Uncategorized

“Violence Prevention” Researcher Says Gun Owners Are Drunks

June 14, 2011 by 7 Comments

The title simplifies it just a bit but Dr. Garen J. Wintermute of the Violence Prevention Research Program, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis does say there is a link between firearms ownership and alcohol-related “risk behaviours” according to an abstract published in Injury Prevention yesterday.

Abstract

Alcohol use and firearm ownership are risk factors for violent injury and death. To determine whether firearm ownership and specific firearm-related behaviours are associated with alcohol-related risk behaviours, the author conducted a cross-sectional study using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data for eight states in the USA from 1996 to 1997 (the most recent data available). Altogether, 15 474 respondents provided information on firearm exposure. After adjustment for demographics and state of residence, firearm owners were more likely than those with no firearms at home to have ≥5 drinks on one occasion (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.50), to drink and drive (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.39) and to have ≥60 drinks per month (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.83). Heavy alcohol use was most common among firearm owners who also engaged in behaviours such as carrying a firearm for protection against other people and keeping a firearm at home that was both loaded and not locked away. The author concludes that firearm ownership and specific firearm-related behaviours are associated with alcohol-related risk behaviours.

I’m sure this must explain why the Brady Campaign ranked the state of Utah dead last with a score of zero.  Why it must be full of gun-owning and gun-toting drunks!

Except that Utah is heavily Mormon (about 60%) and the Mormons have a doctrine against alcohol use. Utah also has the lowest alcohol-related fatalities per 100,000 people at 1.93 for 2008.

Cherry-picked data will give you any results you want especially if you start your research with an agenda.

H/T Josh

Uncategorized

Coalition Files Amicus Brief In Colorado Carry Case

June 14, 2011 by

The Second Amendment Foundation and a coalition of 17 other gun rights organizations have filed an amicus brief with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Peterson v. Garcia. Gray Peterson’s case has been supported in this lawsuit against Denver by the CalGuns Foundations.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has been joined by 17 other firearms rights groups in an amicus brief filed in a case now before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms by law-abiding non-resident U.S. citizens in Denver, Colorado.

The case, Peterson v. Garcia, was filed by Washington state resident Gray Peterson, who cannot exercise his right to bear arms because Colorado statute prohibits the issuance of a concealed carry permit to non-residents, and does not recognize Peterson’s Washington license or his Florida carry permit because he is not a Florida resident. Denver bans the open carry of firearms, leaving Peterson – who visits Colorado frequently – without any legal means of carrying a firearm for his personal protection.

“This is a case that affects citizens in at least 20 states and the District of Columbia,” noted Miko Tempski, SAF legal affairs director. “We’ve been joined by organizations from 16 of those states in this brief, because they all have members who may travel to Colorado and face the same problem if they enter the City of Denver.”

Joining SAF are the Buckeye Firearms Foundation (Ohio), Citizens’ Rights Action League (Rhode Island), Commonwealth Second Amendment (Massachusetts), Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Calguns Foundation, Inc. (California), Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (Minnesota), Hawaii Defense Foundation, Illinois Carry, Illinois State Rifle Association, Maine Open Carry Association, Maryland Shall Issue, Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, Wisconsin Carry, Inc., SCOPE, Inc. (New York), Stillwater Firearms Association (Nevada), Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. and West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. All are state-focused non-profit organizations dedicated to preserving, defending and promoting firearms rights.

“The Second Amendment doesn’t only say you have a right to keep arms,” Tempski continued, “it also stipulates that citizens have the right to bear arms. Because of our successful lawsuit in the McDonald case last year, leading to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, the right to bear arms is very much at issue with Mr. Peterson’s challenge. Any law or ordinance that touches on this right must be held to the strictest of scrutiny.”

Uncategorized

Gun Safety The Gunsite Way

June 14, 2011 by

The National Shooting Sports Foundation just released a new video today on firearms safety. Mark Thomas of NSSF interviews Bob Whaley, an instructor at Gunsite, about safety.

In my opinion, the videos that NSSF has started to produce are really excellent teaching tools for both the experienced and beginner shooter.

Uncategorized

ATF Agents On The Gunwalker Hearings

June 14, 2011 by

To get a feel for what the rank and file of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives thinks about Project Gunwalker, there is no better place to go than CleanUpATF.org.

Vincent Cefalu, an ATF agent and supervisor who has a reputation for being a straight shooter, and who blew the whistle on illegal wiretaps, had this to say:

Starting Tomorrow, The Chairman of the House oversight committee in conjunction with Senator Charles Grassley begin the process of long overdue and much needed oversight of the actions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. These hearings are just the beginning of the review of a broken Bureau and broken leadership at the HIGHEST levels. It is imperative that if this Bureau, OUR Bureau is to see 2012, that EVERYBODY weigh in, disclose the widespread incompetence and abuses heaped upon our employees, the firearms industry and the American people. There is NO dispute ATF Agents and inspectors are THE MOST highly skilled and dedicated and courageous Law Enforcement Agents in the world. CLEAN UP ATF. Sidenote: Fox news did an interview with a former Homeland security/ CIA official this morning regarding Mexico violence and firearms trafficking and suggested that the absence of a Director at ATF is why this has and is happening. With all due respect to that officials opinion, WE HAVE A DIRECTOR. Who do you think Ken Melson is? Who was Michael Sullivan? Lets be clear, another POOR Director wont fix this. The same executive leadership that has tanked this agency will be advising any NEW Director. An agency’s efficiency does not rest SOLELY on the Directors shoulders. Without SERIOUS accountability across directorates and and house cleaning, we are doomed to revisit similar “Tragic Outcomes” in the future. OUTSIDE strong Law Enforcement leadership is the only way to cleanse this pool. WATCH THE HEARINGS. WRITE YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES TALK TO THE MEDIA. DEMAND TRANSPARENCY

 “Epic Failure” responded to this post saying:

Well stated Vince. I guess the stratagy was to get to the cartel’s by climbing over the dead bodies they caused. Genius! Word is they are still going to hang their hat on ATF Agents never actually watching a gun physically cross into Mexico. That has to be a Pellitier or Sarnacki defense stratagy. It is the invention of the next era of dufuses thinking that gets them off the hook. Has there ever been a greater collection top to bottom of cowards, idiots, self-rightous, arrogent db’s ever at one place at one time in a LE agency than there is in ATF HQ?

“Cool Hand” expects that the current senior executive management of ATF will try to discredit those ATF Special Agents like John Dodson who will be testifying tomorrow.

Some very brave special agents are going to testify before congress this week. They will simply report the facts like good criminal investigators. My guess is that 70% of senior executive leadership will try to discredit them. Even worse, the other 30% of the executive club will say nothing hoping they will land on their feet when this scandal “blows over”. Their mentality? “If those disgruntled malcontent trouble makers had just keep their mouths shut everything would be just fine. It’s just a hand full of rebel rousers stirring things up. Don’t they know how lucky they are to have a job in this economy? When I am Director some day, I’m gonna’ let them know who is boss!” My opinion? There are no bad followers, only bad leaders.

“Doc Holliday” who is one of the more prolific posters on CleanUpATF as well as a moderator agreed with “Cool Hand”.

Yes its true they will try to discredit honorable and loyal Agents, remember; These Agents didn’t have to be forced to testify or hide, duck and dodge questions. I predict Melson and Senior managers (will) “Take the Fifth”. If this happens they should be immediately removed from any Law Enforcement positions. They cant tell the truth or they get fired, sued and possibly prosecuted. They cant lie or the get fired, sued or prosecuted. Not too many options left. If they refuse to testify, It will be a sad day for ATF and the entire Law Enforcement community.

Finally, “The Original Ralph” predicts that politicians like Sen. Chuck Schumer will attempt to discredit these ATF agents who will be testifying.

I’ll give you odds chucky schumer will discredit them, and even call them liars while they’re testifying – same as he did in the waco hearings with the two retired marine corp colonels turned attorneys that testified, one of them reporting what happened with his client, david koresh’s grandmother at the command hut at waco

I think we have already started to see the counter-attack on these hearings as being mounted by Senators Feinstein, Schumer, and Whitehouse with the release of their misleading report yesterday which touts as a “fact” that 70% of guns captured in Mexico are traced to the United States.

Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee parsed the numbers today on this. By his estimation, less that 5% of the recovered guns in Mexico actually came from border state gun shops. Putting this into perspective, Bob says “that translates to less than one gun per shop in the region.” That sure doesn’t sound like crates and crates of AK’s and AR’s streaming across the border from gun shops and gun shows in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California.

Uncategorized

Windham Weaponry Will Take Over Old Bushmaster Plant

June 14, 2011 by

The Portland Press-Herald is reporting that a new company will take over the old Bushmaster plant in Windham, Maine. The new company, Windham Weaponry, plans to hire up to half of the 73 works laid off when the Freedom Group moved production to the Remington plan in Ilion, NY.

“A group of investors felt there was a great opportunity for a new company when Bushmaster Firearms International LLC decided to relocate the company to another state and lay off all its employes. These employees in many cases have 25 years of experience in making one of the finest rifles in the world,” said the release.

Windham Weaponry will be located in the Windham business park and will begin production in July, with initial shipments scheduled for September.

The group of investors is led by Richard Dyke who sold Bushmaster to Cerebrus in April 2006. Dyke noted in an interview with the Kennebec Journal that his non-compete agreement expired in April of this year.

According to a Form D filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Windham Weaponry issued and sold $1.5 million in a private stock sale as of June 8th and were incorporated this year in the State of Maine. The executives and directors of Windham Weaponry include:

Richard E. Dyke
Executive, Director, Promoter

Jeffrey E. Dyke
Executive, Director

Mark Eliason
Executive

Allen W. Faraday
Executive, Director

Thomas F. Kent
Director

Galen P. Mc Kenney
Director

Richard Pratt
Director

None of the news stories indicate just what type of rifles will be made at the plant but I think it is safe to assume it will be AR-15’s.

Uncategorized

Ignore The Man Behind The Curtain

June 14, 2011 by 2 Comments

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives along with their friends in the Senate hope that you will ignore the hearings being held before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee into Operation Fast and Furious (aka Project Gunwalker) and the ATF’s role in letting guns walk to Mexico.

Cam Edwards of NRA News disposed of the 70% figure last week yet there are some that will continue to repeat it because it buttresses their cause. As Mike at Sipsey Street Irregulars says, “Repeat The Lie” often and loudly so that people will ignore the real stats and the role of ATF in gunrunning to Mexico.

After the hearings tomorrow, that will become harder and harder even with misleading numbers, reports, and press releases from the Feinsteins and Schumers of this world.


Feinstein, Schumer, Whitehouse Report Calls for Stronger U.S. Response to Firearms Trafficking to Mexico

Urges Congress and the Administration to strengthen firearms laws to stem drug-related violence

70% of weapons recovered in Mexico originated in U.S. according to ATF

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, along with Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) today released the findings of a Congressional investigation that concludes American military-style weapons are arming Mexico’s brutal drug trafficking organizations at an alarming rate and policymakers are not adequately responding.

“Congress has been virtually moribund while powerful Mexican drug trafficking organizations continue to gain unfettered access to military-style firearms coming from the United States,” said Senator Feinstein. “New ATF data provided last week reveals that more than 70 percent of firearms recovered at crime scenes and traced by Mexican officials actually originated in the United States.”

According to the report, Halting U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico, the overwhelming majority of firearms recovered at crime scenes and traced by Mexican officials originate in the United States. In a recent letter to Feinstein, ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson indicated that in 2009 and 2010 20,504 of the 29,284 firearms (70 percent) recovered in Mexico and submitted for tracing were United States-sourced.

“This report confirms what many of us already know to be true: although the Senate’s recently passed border measure will help make our Southern border safer, it is still too easy for Mexican drug lords to get their hands on deadly military-grade weapons within our borders,” said Senator Schumer. “We need to redouble our efforts to keep violent firearms out of the hands of these traffickers.”

“This report outlines common sense measures that will help protect our border and our communities by keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of Mexican gangs and drug cartels,” said Senator Whitehouse.

Conclusions of the report:

It will be very difficult to successfully reduce drug-related violence in Mexico without starving the country’s drug trafficking organizations of their military-style weapons.

To do this, the United States must strengthen current firearms laws and regulations. This can be done through a number of key actions by the Obama Administration and Congress, including:

Enactment of legislation to close the gun show loophole;
Better enforcement of the existing ban on imports of military-style weapons;
Reinstatement of the expired Assault Weapons Ban;
Reporting by Federal Firearms Licensees on all multiple firearms sales; and
Senate ratification of the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking of Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials (CIFTA).

The Halting U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico report can be found here. Information from the report was gathered through meetings in Mexico and in U.S. border cities, briefings, interviews, and a review of documents from both government and non-government subject matter experts.

Uncategorized

We Must Agree To Disagree

June 14, 2011 by 1 Comment

Sebastian at Snowflakes In Hell had a post yesterday in which he disagreed with my opposition to a bill in the North Carolina State Senate, S. 594, which would have amended North Carolina’s emergency powers.

The bill introduced by Senators Doug Berger (D-Franklin) and Andrew Brock (R-Davie) would have allowed the possession of firearms during a declared state of emergency. As I said then and I will say again on the face of it this is a good thing EXCEPT that it would have mooted the Second Amendment Foundation/Grass Roots North Carolina’s case Bateman et al v. Perdue et al. I hold that getting a good legal precedent in a court battle can often times trump getting a bill passed in a legislature for long lasting impact.

Sebastian holds that “if you’re presented with the shot, take it” or in other words, go with the certainty of the legislative victory as opposed to the uncertainty of the courts. This presupposes that it was a lock that the North Carolina General Assembly would pass an act amending Chapter 36A of the General Statutes. The major gun rights bills this session included the Castle Doctrine (passed), firearms in parks (passed), concealed carry in restaurants that serve alcohol (passed in the House), an omnibus bill that would improve concealed carry (passed with amendments in the House), and the emergency powers act changes (stalled in committee). Of all of these bills, I would have to say that the Castle Doctrine was the most important and it was passed.

I did not see any major public movement on S. 594 by either the NRA or Grass Roots North Carolina until the end of the session. It is my feeling that GRNC would have pushed for passage of S. 594 without the wise counsel of their attorney and the Second Amendment Foundation. By not pushing for it – and actually opposing it at the end of the session – that organization showed its growing maturity as a gun rights organization. By this I mean they were willing to play the long war and sacrifice the temporary gains of a bill for the longer term impact of an opinion.

Anthony Roulette, NRA-ILA State Liaison for North Carolina, commented on Sebastian’s blog that I was mistaken about the NRA’s rationale for pushing S. 594 at the end of the session. I will do him the courtesy of reprinting his comments here.

Mr. Richardson:

I appreciate that you have a right to your personal opinions regarding the NRA efforts on Senate Bill 594, but you are incorrect. The NRA has been pushing for a legislative fix to the problem of gun rights and a declared State of Emergency for many years. The NRA has been pushing for legislation in Congress and the states to prohibit gun confiscation during states of emergency almost immediately after Hurricane Katrina, and has succeeded in enactment of such statutes at the federal level and in 31 states.

In 2009, the NRA supported North Carolina House Bill 257 that sought to correct this problem:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=4496

If you have been following NRA-ILA alerts this year, you will note that NRA has been “publicly pushing it from the start.” Here is our alert from April 15:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6634

It was mentioned again on April 22: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6670

Unfortunately, it was not until last week that the NRA was informed by Senate Republican leadership that S 594 would not be brought up for consideration. That is the reason for our recent push, and it has nothing to do with your speculated reason.

Sincerely,

Anthony Roulette
North Carolina State Liaison
NRA-ILA

House Bill 257 from the 2009 session referred to above was supported by Grass Roots North Carolina as they made clear in their Alert from February 27, 2009. Why the change from then to now? McDonald v. Chicago. That win brought the Second Amendment to the states through incorporation and with it a whole new valid way to advance gun rights.

My training in political science reflects two divergent schools of thought. As an undergraduate, I was trained in the classical or legalistic approach to government with heavy emphasis on constitutional law and the structure of governmental institutions. As a graduate student at Chapel Hill, I was trained in the behavioral approach to political science which is the polar opposite of the classical approach. It is heavy on quantitative measurement and studying the actual behavior of political actors. In other words, what they do as opposed to what they say.

If one takes Mr. Roulette at his word that it was not their intention to moot Bateman, the impact of S. 594 passing would still have the same impact. Bateman would be mooted because the underlying case or controversy no longer existed regardless of whether or not this was the NRA-ILA’s intention. Thus, from a behavioral standpoint, their actions, if successful, would have mooted Bateman and screwed one of their critics, attorney Alan Gura, for good measure.

And they would have been able to say they got the Emergency Powers ban done away with. From a bureaucratic standpoint how much better could that have been – they get the glory, their critics are diminished, and a threat to their power is removed.

Uncategorized

It Begins

June 13, 2011 by 2 Comments

The public investigation into Operation Fast and Furious (aka Project Gunwalker) begins in earnest this afternoon. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and the House Oversight Committee will hold their first public hearing into this botched operation. Today’s hearing is to lay the constitutional groundwork for Congress to investigate an Executive branch agency. On Wednesday, the Committee will start getting to the meat of the allegations with testimony by ATF agents, Brian Terry’s family, Sen. Chuck Grassley, and Assistant AG Ronald Weich.

Hearing Documents

Chairman Darrell Issa Hearing Preview Statement
June 13, 2011

Monday’s hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform follows three months of effort by congressional investigators to understand the rationale, policy, and practical execution of a controversial government program that allowed straw purchasers to buy heavy-duty arms and traffic them into Mexico to be used by drug cartels. To date, the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms have refused to comply with a congressional subpoena for material documents related to this program that was issued on March 31, 2011. The administration’s unwillingness to recognize the constitutional authority of the Congress to conduct investigations, and its continued refusal to provide documents necessary for the Congress to perform its essential oversight responsibility, may constitute an obstruction of justice that requires intervention of the federal judiciary or other legal action.

Regrettably, this seems to be the course preferred by the Department of Justice. Congressional investigators have learned that the administration’s strategy is not to comply with the Committee’s subpoena, to instruct department employees not to cooperate with Congress, and ultimately to pressure its complete withdrawal. This will not happen.

The American people have a right to know whether their government has aided and abetted crimes committed at our border with Mexico. They have a right to know what happened, why it happened, and who is responsible. In cases where the administration resists or otherwise refuses to comply with a congressional subpoena and provide answers to these questions, the Committee must enforce compliance. This, we will do.

To assist the Committee in its constitutional effort to uphold the rule of law and assert the investigative prerogatives of Congress, Monday’s hearing will include testimony from leading constitutional law experts and noted authorities on the history and processes of congressional oversight.

The hearing will be webcast live at oversight.house.gov .

The constitutional experts who will be witnesses today include the following which are also linked to their pre-submitted written testimony on the topic.

Professor Charles Tiefer
Commissioner
Commission on Wartime Contracting

Mr. Morton Rosenberg
Former Specialist in American Public Law
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service

Mr. Todd Tatelman
Legislative Attorney, American Law Division
Congressional Research Service

Mr. Louis Fisher
Scholar in Residence
The Constitution Project

UPDATE: C-Span now has the full video of today’s hearing up on their site. Unfortunately, it wasn’t embeddable. You have to go to this link to watch it. The one advantage to watching the delayed broadcast is that you can skip ahead as well as replay portions of it.