|
| Gun Owners of America |
The House passed national concealed carry reciprocity legislation on Wednesday evening by a vote of 272-154.
The bill, H.R. 822, is intended to allow persons who hold a concealed carry permit from one state to also carry anywhere in the country, with the exception of Illinois and Washington, D.C.
Though the bill passed by a wide margin, it was not without controversy on the pro-gun side of the debate. In previous alerts, GOA has pointed out several flaws in the legislation:
- It forces Vermont residents (who do not need a permit to carry) to either obtain an out-of-state permit or to push their state to pass a more restrictive concealed carry law than it now enjoys;
- By requiring permits for reciprocity, the bill undermines efforts at the state level to pass constitutional carry (i.e., Vermont-style carry);
- In restrictive “may issue” states, the bill allows for non-residents to carry firearms in the state while most residents would still be prohibited, and;
- The bill is yet another example of Congress distorting of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
Representative Justin Amash (R-MI), who voted against the bill, addressed this last point in a statement, calling H.R. 822 “an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing.”
Another freshman Representative, Rob Woodall (R-GA), noted that the right to carry a concealed firearm is already protected by the Second Amendment.
“If the Second Amendment protects my rights to carry my concealed weapon from state to state to state, I don’t need another federal law,” Rep. Woodall said. He went on to remind his colleagues of the original intent of the right to keep and bear arms.
“I don’t believe the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to allow me to shoot targets [or] hunt for deer and turkey. I think the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights so that I could defend my freedom against an overbearing federal government.”
Anti-gun Amendment Passes
One extremely troubling amendment to the bill was slipped in on a voice vote. Sponsored by Republican David Reichert (“C” rated by GOA), the amendment instructs the Government Accounting Office to:
“Conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.”
Nowhere in the Constitution is there even a hint of authority for the federal government to “study” the exercising of a right. Even worse, you can be sure that anti-gunners will use any excuse, including this study, to push for some type of national carry license.
The bill now heads to the Senate, where GOA is already working with key Senators to address ALL of the problems with the bill. GOA is also working with Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) on legislation, H.R. 2900, that takes a constitutional approach to concealed carry recognition.
You can click here to send you own Representative a message urging him or her to become a cosponsor of H.R. 2900. |
NRA-ILA Legal Update
October 2011 |
|
FEDERAL LAW
NRA Files Appeal of Ruling on Handgun Sales Age Limits
On Sept. 29, a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas decided in favor of the federal government in a case brought by the NRA challenging the federal restriction on the purchase of handguns by 18-20 year old adults. The case is far from over, as the NRA has already filed an appeal.
In the case, Jennings v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the NRA and a group of responsible young adults argued that since 18-20 year olds are considered adults for virtually every other purpose, such as voting and military service, adults in this age group should also be able to purchase handguns from licensed dealers.
In the ruling, Judge Samuel Cummings wrote "the Court is of the opinion that the ban does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the Constitution," and wrongly equated law-abiding 20-year-olds with criminals, stating that "the right to bear arms is enjoyed only by those not disqualified from the exercise of the Second Amendment rights."
"We strongly disagree with this ruling," said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. "As we said when we filed this case, adults 18 and up have fought and died for American freedom throughout our country's history. They are adults for virtually every legal purpose under federal and state law, and that should include the ability to buy handguns from licensed dealers to defend themselves, their homes and their families. Our fellow plaintiffs in this case are law-abiding and responsible young adults. We plan to defend their rights to the very end."
A similar case, in which many of the same plaintiffs challenge the state of Texas' ban on issuance of Right-to-Carry permits to adults under 21, remains pending in the same court. That case is Jennings v. McCraw.
NRA Victory in Arizona Battle Over Use of Lead Ammunition
In a major legal victory, a federal judge has ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association and the federal Bureau of Land Management, throwing a lawsuit filed by an environmental group, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), out of U.S. District Court in Phoenix, Ariz. The case is Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Safari Club International had joined the case as a "friend of the court" and assisted NRA with its successful efforts.
CBD's lawsuit, filed on Jan. 27, 2009, alleged that the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were illegally mismanaging federal lands in Arizona. The lawsuit challenged the allowance of off road vehicles, construction of roads, inadequate protection of desert tortoises, and inadequate protection of California condors. Among other things, the suit sought to force BLM to ban the use of lead ammunition for hunting in the Arizona Strip, a rugged area in the northwest corner of the state renowned for great hunting. CBD contended California condors in Arizona and elsewhere were being poisoned from scavenging game that was shot by hunters using lead shot or bullets. But the record plainly shows that California condors were reintroduced to this area of Arizona based on express promises by FWS and other agencies that the reintroduction would not affect hunting.
Among other things, the Court ruled that CBD had waived its claims concerning BLM's failure to assess the alleged impact of lead ammunition on condors because "[i]t did not argue that BLM was required to include the potential effects of lead ammunition in [BLM's] analysis of environmental impacts."
Even before the ruling, NRA's intervention in the case on behalf of its members had already resulted in several legal victories. A Jan. 13, 2010 court ruling granting NRA's motion to intervene was recently published in the official Federal Rules Decision Reporter. The Federal Rules Decisions Reporter is a compendium of selected United States district court rulings that specifically interpret and apply the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure. Publication of this court ruling is important to hunters and NRA members because it sets legal precedent by confirming that there is a "significantly protectable interest" in hunting that can justify intervention by hunter's rights groups like NRA in the increasing number of lawsuits filed by so-called environmental groups against state and federal natural resource, game and land management agencies.
To see key documents filed in this case, visit http://michellawyers.com/cbdvblm.
Court Denies Injunction on BATFE Long Gun Sales Reporting
Following the Obama Administration's move to require federal firearms licensees in the border states to report multiple sales of certain rifles, the NRA immediately began supporting litigation to enjoin this illegal action by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Unfortunately, on Sept. 9, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied NRA's motion for a temporary injunction, but set an expedited schedule to bring the case before the court for a final ruling with argument set for Oct. 25.
The three suits (J&G Sales, Ltd. v. Melson; Ron Peterson Firearms, LLC v. Melson; and 10 Ring Precision, Inc. v. Melson) each argue that the BATFE has no legal authority to require multiple sales reporting of long gun sales and must stop trying to do so. When Congress authorized the reporting of multiple sales of handguns in the 1968 Gun Control Act, it did not empower any federal agency to require similar reports for long guns. Therefore, this recent action by the BATFE not only exceeds the Bureau's legal authority, but also circumvents the will of Congress.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Appeals Court Rules Against D.C. Gun Owners in Heller II
In a split ruling in an ongoing NRA-supported case challenging the restrictive gun laws established by the Washington D.C. government in defiance of the Supreme Court's 2008 Heller decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has upheld a number of highly restrictive gun laws.
Unfortunately, the court ruled that the District's general handgun registration requirement is constitutional. However, the court reached that conclusion by misreading the Supreme Court's Heller decision as presuming that any type of "longstanding" restriction is constitutional, so it only upheld the more traditional aspects of the registration system, such as the requirements that the registrant provide his or her name and address, a description of the firearm and certain other basic information.
By contrast, the court found that other D.C. requirements, such as fingerprints, a vision requirement, ballistics tests and mandatory training, were "novel" and therefore need to be reviewed again by a lower court under a tighter standard of scrutiny. Similarly, the court found that long gun registration is "novel" in the U.S. and returned that issue to the lower court as well.
D.C. laws banning "assault weapons" and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition were also wrongly found to be constitutional. The Supreme Court said in Heller that "arms" are protected under the Constitution if they are "in common use," and the D.C. Circuit found it "clear enough in the record that semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds are indeed in 'common use,'" based on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives production statistics showing that "1.6 million AR-15s alone have been manufactured since 1986," and that the banned magazines are even more prevalent.
But the court also found -- based largely on the testimony of a Brady Campaign lawyer to the District of Columbia Council -- that "the District ha[d] carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime."
Fortunately, in a long and well reasoned dissenting opinion that may provide a road map for other courts, Judge Brett Kavanaugh rejected the majority's reasoning. Rather than the "intermediate scrutiny" employed by the majority or any other "balancing test," Judge Kavanaugh would have applied a standard based on "text, history, and tradition." Under that standard, he argued that "it would strain logic and common sense to conclude that the Second Amendment protects semi-automatic handguns but does not protect semi-automatic rifles," which "have not traditionally been banned and are in common use today." Judge Kavanaugh also would have rejected the entire registration system, arguing that D.C.'s type of total gun registration system is not "traditional" and "remains highly unusual today."
The NRA strongly disagrees with the outcome, and is reviewing the decision and considering all options. "When it comes to self-defense, semi-automatic firearms of all types are an increasingly popular choice for most Americans, and the court itself admitted that semi-automatics are in common use, with millions of these guns sold in recent years," said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. "Law abiding residents of the District should have the same access to these tools as residents of nearly all of the 50 states."
STATE LAW
NRA Files "Friend of the Court" Briefs in Two Right-To-Carry Cases
NRA has filed friend of the court briefs in two separate cases involving the right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense.
In Shepard v. Madigan, currently pending in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, the lead plaintiff is church treasurer Mary Shepard, who, along with an elderly co-worker, was severely beaten at her workplace by an attacker with a criminal record. Mrs. Shepard has carry permits issued by two other states, but was left unarmed and defenseless by Illinois' law. Her challenge -- in which the Illinois State Rifle Association, NRA's state affiliate, also joins as a plaintiff -- contends that Illinois' carry ban cannot stand in light of the Heller and McDonald decisions.
In Richards v. Prieto, currently pending in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in California, plaintiffs brought suit against Yolo County, Calif. Sheriff Ed Prieto for his refusal to issue carry permits to law-abiding applicants. The case was first heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, where the court ruled for the sheriff.
In both cases, the NRA, as the leading organization in the nation advocating for gun owners' rights and specifically in advocating for the passage of right-to-carry laws in the states, has lent its expertise on the issue by filing briefs in strong support of the right to carry.
The briefs stress that the right to carry is an important part of the fundamental right of self-defense. Additionally, the briefs counter the arguments that permit holders are a public safety threat. Specifically, the brief responds to Brady Campaign claims that passage of right-to-carry laws lead to increases in crime. In fact, the briefs show not only that crime does not increase in right-to-carry states, but that right-to-carry laws contribute to a reduction in crime.
NRA-Backed Challenge to San Francisco Laws Moves Ahead
On Sept. 27, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court, Northern District of California, let plaintiffs move ahead with a case challenging San Francisco's enactment and enforcement of three city ordinances requiring firearms be disabled by a trigger lock or stored in a locked container, banning the sale of ammunition that "serves no sporting purpose," and prohibiting firearm discharges with no self-defense exception unduly burdens the right to self-defense.
The case of Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, fully funded by the NRA and the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation, can now move forward on its merits. The case has already been successful in forcing the City to amend its discharge ban, a law that has been in place for some 73 years, to allow for discharges in self-defense, defense of others, and all other circumstances allowed for under state and federal law.
In February of this year, the City of San Francisco filed a motion claiming that plaintiffs had no standing (that is, no right to bring the suit) because the city did not enforce the laws in question. Therefore, claimed the city, the plaintiffs have no legitimate fear of prosecution and suffer no injury by complying with the law.
In his ruling, Judge Seeborg rejected the city's effort to have the case thrown out, ruling that the plaintiffs have "adequately alleged an intent and desire to engage in conduct that is prohibited by the ordinances but which they contend is constitutionally protected."
The full text of the court's order can be viewed here at www.calgunlaws.com.
NRA, CRPA Open New Front with Challenge to California Gun Sale Fees
The National Rifle Association and the California Rifle & Pistol Association Foundation have filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California challenging the Dealer Record of Sales (DROS) fees charged by the California Department of Justice on gun sales on the grounds the fees are being misused.
The funds were originally established to pay for the administrative process to complete background checks. This year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB 819, which authorizes the funds to be used to pay for the enforcement of California's growing number of anti-gun laws.
NRA and CRPA fought against passage of SB 819 because it places the financial burden for enforcing California's unfair gun laws on the backs of law-abiding gun owners. The result will almost certainly be a depletion of DROS funds, leading to additional increases in the fees gun buyers will be forced to pay.
The suit filed by NRA and CRPA, Bauer v. Harris, challenges the DROS fees as an unconstitutional infringement on the exercise of rights protected under the Second Amendment. If successful, the suit will reverse the damage done by the passage of SB 819 by limiting the fees or eliminating them.
Court Blocks Enforcement of Florida Law Restricting Patient Harassment by Doctors
Earlier this year, the Florida Legislature passed, and Gov. Rick Scott signed, a law designed to stop anti-gun activism from interfering with proper medical care and patient privacy. The law prohibits health care practitioners from asking questions or recording information about patients' gun ownership when the information is not necessary for the patient's medical care or the safety of others. It also prohibits practitioners from discriminating against gun-owning patients and from unnecessarily harassing patients about gun ownership.
Anti-gun doctors, along with the Florida chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians, with legal assistance from the Brady Campaign, challenged the law in federal court within days of its signing. The doctors petitioned the court to declare the law unconstitutional and asked for an injunction against the enforcement of the law pending that decision. (The case is Wollschlaeger v. Farmer.)
The NRA petitioned the court to intervene in the case, which would have allowed us to be a full participant in the legal proceedings. Plaintiffs opposed the NRA's participation, and U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke denied the petition. The NRA was still able to weigh in with a "friend of the court" brief arguing that the plaintiffs had misread the law, which is much less restrictive than the plaintiffs claim.
Unfortunately, Judge Cooke read the law in a much more restrictive manner, and on Sept. 14 issued a preliminary ruling that the law improperly restricts the free speech rights of doctors. She also found that questions by a doctor regarding gun ownership do not interfere with Second Amendment rights. The judge issued a temporary injunction against the enforcement of the law, but clearly indicated her final decision would make that injunction permanent.
The state is expected to appeal the ruling when it becomes final.
NRA Supports Illinois Gun Owners in Cook County "Assault Weapon" Case
The case of Wilson v. Cook County, now pending before the Illinois Supreme Court, challenges Cook County's ultra-broad ban on semi-automatic firearms. The case is an important test of what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, challenging the constitutionality of a county ban on possession of "assault weapons." The Cook County ban criteria are even stricter than those used in the California ban on which the Cook County law was based.
The suit was originally brought by the Illinois State Rifle Association before the McDonald decision. The Illinois Supreme Court held the petition pending the outcome in McDonald, then sent the case back to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of McDonald. NRA provided assistance at that point by providing nationally recognized counsel to the plaintiffs.
When the lower courts stuck to their prior rulings almost without change, the Supreme Court granted review. NRA took additional steps by coordinating the filing of five separate "friend of the court" briefs. The case continues to be briefed and argument has not been set.
SKS Rifle Owner Prevails in Chicago "Assault Weapon" Case
In a case supported by the NRA, David Lawson, who had previously been a plaintiff in McDonald v. Chicago, challenged the decision by the City of Chicago not to allow him to register two normal SKS rifles with fixed ten-round magazines. Although the rifles do not meet Chicago's definition of an "assault weapon," Chicago refused registration because they were "convertible" into "assault weapons." The city denied the registration in spite of the fact Chicago has a separate provision for dealing with registered rifles that are converted into "assault rifles" after registration.
Following an initial rejection and preliminary appeal before a hearing examiner, the case was appealed to the City Court. The judge ruled the hearing examiner had to take evidence as to whether the guns were actually capable of accepting a detachable magazine, which is one of the criteria to define a rifle as an "assault weapon," and sent the case back to the hearing examiner.
At the hearing, Mr. Lawson and his counsel presented the SKS rifles for examination by the court, but the two "expert witnesses" for the City, both police officers, refused to even touch them. The judge ruled in favor of Mr. Lawson and ordered the rifles to be accepted for registration.
This case shows how far the city will go to deny law-abiding citizens their Second Amendment rights, refusing to abide by its own regulations until forced by the court.
Cases Still Pending
For more detail concerning these cases go to http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7143
California – Challenge to "May Issue" Carry Law
Peruta v. County of San Diego, (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) -- challenges San Diego County Sheriff William Gore's refusal to issue carry permits to qualified applicants.
California – Ban on Online Ammunition Sales
Parker v. California (Fresno Superior Court) – challenges a ban on direct mail order and online purchases of ammunition. The state of California has filed an appeal to the permanent injunction on the enforcement of the law which was issued in January.
Delaware – Second Amendment Rights in Public Housing
Doe v. Wilmington Public Housing Authority – challenges restrictions on firearm ownership for residents of public housing.
Illinois – Ban on Gun Stores in Chicago
Benson v. City of Chicago (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois) -- challenges the ban on gun stores in the city of Chicago.
New York -- Handguns for Part-Time Residents
Osterweil v. Bartlett (Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals) -- challenges New York state law that prevents part-time residents from getting permits to possess handguns in their homes.
Washington, D.C. – Second Amendment Rights in Public Housing
Scott v. District of Columbia Housing Authority – challenges restrictions on firearm ownership for residents of public housing.
NRA-ILA Referrals and NRA-ILA Supported Litigation
Referrals
NRA maintains a list of attorneys who have identified themselves as willing to consider cases involving NRA members. If a referral is given, the member must negotiate fees and arrangements with the attorney directly. By providing referrals, we are not endorsing or recommending any attorney on the list for any purpose -- the attorneys on the list have simply asked to be placed on our list but have not been vetted by the NRA.
Supported Litigation: How NRA-ILA Accepts Cases
NRA-ILA cannot generally insert itself into litigation in which we are not a party. In order to get involved, we must be invited by a party or the court. Feel free to let us know about cases that may be of interest; however, please do not contact us to become involved in cases to which you are not a party.
NRA-ILA generally assists in cases that affect the Second Amendment civil liberties or civil rights of large numbers of our members and gun owners in general, rather than those involving a dispute between individual parties. The basic questions we ask when reviewing a potential case are:
- Is this a significant Second Amendment civil liberties or civil rights issue or a vital but derivative civil liberties or civil rights issue?
- What effect will this case have on people other than the applicant?
- Do we have the necessary resources to take this case?
Unfortunately, despite the thousands of requests for assistance we receive each year, there are many legitimate and compelling cases in which NRA-ILA is simply unable to assist, as we do not have unlimited resources. We regret that we cannot provide assistance in many cases even if they fall within the guidelines discussed above. To that end, we encourage you to contact the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund (www.nradefensefund.org), which provides legal and financial assistance to selected individuals and organizations defending their right to keep and bear arms.
Important Note Regarding Deadlines
All legal claims have time deadlines. These deadlines may be different depending on the nature of the issue and the parties involved. For some kinds of civil cases, you may need to file a claim with a government agency before you can sue, and agencies have their own time deadlines.
If you do not comply with the applicable deadlines, you may be legally barred from pursuing your claim in court. Contacting us to describe your problem does not mean that we represent you, nor does it stop the statute of limitations from running. NRA-ILA cannot give you advice about the specific deadlines that apply to your case. To protect your rights, please consult an attorney promptly to find out what deadlines may apply to your particular situation.
Tell Us What You Think!
|
| Buying Counterfeit Chips from China |
| by Phyllis Schlafly |
October 5, 2011 |
Phyllis Schlafly |
It's a problem for U.S. retailers when Communist China makes fake designer handbags and illegal copies of our music CDs, but it's a much bigger problem when the fakes are chips installed in our military weapons. The American people are starting to discover that counterfeit computer components bought from the Chinese are used in our war planes, ships, and communication networks.
These tiny electronic circuits used in computers can cause breakdowns or malfunctions. Bloomberg Businessweek reported that a confidential Pentagon program issued an alert as long ago as 2005 that fake microchips were causing military equipment malfunctions.
Other shipments were discovered to be counterfeit in time to be cancelled. Four counterfeit chips were discovered in the flight computer of one of our F-15 fighter jets at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia.
While it is difficult to determine if fake chips caused particular plane or helicopter crashes, we know that we are having field failures in almost every weapon system. Informed military observers believe that at least 15 percent of the spare and replacement chips the Pentagon buys are counterfeits.
| Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum |
|
|
|
Another danger from fake Chinese chips is that they facilitate foreign espionage. The head of cyber security in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the FBI have both admitted that these routers can allow the Chinese to gain access to U.S. secure systems.
These dangers come from the routing trail of the router chips. After the U.S. ships our scrap computers to China, scavengers working in littered streets sand off the dates and other identification from cast-off circuit boards, put a new coating on the chips, often re-label them as military, sell them in bazaars to never-inspected kitchen-table brokers in the U.S., and the Pentagon buys them because they are cheap or because federal affirmative-action policies require them to favor suppliers claiming to be "disadvantaged."
The U.S. has seized more than 400 fake routers. Nobody knows how many more Chinese counterfeits have been installed in U.S. equipment.
The threat from Chinese counterfeits is really not news to those in the know. It has been known for so many years that it has acquired a nickname: "hardware Trojans," taken from the ancient Greek myth about how the Greeks defeated Troy with a Trojan horse, a wooden horse that secretly contained Greek troops.
Likewise, the Chinese are most probably now selling us counterfeit computer routers for our military equipment and covertly routing our most secret information directly to the Chinese. There are so many ways computers can be jimmied by the Chinese: programmed to fail prematurely, tracking or surveillance for spying, or providing hackers with hidden "back doors."
Last year, the U.S. bought 59,000 counterfeit microchips from China for use in our warships, planes, missile and antimissile systems, but fortunately discovered they were fake in time. How many didn't we catch?
The Government Accountability Office reported that "counterfeit parts have the potential to cause a serious disruption to DoD supply chains, delay ongoing missions, and even affect the integrity of weapons systems." Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) added that counterfeit parts have "infiltrated" the defense supply chain including microprocessors for F-15 operational flight-control computers and the hardware of our Missile Defense System.
Can't we assure U.S. safety by sending our inspectors to China for on-site inspections? The Chinese have already rejected that request.
When are Republican presidential and senatorial candidates going to address any of the many problems caused by China? Their silence is deafening, and the media are complicit in the silence by failing to ask serious questions about China in five presidential debates.
Will you instruct the Defense Department to buy only computer chips and routers manufactured in the U.S. under strict security guidelines?
Since everyone agrees on the need to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, isn't it just as important to reduce our dependence on foreign computer parts for our military planes and weapons?
Will you bar from Defense Department business any companies that give away their patents, manufacturing processes, and intellectual property as part of the deal to open a plant in a foreign country?
Will you announce that the next time an American dies because of contamination of a prescription drug imported from China, prescription drugs will no longer be allowed to be imported from China?
Do you realize that China is not our "trading partner" but is our no-holds-barred economic competitor, highly protectionist, anti-free-trade, and spending the money it gets from U.S. trade to build up its military to become the world's number-one superpower? |
|
|
House Crime Subcommittee Holds Hearing on National Right-to-Carry Bill |
| |
| Friday, September 16, 2011 |
|
|
On Tuesday, Sept. 13, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held a hearing on H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.
The bill, introduced earlier this year by Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and cosponsored by more than 240 of their colleagues, would enable millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.
Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) opened the hearing by saying the legislation is needed because state laws on right to carry reciprocity are "confusing, vary widely and can subject otherwise law-abiding citizens to frivolous prosecution." He also argued that permit holders' fundamental Second Amendment rights were at stake, noting that "this legislation recognizes that the right to bear arms does not stop at the state line."
Testifying in support of the bill were Prof. Joyce Lee Malcolm of the George Mason University School of Law and Prof. David Kopel of the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.
Prof. Malcolm, an expert on the rise and fall of the right to keep and bear arms in Great Britain, noted that while America has seen crime fall as "shall issue" permit laws became the norm, Britain has systematically wiped out gun ownership for self-defense since 1920 -- culminating in the 1997 handgun ban -- with opposite results. As Prof. Malcolm noted in her written testimony, "English men and women have suffered from a doubling of gun crime in the last decade while in London alone gun crime doubled in 2010 over the previous year."
Prof. Malcolm responded strongly when challenged by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) about crime and gun ownership, testifying that "more firearms has not increased violent crime. We've had more firearms over the last few years, millions more, and crime, violent crime has been going down."
Prof. Kopel's testimony focused on the constitutional aspects of the bill. While many anti-gun lawmakers who've long pushed national gun bans, national bans on private gun sales, national waiting periods and other federal restrictions have suddenly become born-again advocates of "states' rights" to oppose this bill, Prof. Kopel pointed out that several provisions of the Constitution give Congress the authority to enact interstate carry.
First, Article IV protects the "Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States," which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include a right to travel freely throughout the country. As the court said in the 1989 case of Saenz v. Roe, that includes the "right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State."
Next, section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of that amendment. Not only does the history of the amendment show that it was also intended to protect a right to travel, but the Supreme Court held last year in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the 14th Amendment also protects the right to keep and bear arms against state infringement. "Bear" clearly means "carry," though several courts are currently considering how far that right goes.
Finally, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce -- which includes the power to remove state barriers to free interstate travel. (This was the basis for the civil rights laws of the 1960s that ended racial discrimination by places of public accommodation such as motels.) H.R. 822 also applies only to guns that have been shipped or transported in interstate commerce, which has been the basis for most federal gun control laws since the 1960s; here, however, the power would be used to advance gun owners' rights rather than to restrict them.
Opposing the bill was Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, who previously was the police chief in Washington, D.C. While Ramsey admitted that permit holders aren't the problem, he also made clear that he strongly opposes the right to carry firearms, even for retired police officers.
Ramsey repeatedly claimed the bill didn't include enough restrictions on permit holders -- but when pressed, admitted that there was no level of regulation that would make the bill acceptable to him. "Personally, I don't like it . . ." was his response when asked if he supported right to carry laws.
Commissioner Ramsey's responses demonstrated that his opposition to the bill was based on a basic opposition to civilian firearms -- unsurprising for a man who spent the majority of his law enforcement career in Chicago and Washington D.C., where guns were banned. Ramsey repeated many of the exaggerated claims made by opponents of right to carry for the past quarter century, even as he admitted that permit holders are "not the problem." He made clear that he fundamentally doubts law-abiding Americans' ability to defend themselves in a legal and appropriate manner.
One congressional questioner seemed to have no understanding of the provisions of the bill, or the issues being discussed. To open his questioning, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) stated "this is the most insane bill" he had ever seen. But in a demonstration of his fundamental lack of understanding of the bill, Rep. Conyers asked the three witnesses "How many know that almost 300 African-American youth between the age of 15 and 24 are injured or killed by gunfire each week?"
When Prof. Malcolm attempted to explain that the statistic, regardless of its accuracy, had no bearing on the issue of right to carry reciprocity, Rep. Conyers cut her off, demanding a "yes" or "no." When allowed to continue, Prof. Malcolm explained that the majority of the people involved in violence have criminal records or are part of gangs, a fact Rep. Conyers similarly brushed aside.
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) has long championed this important legislation and is joined by Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) as the primary sponsors of H.R. 822. This hearing was an important step forward for this legislation that now has more than enough support for passage. Please contact your member of Congress and urge him or her to support the earliest possible consideration of H.R. 822 this year.
H.R. 822: Responding to the Naysayers
Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, H.R. 822 is now being attacked by a few self-proclaimed "gun rights" supporters with no active lobbying presence in any legislature, whose real agendas have little to do with promoting the interests of gun owners. Here are the facts about a few of their claims:
Myth: H.R. 822 would involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry permits, resulting in "need" requirements, higher fees, waiting periods, national gun owner registration, or worse.
Fact: H.R. 822 doesn't require -- or even authorize -- any such action by any federal agency. In fact, since it would amend the Gun Control Act, it would fall under a limitation within that law that authorizes "only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out" the GCA's provisions. No federal rules or regulations would be needed to implement H.R. 822, which simply overrides certain state laws.
Myth: H.R. 822 would destroy permitless carry systems such as those in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.
Fact: H.R. 822 would have absolutely no effect on how the permitless carry states' laws work within those states. For residents of Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming, where permits are not required but remain available under state law, H.R. 822 would make those permits valid in all states that issue permits to their own residents. Residents of Vermont, where no permits are issued or required, could obtain nonresident permits from other states to enjoy the benefits of H.R. 822.
Myth: If H.R. 822 moved through the legislative process, it would be subject to anti-gun amendments.
Truth: By this logic, neither the NRA nor any other pro-gun group should ever promote any pro-gun reform legislation. But inaction isn't an option for those of us who want to make positive changes for gun owners. Instead, we know that by careful vote counting and use of legislative procedure, anti-gun amendments can be avoided or defeated.
|
News
Warrant changes raise new questions
Municipal police respond to Feb. 9 directive from county's president judge
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
By ERIC S. SMITH, Staff Writer
Local law enforcement officers said there were more questions than answers concerning their new role in serving warrants for parking tickets and other municipal code violations.
In a one-page order dated Feb. 9, Chester County Court of Common Pleas President Judge James P. MacElree II said that beginning immediately, all such warrants would be issued by magisterial district judges only to the municipal police department from which the original violation allegedly occurred. Previously, those warrants were assigned to state constables for collection. The courts would also be restricted from posting the warrant on the county's Web Enforcement Bureau database.
"The order came as a surprise to most of us," said Downingtown Police Chief
James McGowan. "Most of the chiefs are greatly concerned and have a lot of reservations."
McGowan, president of the Chester County Police Chiefs Association, said he has set up a meeting with MacElree for Feb. 22 in order to have many of his own questions as well as the questions of his colleagues answered.
McGowan said the main concern amongst police chiefs is that with the transfer of responsibility from the county level to the municipal level there will funding issues as well as time constraint issues that local police forces will need to work out.
"I would have liked if this would have happened prior to the current budgeting cycle being in place," McGowan said.
West Chester Police Chief Scott Bohn said he has been communicating with the local magistrates who handle West Chester parking tickets and ordinance violations to see exactly how his department will proceed moving forward.
According to those familiar with the warrant collection system, Chester County employs a different system of paying constable fees than other counties across the state.
Instead of paying constable fees for warrant service with the fines and costs paid by defendants to district courts, constables in Chester County are paid by the county controller's office for every warrant they serve, no matter whether the fees are paid by the defendant immediately or not.
In his order, MacElree said local municipalities would be allowed to contract directly with a state constable to serve the warrants and pay them from local tax coffers.
Bohn said that there is no system in place at the district courts to assign the costs of a constable's service to the local municipality. He said they are currently attempting to work out a system.
Exactly what kind of burden is being placed on the local police departments is unknown, Bohn said. He said his department is simply waiting for direction from the courts on how to proceed and what processes need to be in place.
"The order is what it is and we have to figure out a process to fulfill that," Bohn said.
While the courts and local law enforcement determine a way to implement MacElree's order, warrants continue to be issued for parking tickets and ordinance violations. Bohn said that his office received 75 warrants on Tuesday from just one district court. He said that those files cannot be dealt with until a formal process is put in place.
"We already have a back log," Bohn said.
To contact staff writer Eric S. Smith, send an e-mail to esmith@dailylocal.com.
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
www.twitter.com/wcdailylocal
www.facebook.com/dailylocalnews
|
|
ATF Declaring War on Honest Gun Owners
-- Time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
They are coming for your guns any way they can.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is waging a war on innocent gun owners, and not surprisingly, the Obama administration has done nothing to keep them in check.
You are no doubt aware of how the agency has been going after honest gun dealers in recent years. Combine that with byzantine federal laws and regulations -- subject to BATF interpretation -- and it's no wonder the number of FFL holders has decreased almost 80%.
Then there was former National Guardsman David Olofson. In 2008, Olofson's loaned AR-15 malfunctioned at a range -- firing a three-round burst with a single trigger pull. The ATF could only replicate the malfunction after experimenting with different types of ammunition behind closed doors. Having achieved the result they wanted, the ATF labeled Olofson's gun a machine gun, and he was sentenced to three years in prison for an illegal "transfer."
The agency also put millions of gun owners in its crosshairs when it reclassified shotguns that are equipped with pistol grips. By decreeing in 2009 that such firearms are not "shotguns," the ATF acted as a de facto legislative-making body... quietly turning millions of gun owners into potential criminals overnight.
If the weapons are not "shotguns," then what are they? The NFA Owners Association suggests the only logical alternative is that such firearms are now "destructive devices" -- in the same category as grenade launchers, which require owners to register their weapons and pay a $200 tax.
Of course, failure to register such weapons and pay the required tax would result in the same treatment that David Olofson received.
One Senator on Capitol Hill is looking into the agency's contemptible practices and asking pointed questions of ATF Acting Director Ken Melson.
In late January, Senator Charles Grassley (R-AL) questioned Melson about abuses stemming from Project Gunrunner, a program the ATF started in 2005 to stop US guns from getting into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. In order to track illegal gun running, the ATF engages in (and approves of) illegal gun purchases made at gun shows and stores throughout the southwest.
The word is starting to leak out that the ATF has its fingerprints on many of the strawman sales that are grabbing so many headlines. On January 30, newspaper headlines in El Paso, Texas, stated that: "US agency intentionally permits arms to be trafficked into Mexico."
So the ATF is actually helping to move illegal guns across the border. To make matters worse, says Sen. Grassley, one of the sales the ATF sanctioned went to suspected straw purchasers who later shot and killed Customs and Border Protection agent Brian Terry.
But when Sen. Grassley asked the ATF head for an accounting, the agency instead cracked down on the internal "whistleblowers" who supplied him with the information.
Imagine that... if the agency is willing to put the squeeze on its own agents, what are they willing to do to the rest of the population?
This lack of integrity on the part of ATF management is reminiscent of a 1993 60 Minutes feature story. In it, ATF agent Bob Hoffman stunned interviewer Mike Wallace by saying that "the people I put in jail have more honor than the top administration in this organization."
For over three decades, the ATF has had a record of abuse -- not only in its treatment of the few honest agents that work there, but also in their treatment of law-abiding gun owners. Even as far back as 1982, the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution found that 75 percent of ATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had "neither criminal intent nor knowledge," but were "enticed by agents" into unknowing technical violations.
ACTION: Ask your Representative to urge the Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to hold hearings on the ATF. This agency needs to be on top of the Chairman's list of government abuses to investigate. You can click on the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Representative a pre-written message.
|
|
THE LAW IS THE LAW
So "if" the US government determines
that it is against the law for the words "under God"
to be on our money, then, so be it.
And "if" that same government decides that the
"Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on
a government installation, then, so be it.
I say, "so be it," because Iwould like to be a
law abiding US citizen.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that
smarter people than I are in positions to make
good decisions.
I would like to think that those people have
the American public's best interests at heart
BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?
Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in
Government buildings, I don't believe the Government (Federal,State and Local) and
its employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.
I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, GoodFriday, Thanksgiving & Easter
After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the" US Supreme Court to be in session
on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as
Sundays." After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the Senate and the House of
Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it's just another day.
I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be
saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas,
Good Friday & Easter. It shouldn't cost any
overtime since those would be just like any other day of the
week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct."
In fact.... I think that our government should work
on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping
God....) because, after all, our
government says that it should be just another day....
What do you all think????
Please Dear Lord, Give us the help needed to keep you in our country!
'Amen' and 'Amen'
Touche!
|
Magazine Ban, Gun Show Ban and Even a Gun Ownership Ban...
-- All this and more may come up in the Senate!
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org
Friday, February 4, 2011
Since the Tucson tragedy, anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has been hovering like a vulture, waiting to pick the bones of the victims for political advantage.
Now he has his chance.
The same Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization which provided a vote on the repeal of ObamaCare may well be the vehicle for a series of gun control proposals.
Right now, no one knows which amendments will be offered. Democratic leaders like Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) are threatening to offer anti-gun amendments, and pro-gun Senators like Tom Coburn (R-OK) are considering amendments to protect gun rights.
Now, it's entirely possible that senators from both sides will simply retreat to their own corners. In fact, GOA's sources inside the Senate indicate that gun amendments to the FAA bill are unlikely at this point, but there's no way can we count on that -- and risk being caught unprepared.
There are three amendments which Lautenberg and Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) have been nursing since Tucson.
The first would limit semi-automatic magazines to 10 rounds, in a reprise of the Clinton ban.
The second would effectively shut down all gun shows. It would do this by sending any gun show promoter to prison for up to two years if a SINGLE attendee were not informed of his Brady Law obligations. No one would dare sponsor a gun show under these circumstances.
The third anti-gun amendment would allow the Obama administration to seize guns from anyone they choose to place on a "watch list." Millions and millions of pro-gun supporters could find their names on an ObamaList with no due process -- and no way to get their names removed. Please note that this administration has already advised law enforcement to treat supporters of the Constitution and gun rights as possible domestic terrorists!
ACTION: Contact your two senators. Ask them to support any pro-gun amendments, and definitely insist they vote against the Lautenberg/Durbin amendments to ban semi-automatic magazines, shut down gun shows, and create a "no guns list" of Second Amendment activists. You can click on the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your senators a pre-written message.
|
|
Feds Seek to Implement Unconstitutional Power Grab
The Obama administration just can’t stop blaming the Second Amendment for violence perpetrated by Mexican drug cartels.
In the latest brazen attempt to circumvent the Constitution, Obama and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) are seeking to implement rules that will subject American gun dealers to even more onerous paperwork requirements.
A new proposed rule will, for the first time, establish the precedent that licensed firearms dealers will be required (by administrative fiat) to report to the government the sale of two or more semi-automatic rifles that are .22 caliber or greater, can accept a detachable magazine, and are purchased by the same person within five business days.
In a move that bypasses the elected representatives of the people (the Congress), the new rules could be instituted by regulatory fiat as quickly as January 5, 2011.
This idea was concocted more than a year ago by New City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group that only seems to focus on punishing legal gun owners.
Even worse, the final decision on implementing this plan will be up to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), headed by Cass Sunstein. In 2009, GOA opposed the confirmation of Sunstein, who would like to ban hunting and allow animals to have legal representation in court.
This mandate will not only violate federal statutory law prohibiting a federal gun registry, it will also give the BATFE another excuse to harass American gun dealers, while doing nothing to address the problem of border violence.
Drug cartels are financed to the tune of the billions of dollars. They finance disposable submarines, tunnels between the two countries, and large shipments of weapons from rogue nations. Cartels have bribed Mexican officials at the highest levels to the tune of millions of dollars, and have taken effective control of entire cities in Mexico. To suggest that adding yet another layer of paperwork requirements to U.S. gun dealers will help to stem the violence is ludicrous. This is simply another attempt to ratchet down on the right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment is not the cause of border, drug-related violence. And as violence increasingly occurs on our side of the border, Second Amendment rights become even more important for self-protection.
Gun Owners of America is submitting comments opposing these new rules and is urging members of Congress to slam the brakes on this proposal.
ACTION: Please urge your Representative and Senators to oppose this abuse of federal power. Click here to send a pre-written letter that includes two specific steps that members of Congress can take immediately, and it also urges them to prepare, if necessary, to push legislation to overturn this unlawful act.
It is especially important for licensed gun dealers to take these actions, so please pass this alert on to your local gun store.
|
| |
If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here.
 |
Local lawmakers disappointed with Castle Doctrine veto
Rendell also vetoed provisions dealing with Megan's Law.
Updated: 11/29/2010 11:22:55 AM EST
York, PA - State Rep. Seth Grove said the Castle Doctrine was easily the issue he heard about most from his constituents during the past two years, and he was genuinely surprised when Gov. Ed Rendell vetoed it Saturday.
"I was very disappointed," said Grove, R-Dover Township.
Grove had been a co-sponsor of the legislation, which expands the Pennsylvania's "Castle Doctrine" -- referring to the adage that a man's home is his castle.
Under current law, the use of deadly force in self-defense is not justifiable when safe retreat is possible, unless a person was attacked in his or her home or workplace. The legislation Rendell vetoed would have removed the requirement to retreat before using deadly force outside the home or workplace as well.
Grove said that not only were his constituents in favor of the measure, but also a wide, bipartisan majority in the state General Assembly.
In addition, the Castle Doctrine language was included in a bill that would have closed two loopholes in Pennsylvania's Megan's Law, which requires sex offenders to register with state police. Under current law, homeless sex offenders and some sex offenders who move into the state cannot be prosecuted for intentionally failing to register with police.
Rendell stated that he didn't want to veto the Megan's Law legislation but had no choice if he wanted to strike down the Castle Doctrine, which he said would "encourage violent and deadly confrontation."
State Rep. Scott Perry, R-Carroll Township, was the primary sponsor of the Castle Doctrine legislation. He said he intends to introduce the bill again next session. Governor-elect Tom Corbett, who takes office in January, has voiced his support.
"I'm certainly disappointed, but we're going to do it again," Perry said.
A number of law enforcement groups opposed the Castle Doctrine legislation, including state police. Opponents, including Rendell, argued that prosecutors rarely target people who are legitimately defending themselves, yet in other states criminals have relied on Castle Doctrine provisions to claim self defense.
Grove said his main concern in supporting the legislation was civil liability. He didn't want people who shot intruders to be vulnerable to lawsuits.
State Rep. Eugene DePasquale, D-West Manchester, said liability was his main concern as well. He said that it's also unfortunate that the Megan's Law provisions were vetoed, and he wishes they had been in separate bills.
"Hopefully, we'll revisit both of those next term," DePasquale said.
Springettsbury resident Darwin Doll, a lifetime member of the NRA, said he's eager to see the legislation passed.
"If your life is threatened, you have every right to defend yourself," he said.
|
|
|
An Open Letter to President Obama
By Charlie Daniels
Fri, 09/24/2010 - 14:12 ET
Mr. President,
I write this letter as a patriot, a taxpayer, a lifelong resident and as concerned citizen of what I consider to be the greatest nation ever known to man, the United States of America.
I am Caucasian, so let's get the racial aspect out of the way to start with. This letter has nothing to do with your race. I lived through the cruelty of Jim Crow and segregation and learned early on in my life that the color of my skin does not make me better or worse than any other man.
We all remember Martin Luther King, Jr.'s statement about judging people, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character, and I believe that with all my heart.
I believe that America is an exceptional country. We have been liberator, benefactor and leader of the free world for centuries. America is an example of what can be achieved by free people living under the free enterprise system.
We have led the world in technology, industry, science and medicine for a long time.
Our capitalist system guarantees that those who explore new worlds and bring us new products and better techniques are amply rewarded for their efforts, and this is as it should be.
A person who is the first one to get there and the last one to leave, who burns the midnight oil and never gives up until they realize their goals, are a boon to humankind. They're the ones who discover new cures, start new industries and create jobs.
These people deserve to be rewarded for their hard work and for the products and services they bring to make life better for all mankind.
Mr. President, it is my personal opinion that you want to take the well-earned rewards of these people and give it to those who have done nothing to deserve them.
It's really redistribution of wealth, and it's nothing new. It's been tried many places before and it has miserably failed in every one of them.
It's called socialism.
Am I calling you a socialist? Yes, I am. I firmly believe that you are a socialist and a globalist, and that you think America should have a comeuppance and have our playing field leveled to match those of other countries not as industrious or as innovative as we are.
Mr. President, how can you support the building of a mosque in the very same area where Islamic radicals murdered so many Americans?
Just who's side are you on?
Am I accusing you of being a Muslim? No I'm not, but the jury is still out a little bit on that subject in my mind, because many times your sympathies seem to lean in that direction. You need to watch who you bow to Mr. President.
You have betrayed a whole generation of African-Americans who voted for you because they really believed all that junk about "hope and change," they really thought you were going to do something great and the only thing you've done is to make their jobs disappear and their health insurance go up.
You and your party have corrupted duly elected officials in an effort to get your legislative agenda passed. Remember the "Louisiana Purchase" and the "Cornhusker Kickback," and that's just a couple we know about, but you bought off a bunch of congressmen and senators, knowing that you were going against the will of the majority of Americans, because you think that you and your arrogant friends know more about what's good for America than the citizens your disastrous actions effect.
Am I accusing you of being an elitist? You bet.
I don't believe you take the Islamic threat to America nearly as seriously as you should. You use semantics like "Overseas Contingency Operation" and "Man Caused Disasters" to soften your rhetoric toward people who would like nothing better than decapitate the entire population of America.
And Mr. President, if you'd really like to know the kind of warriors who are fighting the "Overseas Contingency Operation," and you would like to really know about what kind of enemies they're fighting, you should read a book called Lone Survivor by a brave, young Navy Seal named Marcus Lutrell who went to hell and back for his country, and is still a dedicated patriot. I think you'd find it enlightening, Mr. President and after you finish it would you pass it on to Janet Napolitano? And by the way, tell her that my invitation to take her to Iraq and show her some "Man Caused Disasters" is still open.
Am I calling you naïve? Absolutely.
You seem to think that America has an endless supply of tax dollars for you to waste and give away, and the debt you've piled up could well bankrupt the greatest nation on earth.
Am I calling you a failure, Mr. President? With all due respect that's exactly what I'm doing.
Charlie Daniels is an award-winning country musician. His latest album is called "Land That I Love"
|
DISCLOSE Act Defeated in SenateGun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://gunowners.org
Thursday, September 23, 2010
The U.S. Senate today defeated the so-called DISCLOSE Act when it failed to garner the 60 votes necessary to overcome Republican objections to the bill. The final vote was 59-39.
Even though the exact same bill, sponsored by Chuck Schumer (D-NY), had been defeated just two months ago and was unlikely to pass, anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) brought it up for another vote to "stir up" his left-wing base.
Instead of protecting the most important type of speech protected by the First Amendment -- political speech -- with this bill Congress attempted to force groups like GOA to "disclose" the names of donors in certain political advertisements.
Since Gun Owners of America will never disclose its membership lists to the federal government, it could be prohibited from running radio or TV ads exposing a federal candidate's voting record in the weeks leading up to an election.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) aptly summed up the bill when it came to the floor in July:
"This DISCLOSE Act is not about reform, it's nothing more than Democrats sitting behind closed doors [choosing] which favored groups they want to speak in the 2010 elections -- all in an attempt to protect themselves from criticism of their government takeovers, record deficits and massive unpaid-for expansions of the federal government into the lives of the American people."
With a lame-duck session of Congress looming after the election, anything is possible -- including another attempt to push through DISCLOSE. So please stay tuned.
|
|
|
Thank You Larry Pratt for Joining Friday Night Aug 27 2010
Pa Right To Bear Arms Conference Line you have to call in at the number 712-432-0075 and the access code: 264667 or you can use Skype and here is all you need to use Skype
Step 1
Add "freeconferencing" to...Skype contacts
Step 2
Click Dial to call the conference
Step 3
Locate the Key Pad and
enter access code when prompted
|
| |
JUST A NOT THIS IS NOT ONLY FOR PA IT IS FOR ALL OF THE USA
I would like to offer the opportunity for Congressman & PA State Representative & Pa State Senate to join us on the our Conference line to discuss topics of interest with the members. This would be a wonderful opportunity for members to learn the laws and to get answers to questions they may have. It would also allow the Congressman to know what citizens have on their minds as well and the need of the comminuity. The conference line would be open for a 2 to 3 hour discussions about gun rights,how to help truck drivers and many other topics of interest. If you are interested in sharing with our members and would like to join a scheduled Conference call , please feel free to contact me with details. I would need to know the topic / date/ and time you would be available. This way I can post it to members. Thank you for the consideration and chance to help our members educate themselves more
P.S. YOU MAY ALSO HAVE YOUR fellow law makers call us also so come and join in
A short message to all about a new opportunity that I have available to PA Right To Bear Arms . I have setup a free conference line for all to be able to use. I like the setup of this program and I believe many will enjoy it. We can have discussions about any current news and old concerning the gun laws. I do ask that when using this conference line that all be considerate of others and not use any unwanted language , I want to keep this informative and fun. I would like to get guests like Larry Pratt from GOA to join in the conversations. Other guests will be welcome as well, if you have someone in mind just contact me with info as to when and what the topic would be. I look forward to sharing this new learning experience with everyone.
Conference dial-in number: (712) 432-0075
access code: 264667
|
 |
| Happy 4Th Of July |
|
|
| ? ? ? ? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON WITH THIS ? ? ? ? |
|
-- A Special Message To Second Amendment Supporters
July 16, 2010Yesterday, GOA members rallied behind U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle, who's taking on anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada. While Reid claims to support your gun rights, our alert highlighted 42 Reasons why Harry Reid MUST be defeated. Well, that list has now grown as two additional anti-gun votes were added. In March of this year, Sen. Reid voted against an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to prevent Veterans from losing their Second Amendment rights without due process of law. The amendment was offered to the massive ObamaCare bill, which Reid was so intent on passing that he wouldn't allow a pro-gun amendment to get in his way. And in November of last year, Reid voted to confirm the highly controversial Richard Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Hamilton has stated that the Founding Fathers intended judges to amend the Constitution through "evolving case law." So, you can now view the 44 Reasons why Harry Reid MUST be defeated! And while you're there y ou can now also vote in a GOA Poll to let us know whether you think Harry Reid is pro- or anti-gun. But there's more that we all must do to win this important race. Please forward this alert to as many freedom-loving Americans as you can and urge them to support Sharron Angle. Harry Reid's goal is to raise $25 million in this race against Sharron Angle. That means it's crucial for one million pro-gun Americans to send Sharron Angle $25. If one million of us from across the country chip in, Sharron will match Reid's campaign war chest and WE WILL WIN! So please, urge all your friends, gun club members and other pro-gun groups to go to www.sharronangle.com and make a contribution. Contributions by check can also be mailed to: Friends of Sharron Angle PO Box 33058 Reno, NV 89533 There is no race in the country more important than this one. If any gun owner or sportsman has any doubt if Reid is pro-gun or anti-gun, just read the 44 Reasons to Defeat Reid, then decide, and also take the GOA Poll. Thank you again for standing with Gun Owners of America and Sharron Angle and for forwarding this to as many pro-gunners as you can. Sincerely, Tim Macy
Vice Chairman |
|
-- A Special Message To Second Amendment Supporters
July 16, 2010Yesterday, GOA members rallied behind U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle, who's taking on anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada. While Reid claims to support your gun rights, our alert highlighted 42 Reasons why Harry Reid MUST be defeated. Well, that list has now grown as two additional anti-gun votes were added. In March of this year, Sen. Reid voted against an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to prevent Veterans from losing their Second Amendment rights without due process of law. The amendment was offered to the massive ObamaCare bill, which Reid was so intent on passing that he wouldn't allow a pro-gun amendment to get in his way. And in November of last year, Reid voted to confirm the highly controversial Richard Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Hamilton has stated that the Founding Fathers intended judges to amend the Constitution through "evolving case law." So, you can now view the 44 Reasons why Harry Reid MUST be defeated! And while you're there y ou can now also vote in a GOA Poll to let us know whether you think Harry Reid is pro- or anti-gun. But there's more that we all must do to win this important race. Please forward this alert to as many freedom-loving Americans as you can and urge them to support Sharron Angle. Harry Reid's goal is to raise $25 million in this race against Sharron Angle. That means it's crucial for one million pro-gun Americans to send Sharron Angle $25. If one million of us from across the country chip in, Sharron will match Reid's campaign war chest and WE WILL WIN! So please, urge all your friends, gun club members and other pro-gun groups to go to www.sharronangle.com and make a contribution. Contributions by check can also be mailed to: Friends of Sharron Angle PO Box 33058 Reno, NV 89533 There is no race in the country more important than this one. If any gun owner or sportsman has any doubt if Reid is pro-gun or anti-gun, just read the 44 Reasons to Defeat Reid, then decide, and also take the GOA Poll. Thank you again for standing with Gun Owners of America and Sharron Angle and for forwarding this to as many pro-gunners as you can. Sincerely, Tim Macy
Vice Chairman |
|
Will NRA Endorse the Anti-gun Harry Reid?
-- Please urge them to holster their guns in this race
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org
Friday, July 9, 2010
A Wall Street Journal blog has reported that the NRA leadership is seriously considering an endorsement in the Nevada Senate race. But the endorsement might not be what you expect:
The chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association made an interesting admission to The Weekly Standard following a Wednesday report by RedState.com that the powerful gun lobby might back Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in his general election battle against Republican Sharron Angle.
It's not that they might endorse Reid -- because they might, said chief lobbyist Chris Cox -- but that the issue doesn't appear to be as much about the records of Reid and Angle, but rather the specter of a Senate run by either Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois or New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.
This should seriously concern gun owners, as Harry Reid is an F rated candidate by GOA -- a politician who has trampled all over the Constitution. In addition to pushing the massive, anti-gun ObamaCare bill through the Senate, Reid has helped to secure the confirmations of President Obama's left-wing radical nominees to the highest positions of power.
Sen. Reid voted for, and as Senate Leader set the schedule for, the likes of Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder was the point man for gun control initiatives such as the Brady bill and the semi-auto ban under President Clinton.
Holder also coauthored an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing in favor of the gun ban in the District of Columbia. Almost immediately after his confirmation, Holder called for the reinstatement of the Clinton gun ban.
Sen. Reid also pushed through Cass Sunstein as the new regulatory czar. Sunstein stated that he believes hunting should be banned.
The top legal advisor at the State Department, Harold Koh, also received Reid's support. Koh advocates bringing the U.S. into conformity with a global gun control agenda.
And the newest Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, could not have advanced if Sen. Reid had objected. Indeed, Sen. Reid voted for this anti-gun radical, who recently ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect a "fundamental" right.
As Majority Leader, Reid could have objected to any and all of these nominees and insisted that the president put forth men and women who respect the Second Amendment.
To see more of Senator Harry Reid's anti-gun record, please see: http://www.goapvf.org/index.php/sharron-angle-for-senate.htm
Bottom line: Harry Reid is not a friend of gun owners. The NRA leadership is concerned that Chuck Schumer (NY) or Dick Durbin (IL) might be elected as the new Senate Majority Leader if Reid loses. But most gun owners know this reason doesn't hold water because Harry Reid and the Democrats will not have dominating control after the November elections. And regardless, rewarding bad behavior just spoils the child!
It's obvious that the NRA has NOT told their membership about the radical anti-gun record of Harry Reid. But you can see it above. It's time to realize Reid is in a powerful position to do major harm against gun owners and must be stopped.
It's also obvious that the top leadership of the NRA -- Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre (who seems to be a close friend of Reid) and Chief lobbyist Chris Cox -- are in bed with the Nevada Senator. If this type of coziness continues, it would not be surprising to see NRA members demand that their leadership be removed from their positions of power, before they do irreparable harm to the Association and its laudable mission.
Please note very carefully: Gun Owners of America harbors no desire to "bash" the NRA; we simply do not want to see a gun-grabber endorsed as the United States Senate Majority Leader!
Reid is clearly calling in his "chips" to get a pass from the NRA in this critical election, so call the NRA and voice your alarm at this travesty and pass this on to your friends to help stop the Reid endorsement.
ACTION: Please ask the NRA leadership NOT to endorse Harry Reid in the Nevada Senate race -- especially since his opponent, Sharron Angle, is an extremely pro-gun advocate. ENCOURAGE YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS TO HELP IN URGING THE NRA MANAGEMENT TO STAY CLEAR OF ENDORSING REID AS WELL.
You can call the NRA at (800) 392-VOTE (8683).
Thank you for your commitment to the Second Amendment.
|
|
PEOPLE ASK WHY?
Why I Might Carry a Gun
My old grandpa said to me
"Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and
usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin."
I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world..
I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government..
I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don't carry a gun because I am a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin'.....
author unknown (but obviously brilliant)
*************************
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. >From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun - control message to all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!
If you are too, please forward.
|
Gun rights extended by Supreme Court
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Monday, June 28, 2010; 10:46 AM
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.
By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.
Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."
(Photos from a Patriot's Day gun rights rally)
The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.
Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.
That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.
Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.
Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.
Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.
Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."
More from PostPolitics:
A look at the NRA's role in arguing for the gun rights case.
|
|
Font Resize
