Uncategorized

Insurrectionist Ideology?

January 13, 2011 by 3 Comments

Since it appears that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence doesn’t want to be left out of the frenzy surrounding the Tucson shootings, they released this on Monday but with their own unique spin:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 10, 2011

MEDIA CONTACT:
Ladd Everitt, (202) 701-7171, leveritt@csgv.

STATEMENT OF CSGV ON TUCSON SHOOTING RAMPAGE

Washington, DC—Those of us at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence are deeply dismayed at the horrific shooting rampage that occurred in Tucson this weekend. Our thoughts and prayers—and the thoughts and prayers of all our member organizations—are with the victims and survivors of this terrible tragedy. We hope for a full recovery for all of those who lie wounded today.

Sadly, Saturday’s tragedy was both predictable and inevitable. Insurrectionist rhetoric—which posits that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to take violent action when they believe that our government has become “tyrannical”—was once confined to the dark corners of gun shows and the Internet. In today’s America, however, it has become a “mainstream” idea that is widely promoted by movement conservatives, high-profile media figures, and even elected officials and candidates. Tucson was not unique—since the conservative wing of the Supreme Court embraced the insurrectionist idea in the D.C. v. Heller decision in 2008, there have been numerous threats and acts of violence against government officials.
Additionally, America’s weak gun laws continue to allow individuals who are obviously deranged to legally purchase semiautomatic firearms with high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Jared Lee Loughner’s history of mental illness, substance abuse and violent threats was well-known to law enforcement, the U.S. Army and his educators at Pima Community College. None of this, however, was detected by an instant, computerized background check that takes just a few minutes and involves no actual investigation of the gun purchasers.

If we are to avoid future massacres, our elected officials must institute policies that prioritize public safety and human life over gun industry profits. And they must speak out in no uncertain terms against poisonous insurrectionist ideology that threatens the integrity of our democracy itself.

Insurrectionist ideology? I guess Josh Horwitz and Ladd Everitt don’t know much about history and prefer to live in their own Wonderful World. If they need some help learning history, I’d be glad to suggest some books such as the two books from David Young dealing with the origins of the Second Amendment and the founder’s intent in putting it in the Bill of Rights.

Uncategorized

CRPA Files Pretrial Briefs In Suit Against AB962

January 13, 2011 by

While the two lawsuits in Federal court against the California ban on mailorder sales of handgun ammunition were dismissed, the case in California Superior Court still continues. That case, Parker v. California, was brought by the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation with help from the NRA.


FINAL PRETRIAL BRIEFS FILED IN NRA / CRPAF
LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA BAN
ON MAILORDER AMMO SALES

On January 7, 2011, the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation (CRPAF) filed a Reply brief and supporting materials for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment in their case challenging AB962. A trial is set for January 18, 2011 – just days before the portion of the law that bans mail order sales of “handgun ammunition” is set to take effect on February 1, 2011. The lawsuit, Parker v. California is funded exclusively by the NRA and the CRPA Foundation. It seeks a court order declaring the statutes enacted by AB 962 to be unconstitutional, and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting police from enforcing the new laws.

The lawsuit alleges that AB962 is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide sufficient notice of what ammunition is “principally for use in a handgun,” and thus is considered “handgun ammunition” that is regulated under AB 962. It is practically impossible, both for those subject to the law and for those who must enforce it, to determine whether any of the thousands of different types of ammunition cartridges that can be used in handguns are actually “principally for use in” or used more often in, a handgun. In fact, the legislature itself is well aware of the vagueness problem with AB 962 and attempted to fix it via AB 2358 in 2010. The attempt failed in the face of opposition from the NRA and CRPA.

Constitutional vagueness challenges to state laws are extremely difficult to win, particularly in California firearms litigation. While we are cautiously optimistic, ammo suppliers and sellers must also be ready to comply with the law if the court upholds it. A Compliance Guide is forthcoming, but unfortunately the law raises more questions than it answers, and the California Department of Justice Firearms Bureau is providing no assistance. Nonetheless, the Compliance Guide will include information obtained from DOJ through this litigation and much more, along with template forms which can be used by ammunition vendors. The Compliance guide will be released and distributed no later than January 18, 2010 on www.calgunlaws.comwww.michellawyers.com. Sign up at www.calgunlaws.com to be notified.

The Parker lawsuit is the only remaining court challenge to AB962. A federal judge last month dismissed two other cases (OOIDA v. Lindlley and State Ammunition v. Lindley) challenging AB 962 on other grounds. NRA was also a party to and sponsor of the OOIDA case.

Significantly, the Parker briefs argue that a heightened standard of certainty should be applied to the court’s vagueness analysis because of AB 962’s impact on the fundamental Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Generally, statutes are subjected to heightened scrutiny under the vagueness doctrine only where cases “impact,” “relate to,” or “implicate” constitutionally protected conduct. The Parker case presents a novel question of law that could set a precedent for future vagueness challenges because such heightened standards of legislative clarity have thus far only been applied in cases involving statutes impacting other constitutional rights such as freedom of speech, the right to choose to have an abortion, and the right to travel. Here however, it seems that blanket prohibitions on how “handgun ammunition” is purchased, and a thumb print requirement for every purchase of such ammunition, necessarily “implicates” or “relates to” the right to maintain an operable handgun to exercise the fundamental right to self defense. So in addition to the obvious benefit of AB 962 being declared unconstitutional, a ruling that statutes that impact Second Amendment rights deserve heightened Due Process court scrutiny would be helpful in the development of Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Win or lose, additional legislation on this and related subjects will no doubt be proposed in Sacramento this legislative session. It is absolutely critical that those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms stay informed and make their voices heard in Sacramento.

Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby. Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA “Local Ordinance Project” (LOP) – a statewide campaign to fight ill conceived local efforts at gun control and educate politicians about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The NRA/CRPA LOP has had tremendous success in beating back most of these anti-self-defense proposals.

In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating dozens of cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment. In the post Heller and McDonald www.crpafoundation.org. All donations made to the CRPA Foundation will directly support litigation efforts to advance the rights of California gun owners.

Also, please register at www.CalGunLaws.com and www.crpa.org . www.CalGunLaws.com is produced by the law firm of Michel & Associates, P.C. as a pro bono effort to keep attorneys and interested firearm owners informed on the existing laws and latest legal developments in California. It includes a link to the highly effective www.calnra.com California legislative status and grassroots action page.

C.D. Michel
Senior Counsel

Uncategorized

Is There Something Toxic In Long Island’s Water?

January 12, 2011 by

Something must be in the water of Long Island that causes politicians to say and do stupid things when it comes to firearms.

First, we have the Queen Bee of gun control, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY-4), saying that standard capacity magazines must be banned so we don’t have a repeat of the Tucson shooting. She goes on to say that if the “Assault Weapons Ban” (sic) had still been in place fewer people might have been shot. This is despite the AWB only banned the manufacture and/or importation of new magazines. Existing magazines were easy to find and buy.

Next we have Rep. Peter King (R-NY-3) whose district adjoins Mrs. McCarthy’s. He wants to create a gun-free zone of 1,000 feet around all high-ranking government officials. No word on how this could be done nor just who is considered a high-ranking government official. Speaker Boehner has indicated he would not support such a bill.

Finally, we have news today that Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY-5) has introduced a bill to close the “fire-sale loophole.” According to The Hill, the bill would require recently unlicensed gun dealers – that is those who have surrendered or lost their FFL – to still conduct background checks on all buyers as if they were still licensed. Ackerman, the story notes, has introduced this bill every session for a number of years. He says:

“After this weekend’s tragedy, it’s clear that Congress must close troubling loopholes in federal gun control laws that let firearms fall into the hands of convicted felons, fugitives, domestic violence perpetrators and severely emotionally disturbed individuals,” Ackerman said in a statement. “Every gun sold should require a background check, period.”

The story on this bill in The Hill does say that Jared Lee Loughner purchased his firearm through a licensed dealer and would not have been prevented from purchasing it with what this bill proposes. This does not prevent NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg from endorsing Ackerman’s bill.

“Pharmacists who lose their licenses can’t sell prescription drugs to people without prescriptions, yet gun dealers who lose their licenses can sell off their inventory — without even conducting background checks,” New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement endorsing Ackerman’s bill.

As I said earlier I don’t know what is in the water of Long Island that causes politicians to say and do stupid things when it comes to firearms. One thing I do know is that all three are engaging in shameless pandering to the press and to the gun control lobby. None of these bills would have stopped the tragedy in Tucson and none will keep either criminals or lunatics from obtaining a means to injure innocent people.

Uncategorized

TV Appearances Are Very Time Consuming

January 12, 2011 by

It must take a lot of a Congressman’s time to appear on TV talk shows and news shows. We have been hearing of new bills promised since the Tucson shootings that would alternatively ban standard capacity magazines, ban free speech, and ban anyone from being within 1,000 feet of a “high-ranking” government official with a firearm.

Checking the Library of Congress’s Thomas database which contains information on all bills introduced in either the House or Senate, I find nothing on the above.

From Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) who has promised a new ban on standard capacity magazines, nothing.

From Robert Brady (D-PA) who has said he’ll introduce legislation that would make it a crime to use symbols or language that could be construed as threatening to a Federal official, nothing.

From Peter King (R-NY) who has said he’ll introduce legislation that would ban anyone from possessing a firearm within 1,000 feet of a high-ranking government official, there is only a private bill “For the relief of Alemseghed Mussie Tesfamical.”

From Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) who has said he’ll join with Carolyn McCarthy to ban standard capacity magazines, there is only a resolution “to permit the Senate to avoid unnecessary delay and vote on matters for which floor debate has ceased.”

Like I said, it takes time to appear on CNN, MSNBC, etc. Let’s hope that they continue to be consumed with hearing their voice and seeing their face on TV and leave legislation alone. I doubt it but one can hope.

Uncategorized

Oprah Has Colin Goddard On As A Guest

January 11, 2011 by 3 Comments

Oh, joy of joys. I’m stuck at home today due to the snow and am stuck with the vast wasteland of daytime TV. Oprah is on and is featuring an interview with Colin Goddard, Virginia Tech survivor and the Brady Campaign’s Assistant Director of Federal Legislation.

She is talking about his film “Living for 32”.

Oprah asks him if he has found “his calling” after this. He says he had to do this after the massacre.

Oh, jeez!

Uncategorized

P39 Airacobra

January 11, 2011 by 2 Comments

This is an interesting story. The P39 Airacobra was not used much by the U. S. Army Air Force as an interceptor during WWII due to the lack of a supercharger for its engine. This limited its speed and thus its usefulness about 17,000 feet. As a result many were shipped to the Soviets who were desperate for any type of plane. The Red Air Force found a good use for it as a ground attack fighter especially with its 37mm cannon.

The plane in this story was one of the Lend-Lease P39’s sent to Russia. It was found intact in a lake in Siberia and was eventually brought back to a museum in Buffalo, New York.

Uncategorized

First McCarthy, Now Lautenberg

January 10, 2011 by

The following was released by the office of Senator Frank Lautenberg today. Nothing like like piling on after a tragedy to score political points.

Press Release of Senator Lautenberg

Lautenberg Statement on Legislation to Ban High-Capacity Gun Clips

Contact: Lautenberg Press Office, 202-224-3224
Monday, January 10, 2011

NEWARK, N.J. – Today, U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) released the following statement on his plans to introduce legislation that would prohibit the manufacture and sale of high-capacity ammunition feeding devices, such as the high-capacity magazine used by Arizona shooting suspect Jared Loughner. Lautenberg is working with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) on the legislation.

“The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly. These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market,” Lautenberg said. “Before 2004, these ammunition clips were banned, and they must be banned again. When the Senate returns to Washington, I will introduce legislation to prohibit this type of high-capacity clip.”

From 1994 – 2004, high-capacity ammunition magazines (“clips”) were illegal as part of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. When the ban expired in 2004, Republican leaders in Congress pledged to not resurrect it. Since that time, high-capacity clips (more than 10 rounds at a time) have been legal to manufacture and sell.
Senator Lautenberg’s bill, which will be introduced when the Senate returns to session in two weeks, would ban ammunition clips that have a capacity of, or that could be readily converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. That standard was the law before 2004.

According to reports, in the Tuscon shooting, Jared Loughner used a high-capacity 33-round magazine clip in his Glock 19 pistol. The high-capacity magazine allowed Loughner to fire off 33 bullets without having to manually reload. Given that bystanders apprehended him as he attempted to change clips, if Loughner did not have access to the high-capacity magazine that he used, it may have prevented some of the other deaths and injuries that occurred.

Uncategorized

Fisking Helmke

January 10, 2011 by

The Brady Campaign released another missive from Paul Helmke yesterday reacting to the shootings in Tucson:

Enough is Enough! Tucson Shooter, Arizona New Faces of Weak Gun Laws

Jan 9, 2011

Statement from Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

“The 22 year-old shooter in Tucson was not allowed to enlist in the military, was asked to leave school, and was considered “very disturbed” (according to former classmates), but that’s not enough to keep someone from legally buying as many guns as they want in America.

Jared Lee Loughner passed the NICS check conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System was mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a Democrat, has blamed inflammatory rhetoric on the part of Tea Parties and conservative politicians for the tragedy. However, according to sources within his own Sheriff’s Department, they knew of Loughner and his threats as well as his mental illness. One of the reasons they were reluctant to do anything was because his mother was a Pima County employee.

Many people seem to find this surprising, but it’s true, and we ought to be angry about it.

The troubles of the Tucson shooter are more proof that we make it too easy for dangerous and irresponsible people to get guns in this country. We have too few laws to protect our families and communities from this kind of bloodshed, and the laws we do have are riddled with too many loopholes.

Arizona, as it turns out, has almost no gun laws, and scored just two points out of 100 last year on the Brady State Scorecard.

Since then, things have gotten worse. Arizona is one of only three states that allow residents to carry loaded, hidden guns without background checks. Arizona recently weakened its laws to allow guns in bars.

The State of Arizona believes in individual responsibility as well as constitutional rights. If the Loughner family had sought mental health care for their son, he might have shown up in mental health records and been denied under NICS. Mr. Helmke wants to blame everyone but the criminal’s family for not doing something to prevent this tragedy.

Joseph Zamudio, one of the bystanders that detained Loughner and who has been hailed a hero, was carrying concealed and went to provide help when he heard the shots because he was armed.

In addition, if Congress had not allowed the “Assault Weapons Ban” to expire in 2004, the shooter would only have been able to get off 10 rounds without reloading. Instead, he was able to fire at least 20 rounds from his 30-round clip.

Standard and large capacity magazines were available during the ten years the “Assault Weapons Ban” (sic) was the law. While no new magazines could be produced except for law enforcement or military uses, existing magazines were grandfathered and readily available. This would include 30-round knock-offs of the Glock 18 magazine. Even without a 30-round magazine, reloads can be done quickly and efficiently if practiced.

Sensible gun laws can save lives. Congress should move now to enact tougher restrictions on guns, ammunition, and who can legally possess them, and President Obama should help lead the way.”

Why does anyone still believe a “new” law would have prevented this tragedy? Madmen will do as madmen do and people are still going to get killed.