Diversionary Tactics (Updated)

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has come through on his promise to hold hearings on gun control and the ATF. If you will remember from the June 15th hearing into Operation Fast and Furious, he said he would be exercising his right for a Minority day of hearings. From Cummings’ opening statement:

Finally, no legitimate examination of this issue will be complete without analyzing our nation’s gun laws, which allow tens of thousands of assault weapons to flood into Mexico from the United States every year, including .50-caliber sniper rifles, multiple AK variants, and scores of others, some of them landing in neighborhoods like mine, the one I represent in Baltimore. When Mexican President Calderon addressed Congress in May, he pleaded for us to stop fielding a full- scale drug war with military-grade assault weapons.

In order to explore these issues further today, I’m exercising my right under the rules, Mr. Chairman, of the House for a minority day of hearings with several witnesses who will testify about these issues in great detail. I did not think it was necessary to call these witnesses for today’s hearing, but I will work with the chairman on scheduling these hearings in the near future.

Those hearings are scheduled for tomorrow at 10am EDT according to reports in the Houston Chronicle and the website Main Justice. From the Houston Chronicle:

★ Thursday: Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, will hold a forum on the flow of illegal guns on both sides of the U.S./Mexico border. The forum will be held at 10 a.m. EDT in the Russell Senate Office Building.

Rep. Cummings has not posted a release or notice about the hearings on the House Oversight Committee’s website. However, Main Justice had this to report on the hearing speakers:

Speakers at the minority hearing will include Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), a retired ATF agent, and several gun control advocates.

 It seems Cummings is keeping a tight lid on just who the “retired ATF agent, and several gun control advocates” are. If I had to make an educated guess, the retired ATF agent is probably “Waco Jim” Cavanaugh who just last week had an op-ed in TickleTheWire saying that the ATF director should be not be subject to Presidential appointment and subsequent Senate confirmation. Among the gun control advocates will probably be Paul Helmke in his last hurrah before he leaves as head of the Brady Campaign. Of course, this is just speculation.

This “hearing” will be just another in the diversionary tactics being employed to divert attention from Project Gunwalker and on the “need” for more gun control. The Washington Post’s ridiculous editorial from Sunday could also be put in this category. For a less diplomatic description of the hearings, I think Mike captures it with his headline here.

UPDATE: Well, I was right about Paul Helmke being there but wrong about “Waco Jim”. The complete list of people “testifying” is below:

Senator Charles Schumer (NY)
Michael R. Bouchard, former Assistant Director Field Operations, ATF
Thomas Mahoney, Assistant State’s Attorney Supervisor, Gang Prosecution Unit, Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office
Eric Olson, Senior Associate, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Kristen Rand, Legislative Director, Violence Policy Center
Paul Helmke, President, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Colby Goodman, Author of “U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico: New Data and Insights Illuminate Key Trends and Challenges”

  Cummings says the aim of the forum – which I suppose means the testimony is not sworn – will be:

Law enforcement officials have testified that improvements to our nation’s gun laws are needed to address this increasingly devastating problem, including enhanced penalties for illegal straw purchases, the enactment of a firearms trafficking statute, and a reporting requirement for the purchase of multiple long guns, such as fifty caliber assault weapons and multiple AK variants.

Cummings will issue a report with recommendations to provide U.S. law enforcement with the tools needed to address gun trafficking.

Recent editorials in the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times reiterate the need for basic, common-sense improvements to assist law enforcement officials counter violence by international drug cartels operating along the southwest border.

You have to wonder if the testimony would be the exactly the same if it was sworn and perjury charges could be brought.

Mike has more on the witnesses and their background especially former ATF official Michael Bouchard.

HR 1552 – The “Juveniles Can Never Be Rehabilitated Act”

Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY-1) introduced HR 1552 last week. The text of it has finally become available and is seen below. Congressman Israel has titled his bill “Preventing Gun Violence Act”. The bill would prohibit the possession of a firearm by anyone who had been convicted of any crime involving violence while a juvenile that would carry with it a sentence of more than one year if committed by an adult.

That sounds like a great get-tough-on-crime approach except when you think about it.

It seems barely a week goes by where you don’t see some third grader is arrested at school, put in handcuffs, and taken down to the police station for some imagined crime by an overzealous law enforcement officer. We roll our eyes, make fun of the system, and get on with life. What happens if this child is found guilty of assault in a family or juvenile court? Under Israel’s bill, he or she would probably be precluded from possessing a firearm for the rest of his or her life.

What this bill precludes is the idea that someone can be rehabilitated. It never imagines that kids who have grown up on the wrong side of the tracks and gotten into trouble as a kid would ever become a productive member of society. The idea of redemption is foreign to the author of this bill. It isn’t a three strikes law aimed at habitual criminals; it is a one strike and you’re out law. There is no rehabilitation, there is no redemption, there is no repentance for past sins.

Beyond being the author of this bill, Congressman Israel is also the Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. His bio there states he is a “defender of civil and human rights”. You wouldn’t know it by this bill.

H.R.1552 — Preventing Gun Violence Act (Introduced in House – IH)

HR 1552 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1552

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the possession of a firearm by a person who is adjudicated to have committed a violent act while a juvenile.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 14, 2011

Mr. ISRAEL 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 prohibit the possession of a firearm by a person who is adjudicated to have committed a violent act while a juvenile.
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 `Preventing Gun Violence Act’.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY A PERSON WHO IS ADJUDICATED TO HAVE COMMITTED A VIOLENT ACT WHILE A JUVENILE.
(a) Possession Ban- Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (8);
(2) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting `; or’; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
`(10) who has been adjudicated by a court of the United States to have committed a violent juvenile act,’.
(b) Violent Juvenile Act Defined- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(36)(A) The term `violent juvenile act’ means an act by a person before the person attains 18 years of age that, if committed by an adult, would be punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, and–
`(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person; or
`(ii) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against another person may be used in the course of committing the act.’.

Two More Anti-Gun Measures Introduced In Congress

The anti-gun forces have been active this week in the U.S. House of Representatives. On Wedneday, Rep. Peter King (R-NY-4) introduced the House version of Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s bill that would ostensibly deny anyone suspected of being or giving aid to a terrorist the ability to purchase firearms or explosives.

On Thursday, Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY-2) introduced HR 1552. The bill’s working title is ” To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the possession of a firearm by a person who is adjudicated to have committed a violent act while a juvenile.” The full text of this bill is not yet available so I don’t know if it only applies to felonies committed by a jevenile or all violent acts. Nor do I know just what is deemed a violent act.

Finally, on Friday, Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL-5) introduced HR 1642. This bill would “prevent the illegal sale of firearms.” Again, the text is not available yet. Therefore, I don’t know what is considered an “illegal sale of firearms”. Quigley is the Cook County Democrat who succeeded Rahm Emanuel in Congress when Emanuel became White House Chief of Staff. This is also the seat held by disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. I’d say this is quite the record for one Congressional seat.

Quigley’s bill has four co-sponsors – Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.(D-IL), Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC). Rep. Steve Israel’s bill, HR 1552, has no co-sponsors.

When the text of the bills become available, I will post them. As it is, I don’t think any of them should make it out of committee.

HR 1506: A Bill That Needs To Go Nowhere (Updated With Text)

Rep. Peter King (R-NY-3) introduced HR 1506 yesterday. It is titled a bill to “To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”

I am guessing – and it is only a guess – that this bill is the House version of Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s S 34 – Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2011. The language of King’s bill is not yet available. However, the purpose of the Lautenberg bill is exactly the same as the preliminary title of HR 1506, so I think it is fair presumption.

The 11 co-sponsors are your usual cast of anti-gunners along with one NRA C-ranked Country Club Republican (Lance) thrown into the mix.

Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5]
Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32]
Rep Deutch, Theodore E. [FL-19]
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14]
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17]
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12]
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7]
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC]
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15]
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1]
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30]

While the bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, it will probably get more attention than it deserves because King is the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The bill should be consigned to the dustbin of history but it probably will get some traction thanks to King’s sponsorship of it.

Republican or not, Peter King is no friend of gun owners and made plenty of stupid remarks in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings. His HR 496 would create a 1000 foot “gun-free bubble” around “high-ranking government officials” which, of course, includes Congressmen. If he were a Republican from the Mid-West, the South, or even California, I doubt he could get away with some of the stuff he has said. However, he represents a Long Island district that adjoins the district of Carolyn McCarthy and stupidly confuses gun control with anti-terrorism measures.

UPDATE: The bill now has 14 co-sponsors and the text has been released. The text of HR 1506 is not word for word the same as Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s S. 34 but it is pretty damn close.

In essence, you can be accused of international or domestic terrorism by some unknown accuser and then be turned down for a firearms purchase. If the Attorney General deems it in the interest of “national security”, then he doesn’t need to even tell you why you were denied and you are prohibited from suing to seek answers. This law would strip you of your right to due process.

Here is the text of the bill as reported by the Government Printing Office.

A BILL

To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.

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 `Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.

(a) Standard for Exercising Attorney General Discretion Regarding Transferring Firearms or Issuing Firearms Permits to Dangerous Terrorists- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by inserting the following new section after section 922:

`Sec. 922A. Attorney General’s discretion to deny transfer of a firearm

`The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’;

(2) by inserting the following new section after section 922A:

`Sec. 922B. Attorney General’s discretion regarding applicants for firearm permits which would qualify for the exemption provided under section 922(t)(3)

`The Attorney General may determine that an applicant for a firearm permit which would qualify for an exemption under section 922(t) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’; and

(3) in section 921(a), by adding at the end the following:

`(36) The term `terrorism’ means `international terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(1), and `domestic terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(5).

`(37) The term `material support’ means `material support or resources’ within the meaning of section 2339A or 2339B.

`(38) The term `responsible person’ means an individual who has the power, directly or indirectly, to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of the applicant or licensee pertaining to firearms.’.

(b) Effect of Attorney General Discretionary Denial Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) on Firearms Permits- Section 922(t) of such title is amended–

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by inserting `or State law, or that the Attorney General has determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A’ before the semicolon;

(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting after `or State law’ the following: `or if the Attorney General has not determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A’;

(3) in paragraph (3)(A)(i)–

(A) by striking `and’ at the end of subclause (I); and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(III) was issued after a check of the system established pursuant to paragraph (1);’;

(4) in paragraph (3)(A)–

(A) by adding `and’ at the end of clause (ii); and

(B) by adding after and below the end the following:

`(iii) the State issuing the permit agrees to deny the permit application if such other person is the subject of a determination by the Attorney General pursuant to section 922B;’;

(5) in paragraph (4), by inserting after `or State law,’ the following: `or if the Attorney General has not determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A,’; and

(6) in paragraph (5), by inserting after `or State law,’ the following: `or if the Attorney General has determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A,’.

(c) Unlawful Sale or Disposition of Firearm Based on Attorney General Discretionary Denial- Section 922(d) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (8);

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting `; or’;

(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:

`(10) has been the subject of a determination by the Attorney General pursuant to section 922A, 922B, 923(d)(1)(H), or 923(e) of this title.’.

(d) Attorney General Discretionary Denial as Prohibitor- Section 922(g) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (8);

(2) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting; `; or’; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:

`(10) who has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 922A, 922B, 923(d)(1)(H), or 923(e) of this title.’.

(e) Attorney General Discretionary Denial of Federal Firearms Licenses- Section 923(d)(1) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `Any’ and inserting `Except as provided in subparagraph (H), any’;

(2) in subparagraph (F)(iii), by striking `and’ at the end;

(3) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period and inserting `; and’; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(H) The Attorney General may deny a license application if the Attorney General determines that the applicant (including any responsible person) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’.

(f) Discretionary Revocation of Federal Firearms Licenses- Section 923(e) of such title is amended–

(1) in the 1st sentence–

(A) by inserting after `revoke’ the following: `–(1)’; and

(B) by striking the period and inserting a semicolon;

(2) in the 2nd sentence–

(A) by striking `The Attorney General may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, revoke’ and insert `(2)’; and

(B) by striking the period and inserting `; or’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) any license issued under this section if the Attorney General determines that the holder of the license (including any responsible person) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’.

(g) Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information in Firearms License Denial and Revocation Suit- Section 923(f) of such title is amended–

(1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting `, except that if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(H) or (e)(3), then any information on which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security’ before the period; and

(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: `With respect to any information withheld from the aggrieved party under paragraph (1), the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.’.

(h) Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information in Relief From Disabilities Lawsuits- Section 925(c) of such title is amended by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: `If receipt of a firearms by the person would violate section 922(g)(10), any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security. In responding to the petition, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.’.

(i) Penalties- Section 924(k) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (2);

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `, or’ and inserting `; or’; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

`(4) constitutes an act of terrorism (as defined in section 921(a)(36)), or material support thereof (as defined in section 921(a)(37)), or’.

(j) Remedy for Erroneous Denial of Firearm or Firearm Permit Exemption- Section 925A of such title is amended–

(1) in the section heading, by striking `Remedy for erroneous denial of firearm’ and inserting `Remedies’;

(2) by striking `Any person denied a firearm pursuant to subsection (s) or (t) of section 922′ and inserting the following:

`(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), any person denied a firearm pursuant to section 922(t) or pursuant to a determination made under section 922B,’; and

(3) by adding after and below the end the following:

`(b) In any case in which the Attorney General has denied the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee pursuant to section 922A or has made a determination regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 922B, an action challenging the determination may be brought against the United States. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 922A or 922B. The court shall sustain the Attorney General’s determination on a showing by the United States by a preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General’s determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B. To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security. On request of the petitioner or the court’s own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.’.

(k) Provision of Grounds Underlying Ineligibility Determination by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System- Section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159) is amended–

(1) in subsection (f)–

(A) by inserting after `is ineligible to receive a firearm,’ the following: `or the Attorney General has made a determination regarding an applicant for a firearm permit pursuant to section 922B of title 18, United States Code’; and

(B) by inserting after `the system shall provide such reasons to the individual,’ the following: `except for any information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security’; and

(2) in subsection (g)–

(A) in the 1st sentence, by inserting after `subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code or State law’ the following: `or if the Attorney General has made a determination pursuant to section 922A or 922B of such title,’;

(B) by inserting `, except any information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security’ before the period; and

(C) by adding at the end the following: `Any petition for review of information withheld by the Attorney General under this subsection shall be made in accordance with section 925A of title 18, United States Code.’.

(l) Unlawful Distribution of Explosives Based on Attorney General Discretionary Denial- Section 842(d) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting `; or’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(10) has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 843(b)(8) or (d)(2) of this title.’.

(m) Attorney General Discretionary Denial as Prohibitor- Section 842(i) of such title is amended–

(1) by adding `or’ at the end of paragraph (7); and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:

`(8) who has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 843(b)(8) or (d)(2),’.

(n) Attorney General Discretionary Denial of Federal Explosives Licenses and Permits- Section 843(b) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `Upon’ and inserting the following: `Except as provided in paragraph (8), on’; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:

`(8) The Attorney General may deny the issuance of a permit or license to an applicant if the Attorney General determines that the applicant or a responsible person or employee possessor thereof is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation of, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the person may use explosives in connection with terrorism.’.

(o) Attorney General Discretionary Revocation of Federal Explosives Licenses and Permits- Section 843(d) of such title is amended–

(1) by inserting `(1)’ in the first sentence after `if’; and

(2) by striking the period at the end of the first sentence and inserting the following: `; or (2) the Attorney General determines that the licensee or holder (or any responsible person or employee possessor thereof) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and that the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the person may use explosives in connection with terrorism.’.

(p) Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information in Explosives License and Permit Denial and Revocation Suits- Section 843(e) of such title is amended–

(1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting `except that if the denial or revocation is based on a determination under subsection (b)(8) or (d)(2), then any information which the Attorney General relied on for the determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security’ before the period; and

(2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following: `In responding to any petition for review of a denial or revocation based on a determination under section 843(b)(8) or (d)(2), the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.’.

(q) Ability To Withhold Information in Communications to Employers- Section 843(h)(2) of such title is amended–

(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting `or section 843(b)(1) (on grounds of terrorism) of this title,’ after `section 842(i),’; and

(2) in subparagraph (B)–

(A) by inserting `or section 843(b)(8)’ after `section 842(i)’; and

(B) in clause (ii), by inserting `, except that any information that the Attorney General relied on for a determination pursuant to section 843(b)(8) may be withheld if the Attorney General concludes that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security’ before the semicolon.

(r) Conforming Amendment to Immigration and Nationality Act- Section 101(a)(43)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii)) is amended by striking ` or (5)’ and inserting `(5), or (10)’.

Astroturfing

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) is making a big deal out of a letter to The Oregonian purported to be from “a former Army officer, gunsmith, member of the NRA and a competitive marksman”. Their tweet on this – sent both last week and today – says “A gunsmith takes on the extreme, militia-based ideology of the NRA in a memorable piece.”

The only problem with this “memorable piece” is that it does not read like anything a modern-day gunsmith might write. It refers to “extended clips” as one example. Excuse me but I don’t think a gunsmith would call a magazine an “extended clip”.

I have searched all gunsmiths in the Portland area that hold an FFL and I don’t find any “Charles Ford”. I have also Googled Mr. Ford and again, I don’t find any gunsmith in Portland by the name of “Charles Ford”. Finally, I asked the members of the Oregon Hometown Forum on ar15.com if anyone had ever heard of a gunsmith in the Portland area by this name. No luck there either.

I believe a Charles Ford might exist but I doubt he is a real gunsmith. Real gunsmiths know the difference between a magazine and a clip. Moreover, real gunsmiths and actual NRA members don’t usually go spouting off about a “1,000 armed hate groups” – a number more usually associated with the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Here is the letter. Go to the link above to read the comments. They don’t think much of Mr. Ford either.

Regarding Mayor Adams’ proposals for gun control, I must add my perspective. As a former Army officer, gunsmith, member of the NRA and a competitive marksman, I see no reason why citizens, other than law enforcement, should have free access to armor-piercing rounds, military or automatic weapons, extended clips or undocumented purchases at gun shows.

Is this about hunting rights and self-protection or homegrown militias? There are currently more than 1,000 armed hate groups with their own agendas in the United States, all claiming the Constitution for their protection.

The creators of this magnificent document that protects us all never envisioned the effects of slavery, homegrown terrorists or crazies with a checkbook. So much of the rhetoric from the National Rifle Association sounds like “keep your hand off my junk,” testosterone-fueled hysteria, as if they’re about to be neutered by some tree-huggers.

The NRA has put its position forward that it is the last bastion of protection for America, as if an army that defeated the U.S. military would wither under fire from the unlicensed Uzis flooding our neighborhoods and taking the lives of thousands of young Americans. This might have made sense back in Colonial or Old West days, but now it’s just an anachronistic leftover, like chamber pots and the horseshoe smith on the corner.

When the U.S. faced the most egregious assault on our constitutional rights in its modern history, the NRA sat silently while George W. Bush emasculated the rights of us all. The NRA offers only the empty promise of protection and irrational justification for rendering us the most lethal country on Earth. It’s time to put reason back in the saddle.

CHARLES FORD
Southeast Portland

UPDATE: Sebastian at Snow Flakes in Hell has checked the list of all FFL’s in the state of Oregon and there is no one by the name of Ford listed. 

And according to BATFE, a person must be licensed if one holds him or herself out to be a gunsmith:

Q: Is a license needed to engage in the business of engraving, customizing, refinishing or repairing firearms?
Yes. A person conducting such activities as a business is considered to be a gunsmith within the definition of a dealer.

[27 CFR 478.11]

I wonder if Mr. Smith is one of those “unlicensed dealers” that gun control advocates love to talk about.

Always Hard To Prove Causation

Juliet Leftwich is the Executive Director of Legal Community Against Violence or LCAV. LCAV is a San Francisco-based group that promotes gun control and which has received over $2.3 million from the Joyce Foundation. One of their bigger initiatives is their promotion of their Model Laws to state and local governments. This is especially true in California where they have been particularly active and many communities have adopted their Model Laws.

In the video clip below, Leftwich is being interviewed by Omar Samaha. He is with MAIG’s National Initiative to Fix Gun Checks. Samaha’s sister was one of the victims of the shootings at Virginia Tech. Samaha is something of a media darling like Colin Goddard and has done “undercover buys” for ABC’s 20/20.

Samaha asks Leftwich if she has seen a change in “gun violence” since California has adopted its restrictive gun control laws. Leftwich responds that “unfortunately there is not a lot of great data out there.” However, she does try to put a good spin on it saying that the rate of “gun violence” in California has gone down more than in the rest of the country. And then she makes this admission, “But it is always hard to prove causation because gun laws are a very complicated issue.”

To recap, she says there is not good data, there are only a few studies, and that causation is hard to prove from the studies that do exist. This is a bit of a startling admission from a leading gun control advocate.

H/T J.D. Berger

McCarthy Crowing

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is crowing about how her bill, HR 308, has now reached 100 co-sponsors. She includes numerous congratulatory accolades from gun prohibitionists in her press release. Normally, 100 co-sponsors of a gun control bill like hers would be of concern. However, given that the co-sponsors are all liberal, anti-gun Democrats and the House is now Republican majority, HR 308 is merely something to keep one’s eye on and not something that should cause great and immediate fear. While this bill make get a few more sponsors, I think it has come close to its high water mark.

By contrast, HR 822 – the National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Bill – now has 83 co-sponsors in less than a month since its introduction. It probably would have more sponsors added this week if the House wasn’t on break this week for a “constituent work break”. If your representative is having an event in his or her district, that might be a good time to ask them to become a co-sponsor if they haven’t already. If they have signed up as a co-sponsor, make sure to thank them.

And now for some light reading courtesy of Rep. McCarthy.

Bill to Ban High-Capacity Ammo Magazines Reaches New Milestone
Wednesday March 23, 2011

H.R. 308 Now Has 100 Cosponsors in House, With More on the Way

WASHINGTON, DC – Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s (D-NY04) bill to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines has reached a new milestone, with 100 cosponsors now supporting the proposal.

More cosponsors still are expected for H.R. 308, which aims to reduce injuries and save lives by banning the sale or transfer of magazines that allow shooters to fire more than 10 bullets at a time. In the recent mass shooting in Tucson as well as the 1993 massacre on the Long Island Railroad that affected Rep. McCarthy’s family, the shooters were stopped by bystanders only when they stopped to reload their high-capacity magazines.

The 100 cosponsors hail from every part of the country, and represent a broad coalition of Congress members representing urban, suburban and rural areas.

The rapid growth in support behind the bill – which was introduced on Jan. 18 – is the result of a two-pronged strategy being executed by Rep. McCarthy and a nationwide network of advocates.

On one level, Rep. McCarthy is going member-to-member on Capitol Hill making the case personally, reminding her colleagues of her unique perspective as a victim of gun violence herself. Her husband was killed, and son seriously injured, in the 1993 LIRR shooting.
On another level, groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the Violence Policy Center, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence and the Citizens Crime Commission of NYC are working tirelessly with local partners across the country to speak to members of Congress and their constituents directly in their districts.

“The broad and steadily growing coalition of cosponsors for the bill to ban high-capacity magazines is a clear sign that millions of Americans support commonsense measures to address gun violence,” Rep. McCarthy said. “Together with strengthening our background check system so that people known to be dangerous can’t get their hands on deadly weapons in the first place, this proposal is sure to reduce injuries and save lives in our nation.”

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence President Paul Helmke said: “We applaud this new milestone and are encouraged that Congress is waking up to the fact that sensible gun laws save lives. More members of Congress are beginning to understand that restrictions on military-style weaponry are necessary to help prevent mass shootings. We are encouraged by the support of these 100 co-sponsors and are determined to fight for the passage of this proven and effective law to reduce gun violence.”

States United to Prevent Gun Violence Executive Director Andy Pelosi said: “We applaud Rep. McCarthy’s leadership and the growing Congressional support on this issue to re-establish the ban on high capacity ammunition magazines. No private citizen should have access to such high-power lethality. Our state-based gun violence prevention organizations have found wide support for this ban which will save lives.”

Violence Policy Center Legislative Director Kristen Rand said: “Increasing support in Congress for restricting high-capacity magazines demonstrates the public’s recognition that these devices have no legitimate purpose in a civilized society.”

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Executive Director Josh Horwitz said: “Representative McCarthy has shown yet again that she is a tenacious advocate. Reaching the 100 cosponsor mark in such a short amount of time is a reminder that Congress will have to consider this legislation sooner rather than later. Our Coalition has worked tirelessly to develop cosponsors and it is rewarding to see so many Members respond.”

New Yorkers Against Gun Violence Executive Director Jackie Hilly said: “A ban on large capacity ammunition magazines is a sensible step to reduce gun violence and is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. I thank each of the 100 cosponsors of H.R. 308 for listening to the demands of their constituents. The leadership shown by these Members of Congress, particularly Representative Carolyn McCarthy, will help save lives.”

Citizens Crime Commission of NYC and formerBrady Campaign President Richard Aborn said: “The fight for commonsense gun control has never been an easy one, but we’re halfway there with Congresswoman McCarthy’s outstanding leadership on H.R. 308. The issue is simple: this isn’t about Democrats or Republicans, it’s about protecting law enforcement and keeping the public safe. Congress needs to understand that cops should not be outgunned by criminals; it’s not fair.”

Michael Bane made a comment a week or so ago that we as Americans tend to accord victims a special status. McCarthy always wants to play on that status by never failing to mention the murder of her husband on the Long Island Railroad in 1993 by a deranged individual.

Like McCarthy, I was widowed in 1993. My wife died from breast cancer at the age of 42. Neither event was supposed to happen but they did. As harsh as it may sound, life goes on and we need to deal with it. To expect – and even demand – continued sympathy from an event that happened over 17 years ago like McCarthy seems to want to do is sad. It is sad that McCarthy hasn’t really moved on with her life and sad because she is using the tragic death of her husband as a means of political gain.

Simple Addition Is Beyond Mayor Daley

Watching Mayor Daley at this press conference with Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) calling for more gun control reminds me of the Genesis song I Can’t Dance from their We Can’t Dance album. Just substitute “I can’t add, I can’t do math” for “I can’t dance, I can’t talk” and you have Mayor Daley.

Daley claims that 100,000 people are “shot and killed with a gun” every year on average. He makes this remark at the .25 mark of the video.

However, if you take the numbers from their own posters – 34 – and multiply that by 365, you only get 12,410. That is a far cry from 100,000. Even when you add in suicides and gun-related accidental deaths, the annual number has averaged 32,000 deaths for the years 1980-2006. This last number is from the University of Pennsylvania’s Firearm and Injury Center at Penn. FICAP has received $600,000 from the Joyce Foundation over that past few years to come up with that number.

Daily Star Or Red Star?

The Arizona Daily Star of Tucson has an editorial today calling for a reinstatement of the ban on “military-style assault weapons”.

Banning semiautomatic assault weapons designed to kill lots of people quickly isn’t quite as simple at it may appear on the surface. That must not keep us from trying.

In fact, even given myriad defects in the now-expired federal assault-weapons ban, we could do a lot worse than essentially reinstating it as originally written. Flawed though it was, it reduced the flow of such weapons.

Even better, Congress should consider emulating California’s assault-weapons ban.

According to the Daily Star, the California law has a one military feature and its banned. Frankly, I don’t know if they are correct or not as I haven’t had to deal with the California law. I do know that the good folks at CalGuns.net can tell you all about “bullet buttons” and other ways around the California law.

What the editorial board of the Arizona Daily Star fails to mention is that the overall crime rate has gone down since the AWB sunsetted in 2004. I guess that doesn’t fit the narrative.

UPDATE: Charles Heller of the AZ Citizens Defense League was given an opportunity to write an op-ed responding to the Daily Star. It is entitled Gun Control: Punishing the Innocent.

Mayor Daley Not Fading Away

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is not fading away as his latest term in office runs out. At least not with regard to gun control, that is.

Gathering a group of clergy, activists, elected officials, and victim’s families for his annual gun control law press conference, Daley pushed the Illinois General Assembly to pass “common-sense gun laws.”

Felons convicted of illegal gun possession or charged with other gun crimes would no longer be eligible for probation, under one of four new wrinkles in Daley’s annual package of gun control legislation.

The lame-duck mayor is also proposing: a mandatory, ten-year prison sentence for pointing a gun at a first responder; a separate felony charge for parents or guardians who bring a child along when they commit or attempt a felony and automatic transfer from juvenile to criminal court for 15- to 17-year-olds charged with possession or use of a firearm.

According to CBS Chicago, he also reiterated his call for an “assault weapons ban” and background checks on private sales. As heard in the audio report by WBBM, he was dismissive towards the Supreme Court for ruling against Chicago in the McDonald case. I guess when you have been the Mayor of Chicago for as long as Daley, you become a law unto yourself – at least in your own mind.

Asked by another reporter whether this was his last effort on gun control, Daley responded that “I will keep this up as a private citizen as well.” I wonder how much traction Daley will have once he doesn’t have his army of police, elected officials, and the Chicago Machine to back him up anymore.