’s in 7×57 but both would have been reported to the ATF under the OIG’s proposal which has the ATF’s concurrence.

Enough is enough. It is time to nip this in the bud.

Uncategorized

Second Amendment Foundation Membership Specials (updated)

November 14, 2010 by

The Second Amendment Foundation is giving you an incentive to join – as if the great work that they and Alan Gura are doing in the courts isn’t enough.

All new memberships or renewals at the basic $15 level will also come with a copy of Suzanna Gratia Hupp’s book From Lubys to the Legislature. The book is $15.61 on Amazon so that is like a free membership with the book.

Those who donate $25 will be sent a 2008-2010 set of the Journal on Firearms & Public Policy.

Finally, if you become a Life Member, which is only $150, they will send you everything above AND all six of the DVD’s in their Personal Firearm Defense DVD series. If you are already a Life Member, then a donation of $75 will get you the DVD’s.

These specials end at midnight on November 14th. I presume that is Pacific Standard Time.

You can either call SAF at (425) 454-7012 or just go to the link here.

Remember that the Second Amendment Foundation is a 503(c)(3) non-profit and donations to them can be tax deductible. As we always say in my business, talk to your tax professional about the deductibility of your donation.

While I had donated to SAF earlier this year as a thank you for their hard work on the McDonald case, I never got around to joining. And that was even after going to their great Gun Rights Policy Conference in San Francisco. Well, I recognize a great deal when I see it so I just sent in my donation for a Life Membership – or, as it is more properly called, the Defender’s Club.

UPATE: The Second Amendment Foundation asked that I mention that they reserve the right to substitute items of a like value if they run out. They say they have gotten a great response to this promotion and they don’t want donors to be surprised or disappointed.

Also, if you are taking advantage of their offers, please make sure to tell the SAF which promo you want in the comments sections of either method of paying.

Remember, this ends at midnight TONIGHT Pacific Time. If you are going to take advantage of these offers, do it now.