Weekly Reminder: HR 45 has not even gained one co-sponsor in committee and S 2099 died nine years ago. It is not necessary to forward the hysterical mailings to me. Friday, January 23, 2009 U.S. Representative Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) recently sponsored H.R. 45, also known as "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act." The bill is, at its core and as its name implies, a licensing and registration scheme. The measure calls for all handgun owners to submit to the federal government an application that shall include, among many other things: a photo; an address; a thumbprint; a completed, written firearm safety test; private mental health records; and a fee. And those are only some of the requirements to be licensed! The bill would further require the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer, and owner's address in America. Moreover, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a "qualifying firearm" -- defined as "any handgun; or any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device..." without one of the proposed licenses. Additionally, the bill would make it illegal to transfer ownership of a "qualifying firearm" to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or collector (with very few exceptions), and would require "qualifying firearm" owners to report all transfers to the attorney general's database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours, or fail to report a change of address within 60 days. Further, if a minor obtains a firearm and injures someone with it, the owner of the firearm may face a multiple-year jail sentence. H.R. 45 is essentially a reintroduction of H.R. 2666, which Rush introduced in 2007. H.R. 2666 contained much of the same language as H.R. 45, and was co-sponsored by several well-known anti-gun legislators--including Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. H.R. 45 currently has no co-sponsors. Rest assured that NRA-ILA will continue to monitor this bill closely, and will keep you informed of any developments if they materialize. http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4329 Friday, May 29, 2009 In the last few weeks, NRA-ILA has received hundreds of e-mails warning us about "SB-2099," a bill that would supposedly require you to report all your guns on your income tax return every April 15. Like many rumors, there's just a grain of truth to this one. Someone's recycling an old alert, which wasn't even very accurate when it was new. There actually was a U.S. Senate bill with that number that would have taxed handguns - nine years ago. It was introduced by anti-gun Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), and it would have included handguns under the National Firearms Act's tax and registration scheme. This has nothing to do with anyone's Form 1040, of course. Fortunately, S. 2099 disappeared without any action by the Senate, back when Bill Clinton was still in the White House. We reported about it back then, just as we report about new anti-gun bills every week. Now, it's time for gun owners to drop this old distraction and focus on the real threats at hand. http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4925 --- ObamaCare Could Threaten Self-Defense: ...It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius' well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment - she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas - we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense. The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums. (What constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.) Don't be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on any American who owns "dangerous" firearms... (This link will allow you to generate a letter or an e-mail to your senators.) http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=14152471 --- More on Recent Polls: ...Rasmussen Reports in a survey conducted earlier this week shows that 39% of Americans want stricter gun laws against 50% who are opposed to such a measure. Previous surveys suggested that citizens were narrowly divided on the topic making the new margin of eleven-percentage points noteworthy. Women continue to be evenly divided on the topic but men oppose stricter laws by 23%. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats (65%) are in favor of tighter restrictions but 69% of Republicans and 62% of those unaffiliated feel differently. 71% of Americans believe the second amendment to the U.S. constitution guarantees their right to bear arms. Just 13% believe the constitution does not make gun ownership the right of the average citizen. Nearly seven in ten Americans (69%) also do not believe that city government's have the right to prevent their citizens from owning guns with 52% of Democrats in agreement, 72% of unaffiliateds and 87% of Republicans. The loudest shot fired comes from a Gallup poll released just this morning. According to the survey a new low of just 44% of Americans say that laws covering firearm sales should be stricter. That total is down from 49% earlier this year and indicates a steady decline from its peak in 1990 when 78% of the public favored stricter laws against firearm sales. That peak perhaps coincided with the steadily growing number of handgun related deaths in the United States in the early-90s. By late-1992 the number had grown to a record high of nearly 14,000. By 2001 the number had been reduced to around 8,000 with only a minor spike in that total in the years since... http://www.examiner.com/x-13600-Philadelphia-Opinion-Polls-Examiner~y2009m10d9-Poll-Support-for-stricter-gun-laws-is-dwindling http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-poll-majority-of-americans-against-stricter-gun-control-r-1255120998 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/New-poll-Support-for-tougher-gun-laws-at-lowest-point-in-decades-63920207.html --- Do Gun Shows Have Loopholes?: Thursday's Nashville Tennessean newspaper's lead story headline is "NY slams gun show 'loophole' in Tenn." The story is about a purported undercover investigation of gun shows done by the City of New York. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has long been an anti-gun activist... The article spotlighted one gun show held in Nashville that attracts 250 gun dealers and up to 10,000 people every month. Gun dealers must be licensed by the Bureau or Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Background checks on buyers must be performed by dealers. Penalties for selling guns to felons can include fines and imprisonment for the dealer. The New York investigation showed that most dealers were law-abiding and that most sales were legitimate. So, where is this alleged "loophole" in the law? It's found in individual liberty and property rights... The solution for crime reduction is rescinding all gun laws that prohibit or restrict the rights of any person to keep and bear arms. Armed populations are polite populations. Ask Switzerland. Criminals are far less likely to commit a crime when there is the likelihood that the victim (or someone nearby) will be armed. So, three cheers for individual liberty and property rights! Hip, Hip, Hurrah! http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/longcore7.1.1.html --- Training Yes, Mandatory No: ...My second resolution was a bit more controversial. In it I suggested that, while training in the safe, legal, and appropriate use of firearms is strongly supported and should continue to be encouraged, government mandated training is anathema to liberty. I pointed out that there is no statistical evidence that firearms accidents, mistakes, or abuses are any more likely in states requiring little or no training than they are in states with extensive training requirements. The resolution put on the record the GRPC delegates' opposition to government-mandated firearms training and their support for rolling back existing requirements where feasible. I was careful and specific with the language of the resolution because there is much more to the training controversy than might be immediately evident. First there is the issue of encouraging training. There can be no doubt that the better trained a person is with their firearm and its safe and effective use, the better off we all are. Likewise, the more a person knows about the laws relating to carrying arms and use of deadly force, the safer they are going to be carrying on the street. We, the "gun culture" understand that training and education are good things and are absolutely necessary... (The NRA tends to support training requirements for licensed concealed carry, probably because, directly or indirectly, it is the source for most of the training.) http://www.ohioccw.org/200910094633/training-yes-mandatory-no.html --- North Carolina Appellate Judge Holds FFL: The N.C. Supreme Court attracted national attention a few weeks ago as the first court in the nation to rule that a convicted felon has a right to own a gun. What drew little notice is that Edward Thomas Brady, the justice who wrote the 5-2 decision in August, is a federally licensed gun dealer and gun manufacturer who has collected more than $5,000 a year from gun sales since 2007. Legal experts split over whether Brady was properly bringing his perspective to the case or should have recused himself from the decision. "I don't think gun dealers should be deciding the constitutionality of gun laws," said Dennis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the pro-gun control Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington... Other legal scholars, however, countered that the decision was narrowly written to resolve that particular case and likely wouldn't apply to many others. Two former state chief justices, one a Republican and the other a Democrat, said they saw no need for Brady to recuse himself... Mitchell said he would make the same argument regarding a judge who is an automobile dealer. He said conflicts arise when a judge has a financial interest or personal connection to a case. No such connection existed with Brady and the gun case, he said... (Will the Brady Bunch request Justice Sotomayor to recuse herself from McDonald v. Chicago?) http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/story/134741.html --- Texas Senator Boosts RKBA Stance: Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison went to a shooting range Friday to remind voters of her support for gun rights by pointing out her plans to weigh in on an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case. With gunfire popping in the background, Hutchison said she will help lead a bipartisan group from Congress in filing a legal brief urging the court to rule gun ownership is an individual right that applies at the state and local levels, in addition to the federal level. Both Hutchison and Gov. Rick Perry, who are squaring off in the March Republican primary, say they support gun ownership rights, something dear to Texas GOP primary voters. Representatives of both candidates say they own rifles and handguns and that they are hunters. Perry's spokesman, Mark Miner, said the governor has a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun. The senator's spokeswoman, Jennifer Baker, said Hutchison does not. Miner said the governor has always been a strong defender of the Second Amendment, which addresses the right to bear arms... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6660608.html --- Any Victory in Illinois...: An Illinois Supreme Court decision that gun owners can carry weapons in consoles and other storage boxes built into their cars won't make much difference to law enforcement officers, Sangamon County Sheriff Neil Williamson said Thursday. Illinois law lets people carry guns in their cars if they are unloaded and enclosed in a case or other container. The question was whether a compartment for items like CDs and sunglasses meets the legal definition of a "case" for carrying guns. In issuing its ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court overturned a 2003 appellate court decision that said a glove compartment is not a "case" under the law. Williamson said the change doesn't concern him. "All the officers and deputies are trained all the time to constantly be thinking of the possibility of a gun in the car," he said. "And it's not the honest citizen I'm worried about, it's the crooks," Williamson added. "They're going to have the gun anyway -- they're not going to care if there's a law on the books or not. We could have a jillion laws on books outlawing guns. They're going to carry them anyway." The ruling was prompted by a Peoria case in which a man had been sentenced to 21/2 years in prison for carrying two pistols in his car's storage compartment... http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x593076129/Illinois-Supreme-Court-OKs-storing-guns-in-car-consoles http://www.illinoiscarry.com/ --- Maryland State Police Classify .22 Plinkers as "Assault Weapons": The following .22 caliber rifles (and perhaps others) have apparently been listed as "Assault Weapons" and are therefore subject to the 7 day waiting period and background check required for regulated firearms: * German Sport Guns GSG-MP5 * Umarex USA / Colt .22 rimfire rifles The Maryland State Police (MSP) have apparently still not issued a formal written bulletin to the firearms dealers informing them of this new requirement. It is entirely possible for a dealer and/or buyer to be arrested, charged, and prosecuted for violating an unwritten policy established in secret by Maryland State Police Licensing Division. If the MSP policy is overturned by the courts, it is becomes an open question whether or not the MSP will purge their data base of these firearms and their owners. Don't hold your breath. (One list member has opined that, the growing popularity of these military- or police-looking plinkers puts them into "common use," a phrase we saw in the Heller ruling. I will keep that in mind the next time I see a GSG-5 [sic] at one of the local gun shops, which seems to sell a fair number of them. The quality of the Umarex Colt-licensed gun has been challenged but Ruger is offering the SR-22, a 10-22 made over to resemble their SR-556.) http://www.ammoland.com/2009/10/09/maryland-state-police-define-22-rimfire-rifles-as-assault-weapons-part-2/ --- South Florida GOP Range Session - the Rest of the Story: Armed with handguns and AK-47 and AR-15 assault rifles, the members of the Southeast Broward Republican Club abandoned the usual community center for their club meeting this week, and gathered at a gun range where they fired bullets instead of political bombshells. The aims, said club president Ed Napolitano, were to have fun, educate club members who were new to shooting - and send a political message. "Why are we here? Because we're Republicans and we appreciate the fact that we have the right to bear arms," Napolitano said. "Without the Second Amendment, I don't think the other amendments would hold up. I think they would just be suggestions that the government would decide to do whatever they want." ...Zelden, like Spages, said he knows Democrats who enjoy shooting at gun ranges. And Democrats who feel differently probably won't be shocked. "I don't think there are a log of Democrats that are going to do much more than roll their eyes. It's not as if they're acting out of character for Republicans. They're Republicans. One assumes that they're going to be more conservative. They're going to be more pro gun." ...(This is apparently the event at which a contender for a Congressional seat fired at a target marked with the initials of the Democratic incumbent.) http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2009/10/broward_republicans_head_to_th.html http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/312641 --- Only in DC?: ...Later on, I walked away from the demonstration to meet a friend and fellow Second Amendment Sister a few blocks away. While we were standing on the sidewalk taking, two LEOs approached me, one of them, I think a DHS officer, was bending over sideways to look at my holster. He asked me to come over to where he was so he could "talk to me" so our whole group moved closer to him. He didn't like that much, but he asked me if I had a weapon and I responded that I was aware of the prohibition on guns in DC. I explained that the holster was a "silent protest" to the gun ban in DC. He then said that he would have to ask me to remove my holster and I got the distinct feeling that he intended to confiscate it. When my husband pulled the video camera out of the bag, he changed his tone only slightly and asked me again to remove the holster, this time saying that I needed to "put it away". I asked him why and he told me that it was illegal to have "gun paraphernalia". I told him that I had no guns, no ammunition and no magazines and that the holster was only a piece of leather and not against the law. He again insisted that I take the holster off, this time stating that it made it look like I had a gun. He said that he was pro-gun but still insisted that I need to take the holster off. I asked him why, since it was not against the law and he said that someone might see it and, thinking I had a gun, shoot me! One of my companions asked him how that could happen, since guns were not allowed in DC! As the situation progressed, the other LEO, either DC or Capital police, pulled out his cell phone and took my picture or videotaped portions of the incident... http://www.ammoland.com/2009/10/09/second-amendment-sisters-washington-dc-police-and-empty-holsters/ --- Open Carry Debated: ...I have long felt that open carry, if you have some other choice, is a political mistake, and for this very reason. There are lots of Americans who have discomfort or misgivings about gun ownership. They may know that lots of Americans have concealed handgun permits, and that they are probably walking the streets with people that are armed. But it isn't obvious; the gun isn't proclaiming its presence. The visceral reaction that some Americans have to seeing people openly armed is not going to win you any friends - and may turn some people against gun ownership... If we reach the point where we need to be armed to engage in the terrifying scenario that the Second Amendment was written to make possible - the overthrow of a tyrannical government - then I expect everyone who loves his country to be armed and ready. But as a form of political statement, in cities, and especially in proximity to the President - this is just dumb. It makes gun owners look crazy, and drives some people who are indifferent into opposition to gun ownership. Don't be stupid. (Clayton Cramer is the author of "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" [http://www.lizmichael.com/racistro.htm] and Armed America, a book that resulted from his successful efforts to debunk Michael Bellesiles' fraudulent Arming America.) http://www.shotgunnews.com/cramer/ ...Open carry scares people? Good. It ought to. Perhaps they'll be reminded of the fact that when "democracy" turns to tyranny, firearms owners still get to vote. And they should understand that they don't want to go down that road. But how will they get the message if we don't deliver it because we are made too timid by some misplaced need to be liked? Free men don't need to be liked. They don't ask to be liked. They don't care if they're liked. They do insist upon being respected. The reason we find ourselves in this position right now is because we haven't insisted on exercising our rights. We haven't demanded respect from people who have been picking our pockets and shoving us around... Clayton, this isn't about media PR anymore. It is not about being liked. We are two peoples with two distinct and violently different world views, two visions of the future that are mutually exclusive. The other people need to understand that they will continue to push us around at their peril... (Mike Vanderboegh proudly calls himself a "three percenter," a term which I believe was coined by Jeff Knox, in a remark that only three percent of American gun owners are truly prepared to take up arms in defense of liberty. Personally, I prefer concealed carry, from a tactical perspective and am reconsidering my objections to open carry as a political statement since the recent high-profile incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona. All I can firmly say at this point is if you choose to carry openly, do so in a holster designed to resist attempts to take your gun.) http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/10/clayton-cramer-tries-to-whistle-past.html --- Bank Manager Fired for Shooting at Robber: A former bank manager said Thursday that a life or death decision got him fired. The manager said he pulled a gun on a bank robber and fired shots at him, forcing the robber to flee. Police credited the manager's actions to the arrest of the suspect William Hunt. Wesley Hallman said it was common knowledge that he carried a pistol. The former manger said he felt safer with the gun when he opened the bank. Hallman said when he saw a would-be robber holding a gun in an employee's face, he challenged the man with his gun. The robber turned, so Hallman said he fired a shot. The robber fired a shot, ran and then fired two more shots. Hallman said he was called into the bank the next day and fired. Hallman said there is a bank policy that employees can't carry weapons. The former branch manager said he knew violated company policy but he didn't violate the law. (I have been told that employers are generally advised by attorneys that it is cheaper to cover the deaths of employees through workers compensation insurance than to risk possible lawsuits if they allow the employees to defend themselves.) http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Bank_Manager_Pulls_Gun_on_Armed_Robber_100809 --- Pilot Whose Pistol Discharged Rehired: A pilot who was fired after his gun discharged in the cockpit is back at work after an arbitrator ordered him reinstated. US Airways said Friday that Jim Langenhahn resumed training on Monday after an 18-month disciplinary suspension. The airline said as part of the federal arbitrator's decision to reinstate Langenhahn, he will be barred from carrying a gun in the cockpit. After the 2001 terror attacks in which hijackers armed with knives seized four jetliners, pilots lobbied for the right to carry guns in the cockpit. A 2002 federal law allowed pilots to carry handguns on board if they took part in a program run by the Transportation Security Administration, which includes a week of weapons training. Langenhahn's gun fired shortly before landing on a March 2008 flight from Denver to Charlotte Langenhahn, a former Air Force pilot, said he was putting his .40-caliber pistol away when it discharged... Langenhahn's case was strengthened when the Department of Homeland Security faulted the design of holsters used by pilots who carry their weapons on board planes. The department's inspector general said the design increased the chance of accidental discharge when pilots inserted their guns in the holsters. The inspector general recommended that the TSA halt use of the locking holster and consider other methods for armed pilots to stow their weapons. The holsters have been in use since 2006... (I generally avoid verbiage such as "pistol discharged" but, in this case, the discharge appears to have been influenced by a rule that the pistol be secured prior to landing and the use of a holster in which a lock passes through the trigger guard once the pistol is holstered.) http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-10-09-pilot-rehired-after-gun-goes-off-on-plane_N.htm --- Rule Four Reminder: A man who thought there was an intruder in his house shot and killed his fiancee the day before they were to be married, police said Friday. "Right now everything points to a tragic accident," Police Chief Kevin Brunelle told The Associated Press, adding investigators were awaiting forensic results. John Tabutt, 62, told investigators he got his gun when he thought he heard an intruder, then fired at a figure in the hallway, according to Brunelle. It was Tabutt's live-in fiancee, 62-year-old Nancy Dinsmore, who family members say he was going to marry Saturday. Tabutt told authorities he thought she was next to him in bed the whole time... (Rule Four: Always be sure of your target and what's beyond it. Inside the home is one of the times when I may make sense to mount a light on a firearm although one should not use a weapon-mounted light for searches as that generally results in the muzzle crossing anything that is illuminated directly. I always keep a flashlight next to my handguns when I go to bed.) http://townhall.com/news/us/2009/10/10/police_fla_man_kills_fiancee_on_eve_of_wedding --- Melaine Hain Death - Details Emerge: Authorities say a Pennsylvania mother who became an unlikely gun-rights advocate was fatally shot by her husband while she was on a video chat with a friend.Lebanon County officials say Meleanie Hain was shot several times Wednesday in her kitchen by her husband, Scott. He later killed himself. Officials say the online friend saw Scott Hain fire several times. Meleanie Hain became a voice against gun control last year when she fought for the right to carry a holstered pistol at her 5-year-old's soccer games. Other parents complained, prompting a sheriff to temporarily revoke her gun permit. Officials on Friday said her gun was in a backpack when she was killed. Scott Hain, a parole officer, owned the 9 mm handgun he used to kill her... (It's ironic that Mrs. Hain did not see fit to wear her holstered pistol at home.) http://www.wusa9.com/rss/local_article.aspx?storyid=92176 --- NRA-ILA Alerts: List members are encouraged to check the alerts for the week, posted on the NRA-ILA website. http://www.nraila.org/GrassrootsAlerts/read.aspx -- Stephen P. Wenger, KE7QBY Firearm safety - It's a matter for education, not legislation. http://www.spw-duf.info .