Month: March 2011

Uncategorized

Close The Car Show Loophole

March 5, 2011 by 2 Comments

The following bit of satire was originally published on the Pro-Gun New Hampshire webpage. It is being reprinted with the kind permission of the author, attorney Evan Nappen.

Close the Car Show Loophole!

By Evan F. Nappen, Esq.

[Posted Monday, February 14, 2011, at 6:40 p.m.] At car shows and swaps throughout the United States, cars are sold in private sales with no dealer being involved. Car shows at which cars are exhibited or offered for sale or exchange provide a convenient and centralized commercial location where criminals and other wrongdoers obtain cars without credit background checks and without records that enable car tracing.

We all know that cars kill and that they are one of the biggest killers in the US. Cars cause accidents and facilitate crimes. Cars even cause mass murder and mayhem (like intentionally driving into a crowd). Cars are a menace that must be tightly controlled.

Some of these cars end up in criminal hands as get-away cars or are used by murderers, drug dealers or gang-bangers. Some cars are smuggled into Mexico and used by drug lords there. Convicted felons, mentally deranged persons, domestic abusers, and aliens unlawfully in the US can all buy a car at a show. Even those on the terrorist watch list can go to a car show and buy a car.

Many of these cars have transmissions which are automatic and/or semi-automatic. At these car shows various accessories are freely bought and sold, like extended gas tanks, folding seats and even mufflers. One can also buy “a shoulder thing that goes up,” also known as a safety belt.

Some cars are converted and many are customized. Why would anyone need such a car? The police are “out-carred” on a daily basis. Many departments say they need more horsepower, but can’t afford it. How many must die before we close the car show loophole?

Fortunately, Representative McCarthyism and Senator Lousenburp have filed bills to require all car transfers at car shows and swaps to go through a dealer. They have the full support of Mayor Bloomingidiot and C.M.A.Y.R. (Corrupt Mayors Against Your Rights) Some of the important features of the bill are as follows:

1) It will insure that a credit background check is run, a record is made and all paperwork will be done. Dealers can only sell to customers who have proper identification so a computer check can be done.

2) “Car event operators” must submit names of all “vendors” to the FBI, both before and after the show. It does not matter whether any vendors sold a car. A private citizen going to a car show hoping to sell or trade a car, but who does not find a buyer and leaves with his own car, would remain in a “vendor” file with the FBI forever.

3) It would require registration of car shows. This would allow the authorities to make sure event organizers have no paperwork violations. It would also allow government agents to question car owners who gather for purposes other than selling cars.

4) It allows inspection, at a car show, of a show promoter’s or dealer’s entire business records—including records of transactions that occurred at other shows or at a dealer’s licensed place of business.

5) It turns casual conversations into “car show sales.” A person could still agree to sell a car to a friend in a conversation at the local gas station; but if the same conversation took place at a car show, the credit check requirement would forever apply to that car. It even applies to a car that a seller and buyer talk about at a car show, but don’t have with them.

This should fix the car show loophole. Next to be fixed are the wedding show loophole, home improvement show loophole, sports memorabilia show loophole, coin show loophole, flower show loophole, model train show loophole, doll show loophole, boat show loophole, motorcycle show loophole, comic book show loophole, horse show loophole, golf show loophole, and of course the gun show loophole. If it saves just one life it’s worth it. We have to do it, for the children.

—–
Attorney Evan Nappen is the General Counsel for Pro-Gun New Hampshire. He practices law in Concord, New Hampshire, and Eatontown, New Jersey.

Uncategorized

WRAL On Gun Rights Legislation In The NC General Assembly This Week

March 5, 2011 by 1 Comment

Laura Leslie, Capitol Bureau Chief for WRAL-TV in Raleigh, NC, has a report on some of the gun rights legislation discussed in the North Carolina General Assembly this week. It is a fairly balanced report.

The only objection I have is the attempt to find “man on the street” comments objecting to concealed carry in parks. They interviewed someone in a park in Cary which is just outside Raleigh. Cary has been one of the fastest growing communities in the state for the past couple of decades with significant in-migration from Northern states. Unfortunately, many of the newcomers have brought their Northern attitudes especially towards guns with them. This has led to jokes about Cary standing for Containment Area for Relocated Yankees.

Uncategorized

Roundup Of Mainstream Media Reports On Project Gunwalker

March 4, 2011 by 1 Comment

After Sharyl Attkisson’s first report for CBS News on Project Gunwalker, the mainstream media yawned. However, after last night’s report which featured Sr. Agent John Dodson on camera and on the record, the mainstream media has started to wake up. I should clarify that last statement – some of the mainstream media are starting to wake up.

It is still a non-story to the New York Times. At the Washington Post, despite their big investigation into “The Secret Life of Guns” earlier this year, all they saw fit to do was reprint a story from the LA Times.

The Los Angeles Times, however, is reporting on the story in conjunction with Center for Public Integrity.
As part of the story they interviewed Sen. Chuck Grassley who has this to say:

“We still don’t have the documents we’ve asked for. Maybe we will get the documents. But right now it’s stonewalling,” Grassley said in an interview Thursday.

“Too many government agencies always want the big case,” he said. “They keep these gun-running sales moving along, even when they have people within the agency that say something bad’s going to happen. They had plenty of warnings … and the prophets turned out to be right.”

The rest of the LA Times story covered ground that was previously tilled by bloggers and CBS News. Nonetheless, it is important that a major newspaper has come out with the story.

What makes the involvement of the Center for Public Integrity so interesting is that they are a recipient of funding from the Joyce Foundation to develop stories on the “gun industry lobby.” However, given the hard-hitting nature of their latest report here  along with their assistance to the LA Times, I don’t think the Joyce Foundation can be too happy.

The Dallas Morning News ran an editorial on it as the investigation on gun walking has expanded to stores in Texas. Even CNN has a story out on Project Gunwalker this afternoon with extensive reporting of the Grassley investigation.

Fox News is covering it as well. They brought in Judge Andrew Napolitano, their senior judicial analyst, for his thoughts on it. He makes a good point that to really get to the bottom of this the investigation must be done by Congress and it must be in the House. A multi-agency review conducted out of the Department of Justice most likely will result in a whitewash and a Senate investigation could be hindered by the Democratic majority. Whether the House Judiciary Committee will take it up – and has the cojones to see the investigation through – is anybody’s guess.

Uncategorized

Campus Carry For Staff And Faculty Shot Down In Arkansas

March 4, 2011 by

A bill that would have have allowed faculty and staff – but not students – to carry concealed on university and community college campuses in Arkansas was shot down in committee yesterday. The Arkansas House Education Committee considered the bill and voted 8-8 on it. 11 votes are required for a bill to advance for consideration by the full House.

The bill, HB 1479, was sponsored by Rep. Charlie Collins (R-Fayetteville). The bill was explicit in that only full-time faculty or staff would be allowed to carry concealed on campus if they held a CCW. Part-time staff or faculty would not have had that same right. Nothing in the bill applied to students and was explicit that firearms could not be stored in a dormitory or residence hall.

HB 1479 would have applied to all public universities, community colleges, and private universities in Arkansas. However, if the private college or university had an express policy against firearms and concealed carry on campus, then faculty or staff would have been precluded from carrying concealed.

According to the news story by WREG News Channel 3 in Memphis, officials from the University of Arkansas, Arkansas State, and Ouachita Technical College spoke against the bill.

Given all the hyperbole about concealed carry on campus legislation down in Texas, the approach taken by Rep. Collins seemed a reasonable first step. By excluding students it mitigated all the angst thrown up by the anti-rights movement of having drunk frat boys shooting up dorms and parties. Moreover, it only applied to full-time or those with nine-month contracts so you would have had only longer term employees allowed to carry concealed. Presumably, these people were fully vetted when hired. If not, then what the heck are they doing in the classroom in the first place?

Uncategorized

S. 436 – Schumer’s Latest Gambit (Updated with bill text)

March 4, 2011 by 1 Comment

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has finally made good on his promise to introduce a bill concerning NICS and background checks on private sales as well as those through a FFL. His bill, S. 436, is temporarily entitled “A bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.”

Its only co-sponsor so far is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who was NRA A-rated when she was in the House of Representatives. Since being appointed and then elected to the Senate, Gillibrand’s ambitions obviously have become more important to her than anything called princple as she has jumped fully on the gun control bandwagon.

The bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where Schumer is the fourth ranking Democrat on the committee.

As soon as the text becomes available, I will post it.

UPDATE: The bill will be called the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011. Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors group is already touting the bill here. They have even set up a new website called FixGunChecks.org

UPDATE II: The text of the bill was released overnight.

S 436 IS

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 436
To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 2, 2011
Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

——————————————————————————–

A BILL
To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011′.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.

TITLE I–ENSURING THAT ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM BUYING A GUN ARE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM

Sec. 101. Penalties for States that do not make data electronically available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Sec. 102. Requirement that Federal agencies certify that they have submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System all records identifying persons prohibited from purchasing firearms under Federal law.

Sec. 103. Adjudicated as a mental defective; mental health assessment plan.

Sec. 104. Clarification of the definition of drug abusers and drug addicts who are prohibited from possessing firearms.

TITLE II–REQUIRING A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR EVERY FIREARM SALE

Sec. 201. Purpose.

Sec. 202. Firearms transfers.

Sec. 203. Effective date.

TITLE I–ENSURING THAT ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM BUYING A GUN ARE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM

SEC. 101. PENALTIES FOR STATES THAT DO NOT MAKE DATA ELECTRONICALLY AVAILABLE TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

Section 104(b) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended to read as follows:

`(b) Penalties-

`(1) DISCRETIONARY REDUCTION- For each of fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the Attorney General may withhold not more than 3 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755) if the State provides less than 50 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.

`(2) MANDATORY REDUCTION-

`(A) FISCAL YEARS 2013 TO 2017- For each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017, the Attorney General shall withhold 15 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755) if the State provides less than 75 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.

`(B) SUBSEQUENT YEARS- During fiscal year 2018, and each fiscal year thereafter, the Attorney General shall withhold 25 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755), if the State provides less than 90 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.

`(3) WAIVER BY ATTORNEY GENERAL- If a State provides substantial evidence, as determined by the Attorney General, that the State is making a reasonable effort to comply with the requirements of sections 102 and 103, including an inability to comply due to court order or other legal restriction, the Attorney General may reduce the percentage of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755) withheld–

`(A) under paragraph (2)(A) to be not less than 5 percent; and

`(B) under paragraph (2)(B) to be not less than 15 percent.

`(4) TRANSFER OF WITHHELD FUNDS- Any funds withheld by the Attorney General under this subsection shall be transferred to the appropriations account appropriated under the heading `STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE’ under the heading `Office of Justice Programs’ under the heading `DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’.

`(5) SENSE OF CONGRESS- It is the sense of Congress that any funds transferred under paragraph (4) should be used to carry out the activities described in the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note).’.

SEC. 102. REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL AGENCIES CERTIFY THAT THEY HAVE SUBMITTED TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM ALL RECORDS IDENTIFYING PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING FIREARMS UNDER FEDERAL LAW.

Section 103(e)(1) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(F) SEMIANNUAL CERTIFICATION AND REPORTING-

`(i) IN GENERAL- The head of each Federal department or agency shall submit to the Attorney General a written certification indicating whether the department or agency has provided to the Attorney General the pertinent information contained in any record of any person that the department or agency was in possession of during the time period addressed by the report demonstrating that the person falls within a category described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.

`(ii) SUBMISSION DATES- The head of a Federal department or agency shall submit a certification under clause (i)–

`(I) not later than July 31 of each year, which shall address any record the department or agency was in possession of during the period beginning on January 1 of the year and ending on June 30 of the year; and

`(II) not later than January 31 of each year, which shall address any record the department or agency was in possession of during the period beginning on July 1 of the previous year and ending on December 31 of the previous year.

`(iii) CONTENTS- A certification required under clause (i) shall state, for the applicable period–

`(I) the number of records of the Federal department or agency demonstrating that a person fell within each of the categories described in section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code;

`(II) the number of records of the Federal department or agency demonstrating that a person fell within the category described in section 922(n) of title 18, United States Code; and

`(III) for each category of records described in subclauses (I) and (II), the total number of records of the Federal department or agency that have been provided to the Attorney General.’.

SEC. 103. ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE; MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT PLAN.

(a) Definition- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) The term `adjudicated as a mental defective’ includes an order by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, in response to marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness or incompetency, be compelled to receive services–

`(A) including counseling, medication, or testing to determine compliance with prescribed medications; and

`(B) not including testing for use of alcohol or for abuse of any controlled substance or other drug.’.

(b) Mental Health Assessment Plan for Institutions of Higher Education- Part B of title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1011 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`SEC. 124. MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

`(a) Restriction on Eligibility- Each college, university, or postsecondary institution that receives Federal funds under this Act or any form of financial assistance under any Federal program, including participation in any federally funded or guaranteed student loan program, shall develop and implement, not later than 1 year from the date of enactment of this section, a mental health assessment plan that, at a minimum, includes–

`(1) a framework through which such college, university, or postsecondary institution will address the risks posed by students, including full-time students and part-time students, who, as a result of apparent mental illness or incompetency, pose a safety risk to themselves or others;

`(2) the establishment of a team that will assess the mental health needs of, and safety risks posed by, any such student, consisting of–

`(A) educators;

`(B) administrators;

`(C) counselors; or

`(D) other qualified members of the educational community;

`(3) a procedure for reporting such students to the team described in paragraph (2);

`(4) a procedure for making voluntary referrals for such students to on- and off-campus mental health resources;

`(5) a procedure for making involuntary referrals for such students to State or local mental health authorities for mandatory evaluation, which shall include reporting such referrals to a State agency responsible for identifying persons described in section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code; and

`(6) a procedure for informing and educating the families of students who have been identified as posing safety risks to themselves or others.

`(b) Information Availability- Each college, university, or postsecondary institution that provides the plan described in subsection (a) shall make available to the students, faculty, and staff at such college, university, or postsecondary institution, a copy of the mental health assessment plan required under subsection (a).’.

SEC. 104. CLARIFICATION OF THE DEFINITION OF DRUG ABUSERS AND DRUG ADDICTS WHO ARE PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS.

(a) Inferences of Abuse- Section 921 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(c) Unlawful User of Any Controlled Substance-

`(1) IN GENERAL- An inference that a person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) may be drawn based on–

`(A) a conviction for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past 5 years;

`(B) an arrest for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past 5 years;

`(C) an arrest for the possession of drug paraphernalia within the past 5 years, if testing has demonstrated the paraphernalia contained traces of a controlled substance;

`(D) a drug test administered within the past 5 years demonstrating that the person had used a controlled substance unlawfully; or

`(E) an admission to using or possessing a controlled substance unlawfully within the past 5 years.

`(2) MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES- For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference that a person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance may be drawn based on disciplinary or other administrative action within the past 5 years based on confirmed use of a controlled substance, including a court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on use of a controlled substance or drug rehabilitation failure.’.

(b) Application to Federal Courts- Section 103(e)(1) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note), as amended by this section 102, is amended–

(1) in subparagraph (C), by inserting `(including any record of a Federal court of any person ordered into a diversion program as described in section 921(a)(37))’ after `any person’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(G) APPLICATION TO FEDERAL COURTS- In this paragraph–

`(i) the terms `department or agency of the United States’ and `Federal department or agency’ include a Federal court; and

`(ii) for purposes of any request, submission, or notification, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall perform the functions of the head of the department or agency.’.

(c) Definition- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 103(a), is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(37) The term `addicted to any controlled substance’ includes a person ordered by a court into a diversion program designed for abusers of or addicts to controlled substances as part of a criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding, regardless of whether the person was convicted, whether the court made a finding of guilt, or whether the program accepts participants who are abusers of or addicted to substances other than controlled substances.’.

(d) Conforming Amendment to NICS Improvement Amendments Act- Section 102(b)(1)(C)(iii) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by striking `(as such’ and all that follows through `adjudications,’.

TITLE II–REQUIRING A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR EVERY FIREARM SALE

SEC. 201. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this title is to extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms.

SEC. 202. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 932. Background checks for firearm transfers by unlicensed persons

`(a) Definitions- In this section–

`(1) the term `unlicensed transferee’ means a person who–

`(A) is not licensed under this chapter; and

`(B) desires to received a firearm from an unlicensed transferor; and

`(2) the term `unlicensed transferor’ means a person who–

`(A) is not licensed under this chapter; and

`(B) desires to transfer a firearm to an unlicensed transferee.

`(b) Responsibilities of Transferors Other Than Licensees-

`(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for an unlicensed transferor to transfer a firearm to an unlicensed transferee, unless the firearm is transferred–

`(A)(i) through a licensed dealer under subsection (d);

`(ii) through a law enforcement agency under subsection (e);

`(iii) after inspecting a permit that confirms a background check under subsection (f); or

`(iv) in accordance with an exception described in subsection (g); and

`(B) in accordance with paragraph (2).

`(2) CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS- Except as provided in subsection (g), an unlicensed transferor–

`(A) subject to subparagraph (B), may not transfer a firearm to an unlicensed transferee until–

`(i) the licensed dealer through which the transfer is made under subsection (d) makes a notification described in subsection (d)(3)(A);

`(ii) the law enforcement agency through which the transfer is made under subsection (e) makes a notification described in subsection (e)(4)(A); or

`(iii) the unlicensed transferee has presented a permit that confirms that a background check has been conducted, as described in subsection (f); and

`(B) may not transfer a firearm to an unlicensed transferee if–

`(i) the licensed dealer through which the transfer is made under subsection (d) makes the notification described in subsection (d)(3)(B); or

`(ii) the law enforcement agency through which the transfer is made under subsection (e) makes the notification described in subsection (e)(3)(B).

`(3) ABSENCE OF RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this section shall permit or authorize the Attorney General to impose recordkeeping requirements on any unlicensed transferor.

`(c) Responsibilities of Transferees Other Than Licensees-

`(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for an unlicensed transferee to receive a firearm from an unlicensed transferor, unless the firearm is transferred–

`(A)(i) through a licensed dealer under subsection (d);

`(ii) through a law enforcement agency under subsection (e);

`(iii) after inspecting a permit that confirms a background check in accordance with subsection (f); or

`(iv) in accordance with an exception described in subsection (g); and

`(B) in accordance with paragraph (2).

`(2) CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS- Except as provided in subsection (g), an unlicensed transferee–

`(A) subject to subparagraph (B), may not receive a firearm from an unlicensed transferor until–

`(i) the licensed dealer through which the transfer is made under subsection (d) makes a notification described in subsection (d)(3)(A);

`(ii) the law enforcement agency through which the transfer is made under subsection (e) makes a notification described in subsection (e)(4)(A); or

`(iii) the unlicensed transferee has presented a permit that confirms that a background check described in subsection (f) has been conducted; and

`(B) may not receive a firearm from another unlicensed transferor if–

`(i) the licensed dealer through which the transfer is made under subsection (d) makes a notification described in subsection (d)(3)(B); or

`(ii) the law enforcement agency through which the transfer is made under subsection (e) makes a notification described in subsection (e)(4)(B).

`(d) Background Checks Through Licensed Dealers- A licensed dealer who agrees to assist in the transfer of a firearm between unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee shall–

`(1) enter such information about the firearm as the Attorney General may require by regulation into a separate bound record;

`(2) record the transfer on a form specified by the Attorney General;

`(3) comply with section 922(t) as if transferring the firearm from the inventory of the licensed dealer to the unlicensed transferee (except that a licensed dealer assisting in the transfer of a firearm under this subsection shall not be required to comply again with the requirements of section 922(t) in delivering the firearm to the unlicensed transferee) and notify the unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee–

`(A) of such compliance; and

`(B) if the transfer is subject to the requirements of section 922(t)(1), of any receipt by the licensed dealer of a notification from the national instant criminal background check system that the transfer would violate section 922 or State law;

`(4) not later than 31 days after the date on which the transfer occurs, submit to the Attorney General a report of the transfer, which–

`(A) shall be on a form specified by the Attorney General by regulation; and

`(B) shall not include the name of or other identifying information relating to the unlicensed transferor or unlicensed transferee;

`(5) if the licensed dealer assists an unlicensed transferor in transferring, at the same time or during any 5 consecutive business days, 2 or more pistols or revolvers, or any combination of pistols and revolvers totaling 2 or more, to the same unlicensed transferee, in addition to the reports required under paragraph (4), prepare a report of the multiple transfers, which shall–

`(A) be prepared on a form specified by the Attorney General; and

`(B) not later than the close of business on the date on which the transfer requiring the report under this paragraph occurs, be submitted to–

`(i) the office specified on the form described in subparagraph (A); and

`(ii) the appropriate State law enforcement agency of the jurisdiction in which the transfer occurs; and

`(6) retain a record of the transfer as part of the permanent business records of the licensed dealer.

`(e) Background Checks Through Law Enforcement Agencies- A State or local law enforcement agency that agrees to assist an unlicensed transferor in carrying out the responsibilities of the unlicensed transferor under subsection (b) with respect to the transfer of a firearm shall–

`(1)(A) contact the national instant criminal background check system under section 922(t); and

`(B)(i) receive an identification number as described in section 922(t)(1)(B)(i); or

`(ii) wait the period described in 922(t)(1)(B)(ii);

`(2) conduct such other checks as the agency considers appropriate to determine whether the receipt or possession of the firearm by the unlicensed transferee would violate section 922 or State law;

`(3) verify the identity of the unlicensed transferee by–

`(A) examining a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)) of the unlicensed transferee containing a photograph of the unlicensed transferee; or

`(B) confirming that the unlicensed transferor has examined a valid identification document described in subparagraph (A);

`(4) notify the unlicensed transferor and transferee–

`(A) of the compliance by the law enforcement agency with the requirements under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3); and

`(B) of any receipt by the law enforcement agency of a notification from the national instant criminal background check system or other information that the transfer would violate section 922 or would violate State law;

`(5) not later than 31 days after the date on which the transfer occurs, submit to the Attorney General a report of the transfer, which–

`(A) shall be on a form specified by the Attorney General by regulation; and

`(B) shall not include the name of or other identifying information relating to the unlicensed transferor or unlicensed transferee;

`(6) if the law enforcement agency assists an unlicensed transferor in transferring, at the same time or during any 5 consecutive business days, 2 or more pistols or revolvers, or any combination of pistols and revolvers totaling 2 or more, to the same unlicensed transferee, in addition to the reports required under paragraph (5), prepare a report of the multiple transfers, which shall be–

`(A) prepared on a form specified by the Attorney General; and

`(B) not later 24 hours after the transfer requiring the report under this paragraph occurs, submitted to–

`(i) the office specified on the form described in subparagraph (A); and

`(ii) the appropriate State law enforcement agency of the jurisdiction in which the transfer occurs; and

`(7) maintain records of the transfer at such place, and in such form, as the Attorney General may prescribe.

`(f) Purchase Permits Confirming Background Checks- An unlicensed transferor may transfer a firearm to an unlicensed transferee if the unlicensed transferor verifies that–

`(1) the unlicensed transferee has presented a valid permit or license that allows the unlicensed transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm;

`(2) the permit or license was issued not more than 5 years before the date on which the permit or license is presented under paragraph (1) by a law enforcement agency in the State in which the transfer is to take place;

`(3) the law of the State provides that the permit or license is to be issued only after a law enforcement official has verified that neither the national instant criminal background check system nor other information indicates that possession of a firearm by the unlicensed transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law; and

`(4) if the permit or license does not include a photograph of the unlicensed transferee, the unlicensed transferor has examined a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)) of the unlicensed transferee containing a photograph of the unlicensed transferee.

`(g) Exceptions- Unless prohibited by any other provision of law, subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to any transfer of a firearm between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee, if–

`(1) the transfer is a bona fide gift between immediate family members, including spouses, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren;

`(2) the transfer occurs by operation of law, or because of the death of another person for whom the unlicensed transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will;

`(3) the transfer is temporary and occurs while in the home of the unlicensed transferee, if–

`(A) the unlicensed transferee is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms; and

`(B) the unlicensed transferee believes that possession of the firearm is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the unlicensed transferee;

`(4) the transfer is approved by the Attorney General under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

`(5) upon application of the unlicensed transferor, the Attorney General determined that compliance with subsection (b) is impracticable because–

`(A) the ratio of the number of law enforcement officers of the State in which the transfer is to occur to the number of square miles of land area of the State does not exceed 0.0025;

`(B) the location at which the transfer is to occur is extremely remote in relation to the chief law enforcement officer (as defined in section 922(s)(8)); and

`(C) there is an absence of telecommunications facilities in the geographical area in which the unlicensed transferor is located; or

`(6) the transfer is a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title that takes place–

`(A) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms;

`(B) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization; or

`(C) while hunting, fishing, or trapping, if–

`(i) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm; and

`(ii) the unlicensed transferee holds any required license or permit.

`(h) Processing Fees- A licensed dealer or law enforcement agency that processes the transfer of a firearm under this section may assess and collect a fee, in an amount not to exceed $15, with respect to each firearm transfer processed.

`(i) Records- Nothing in subsection (e)(7) shall be construed to authorize the Attorney General to inspect records described in such subsection or to require that the records be transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States.’.

(b) Penalties- Section 924(a)(5) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `or section 932′ after `section 922′.

(c) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`932. Background checks for firearm transfers by unlicensed persons.’.

SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
END

Uncategorized

Spin

March 4, 2011 by 1 Comment

Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars posted an internal memo sent to him by an ATF insider. It indicates that they had an inkling that Sharyl Attkisson’s CBS News report on Operation Gunrunner was going to be bad. I am not surprised by the arrogant tone taken by ATF’s PR people. They’ve gotten away with it for years and why should they expect now to be any different. Time will tell.


Public Information Officers:

Please make every effort for the next two weeks to maximize coverage of ATF operations/enforcement actions/arrests at the local and regional level. Given the negative coverage by CBS Evening News last week and upcoming events this week, the bureau should look for every opportunity to push coverage of good stories. Fortunately, the CBS story has not sparked any follow up coverage by mainstream media and seems to have fizzled.

It was shoddy reporting, as CBS failed to air on-the-record interviews by former ATF officials and HQ statements for attribution that expressed opposing views and explained the law and difficulties of firearm trafficking investigations. The CBS producer for the story made only a feigned effort at the 11th hour to reach ATF HQ for comment.

This week (To 3/1/2011), Attorney General Holder testifies on the Hill and likely will get questions about the allegations in the story. Also (The 3/3/2011), Mexico President Calderon will visit the White House and likely will testify on the Hill. He will probably draw attention to the lack of political support for demand letter 3 and Project Gunrunner.

ATF needs to proactively push positive stories this week, in an effort to preempt some negative reporting, or at minimum, lessen the coverage of such stories in the news cycle by replacing them with good stories about ATF. The more time we spend highlighting the great work of the agents through press releases and various media outreaches in the coming days and weeks, the better off we will be.

Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any significant operations that should get national media coverage, please reach out to the Public Affairs Division for support, coordination and clearance.

Thank you,

Scot L. Thomasson

Chief, ATF Public Affairs Division

Washington, DC

Desk 202-648-7089

Cell 206-730-0005

UPDATE: CBS News just published the above memo and said they will be “staying on the story.” I don’t think Sharyl Attkission is too impressed by the ATF’s PR offensive. I have to hand it to her – she is a lot more than just a pretty face and she has come through on Project Gunwalker. When I first read her request for sources on CleanUpATF.org, I thought it was a 50-50 chance that she would come out with a puff piece exonerating ATF. I was wrong. Happily wrong but wrong nonetheless.

She deserves a lot of credit for getting Agent John Dodson to come on camera and on the record. He deserves a lot of credit for showing the intestinal fortitude to take that step. Many other ATF Special Agents knew what was going on and were scared to come out of the shadows about it.

Uncategorized

What’s A Few Jobs

March 4, 2011 by 1 Comment

In a state with an official unemployment rate of 9.0% for January, losing a few more jobs doesn’t seem to concern Chicago Democrats in the Illinois General Assembly. That is, if they are in the firearms manufacturing industry.

Rep. Edward J. Acevedo (D-Chicago) has introduced bills to ban semi-automatic firearms with certain characteristics and .50 caliber rifles in the past and failed. This year he re-introduced the bill, HB 1294, and it passed out the House Judiciary I – Civil Law Committee yesterday with a “Do Pass – Standard Debate” recommendation.

The synopsis of the bills states that:

it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed a semi-automatic assault weapon, an assault weapon attachment, any .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge.

The bill would grandfather in any of the affected firearms possessed prior to the effective date. It would allow any previously possessed firearms in question to be passed to heirs, to a person in another state, or to an FFL. As might be expected for a bill introduced by a former police officer, nothing in the bill would prevent law enforcement from possessing any of the weapons in question regardless of their date of manufacture.

The definitions in the bill read like they were taken verbatim from the Cook County’s Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban.

I have read the bill over and over. I come to the same conclusion each time – it would apply to the production of firearms manufacturers that make weapons that come under the purview of this bill unless they sold only to law enforcement, game wardens, and the military. The way the bill reads, only those weapons that are grandfathered may be sold to a FFL or out of state.

Illinois has a number of firearms manufacturers that would essentially have to move to remain in business. They include Springfield Armory and ArmaLite in Geneseo, Rock River Arms in Colona, Lewis Machine and Tool in Milan, DSArms in Barrington, and Detonics Defense in Millstadt. Les Baer moved his operations out of Illinois to Iowa a couple of years ago due to the anti-gun climate of the state. With the exception of DSArms and Detonics Defense, most of the manufacturers are clustered in the Quad Cities metro area which is also the location of the Rock Island Armory.

I guess that if you live in the Quad Cities or anywhere outside of Chicago, politicians there don’t give a damn if you lose your job so long as they can continue to make Mayor Daley happy. What sad state of affairs.
Illinois HB 1294

Uncategorized

Expect Ammo Prices To Go Up Due To Commodity Prices

March 4, 2011 by

With rising commodity prices of base metals, it will come as no surprise to hear that ammo prices will rise. iAmmo e-news released this letter they received from ATK Ammo Manufacturing who makes the Federal and associated lines of ammunition.

The following is a letter from ATK Ammunition Manufacturing:

ATK Security and Sporting
900 Ehlen Drive Anoka, MN 55303

February 1, 2011

Dear ATK Ammunition Customer:

I would like to thank you for your continued support of the ATK Ammunition brands. We are now into 2011 and continue to see unprecedented cost increases for the raw materials that make up our products. I can assure you that we have invested significant capital to increase productivity and lower costs across all of our facilities. However, we are unable to absorb the rapid increase of these raw material costs.

Due to these historic increases we are forced to raise pricing as follows:

Centerfire Handgun and Rifle 7-15%
Promotional Rimfire 10-15%
Standard Rimfire 5-10%
Shotshell 5-10%
Primers 10%

This increase will apply to any orders shipped after May 1, 2011. The new pricing and programs will be sent to you in the next few weeks.

Thank you for your continued support and understanding.

Respectfully,
Anthony A. Acitelli
Vice President
Strategy and
Business Development

Uncategorized

Senior Agent John Dodson Is A Hero

March 4, 2011 by

According to CBS News, ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson released this statement this evening:

“The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will ask a multi-disciplinary panel of law enforcement professionals to review the bureau’s current firearms trafficking strategies employed by field division managers and special agents. This review will enable ATF to maximize its effectiveness when undertaking complex firearms trafficking investigations and prosecutions. It will support the goals of ATF to stem the illegal flow of firearms to Mexico and combat firearms trafficking in the United States.”

Unfortunately, I don’t expect much to come out of this unlike what Senator Grassley might undercover in Senate hearings with sworn testimony.

Uncategorized

Grassley Letter To Holder And Supporting Documentation

March 3, 2011 by 1 Comment

Senator Chuck Grassley has written to Attorney General Eric Holder again in response to another brush-off letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich telling Sen. Grassley, in so many words, to butt out. Grassley didn’t take kindly to this brush-off.

Looking at Weich’s background before becoming Assistant Attorney General, one would think he would know better than to tell any Senator to butt out. Weich served as Chief Counsel to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just before going to the Justice Department and as Chief Counsel to the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Even though Grassley is a Republican and in the minority party in the Senate, senators will close ranks when they see one of their own not being treated with the respect that they think he or she deserves. They may despise the person but they want the position treated with all due respect. Senator Pat Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, may not want to have to deal with Project Gunwalker but there will be a limit to how long he will allow Grassley to be dumped on by Eric Holder’s minions.

I have embedded the Grassley letter below. Two things stand out. First, he has the goods on ATF and he knows it. Second, he doesn’t like being lied to and is not going to tolerate it.

2011-03-03 CEG to DOJ-ATF