NRA-ILA

Uncategorized

NRA-ILA On NC General Assembly Short Session

July 7, 2012 by

The NRA Institute for Legislative Affairs released a Legislative Alert this evening that summarized the wins – and losses – for gun rights in the “short session” of the North Carolina General Assembly. Their conclusion that this session fell short is on the mark given the bottling-up of HB 111 in the committee by the Republican leadership of the State Senate. The failure to pass HB 111 is one thing that cannot be blamed on the Democrats as the votes to pass this bill were there.

The North Carolina General Assembly adjourned on Tuesday, July 3, bringing an end to the “short session” of the 2011-2012 General Assembly. While the General Assembly made tremendous improvements for the pro-gun community during last year’s “long session”, the same cannot be said for their accomplishments in this year’s session. Raleigh did see passage of one pro-gun bill this year, however, another important piece of firearms legislation remained stalled in a Senate committee, which effectively killed that bill.

Unfortunately for gun owners, House Bill 111, which included language that would have removed the absolute prohibition on Right to Carry (RTC) permit holders carrying a concealed firearm into a restaurant licensed to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption, remained stalled in the state Senate this year despite passing the state House of Representatives last session. As reported here, this bill passed in the Senate Judiciary II Committee in early June, but was never brought to the Senate floor for consideration. The committee did use HB 111 to address an issue relating to the section of last year’s House Bill 650 (reported on here) that imposed restrictions on prohibiting RTC permit holders from carrying firearms in parks under the control of local governments. Because some local governments have gone beyond what HB 650 allowed, HB 111 was amended to impose tighter restrictions on these localities. If it had been enacted, this bill would have, along with providing for Restaurant Carry, clarified that local governments are restricted from prohibiting lawfully carried concealed firearms in such places as greenways, designated biking or walking paths, certain open areas and fields, as well as other areas. With HB 111 not passing, an important opportunity to advance the rights of law-abiding gun owners was missed.

On a more positive note, this session the General Assembly passed and Governor Perdue signed into law House Bill 843, which recognized law-abiding citizens’ right to self-defense during a declared state of emergency. Specifically, H 843 states that the restrictions section of the North Carolina Emergency Management Act “does not authorize prohibitions or restrictions on lawfully possessed firearms or ammunition.” This means that, if there is a declared state of emergency due to natural disasters or other problems that create a state of disarray and unrest that requires emergency procedures to be implemented by a government entity, the rights of law-abiding gun owners will no longer be subject to possible suspension, as previous law allowed.

The win in Bateman forced the exclusion on restrictions on firearms in HB 843. While it was nice that it was put down on paper, I believe Judge Howard’s decision would have invalidated existing restrictions.

Uncategorized

NRA Will Score Contempt Vote On Holder

June 20, 2012 by 1 Comment

In a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Chris Cox of the NRA-ILA indicated that the NRA will be using the vote on the contempt citation for Eric Holder to evaluate candidates. They also said that they support the contempt citation for Holder.

The American people – including millions of NRA members and tens of millions of NRA supporters – deserve the truth about these issues, and we will support any effort that leads us to that truth. This is an issue of utmost seriousness and the NRA will consider this vote in future candidate evaluations.

Uncategorized

NRA-ILA Weighs In On HB 111

June 14, 2012 by

The NRA-ILA released this yesterday along with a call for members to call their State Senator and push for passage.

House Bill 111, legislation which would provide for restaurant carry, is currently awaiting action in the state Senate Finance Committee. HB 111 passed in the Senate Judiciary II Committee on June 6 by a voice vote.

HB 111 would allow law-abiding gun owners who have a Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) to carry a concealed firearm into most restaurants that serve alcohol for on-premises consumption, as long as no alcohol is consumed by the individual carrying the firearm. Currently, 44 states allow for the lawful carrying of concealed firearms into restaurants where alcohol is served. Passage and enactment of this bill is critical to ensure North Carolina’s place among the vast majority of the states in trusting law-abiding permit holders to exercise their rights responsibly in these places.

In addition, HB 111 amends state law enacted last year in House Bill 650 (previously reported on here) that imposed restrictions on prohibiting CHP holders from carrying firearms in parks under the control of local governments. Because some municipalities have gone beyond what HB 650 allowed, HB 111 was amended to impose tighter restrictions on local governments. If enacted, this bill would restrict localities from prohibiting lawfully carried concealed firearms in such places as greenways, designated biking or walking paths, certain open areas and fields, as well as other areas.

The head of the Senate Finance Committee, Buck Newton, stated in a radio interview yesterday that it would only take about 15 minutes of their time to get it out of committee. I strongly suggest that they take that 15 minutes and get this done.

Uncategorized

NRA-ILA On Scott Walker’s Win In Wisconsin

June 6, 2012 by 1 Comment

Chris Cox and the NRA-ILA are celebrating what looks to be an overwhelming victory by Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin recall election. They released this statement a short while ago.

Thanks to your votes and efforts, Scott Walker has won the recall election for Governor in Wisconsin defeating rabidly anti-gun Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

Scott Walker has proven his dedication to the Second Amendment by signing into law right-to-carry legislation, castle doctrine legislation, and the Hunting Heritage Act during his short tenure as Wisconsin’s chief executive. Scott Walker also supported statewide preemption of firearm laws and an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution guaranteeing the individual right to keep and bear arms. In contrast, Tom Barrett has a career-long “F” rating from NRA-PVF and has supported bans on commonly owned firearms, supported exposing hunters to prosecution, and has consistently opposed common sense self-defense legislation.

Your NRA was fully vested in this race with a comprehensive campaign that included tens of millions of online ads and hundreds of thousands of television, radio and print ads before today’s recall election. The media campaign was also supplemented by a concentrated advocacy and get-out-the-vote phone and mail program. All-in-all, almost two million pieces of advocacy mail were sent and phone calls made in this remarkable victory for freedom.

The NRA’s media campaign was complemented with a strong grassroots effort, utilizing field coordinators to conduct literature drops, canvassing and volunteer efforts across the state in the months before the election.

Together we made a difference in this race. But, as always, what mattered most in this race was your vote. Thanks to gun owners in Wisconsin, one of the strongest pro-gun Governors in the country will continue working to support our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I bet the managers of those two Gander Mountain stores which refused to let the NRA-ILA hold their previously scheduled grassroots training sessions are feeling a little stupid right now. I still plan to shop elsewhere given Gander Mountain’s actions.

Uncategorized

NRA Responds To VPC’s Misleading Research

May 27, 2012 by 3 Comments

While it may be giving the Violence Policy Center more attention than it deserves, I think the NRA-ILA had to respond to the misleading research regarding “gun deaths” versus deaths by motor vehicle. As Tom Gresham continually points out about his Truth Squad project, a lie left unchallenged becomes the truth for many people. The NRA-ILA’s post on the subject entitled “Dust Off the Old Stuff–VPC Tries to Revive ‘Guns and Cars’ and ‘Consumer Products’ Nonsense” was published on Friday.

In the 1990s, it was common for anti-gun activists to predict that firearm-related deaths–suicides, murders, self-defense shootings by private citizens, shootings by law enforcement officers, and accidents combined–would soon outnumber motor vehicle accident deaths.

It was also common for them to demand that the design and manufacture of firearms be subject to the Consumer Products Safety Commission or the Bureu (sic) of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Their goal was to get handguns banned by setting standards higher than any handgun manufacturer could achieve, at least at a price the market would bear. For example, in 2000, the Violence Policy Center said “Congress should vest the Department of the Treasury [to which BATF belonged at the time] with strong authority to regulate the design, manufacture, and distribution of firearms. Such authority should include the ability to remove from the market firearms that pose a serious threat to public health and safety. . . . Products such as three-wheel ATVs and lawn darts had related death rates microscopic in comparison to handguns, but were nevertheless banned.”

To anti-gun activists’ dismay, the closest that motor vehicle accidents came to accounting for fewer deaths than all five categories of firearm-related deaths combined was in 1993, when firearm-related deaths hit an all-time high, one year after motor vehicle accident deaths fell to their lowest point since 1962. But even then, motor vehicle accidents accounted for 2,298 more deaths than all categories of firearm-related deaths combined.

Fast forward to the present. This week, the VPC claimed that in 2009, firearm-related deaths outnumbered motor vehicle accident deaths in 10 states. It said, “Motor vehicle deaths are on the decline as the result of a successful decades-long public health-based injury prevention strategy that includes safety-related changes to vehicles and highway design informed by comprehensive data collection and analysis. Meanwhile, firearms are the only consumer product not regulated by the federal government for health and safety.”

That’s baloney, of course. The reason that anti-gun activists dropped their “cars and guns” propaganda more than a decade ago is that after 1993, motor vehicle accident deaths began increasing sharply, despite massive government regulation of vehicles, drivers and roads, while deaths involving firearms began decreasing. So great did the disparity between the two trends eventually become, that by 2004 there were 15,364 more motor vehicle accident deaths than all firearm-related deaths combined.

VPC knows that, but it brought up “cars and guns” this week anyway, for a couple of reasons.

First, cranking out “analyses” that insult the intelligence of a fence post is what the Joyce Foundation pays the VPC to do.

Second, with people driving less–due in large part to the lack of jobs and high gasoline prices–deaths from motor vehicle accidents dropped from 43,945 in 2007 (the year before the economic recession began) to 36,216 in 2009 (the last year for which national data have been reported). In the 10 states on VPC’s list, decreases ranged from 6.1 percent in Colorado to 37.6 percent in Nevada.

Nationally, firearm-related deaths remained fairly steady, at 31,224 in 2007 and 31,347 in 2009, with decreases in homicides and accidents. But firearm and non-firearm suicides, each of which accounts for half of suicides, both increased from 2007 to 2009. Suicides account for nearly 60 percent of firearm-related deaths, and between 2007 and 2009 firearm suicides increased in nine of the 10 states on VPC’s list.

Of course, it’s pointless to compare vehicle accident statistics to those for the aggregate of five categories of firearm-related deaths. There’s little similarity between motor vehicle accidents and firearm accidents, and none whatsoever between vehicle accidents and firearm suicides and homicides. For example, more than 90 percent of people who commit suicide suffer from depression, other mental disorders, and/or a substance-abuse disorder. Other risk factors for suicide include a prior suicide attempt or a family history of mental disorder, substance abuse, suicide or family violence. There is also evidence suggesting that suicides can be instigated by news media coverage of suicides and by exposure to suicide themes in literature and entertainment. By contrast, risk factors for motor vehicle accidents include excessive speed, fatigue, poor eyesight and ambient conditions limiting visibility, travelling in darkness and bad weather, mechanically unsound vehicles, and defects in road design and maintenance.

Since we’re on the subject of motor vehicle accidents, let’s all remember to be especially safe on the roads over the Memorial Day Weekend. Next week, with the holiday behind us, there will be plenty of time to remember how full of beans anti-gun activists can be.

Uncategorized

NRA-ILA’s John Frazier Fisks Car Deaths Vs. Gun Deaths Report

May 25, 2012 by

John Frazer, NRA-ILA Director of Research & Information, spoke with Cam Edwards yesterday about the report from the Violence Policy Center that purported that “gun deaths” outnumbered those from motor vehicle in some ten states. He notes that accidental deaths are at a low which was not reported.

As to the non-critical reports in many media outlets around the country, he suggests pointing out the fallacies in the report in letters to the editor or comments on the site.

Uncategorized

NRA-ILA On Wilson V. Cook County

April 6, 2012 by 2 Comments

The NRA-ILA released this statement on today’s unanimous ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court that reversed in part an Illinois appellate court ruling on the Cook County Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban and remanded it back to the trial court level.

Fairfax, Va. – Today, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously denied an attempt by Cook County, Ill., to dismiss a challenge to the county’s California-style ban on countless types of common semi-automatic firearms. The National Rifle Association supported the case brought by the NRA’s state affiliate, the Illinois State Rifle Association.

“We are very pleased with this ruling,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Today’s decision makes clear that the lower courts shouldn’t take challenges to these laws lightly and that plaintiffs deserve a full opportunity for their evidence to be heard.”

In today’s decision, the court reversed a lower appellate court’s ruling that upheld the ban merely because it was supposedly similar to bans that had been upheld elsewhere. But of the three cases cited by the lower court, two relied on “facts” provided in legislative findings and testimony by anti-gun legislators and gun ban lobbyists; the third involved a challenge to federal regulation of fully automatic machine guns, rather than semi-automatic firearms.

Adopting a much more rigorous approach, the Illinois Supreme Court found it couldn’t say the guns banned by Cook County “categorically fall outside the scope of the rights protected by the [Second Amendment].” Therefore, the case will be returned to the trial court for more fact-finding.

Key to the final outcome will be evidence that the guns in question are “in common use” and “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” which are the standards that the U.S. Supreme Court suggested would determine whether a particular type of “arm” falls within the Second Amendment’s protections.

On that issue, the numbers are overwhelming. Based on production statistics published by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, about 3.1 million AR-15 rifles have been made just since 1986, and AR-15s alone made up 4.3 percent of all firearms and 13.3 percent of all rifles sold in the U.S. from 2007 to 2010. The AR-15, of course, is just one of the many firearms banned in Cook County. These figures go to show that Cook County hasn’t just banned “common” guns; it has banned the most popular rifles of our time, used by countless law-abiding Americans for every kind of lawful purpose.

Uncategorized

Nice But Why Not Just Pass HR 822

March 13, 2012 by 14 Comments

Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Mike Crapo (R-ID) have introduced the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012. According to the press releases (see below), it is similar to HR 822 which passed the House of Representatives on November 16, 2011 on a 272-154 rollcall vote. That bill is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee awaiting hearings.

The text of the Senate bill is not yet available on the Library of Congress’s website. I have to assume that it is very similar – if not exactly the same – to what was passed in the House. A bill passed in the House does not need a similar bill introduced in the Senate though it is common practice. Given that, would not it just be easier to work with the bill that has already passed one house of Congress? To my way of thinking it provides less chance of having to reconcile vastly differing bills in a conference committee where the final bill could be watered down to merely a feel-good measure.

That said, this bill does have the endorsement of the NRA. If giving some pro-gun Democrats cover is the price we need to pay, I can live with that.

From Begich’s press release:

In an effort to remove burdensome red tape that hampers the ability of legal concealed carry permit holders to carry concealed firearms into other states that allow them, a bi-partisan group of Senators has introduced the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012. A similar bill passed the House last year with a vote of 272-164.

The Senate bill, endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), is sponsored by Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Under the legislation, an individual with a valid ID and concealed carry permit would be allowed to carry a concealed handgun into any state that has a statute permitting residents to carry concealed firearms, or that does not explicitly prohibit them.

The legislation also says an individual who is ineligible for a concealed carry permit in his or her state would not be allowed to obtain an out-of-state permit in a state with less restrictive eligibility requirements in order to use that permit in his or her own state.

“I’m leading the effort to provide consistency so law-abiding gun owners can carry concealed firearms in every state that permits them without having to navigate confusing rules and regulations in different states,” Begich said. “The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and part of who we are as Alaskans and Americans. This bill is one more step in my ongoing efforts to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

“This common sense legislation would cut down on the layers of regulations facing law-abiding Americans who have the right to own guns and use them responsibly,” Manchin said. “If we can streamline and simplify some of our rules governing gun ownership, everybody wins – especially the 65,000 West Virginians who hold concealed carry permits.”

“This legislation respects the rights of law-abiding citizens by allowing them to defend themselves across state lines,” Crapo said. “Most importantly, they would still have to comply with all the firearms laws of the state in which they travel. The act facilitates the ability of states to design a system for concealed-carrier firearms in a fair way, while protecting the rights of states to honor all of their firearms laws.”

The executive director for the NRA’s Institute for Legislation Action, Chris Cox, praised the Senators for introducing the bill and said it is critical to protect Second Amendment rights.

“Over the last two decades, the NRA has led the way toward a brick-by-brick restoration of self-defense laws throughout the country. National Right-to-Carry reciprocity is yet another step forward for law-abiding Americans,” Cox said. “Citizens aren’t immune to crime when they cross state lines, so it is only reasonable that they have an effective means of protecting themselves and their loved ones while in other states. The NRA thanks Senator Mark Begich for introducing this measure in the U.S. Senate, along with Senators Joe Manchin and Mike Crapo, for their efforts to strengthen self-defense laws in America.”

From Manchin’s press release:

Washington, D.C. — In an effort to remove burdensome red tape that limits the ability of legal concealed carry permit holders to carry concealed firearms into other states that allow them, U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has joined a bipartisan group of Senators in introducing the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.

Under the legislation, an individual with a valid ID and concealed carry permit would be allowed to carry a concealed handgun into any state that allows residents to carry concealed firearms.

“This commonsense legislation would cut down on the layers of regulations facing law-abiding Americans who have the right to own guns and use them responsibly,” Senator Manchin said. “If we can streamline and simplify some of our rules governing gun ownership, everybody wins – especially the 65,000 West Virginians who hold concealed carry permits.”

The legislation also says an individual who is ineligible for a concealed carry permit in his or her state would not be allowed to obtain an out-of-state permit in a state with less restrictive eligibility requirements, and use that permit to carry a concealed handgun in his or her state.

The Senate bill, endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), is also sponsored by Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). A similar bill passed the House last year with a vote of 272-164.

The executive director for the NRA’s Institute for Legislation Action, Chris Cox, praised the Senators for introducing the bill and said it is critical to protect Second Amendment rights.

“Over the last two decades, the NRA has led the way toward a brick-by-brick restoration of self-defense laws throughout the country. National Right-to-Carry reciprocity is yet another step forward for law-abiding Americans,” Cox said. “Citizens aren’t immune to crime when they cross state lines, so it is only reasonable that they have an effective means of protecting themselves and their loved ones while in other states. The NRA thanks Senator Mark Begich for introducing this measure in the U.S. Senate, along with Sens. Joe Manchin and Mike Crapo, and for their efforts to strengthen self-defense laws in America.”

UPDATE: From the NRA on S. 2188 which they say is a companion bill to HR 822.

Fairfax, Va. – Senate Bill 2188, an important self-defense bill that would enable millions of Right-to-Carry permit holders across the country to carry concealed firearms while traveling outside their home states, was introduced in the U.S. Senate today. S. 2188 is the companion legislation to H.R. 822, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on November 16, 2011 by a majority bipartisan vote of 272 to 154.

“Over the last two decades, the NRA has led the way toward a brick-by-brick restoration of self-defense laws throughout the country. National Right-to-Carry reciprocity is yet another step forward for law-abiding Americans,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director for NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Citizens aren’t immune from crime when they cross state lines, so it is only reasonable that they have an effective means of protecting themselves and their loved ones while in other states. The introduction of S. 2188 is a significant step forward in the ongoing effort to improve self-defense laws in this country.”

S. 2188, introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senators Mark Begich (D-AK) and Joe Manchin III (D-WV), would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that issues concealed firearm permits, or does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes.

This bill does not affect existing state laws. State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within each state’s borders. S. 2188 does not create a federal licensing system or impose federal standards on state permits; rather, it requires the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

As of today, 49 states have laws in place that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some form. Only Illinois and the District of Columbia deny its residents the right to carry concealed firearms outside their homes or businesses for self-defense.

Here is a link to the full text of S. 2188 thanks to Inquisitor (see comments). For comparison, here is a link to the full text of HR 822 as it passed the House of Representatives.

Uncategorized

NRA-ILA On Obama’s FY2013 Budget

February 18, 2012 by 1 Comment

When President Obama told Sarah Brady that he planned to fly under the radar on gun control, he wasn’t kidding. Having looked at the Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 for the last couple of days, I can assure you that the average person would have a hard time finding what is buried in it.

However, the NRA-ILA has people on staff that have the expertise to muddle through the budget. Below is their response posted yesterday:

Barack Obama’s careful effort to hide his anti-Second Amendment agenda is starting to come undone. The latest evidence is found in the budget he sent to Congress this past week.

As we reported last fall, NRA was very successful in having a number of provisions included in the annual spending bills that are important protections for our rights. Obama grudgingly signed the Fiscal Year 2012 spending bills that contained those “riders,” although in his signing statement, he announced his intent to defy some. Now, in Obama’s FY 2013 budget, he proposes eliminating many of them outright.

One of the most egregious is the deletion of a provision first added for FY 2012 that prohibits any future “Fast & Furious” style operations. In an official summary, the administration says the restriction is “not necessary.”

“Not necessary”? Obama may trust Eric Holder and the senior officials at the Department of Justice, but Congress and the American people certainly should not. Holder’s refusal to fully cooperate with congressional investigations is proof enough that this sort of reckless operation should be specifically banned.

Two other provisions first passed for FY 2012 were also put on the chopping block. One prohibits a ban on the importation of shotguns deemed by the BATFE to be non-“sporting.” Congress passed this to block an Obama administration plan to expand the use of the “sporting purposes” test once again, this time to ban the importation of many popular defensive, target shooting and hunting shotguns. Removing this provision is clearly a first step toward implementing a new import ban.

The other new provision for 2012 was a ban on the use of tax dollars to lobby for new gun laws. Obama signaled that he would take this step when he announced at the bill signing for the 2012 legislation that he and his administration would not be bound by that provision. And in his budget, Obama would get rid of that restriction entirely.

Another provision deleted was a prohibition on the use of funds for anti-gun research at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control. These prohibitions have been passed by Congress to stop these groups from funding junk science “studies” in support of new restrictions on gun rights.

Obama also wants to get rid of the provision that stops the Department of Defense from destroying surplus M1 Garands and M1 carbines—a provision that has been in place for over 30 years. And he wants to drop a provision that stops the destruction of spent military brass. Without these protections, thousands of surplus rifles could be destroyed instead of being sold to law-abiding Americans through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and millions of recyclable brass cases will be melted down as scrap rather than being made available to reloaders.

There is good news for gun owners, though. No one—not even Obama or his closest allies—believe this budget will be passed, and it may not even be brought up for a vote.

So why oppose these provisions now? Is it an election-year signal to his anti-gun base voters? Or is he finally showing his true beliefs and giving up his pretense of support for the Second Amendment? Whatever the answer may be, gun owners should expect nothing but more anti-gun action on the part of the Obama Administration.

Uncategorized

Gun Control Activists Fire Squib Loads

January 14, 2012 by 2 Comments

I’m sure Joan Peterson will accuse the NRA-ILA of being big meanies for their take-down of the gun prohibitionists Josh Horwitz and Josh Sugarmann. And I’m equally sure that whomever wrote this for the ILA had a damn good time doing it!

The NRA-ILA took issue with CSGV’s Josh Horwitz and his contention that gun sales are not booming. They point out that reporters could do just exactly what the NRA and NSSF do: go to the ATF’s website for their reports.

They then look at  Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center and his work. Given his “scholarship”, they suggest he might be able to con the Joyce Foundation out of another $100 grand “for his tiny operation.”


Friday, January 13, 2012

On Monday, Josh Horwitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence—previously known as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns— penned an item for the very left-leaning Huffington Post website, deriding media reporters for writing articles that say gun sales are booming.

According to Horwitz, the reporters are wrong because their claims are based upon the FBI’s monthly counts of National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) checks. As Horwitz points out, not all firearm-related NICS checks are for firearm acquisitions, and the number of checks does not reflect the number of firearms acquired in conjunction with the checks. Among other things, he also points out that some NICS checks are for acquisitions of second-hand firearms.

Yet NICS checks, over 99 percent of which are related to firearm acquisitions or carry permits, have risen from 11 million in 2007, to nearly 13 million in 2008, to over 14 million in 2009 and 2010, and to 16.4 million in 2011, almost guaranteeing that sales of new firearms have been increasing during that time frame.

However, Horwitz is wrong to conclude that new gun sales have not been rising, merely because NICS check tallies do not specifically address the question of whether new gun sales are increasing and, if so, by how much.

There’s a much better indicator of new gun sales that Horwitz ignored: U.S. firearm manufacturers’ production data and firearm importation statistics, both reported by the BATFE. Horwitz accuses NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation of not providing reporters hard data, but reporters can get the BATFE’s data the same way the NRA and the NSSF do—by visiting the BATFE’s website.

The BATFE’s data show that the number of firearms made in the U.S.A. and not exported, plus the number of firearms imported, increased from 5.1 million in 2005, to 5.7 million in 2006, 6.5 million in 2007, 6.9 million in 2008, and almost 9 million in 2009. Figures for 2010 and 2011 have not been released, but based on the trend in NICS checks, it’s likely that they will follow a similar pattern.

Also this week, the Violence Policy Center’s Josh Sugarmann—a former employee of the NCBH himself—had an item on the Huffington Post website, claiming to have conducted a “study” of homicides in California. To be precise, the “study” consisted of cutting and pasting data available from the California Department of Justice. If that’s a “study,” then anyone with a computer and 15 or 20 minutes to spare can be a “scholar!”

In Sugarmann’s case, however, it may have been 15 or 20 minutes well spent. His “study” concludes that the California data surely warrant further study of “the identification of the make, model, and caliber of weapons most preferred by this age group as well as analyses identifying the sources of the weapons” and an “expansion of comprehensive violence intervention and prevention strategies that include a focus on the psychological well-being of witnesses and survivors of gun violence.” Those are just the sort of things Sugarmann might convince the Joyce Foundation to donate another $100,000 or so for his tiny operation to whip together, since the Congress recently banned the National Institutes of Health from using taxpayer dollars for such a frivolous and politically motivated end.

Meanwhile, Fox News ran an article concerning data that undercut the concerns of both anti-gun activists. Bearing in mind that the number of privately owned firearms in America is at an all-time high and apparently, increasing at a record pace, the article says that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have reported that “For the first time in 45 years, homicide has fallen off the list of the nation’s top 15 causes of death,” down to 16th place on the list. So much for their assumption that more guns bring more crime.