Month: January 2011

Uncategorized

McCarthy Unveiling Her Ban On Standard Capacity Magazines.

January 14, 2011 by

Politico has the story on Carolyn McCarthy unveiling her new bill to ban standard capacity magazines. You can read the draft bill in the post before this here.

I feel bad for Mrs. McCarthy that she lost her husband in a shooting. Heck, I even feel bad for her that she has arthritis in her fingers (see the swollen knuckles) as I know how painful that can be. However, I have no use for any one who would politicize a tragic event caused by a madman whether on a train on Long Island or at a Safeway grocery store in Tucson.

Uncategorized

Free Speech? Gun Rights? Not If Carolyn Has Her Way (updated)

January 14, 2011 by 1 Comment

From the Oath of Office she swore:


I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The last I knew both the First and Second Amendments were part of the Constitution. What part of “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” does Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy not understand?

UPDATE: Jacob at GunPoliticsNY.com has a draft copy of the proposed McCarthy magazine ban.Sebastian at Snow Flakes In Hell has some analysis of this draft bill.

Mccarthy Magazine Bill

Uncategorized

Ackerman Introduces His Bill: HR 263

January 14, 2011 by

Gary Ackerman introduced his bill yesterday that, in his words, would require recently unlicensed gun dealers to conduct background checks as they disperse their inventory. However, the Government Printing Office only has the title and no text for the bill as of this morning.

H.R.263
Latest Title: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to restrict the ability of a person whose Federal license to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms has been revoked, whose application to renew such a license has been denied, or who has received a license revocation or renewal denial notice, to transfer business inventory firearms, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] (introduced 1/12/2011)
Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 1/12/2011 Referred to House committee.
Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

From the article in The Hill, Ackerman has introduced this bill in every session for the past few and it has gone nowhere. It was also endorsed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

UPDATE: The text of the bill is now available.

H.R.263 — Fire Sale Loophole Closing Act (Introduced in House – IH)

HR 263 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 263
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to restrict the ability of a person whose Federal license to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms has been revoked, whose application to renew such a license has been denied, or who has received a license revocation or renewal denial notice, to transfer business inventory firearms, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 12, 2011
Mr. ACKERMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

——————————————————————————–

A BILL
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to restrict the ability of a person whose Federal license to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms has been revoked, whose application to renew such a license has been denied, or who has received a license revocation or renewal denial notice, to transfer business inventory firearms, and for other purposes.

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 `Fire Sale Loophole Closing Act’.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTIONS ON THE ABILITY OF A PERSON WHOSE FEDERAL LICENSE TO IMPORT, MANUFACTURE, OR DEAL IN FIREARMS HAS BEEN REVOKED, WHOSE APPLICATION TO RENEW SUCH A LICENSE HAS BEEN DENIED, OR WHO HAS RECEIVED A LICENSE REVOCATION OR RENEWAL DENIAL NOTICE, TO TRANSFER BUSINESS INVENTORY FIREARMS.

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

`(aa)(1)(A) It shall be unlawful for a person who has been notified by the Attorney General that the Attorney General has made a determination to revoke a license issued to the person under this chapter to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms, or to deny an application of the person to renew such a license, to–

`(i) transfer a business inventory firearm of the person–

`(I) into a personal collection of the person; or

`(II) to an employee of the person, or to an individual described in section 923(d)(1)(B) with respect to the person; or

`(ii) receive a firearm that was a business inventory firearm of the person as of the date the person received the notice.

`(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to a license revocation or denial determination that is rescinded.

`(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for a person, on or after the effective date of the revocation of a license issued to the person under this chapter to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms, or (in the case that the application of the person to renew such a license is denied) on or after the date the license expires, to–

`(i) engage in conduct prohibited by paragraph (1); or

`(ii) transfer to any other person (except a person licensed under this chapter or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency) a firearm that was a business inventory firearm of the person as of the effective date or expiration date, as the case may be.

`(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to a license revocation or denial determination that is reversed.’.

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

`(36) Business Inventory Firearm- The term `business inventory firearm’ means, with respect to a person, a firearm required by law to be recorded in the acquisition and disposition logs of any firearms business of the person.’.

(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 923(c) of such title is amended in the 2nd sentence by inserting `section 922(aa) and to’ after `subject only to’.

(d) 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 1 year (or, if the violation was willful, 5 years), or both.’.

(e) Requirement That License Revocation or Application Denial Notice Include Text of Law Prohibiting Dealing in Firearms Without a Federal Firearms License and Restricting Transfer of Firearms After Receipt of Official License Revocation or Renewal Application Denial Notice- Section 923(f)(1) of such title is amended in the last sentence by inserting `, and shall set forth the provisions of Federal law and regulation which prohibit a person not licensed under this chapter from engaging in the business of dealing in firearms or are relevant in determining whether a person is doing so, and the provisions of section 922(aa)’ before the period.

Uncategorized

Eh? Say What? Banned In Canada?

January 13, 2011 by 2 Comments

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council yesterday banned the Dire Strait’s song Money for Nothing as being unfit for play on Canadian radio. The ban was prompted by a complaint from a listener of CMOZ-FM in Newfoundland. The listener complained about the use of the word “faggot” in the lyrics as being homophobic.

The controversy over “Money for Nothing” actually isn’t new.

The song was a massive hit upon its release in ’85. It won a Grammy, reached No. 1 on the charts in Canada and the U.S. and spawned a famous music video that featured crude computer animation and became interwoven with the popularity of the then-fledgling music network MTV.

Yet Cross (Alan Cross is a Canadian radio veteran) points out that sanitized versions of the song have always existed — even its original seven-inch pressing, he said, arrived without the verse in question.

At the time, there was debate over whether the song was homophobic. But songwriter Mark Knopfler responded by pointing out that the lyric was meant with some irony. He has said he actually wrote the song in a hardware store, after he heard an employee watching MTV and complaining about what he saw.

I guess this would be the Canadian equivalent of either banning or sanitizing Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn due to language that is deemed to be socially unacceptable now but not when it was written.

H/T Arfcom

Uncategorized

Benson et al v. Chicago et al – Some Updates

January 13, 2011 by

Benson et al v. Chicago et al is the NRA sponsored suit challenging the City of Chicago’s New Gun Law. It was the first suit filed to challenge the changes Chicago made to their gun laws after losing the McDonald case.

There has been a flurry of activity in the case over the last week and a half.

The first major event is that the case is being reassigned from Judge Ronald Guzman to Judge Edmond E. Chang. This became effective on January 10th. The reason the case is being reassigned is that Judge Chang is a new judge of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and this case becomes part of his initial civil case load. A total of 281 cases were transferred from various judges of the District to Judge Chang. This was the only case involving the suits against Chicago on Second Amendment grounds.

Judge Chang was nominated by President Obama in April 2010 to fill a seat vacated on the court. He was confirmed on December 18, 2010 and was sworn in on December 20th. Judge Chang is 40 years old and is a graduate of Northwestern School of Law. For the past 11 years, he has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. He has served legal clerkships with judges on both the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and in the Northern District of Illinois.

The other major event is that Brett Benson and Rick Pere are requesting to withdraw as plaintiffs in the case. This was just filed yesterday. As to why they are requesting to withdraw from the case, I have no information. This will leave Kenneth Pacholski, Kathryn Tyler, Michael Hall, and the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers as the remaining plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have requested the court’s permission to file a Second Amended Complaint which is unopposed by the City of Chicago. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), Chicago had to consent to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint which they did.

There is a hearing scheduled before Judge Chang on the morning of January 27th.

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