Month: March 2011

Uncategorized

An “Oh, Sh*t” Moment For ATF Headquarters

March 3, 2011 by

Sharyl Attkisson, investigative reporter for CBS News, has a follow-on report about Project Gunwalker with an on-record, on-camera interview with an ATF agent who objected to it. It will air tonight at 6:30pm EST on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.

David Codrea has more on this and on another letter sent by Senator Chuck Grassley to Attorney General Eric Holder on his National Gun Rights Examiner page.

Below is a video released today by CBS News on this segment. All I can say is that Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson and his henchmen in ATF Headquarters will be saying “Oh, Shit!” when they watch this.

Uncategorized

Interesting Suggestions

March 3, 2011 by

The CleanUpATF forum has continually offered great insight into the workings – and failures – of ATF and its management. I hope staff investigators for Senator Grassley and the rest of the Senate Judiciary Committee are reading it on a regular basis. Someone who goes by Epic Failure posted this yesterday. In it he gives Sen. Grassley and his staff some hints on what reports they need to be looking for, from what ATF field divisions, etc.

Senator Grassley and Congress, demand the documents and make Ken Melson explain them!

Demand that ATF produce and certify documents that list the crime scene recovery location and the crime event of every single gun that has been allowed to hit the streets since the inception of project gunrunner and recovered in any type of crime. That needs to include the New Orleans, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix and Los Angeles Field Divisions.

ATF has this information within their databases and it can be accessed quickly and easily using specific search parameters. Melson brags to congress on ATF’s assistance to Mexico in establishing the Mexican e-Trace program. He claims ATF has spent years and millions of dollars helping Mexico establish the same ballistics matching technology that is used by ATF in the U.S. let him show you how well the systems work by generating for you the information that they are designed to produce.

There is also something called a “time to crime” report. You need that. It tells what amount of time has elapsed from when a gun is first purchased until it is recovered in a crime. A short time-to-crime indicates that the gun was purchased for the specific intent of being used in a crime and that the criminals wasted no time in doing so.

ATF agents use this information all the time as a part of an intelligently conducted trafficking investigation. The problem here is that ATF never imagined that its lead development hardware, software and programs would be utilized to show the failures of their operations. You are going to be infuriated with what you find.

Double check ATF’s work. It will most likely be deceptive. You’ve already seen you cannot trust them to tell you the truth. Then demand that Melson himself answer for the findings instead of allowing him to insult you by sending a flunky to be his bag man.

Thousands of guns have been “walked” and gotten into the open during gunrunner. People don’t commit gun trafficking crimes for an end user who is a common citizen wanting an AK-47 for home protection. By the very design of the straw purchaser/lying and buying crime schemes, those guns are intended for the hands of persons who have a predisposed violent and murderous and criminal intent and need firearms to further their crimes.

There is an extraordinary amount of crime events and homicides that you do not know about, and will not know about, unless you demand the reports and make Melson himself certify their accuracy.

If you really want to put an end to the crimes committed by ATF management in name of the American people and while wasting our tax dollars, this is where you start.

Uncategorized

Weapon Of Mass Death

March 3, 2011 by 4 Comments

In the “it’s OK for us to have but it isn’t for you peasants” category comes this comment from Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck announcing his support for Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s HR 308 ban on standard capacity magazines.

“There is no reason that a peaceful society based on rule of law needs its citizenry armed with 30-round magazines,” Police Chief Charlie Beck said at a news conference, adding that the clips transform a gun “into a weapon of mass death rather than a home-protection-type device.”

Beck at his promotion to Police Chief

Beck made that comment yesterday in Los Angeles. There is no word if he also thinks “weapons of mass death” should be forbidden to his police officers but somehow I doubt it.

I also wonder what the response time of his police department is to home invasions. Frankly, from everything I’ve read or heard from experts, a home owner doesn’t need to be fumbling around making magazine changes during the high stress of a home invasion. It is just inviting even more disaster.

Probably everything you need to know about Chief Beck can be inferred from his comment above and the picture below. A man is known by the company he keeps.

Beck (center) at 2009 Brady event in LA
Uncategorized

Two Pro-Gun Bills Get Hearing Tomorrow In North Carolina (updates)

March 2, 2011 by 2 Comments

The North Carolina House Judiciary Subcommittee A will hold hearings on HB 63 – Firearm in Locked Motor Vehicle/Parking Lot – and on HB 111 – Handgun Permit Valid in Parks and Restaurants. According to the current House calendar, they are set to take up these measures at 10am on Wednesday, March 3rd in Raleigh.

HB 63 provides:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT NO BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE, OR EMPLOYER SHALL PROHIBIT THE TRANSPORTATION OR STORAGE OF A FIREARM OR AMMUNITION WHEN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION ARE LOCKED OUT OF SIGHT IN A MOTOR VEHICLE, TO PROVIDE THAT A BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE, OR EMPLOYER IS LIABLE TO ANYONE INJURED AS A RESULT OF AN UNLAWFUL PROHIBITION, TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION TO ENFORCE THE RIGHT TO 8 TRANSPORT AND STORE A FIREARM AND AMMUNITION IN A LOCKED MOTOR VEHICLE ON THE PROPERTY OF A BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE, OR EMPLOYER, AND TO PROVIDE THAT A BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE, OR EMPLOYER IS NOT CIVILLY LIABLE FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ANOTHER PERSON’S ACTIONS INVOLVING A FIREARM TRANSPORTED OR STORED IN A LOCKED VEHICLE IN A MANNER THAT COMPLIES WITH STATE LAW.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. Article 53B of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
Ҥ 14-409.41. No prohibition regarding the transportation or storage of a firearm in locked motor vehicle by business, commercial enterprise, or employer; civil liability; enforcement.
(a) As used in this section, the term “motor vehicle” means any automobile, truck, minivan, sports utility vehicle, motorcycle, motor scooter, and any other vehicle required to be registered under Chapter 20 of the General Statutes.

(b) A business, commercial enterprise, or employer shall not establish, maintain, or enforce a policy or rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting a person from transporting or storing any firearm or ammunition when the person is otherwise in compliance with all other applicable laws and regulations and the firearm or ammunition is locked out of sight within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within or on a motor vehicle.

(c) Subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to the following:
(1) Vehicles owned or leased by an employer.
(2) Facilities, lands, or property owned, operated, or controlled by any commercial or public entity engaged in the generation, transmission, or distribution of electricity; in the transmission or storage of natural gas or liquid petroleum; or in water storage or supply.
(3) Facilities owned or leased by a United States Department of Defense contractor or sites on which hazardous chemicals are stored in quantities greater than 1,000,000 pounds at any one time or in any quantity if required to be registered pursuant to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards under the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Public Law 5 109-295, or the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Public Law 6 107-295.
(4) Where transport or storage of a firearm is prohibited by State or federal law or regulation.

(d) A person who is injured or incurs damages, or the survivors of a person killed, as a result of a violation of subsection (b) of this section may bring a civil action in the appropriate court against any business entity, commercial enterprise, or employer who committed or caused such violation. A person who would be entitled legally to transport or store a firearm or ammunition, but who would be denied the ability to transport or store a firearm or ammunition by a policy in violation of subsection (b) of this section, may bring a civil action in the appropriate court to enjoin any business entity, commercial enterprise, or employer from violating subsection (b) of this section.

(e) An employee discharged by an employer, business entity, or commercial enterprise for violation of a policy or rule prohibited under subsection (b) of this section, when he or she was lawfully transporting or storing a firearm out of plain sight in a locked motor vehicle, is entitled to full recovery as specified in subdivisions (1) through (4) of this subsection, inclusive. If the demand for the recovery is denied, the employee may bring a civil action in the courts of this State against the employer, business entity, or commercial enterprise and is entitled to the following:
(1) Reinstatement to the same position held at the time of his or her termination from employment, or to an equivalent position.
(2) Reinstatement of the employee’s full fringe benefits and seniority rights, as appropriate.
(3) Compensation, if appropriate, for lost wages, benefits, or other lost remuneration caused by the termination.
(4) Payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees and legal costs incurred.

(f) No business, commercial enterprise, employer, or property owner shall be held liable in any civil action for damages, injuries, or death resulting from or arising out of another person’s actions involving a firearm or ammunition transported or stored pursuant to subsection 34 (b) of this section, including, but not limited to, the theft of a firearm from an employee’s automobile. Nothing contained in this section shall create a new duty on the part of any business, commercial enterprise, employer, or property owner beyond the duty specified in subsection (b) of this section.

(g) In any action relating to the enforcement of any right or obligation under this section, the reasonable, good-faith efforts of a business, commercial enterprise, employer, or property owner to comply with other applicable and irreconcilable federal or State safety laws or regulations shall be a complete defense to any liability of the business, commercial enterprise, employer, or property owner.

(h) It is the intent of this section to reinforce and protect the right of each citizen lawfully to transport and store firearms within his or her vehicle for lawful purposes in any place the vehicle is otherwise permitted to be and whenever this would not contravene existing federal or State law or regulation.”

SECTION 2. This act becomes effective December 1, 2011, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.

While HB 63 has specific exclusions for certain entities such as water, natural gas/LP, and electric utilities plus areas where state and federal laws and regulations prohibit it, generally it will apply to a broad swath of employers in North Carolina. The bill has four primary sponsors and 18 co-sponsors. In this case, they are all Republican except for one unaffiliated member.

HB 111 would do two things. It would allow CHP holders to carry in eating establishments and restaurants including those that serve alcohol. Under current North Carolina law, it is illegal for a CHP holder to carry a firearm, concealed or open carry,  into any restaurant that serves alcohol (GS 14-269.3) Restaurants are defined as any eating establishment that has seating for 36 customers, a separate kitchen, and which makes 30% or more of its profits from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages.

HB 111 would also forbid any state or local entity from enacting any law, regulation, or ordinance prohibiting concealed carry holders from carrying in parks. They could make such laws regarding government building and adjoining premises.

HB 111 reads:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO ALLOW PERSONS WITH CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES IN RESTAURANTS AND TO ALLOW A CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITTEE TO CARRY A HANDGUN IN A PARK.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. G.S. 14-269.3(b) is amended by adding a new subdivision to read:
“(5) A person on the premises of an establishment that is a restaurant under G.S. 18B-1000(2) or G.S. 18B-1000(6), provided the person has a valid concealed handgun permit under Article 54B of Chapter 14 of the General 10 Statutes.”

SECTION 2. G.S. 14-415.23 reads as rewritten:
Ҥ 14-415.23. Statewide uniformity.
It is the intent of the General Assembly to prescribe a uniform system for the regulation of legally carrying a concealed handgun. To insure uniformity, no political subdivisions, boards, or agencies of the State nor any county, city, municipality, municipal corporation, town, township, village, nor any department or agency thereof, may enact ordinances, rules, or regulations concerning legally carrying a concealed handgun. A unit of local government may adopt an ordinance to permit the posting of a prohibition against carrying a concealed handgun, in ccordance with G.S. 14-415.11(c), on local government buildings, their appurtenant premises, and parks.buildings and their appurtenant premises.”

SECTION 3. This act becomes effective December 1, 2011

This bill has four primary sponsors and a bipartisan group of 17 co-sponsors.

Judiciary Subcommittee A only has a few members who are listed sponsors or co-sponsors of these bills. Of greater concern is that Rep. Deborah Ross (D-Wake) is a member of this committee. In the last session, as Chairperson of this subcommittee, she refused to allow hearings on the Castle Doctrine even after it had been passed by the State Senate. However, Rep. Ross is now in the Minority and cannot exert the same power she did in earlier sessions.

UPDATE: Thanks to WRAL we have streaming video of this subcommittee hearing. The hearing lasted 58 minutes and, according to WRAL, no votes were taken. Therefore, it isn’t too late to contact these members and urge an affirmative vote on HB 63 and HB 111.

Uncategorized

HR 308 – Updates For March

March 2, 2011 by

Another month and some more fellow travelers have signed on to Carolyn McCarthy’s HR 308 which would ban standard capacity magazines.

The newest co-sponsors who signed on yesterday are:

Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] – 3/1/2011
Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] – 3/1/2011
Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] – 3/1/2011

You may remember Rep. Hank Johnson as the Congressman who questioned whether redeploying more Marines to Guam would cause the island to tip over and capsize. How Adm. Robert Willard, Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, kept a straight face in response is beyond me.

As to Rep. Loretta Sanchez, you may remember that in an interview on a Spanish-language radio station in fall 2010, she accused “the Vietnamese” of trying to steal her seat from Hispanics. She eventually apologized for that gaffe. In January, Sanchez attempted to get Gabby Giffords removed from the House Armed Services Committee while she was recovering from her wounds. As you can imagine, that didn’t go over too well.

I guess Carolyn McCarthy is not too picky about her bill’s supporters. As it is, not one Republican – not even Rep. Peter King (R-NY) – has signed on to her bill. No hearings have been scheduled on the bill which was referred to the House Judiciary Subcomittee on Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on February 7th.

Uncategorized

Is Nothing Sacred? (updated with letter)

March 2, 2011 by 3 Comments

The Public Access Counselor of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office says the Illinois State Police must release the names of all FOID card holders to the Associated Press.

According to a story in the Chicago Tribune, the Illinois State Police have always kept the names of the FOID card holders private. The State Police had argued that releasing this information would violate the privacy of the FOID card holders and should be exempted from the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. This argument was overruled by the Public Access Counselor.

The letter was released on Monday night but it is not yet up on the Attorney General’s website. I have requested a copy of the letter from the Office of the Public Access Counselor. If I can get it, I will post it here.

Given that to possess a firearm in the state of Illinois one must have a FOID card, this list gives the press the name and address of every registered gun owner in the state. If something like this were to be published, criminals would be given a shopping list of houses ripe for break-ins. A contrarian view might be that crooks would know which houses could be more dangerous to hit because the owner is armed. Frankly, I lean more towards the former than the latter.

UPDATE: As I noted above, I requested a copy of the letter from the Public Access Counselor. I just received it this morning. I have embedded the full 8-page letter below.

FOID Letter – 10313 Rfr f Pb Ex Improper Sa

Uncategorized

Arkansas Moves To Protect Gun Rights During An Emergency

March 2, 2011 by

On Monday, the Arkansas General Assembly sent SB 115 to Gov. Mike Beebe (Democrat) for his signature. The bill passed both houses of the General Assemby in overwhelming and bipartisan fashion. The House vote was 89-0 with nine not voting and the Senate vote was 29-5 with one not voting.

This bill, if signed by the Governor, would do two thing to preserve gun rights in the State of Arkansas. First, it clarifies the prohibition against any city, county, town, or other local unit from suing any firearms manufacturer, dealer, or trade association except for breach of contract or warranty.

Second, and more importantly, the bill would prevent any local body from enacting any emergency ordinance to regulate the the transfer, transportation, or carrying of a firearm or its parts.

Now if the North Carolina General Assembly would follow the lead of Arkansas and amend our laws regarding firearms during emergencies, I’d be a  happy camper.

Arkansas SB 115 – Regulation of Firearms by Local Governments

Uncategorized

If Utah And Arizona Can Adopt State Guns, Then So Should North Carolina

March 2, 2011 by 3 Comments

Both Utah and Arizona are moving to adopt State Guns. The Utah Legislature has passed a bill to make the John Moses Browning designed Model 1911 the official State Gun. This bill is only awaiting Gov. Gary Herbert.

Meanwhile in Arizona, the Arizona Legislature is considering adopting the Colt Single Action Army revolver as their official State Gun.

In this spirit, I propose that the Tar Heel State recognize the important contributions that one of its native sons, David Marshall “Carbine” Williams, made to the development of the United States Carbine, Caliber .30, M1 or, as it is better known, the M-1 Carbine by adopting it as the official State Firearm.

It is estimated that over 6.5 million M-1 Carbines including all variants (M-1, M-2, M-3, paratrooper) were made by military contractors. The U.S. military used these carbines in WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Manufacturers included GM (Inland and Saginaw Divisions), IBM, Underwood, National Postal Meter, Rock-Ola, Winchester, Irwin-Pederson, Commercial Controls, Standard Products, and Quality Hardware.

While there is some controversy about Carbine Williams contribution to the final product, it did include his short-stroke gas piston and was a scaled down version of an earlier prototype in .30-06 designed by Williams.