Month: December 2010

Uncategorized

Home To Carolina

December 27, 2010 by

Light blogging today as we are leaving Illinois to return home to North Carolina. In a reversal of the usual sequence of events, we’ll be coming from an area with light snow to an area with heavy snow.

It will be good to returning to a somewhat free state. I wonder if Illinois declares statewide states of emergency over a little bit of snow. Somehow, I doubt it.

UPDATE: Home safe and sound. Most of the trip was uneventful with clean, dry roads. That is, until we hit the Pigeon River Gorge on Interstate 40 at the NC-TN state line. It took us at least an hour to travel 20 miles because there was only one lane open. If the left lane had been plowed and salted, it certainly didn’t look like it.

Uncategorized

Here We Go Again With A State Of Emergency

December 26, 2010 by

Here we go again.

North Carolina Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton declared a state of emergency on Christmas Day for the entire state. He did this after consulting with Gov. Beverly Perdue. The state of emergency was declared due to heavy snow. News reports don’t detail why it was the Lt. Governor who made the declaration and not the Governor. While it is not specified, I am presuming that this state of emergency was declared under authority granted by NCGS 14§ 288.15. Neither the Governor’s nor the Lt. Governor’s website has posted the actual Executive Order declaring the state of emergency.

As most will remember, it was the declaration of a state of emergency by the City of King, Stokes County, and the Governor due to a snow storm which lead to the first post-McDonald case, Bateman et al v. Perdue et al. In North Carolina, a declaration of a state of emergency triggers a ban on off-premises carry of firearms and ammunition. NC Gen. Statues 14§ 288.7 bans transportation and off-premises possession of “dangerous weapons”:

Transporting dangerous weapon or substance during emergency; possessing
off premises; exceptions.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area:
(1) In which a declared state of emergency exists; or
(2) Within the immediate vicinity of which a riot is occurring.
(b) This section does not apply to persons exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14-269
with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties.
(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 1
misdemeanor. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 192; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

G.S. 14 § 269 deals with the carrying of concealed weapons. The only exemptions it provides to those “carrying out their duties” involve law enforcement and military personnel. The holder of a NC Concealed Handgun Permit does not have “duties” and therefore could not be considered an “exempted person” under G.S. 14 §  288.7.

Back in September when a state of emergency was declared due to anticipated problems from Hurricane Earl, the Governor’s Office declared that they had structured it so that it would not invoke the ban on off-premises possession of firearms. As I said then and I will say now, nothing in the law allows the Governor (or Lt. Governor) to arbitrarily decide which part of a law will be valid or not.

Since coming into office in January 2009, Governor Bev Perdue has declared seven states of emergency. Three have been snow or winter storm related, three have been due to tropical storms or hurricanes, and one was due to a rockslide which closed Interstate 40 in Haywood County.

It is interesting to contrast her use of state of emergency powers with that of her predecessor Mike Easley. In his eight years in office, Easley declared 25 states of emergency. Most of Easley’s declarations were combined with declaring a state of disaster and, more importantly, were limited to the locale where the problem existed. They did not extend statewide. The exceptions were the back to back years of multiple major hurricanes hitting the state in 2004-2005. Finally, he only declared a state of emergency due to snow once in those eight years.

All I can say is that if you are carrying concealed or are traveling with a firearm in your vehicle, be careful.

UPDATE: See my post on the Executive Order proclaiming a state of emergency.

Uncategorized

Will Obama Poke Gun Owners In The Eye Again?

December 24, 2010 by 1 Comment

The Senate adjourned on December 22nd. With that adjournment, the nomination of Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives fell by the wayside. The Senate neither voted to confirm nor deny his appointment so if Obama still wants Traver as Director of ATF he will need to resubmit his name to the Senate.

According to the Congressional Research Service:

Nominations Returned to the President

Nominations that are not confirmed or rejected are returned to the President at the end of a session or when the Senate adjourns or recesses for more than 30 days (Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6). If the President still wants a nominee considered, he must submit a new nomination to the Senate. The Senate can, however, waive this rule by unanimous consent, and it often does to allow nominations to remain “in status quo” between the first and second sessions of a Congress. The majority leader or his designee also may exempt specific nominees by name from the unanimous consent agreement, allowing them to be returned during the recess or adjournment.

Checking the Congressional Record (page S11071) for December 22nd, Andrew Traver’s nomination was specifically mentioned as being returned to the President. Along with him were a number of other nominations including many judicial nominations.

The website, Main Justice, first reported on this yesterday, noting that Traver had faced “strong opposition from the National Rifle Association.” David Codrea notes that we are not out of the woods yet in his Gun Rights Examiner column.

Gun owners dodged a bullet—but only one. Without individual senators, including nominally “pro-gun” Democrats, taking a stand and publicly opposing Traver, and without them pledging further opposition and consequences if Obama attempts a recess appointment end run, we’re not out of the woods yet.

Joe Huffman at the View from North Central Idaho offered this wry assessment of the situation.

I think this means we will have a more gun friendly Senate to review Traver’s background with the Klan Joyce Foundation.

Two questions remain regarding Andrew Traver. First, will Obama renominate him now that Rahm Emanuel is no longer Chief of Staff? As reported earlier, Emanuel was the person in the Obama White House who was pushing Traver. Without Rahm as his champion, is the controversy over Traver worth it to Obama?

The second question is whether Obama is so committed to sticking it to us “bitter clingers” that he will make Traver a recess appointment. He has until 11:59am on January 5, 2011 to make that decision. My gut reaction is that he punts and there won’t be a recess appointment. The Brady Bunch and their ilk are just not worth the bad will that would ensue.

Uncategorized

Rat-A-Tat Annihilators?

December 23, 2010 by

Editorials in the New York Times are known for their hyperbole when it comes to firearms. Today’s editorial entitled Cartel Gunmen Buy American goes even further. In an effort to bolster support for ATF’s proposed “emergency” and “temporary” semi-automatic rifle reporting requirement for multiple purchases, they use words like body count, carnage, war weapons, and gun lobby. However, after seeing one too many repeat showings of The Untouchables, they have outdone themselves.

…with use of high- power long guns more than doubling in the past five years as cartel gunmen turn to the rat-a-tat annihilators easily obtainable across the border.

Who writes this stuff? Moreover, who reads it without rolling on the floor laughing?

The rest of the editorial tries to make the case that “AK-47s and other battlefield assault rifles” are being sold by dealers along the Mexican border to the narco-terrorists and that it is only right-wing Republicans, cowed Democrats afraid of the “gun lobby”, and the National Rifle Association itself that stands in the way of “courageous” legislation that would make the proposed requirement law. They even ask Obama to ignore Congress and just issue an Executive Order. This, of course, would modify the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

We know, of course, that “battlefield assault rifles” are covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and require a tax stamp, background investigation, and that no new automatic weapons can be sold to non-LEO, non-military since the Hughes Amendment of 1986.  The bulk of the real automatic weapons in Mexico, if U.S. made, are coming from Mexican Army arsenals sold by corrupt and/or fearful Army officials. As for the full-automatic AKs, the fine hand of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and Eastern Bloc gun merchants can be seen in that.

That’s the reality of the situation which is completely and obviously ignored in this editorial.

Uncategorized

Spetnatz With EoTech Optics?

December 23, 2010 by 1 Comment

The KitUp Blog posted this video today of Russian special forces engaged in urban operations – presumably counter-terrorism. Virtually all of their AK’s were equipped with what looked like an EoTech holographic optic. They also have some very interesting mounts for these optics. While I’m sure LaRue Tactical has nothing to worry about, I wouldn’t mind getting my hands on a set to use with my AK-74.

As they note in the KitUp blog, they don’t know whether these are real or knock-offs of EoTechs. Given that the EoTech optic is a controlled item, it would be interesting to know if they are indeed real just who approved their export to Russia. As you can see by EoTech’s disclaimer below, they require export licenses. Perhaps this is what Hillary meant by hitting the “Re-Set Button”.

This Holographic Weapon Sight must be exported from the United States in accordance with Export Administration Regulations ECCN 0A987. Diversion contrary to U.S. law is prohibited. In accordance with U.S. law (Title 15 CFR part 746 and Supplement No. 1 to Part 774; and Title 31 CFR) resale/re-export or transfer of Holographic Weapon Sight Models 552, 551, 512, 511, 4X magnifier and 3X magnifier to certain designated countries is prohibited without prior written consent of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Holographic Weapon Sight Models 553, 557 and 555 are controlled under U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and may not be exported without proper authorization by the U.S. Department of State.

Uncategorized

Melson Addresses FFL’s On The “Two-A-Day” Requirement

December 22, 2010 by 1 Comment

The ATF obviously wants to get the message about about their new “emergency” initiative to require Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL’s) to report the purchase of two or more semi-automatic rifles in calibers greater than .22 and with a detachable magazine.

ATF put a video up on their website with a message from Deputy Director Kenneth Melson on the proposed requirement as well as the transcript of the video. Thanks to David Codrea it is now on YouTube.

Transcript of ATF Acting Director Melson — Webcast
December 20, 2010

Acting Director Announces Demand Letters for Multiple Sales of Specific Long Guns in Four Border States
Hello, I’m Ken Melson, the Acting Director of ATF.

A recent initiative by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has caught the attention of national media outlets. I wanted to make sure everyone heard from me about this law enforcement initiative so there isn’t any confusion.

Recently, ATF announced through the Federal Register our intent to initiate a new Demand Letter requiring the reporting of multiple sales of certain long guns by Federal Firearms Licensees, known as FFLs, in the four Southwest Border States. We took this step as a way to help gain actionable law enforcement intelligence which we believe will help reduce criminal firearms trafficking along the Southwest border.

Before we can actually issue the Demand Letter we must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget for purposes of the paperwork reduction act. We expect to receive that approval in early January, 2011.

As many of you already know, the goals of ATF’s Southwest border firearms trafficking strategy are:

•: To prevent violent crime;
•: Ensure the safety of the communities and law enforcement situated along the Southwest Border;
•: And to disrupt and dismantle the firearms trafficking networks responsible for the diversion of firearms from lawful commerce into the hands of the Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs)
Since 2006, there has been a significant increase in drug and firearms-related violence in Mexico and along our Southwest border. In response to this increased violence, ATF has deployed focused resources nationally to prevent the firearms trafficking along the Southwest Border and into Mexico.

According to ATF trace data, investigative experience, and Mexican law enforcement officials, a large number of rifles are being used in violent crimes in Mexico and along the border. Our new Demand Letter will implement a limited reporting of multiple sales of certain long guns that functions similarly to the current practice of reporting on the multiple sales of handguns. Currently, all FFLs in the country are required to submit a report of multiple sales to the National Tracing Center when an FFL sells two or more handguns to the same purchaser within five consecutive business days.

The proposed Demand Letter, which is narrowly circumscribed to meet our objectives, will apply a similar reporting requirement to certain long guns, but with these distinct differences:

First, the reporting requirement will apply only to FFLs doing business in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, which are major source states for crime guns seized in Mexico and traced to federal firearms licensees.

Secondly, the reporting requirement applies only to those rifles having all of the following characteristics:

•: A semi-automatic action;
•: A caliber greater than .22; and
•: The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
These specific characteristics subject a very narrow group of long guns that have been identified by ATF and the Government of Mexico as being involved in violent crimes in Mexico to the reporting requirement.

This reporting requirement would apply to the disposition of all rifles in the inventory of the FFLs exhibiting these characteristics, both new and used.

Third, we propose to implement this initiative as a pilot project for a period of one year.

Taken together, limiting the geographic scope, impacting a limited number of licensees, affecting a specific group of rifles, and limiting the duration of this reporting requirement, form a tailored, discreet, responsible and proactive response to a significant law enforcement issue.

Let me be absolutely clear. The purpose of requiring FFLs to report the specified multiple long gun sales in these four source states is to identify criminal firearms traffickers, not to prevent the full and free exercise of our Second Amendment rights, or to encumber the FFLs with burdensome paperwork.

These reports will give ATF real-time leads for the investigation of gun trafficking. ATF’s experience in these source states proves that multiple purchases of the described rifles are strong indicators of firearms trafficking to Mexico. By obtaining information about these multiple sales, ATF increases the likelihood of uncovering and disrupting trafficking schemes before the firearms make their way into Mexico.

I know that FFLs are good citizens who share ATF’s interest and commitment in keeping guns out of criminal hands. Working together we can do that without infringing on the rights of law abiding Americans.

I guess when you are pushing an initiative that contravenes the authority given to your agency by Congress as well as a shorter than required comment period, you really need to get your propaganda ducks in a row.  Too bad we are on to him if not the mainstream media.

H/T David Codrea for the video. Make sure to read his column on this.

Uncategorized

Plaintiffs File A Motion For Summary Judgment In NJ Challenge

December 22, 2010 by

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the New Jersey case challenging the restrictiveness of the state’s concealed carry law, Muller et al v. Maenza et al, have filed a motion for summary judgment. This is the case in which both the Second Amendment Foundation and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs have banded together with a number of individual plaintiffs to challenge the constitutionality of the NJ concealed carry law.

You can read the motion here.

While I haven’t had time to read it, I thought it was important to get this information out as quickly as possible. As Sebastian has noted, this case is a facial challenge as opposed to an as applied challenge.

Uncategorized

Off To The People’s Republic of Illinois

December 21, 2010 by

We are leaving in a few minutes for St. Louis and the People’s Republic of Illinois. To paraphrase Toy Story II, I’ve got my traveling buddy!

Sammy

UPDATE: After arriving in Illinois yesterday afternoon, we went out shopping with family to Walmart. Going around with my nephew in the sporting goods department, I realized it would be ridiculous to check the price of ammo as I don’t have a FOID card and they couldn’t sell it to me.

I wondered if Walmart had a no CCW sign on the door while waiting for everyone to check out. Well, duh! This is Illinois and they don’t allow concealed carry. Hopefully, after the first of the year they will be the only remaining backward state that doesn’t allow concealed carry. I think the recent election results in Wisconsin should mean they will leave the dark side.