Month: May 2011

Uncategorized

In New Jersey, Some Justice Is Done

May 27, 2011 by

The Second Amendment Foundation sent out the following yesterday afternoon. The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against the state of New Jersey, Jeffrey Muller was finally granted a handgun carry permit by Judge David Ironson. Back in March, this same judge had denied it. I’m not sure what changed the judge’s mind but it is about damn time.

NJ JUDGE ISSUES PERMIT TO PLAINTIFF IN SAF LAWSUIT

BELLEVUE, WA – A New Jersey judge today announced he will issue a gun permit to one of the plaintiffs in a Second Amendment Foundation lawsuit against several New Jersey officials for deprivation of civil rights under color of law, because applicants cannot show a “justifiable need” for a permit.

SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said today this “clearly indicates that our lawsuit is proper, and we are encouraged to press our case to its conclusion.”

Morris County Superior Court Judge David Ironson announced after a hearing in his courtroom this morning that a permit will be issued to lead plaintiff Jeffrey Muller. His application had languished for six months before Judge Philip Maenza, a defendant in the federal lawsuit, denied the permit without a hearing on the grounds that Muller did not have a “justifiable need.” Muller had been kidnapped by members of a motorcycle gang who threatened to kill him, in a case of mistaken identity. Several suspects have been arrested in that case, and Muller’s application for a permit had gained support from local and state police.

“Finally,” Gottlieb said, “one judge has done the right thing, but it took a federal lawsuit to make it happen. Our other plaintiffs are pushing ahead with the lawsuit so we can put an end to this practice once and for all.”

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. and several private citizens whose applications for permits to carry have been denied generally on the grounds that they have not shown a “justifiable need.” One of the remaining plaintiffs is a part-time sheriff’s deputy, a second carries large amounts of cash in his private business and another is a civilian employee of the FBI in New Jersey who is fearful of attack from a radical Islamic fundamentalist group. They are represented by attorney David D. Jensen.

“We’re moving forward with this case,” Gottlieb stated, “because there are far too many people just like Jeff Muller whose civil rights have been cavalierly denied on the whims of a judge.”

Ian Argent has some comments on it here. As Ian lives in New Jersey, I think he has a better perspective than most.

Uncategorized

But What Will The Violence Policy Center Say?

May 27, 2011 by 4 Comments

Ruger is attempting to become the first firearms manufacturer to sell one million guns in one year. They issued the following release saying what happens if they meet their sales goal.


Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) is proud to announce the “Million Gun Challenge” to benefit the NRA. Ruger pledges to donate $1,000,000 to the NRA if one million new Ruger firearms are sold between the 2011 and 2012 NRA Shows.

“Our goal is to present the NRA with a check for one million dollars during the 141st NRA Annual Meeting in St. Louis next April,” said Ruger CEO Mike Fifer. “This substantial donation would reflect a record-breaking feat in the firearms industry, as we believe no company has every sold one million firearms in a 12-month period. With the help of our loyal customers, we hope to make history and to share that accomplishment with the NRA.”

I’m sure that Josh Sugarman and Kristen Rand at the Violence Policy Center are jumping up and down for joy thinking that they have just been vindicated. They have been saying that the NRA is just a tool for firearms manufacturers and that is why the MidwayUSA’s, the Rugers, the Glocks, etc. “subsidize” (i.e., donate money) to the NRA. I wonder what they will do once they realize that this means another million firearms in the hands of freedom-loving, Second Amendment backing Americans?

Uncategorized

Legislating A Non-Existent Solution

May 26, 2011 by 3 Comments

The New York State Assembly just passed the micro-stamping bill and sent it to the State Senate according to the NRA.

Micro-Stamping Legislation Passes New York Assembly

Thursday, May 26, 2011

On Tuesday, May 24, Assembly Bill 1157 passed in the New York Assembly by a 84 to 55 vote. The bill has been delivered to the state Senate and will be considered in the Senate Codes Committee.

Introduced by state Assemblyman Michelle Schimel (D-16), A1157 would require all current semi-automatic pistols in production and all newly designed semi-automatic pistols delivered to any licensed firearms dealer in New York to mechanically stamp an alpha-numeric or geometric code that would imprint the make, model and serial number onto the cartridge case when the gun is discharged. This bill would vastly increase the cost of these firearms and will likely result in firearms manufacturers not selling new handguns in New York. Of course, that is the ultimate goal of this legislation.

A1157 would also require micro-stamping on all new semi-automatic pistols sold in New York after January 1, 2013 or whenever the State Police receive notification from one or more “micro-stamp job shops” that they can produce micro-stamp structures on two internal surfaces of a semi-automatic pistol for $12 or less, whichever occurs later.

Gun control advocates know that micro-stamping is unproven technology, is easily circumvented, and will be very costly to gun owners. Desperate to pass a bill and create a loophole, this legislation would do nothing to safeguard gun owners from the costly, unproven gimmick we know as micro-stamping. Enemies of the Second Amendment are determined to pass New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s pet project at any cost.

If you live in New York, please contact your state Senator and respectfully urge him or her to OPPOSE A1157. Contact information can be found here. Perhaps they can be the voice of reason.

Uncategorized

They’re Back

May 26, 2011 by

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence had its Twitter privileges restored about an hour ago. They seem to be making up for lost time. Their last Tweet said:

CSGV’s promise to victims and survivors of gun violence: We will NEVER stop standing with you, including when you… http://fb.me/W4KQK9WQ

This linked to their Facebook page where they implicitly accuse gun rights activists of harrassing, intimidating, and threatening these poor sheep.

One of the definitions of intimidate is to “to overawe or cow, as through the force of personality or by superior display of wealth, talent, etc.” If one uses a superior argument with CSGV and their followers, I guess you would be guilty of intimidation. I can live with that.

Uncategorized

Grassley Threatens Hold On Justice Nominees Over Lack Of Answers On Project Gunwalker

May 26, 2011 by

Senator Chuck Grassley can be like a bulldog when he is after information on governmental wrongdoing. He was the first member of Congress to push for answers on Project Gunwalker and he isn’t stopping.

Both FoxNews and The Hill reported yesterday that Grassley is threatening a “hold” on Justice nominees due to a lack of answers from the Justice Department on Project Gunwalker. As I’ve noted here many times, Senator Grassley has submitted numerous information requests and has gotten little cooperation from the Justice Department.

Currently, Justice nominess for Solicitor General, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, and the head of the National Security Division have passed the Senate Judiciary Committee. These and others could be held up if Senator Grassley puts a hold on them as is his privilege under Senate rules.

From FoxNews:

A Grassley aide told FoxNews.com on Wednesday that three Justice nominees recently sent to the floor could be the first to get caught up in the dispute.

They are Donald Verrilli, nominee for solicitor general; Virginia Seitz, nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel; and Lisa Monaco, nominee to head the National Security Division.

“Those would be possibilities,” Grassley spokeswoman Beth Levine said, adding that her boss could put a hold on virtually anybody in line for a job at Justice over his concerns. The three nominees she named just happened to be voted recently out of committee.

“He’s reserving the right to hold up nominees,” Levine said.

From The Hill:

Grassley told The Hill that the DOJ officials have not been forthcoming on his requests for documents. If they continue to be unresponsive, Grassley said, he will hold Obama’s judicial nominations hostage.

“We’re just getting stonewalled,” Grassley said in an interview. “The next step is we’re going to hold up nominations until we get their attention.”

Given the dismissive attitude shown by Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to these matters, it may well take a blunt weapon like putting holds on all nominees to get his and Eric Holder’s attention.

Uncategorized

Time For Action On ATF Proposal On Multiple Rife Sales Reporting

May 26, 2011 by 3 Comments

The comment period for objecting to the proposed ATF requirement that FFL’s in the Southwest border states report multiple sales of certain semi-automatic rifles is May 31st. The gun prohibitionists flooded the ATF with comments the first time and are geared up to do it again.

Comments need to be sent by May 31st to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov

I have a couple of examples of letters that can be sent. You just need to cut and past this into your email program, add your name and address, and send it. Feel free to edit the letters as you wish. The keys are to submit it by May 31st, to send it to the address above, and to include the control number – OMB Control Number 1140-New.

If I can find any form letter generators with this info, I will post it.

Long Letter

Re: OMB Control Number 1140-New

I am writing to oppose the Information collection action to register multiple sales of certain rifles with BATFE from the 04/29/2011 Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-29/pdf/2011-10355.pdf.

This information collection is both illegal and unnecessary.

* The action proposed is outside the statutory grant of authority to record information about multiple sales of firearms. Title 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A) specifically grants the authority to collect multiple sale information on handguns and revolvers. Other firearms are excluded and there is no implied authority to extend this reporting requirement to rifles or any other type of firearm.

* Analysis of the number of firearms seized shows that Mexico is being primarily supplied with firearms by South American countries, NOT the United States. In fact, a STRATFOR report indicates that fully 90% of of the firearms traced in Mexico are NOT coming from the United States, contrary to assertions in the mainstream media: http://wwwprod-1756134246.us-west-1.elb.amazonaws.com/index.php?q=weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth.

Additionally, Wikileaks cables have shown the US Government is at least partially responsible for supplying Mexico from the United States: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2011/02/pentagon-fingered-source-narco-firepower-mexico. These firearms are NOT from the US commercial market.

* Source documents of the BATFE uncovered by US Senator Grassley and US Representative Issa show that BATFE has been complicit in supplying Mexican Narco-terrorist forces with firearms: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49971654/2011-03-03-CEG-to-DOJ-ATF.

* ”FFL” holders are already required by law to respond to BATFE requests for information on firearms distribution pursuant to criminal investigations: Title 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(7).

* The regulation contains no provision for the destruction of information collected, which establishes a nationwide registry of “certain types of firearms” as proposed. Because of this the regulation, as proposed, is illegal under Title 18 U.S.C. § 926(a). ”No such rule or regulation … may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.”

There is a grave potential for this regulation to unduly burden citizens who are collectors or must obtain purchase permits at the local or state level to possess firearms. The proposed regulation does not say what the agency intends to do with the information but ostensibly it would be for criminal investigations. Subjecting law abiding gun owners to this type of investigation under the guise of “information collection” is an overt attempt to prevent them from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to purchase and own firearms.

This regulatory action should not be approved.

Short Letter

Re: OMB Control Number 1140-New

I am writing to oppose the Information collection action to register multiple sales of certain rifles with BATFE from the 04/29/2011 Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-29/pdf/2011-10355.pdf

This information collection is both illegal and unnecessary.

Specifically addressing your request for comments on whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility, the collection of this additional data will impede the proper function of ATF field operations.

Even when firearm’s dealers in the Southwest voluntarily provided information on multiple semi-automatic rifle sales to the ATF in an effort to prevent straw purchases and illegal sales, the ATF could not keep up with the volume of information. Adding a requirement that ALL dealers submit this information will create information overload. Because of this it would not have practical utility and would impede proper performance of the agency.

This regulatory action should not be approved.

Uncategorized

Brady’s Prepared For ATF Comments On Multi-Rifle Reporting

May 26, 2011 by 1 Comment

The Brady Campaign is prepared for the May 31st deadline for comments on the ATF proposal to require dealers in the Southwest to report multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines in calibers greater than .22. Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Campaign posted this note on their website:

Tell ATF to Fight Assault Rifle Smuggling to Mexico!

Dear Friend,

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has proposed an important new step to curb gun smuggling to Mexico.

ATF wants to hear from you and has asked for the public to weigh in with comments on its new idea.

Please tell ATF that you support its proposal to require reporting of multiple sales of weapons, such as semi-automatic military-style assault rifles, by gun dealers in the Southwest border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

The comment period closes May 31, so please click here to take action today!

America’s gun laws are so weak that gun dealers don’t even have to inform law enforcement when they sell dozens of these weapons of war in one sale.

The violence fueled by our weak gun laws is killing thousands both here and in Mexico, and gun trafficking to Mexico threatens to cause a major foreign policy crisis for the U.S.

Please make your voice heard and help ATF crack down on gunrunners to Mexico and contribute to security in Mexico and the United States.

After you’ve taken action, please also forward this message to your family and friends.

Sincerely,
Dennis Henigan, Vice President
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Within that letter is a link to a form letter generator. Unfortunately, while the message can be personalized a bit, they have frozen the parts saying you support the proposal to require the reporting. Otherwise we could just use their generator to send mass amounts of letters opposing the ATF proposal. Their letter reads:

Support the Proposal to Require Reporting of Multiple Sales of Certain Long Guns (OMB control number 1140NEW)

Dear [Decision Maker],

I am writing to offer my comment in support of the Proposal to Require Reporting of Multiple Sales of Certain Long Guns (OMB control number 1140NEW).

America’s weak gun laws have contributed to massive numbers of guns, including military-style assault weapons, being sold by gun dealers to gun traffickers in the U.S. These guns harm Americans and are smuggled to Mexican drug cartels who wreak havoc on citizens, visitors, law enforcement, and government officials in Mexico.

Reporting multiple sales of weapons such as semi-automatic assault rifles will provide ATF with crucial notification of bulk gun sales to traffickers, giving law enforcement an opportunity to promptly investigate and stop a potential trafficker.

Under current law, ATF and other law enforcement agencies have neither the tools nor the resources to adequately stem the flow of trafficked guns from the United States into Mexico. Congress needs to provide law enforcement the tools it needs to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, including requiring background checks for all gun sales, giving ATF increased enforcement authority to crack down on corrupt gun dealers, and restricting the sale of military-style weaponry, such as large capacity ammunition magazines. The proposed reporting requirement is an important first step to stopping gun trafficking.

I urge you to support the Proposal to Require Reporting of Multiple Sales of Certain Long Guns (OMB control number 1140NEW).

Of course, it is utter bullshit. However, it emphasizes the need for our side to get its act together and submit comments. May 31st is only five days away if you count today. I will have a sample letter up with instructions a little later this morning.

If anyone knows of a form letter generator with a message opposing this proposal, please put it in the comments. I will make sure to publicize it.

H/T Josh

Uncategorized

Blatant Mistruths From Anti’s On NC’s HB 650

May 25, 2011 by 1 Comment

The anti-gun group, North Carolinians against Gun Violence (NCGV), has issued their “report” on HB 650 which amends various North Carolina gun laws.

Sean at A NC Gun Blog has been reporting on HB 650 and what it would do. He takes apart their attack on the bill bit by bit and shows them for the desparate group that they have become.

While North Carolina specific, it is shows how to dissect and take apart the gun prohibitionists’ arguments as well as showing how they will lie to stop reform.

Uncategorized

Range Protection Bill Passes NC State Senate

May 25, 2011 by

SB 560 – the Sport Shooting Range Protection Act – passed the North Carolina Senate yesterday by a 36-13 vote. According to Grass Roots NC, the rules were suspended which allowed a single vote for both the 2nd and 3rd readings of the bill. It now goes to the NC State House. More importantly, it was passed prior to the crossover deadline of June 9th which means the bill can still be considered for passage anytime between now and next year. It does not have to pass the House before the probable adjournment of this session in July.

The breakdown of the vote is below.

Ayes: Senator(s): Allran; Apodaca; Berger, D.; Berger, P.; Bingham; Blake; Brock; Brown; Brunstetter; Clary; Daniel; Davis; East; Forrester; Garrou; Goolsby; Gunn; Harrington; Hartsell; Hise; Hunt; Jackson; Jenkins; Kinnaird; Meredith; Newton; Pate; Preston; Rabon; Rouzer; Rucho; Soucek; Stevens; Tillman; Tucker; Walters

Noes: Senator(s): Atwater; Clodfelter; Dannelly; Graham; Jones; Mansfield; McKissick; Nesbitt; Purcell; Robinson; Stein; Vaughan; White

Exc. Absence: Senator(s): Blue

Those voting against the bill were all Democrats while the majority in favor was a mixture of both Democrats and Republicans.

The bill as passed was amended in committee to specify that to be considered in continuous operation the range had to relocate within the same county. If it moved to another county, it was now subject to the ordinances in effect when the property was purchases.

SECTION 1. G.S. 14‑409.46 is amended by adding two new subsections to read:

“(f) For the purposes of this Article, a sport shooting range that relocates to another location within the same county due to condemnation, rezoning, annexation, road construction, or development:
(1) Is still considered to be continuously in existence since beginning operation at its previous location; and
(2) Is not considered to have undergone a substantial change in use as the result of the location.
(g) A sport shooting range that is exempted from liability under this Article and that relocates to a new location in a different county shall comply with ordinances in effect at the new location as of the date property is purchased to establish the range at the new location.”

Range protection is important. The days of shooting in your backyard so long as you lived outside the city limits are all but over in a lot of places. Even in rural areas in states with strong range protection laws, the establishment of a new range is not an easy task as seen in this story from Missouri. Attacking shooting ranges is a backdoor attack on the Second Amendment as the Ezell case in Chicago makes clear.

Uncategorized

My Kind Of Gun Shop

May 24, 2011 by 2 Comments

I am in Murphy, NC on business and ran across this wonderfully named gun shop. It was closed by the time I got here. With luck, I’ll be able to drop in tomorrow. Just peeking in the window, it looks like a good store.

The name of the store is enough to put the gun prohibitionists into an apoplectic rage. Good!

– Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

UPDATE: I got a chance to visit the gun shop this afternoon and speak with the owner. The shop has been open about a year and a half. Business is good enough that it supports his family and he can expand little by little which is good to hear. I asked the owner about the name and he said he did it to goad the anti’s a bit. I like his sense of humor!

The shop has an interesting selection of older and new guns with more emphasis on the second-hand stuff. I saw an absolutely pristine Smith and Wesson M&P .38 Special revolver from the 1940s. They even have the original box that it came in. It had been put away in a closet and rarely shot.

If you are ever in Murphy, North Carolina stop in at Back Alley Arms. It is located about half a block from the center of town.