Gun Control Takes Center Stage March 17th Once Again!

House Bill 1845 has come out of Appropriations Committee and is scheduled for a floor vote this coming Monday, March 17. The original language in the bill dealt with increasing the punishment for possessing a firearm with altered or obliterated marks of identification.

By March 12, this past Wednesday, five amendments have been added to this legislation for consideration on the floor by the full House of Representatives. Two of the amendments deal with pro-gun pieces of legislation. Specifically the language from House bill 1029 that requires that the government given exemption for individuals who possess a concealed carry license when they purchase a firearm from going through the instant check. The other pro-gun amendment is the entire text from house Bill 641, which is known as the Castle doctrine.

The real problem comes from the language in the amendments submitted by Representative Levdansky who is seeking to pass the concept of mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns. This amendment offers language that will not only introduce onerous consequences for unintended violations of this law by law-abiding citizens but it will place unnecessary and costly burdens on firearms dealers throughout the Commonwealth.

More to come on this legislation as developments are unfolding virtually every hour as we close in on the Monday deadline for deliberations on this legislation.

Former teacher to take on Pennsylvania gun law

By Jane Smith

03/12/08— An unusual gun-rights case that has the potential of overturning state law appears to be headed for a hearing in the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas.

A Guys Mills-area man has appealed a decision by the county sheriff to revoke his permit to carry a concealed firearm.

Not only does Gary A. Young of 27837 Plank Road claim that Sheriff Nick Hoke misapplied the law when he revoked Young’s permit to carry a concealed firearm, Young also is also challenging the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s Firearms Act.

Young, a former Crawford Central School District teacher and U.S. Marine Corps veteran, turned in his conceal carry permit in February. In his letter revoking Young’s permit, Hoke quoted a passage from the state law that lays out one of the circumstances under which a sheriff can revoke a concealed carry permit. Hoke wrote that he believes Young’s “character and reputation is such that you would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public.”

In his appeal, Young denies that characterization of him.

He claims that had Hoke conducted an investigation — as required by law — Hoke would have concluded that Young wouldn’t be likely to act in such a manner.

In addition, Young said the law requires that the notice of revocation must state a specific reason for the action and Hoke’s did not.

Furthermore, Young said the law provides in part that a license to carry a concealed firearm may be revoked for “good cause.” Young said Hoke failed to state the facts for a good cause to revoke his license.

In his appeal, Young said his permit to carry a concealed firearm can’t be taken based only on the sheriff’s opinion, and he claims Hoke’s action was “arbitrary and capricious.”
The appeal further said the state’s Firearms Act is in violation of the state and federal constitutions with respect to due process of law.

Hoke said Tuesday he has 20 days from last Thursday to file a response to the appeal and his response is being handled by the county’s attorney.

Young said he was asked by his attorney not to comment on the case and referred questions to him, Michael McCormick of Verona. McCormick didn’t respond to a call for comment.

No date has been set yet for a court hearing on the appeal.

In a previous interview, Young said he didn’t know why Hoke would have revoked his permit.

The stipulation in state law about character and reputation hasn’t been invoked in Crawford County to revoke a concealed carry permit for the last 16 years, if ever.
Since taking office in January, Hoke hasn’t revoked any permits.

Bob Stevens, who served as Crawford County’s sheriff for 16 years before Hoke, said he never invoked the clause. http://www.meadvilletribune.com/local/local_story_071221626.html

Showdown in Supreme Court set for March 18^th

by Dave Workman, Senior Editor

It may become the longest 90 minutes in American history: the amount of time scheduled Mar. 18 for the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment is on the line.

Attorneys representing plaintiff Dick Heller and the District of Columbia (DC), and Solicitor General Paul Clement will each get 30 minutes before the nine justices to present their arguments. A ruling is expected in June, and attorney Alan Gura, who will argue the gun rights case for Heller, told Gun Week that this is probably the biggest case before the high court this year, and as a result, the ruling may not be issued until the court's final day this session.

"The big ones, they wait until the end," Gura said.
"They want to have plenty of time to consider the case."

It was the same way several years ago when the Supreme Court waited until its final day to hand down the ruling that found part of the Brady Gun Control Law unconstitutional.

It is likely the arguments will be presented before a packed audience, but only the attorneys will be permitted to speak. During the 30-minute presentation by each attorney, justices will ask questions about key points, Gura said.

Attorney Walter Dellinger will argue DC's case, which seeks to uphold a 32-year-old handgun ban in the city, and also contends that the Second Amendment does not affirm an individual right, but only a collective right of the states to organize militias. That has also been the position of gun control organizations including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Gun rights organizations, including the Second:• Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and Gun Owners of America have filed amicus curiae briefs in the case. Additionally, 55 US senators, including presidential candidate John McCain, as well as Vice President Dick Cheney and 250 representatives, have signed onto an amicus brief supporting the individual rights interpretation.

Attorneys general in 31 states, including Texas, Washington, Florida, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Michigan, throughout the South and along the Great Lakes and Ohio River valley agree that the handgun ban should be struck down, while attorneys general in New York, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Maryland support the handgun ban.'

Attorneys general in Wisconsin, Illinois, California, Oregon, Iowa, Arizona, Nevada and a few other states have remained silent.

Clements' brief on behalf of the Bush Administration contends that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but also argues that laws regulating firearms should be subject to a lower degree of scrutiny. The Clement brief wants the court to remand the '- case back to the appeals court, and also wants to protect all existing federal gun statutes.

The arguments come less than a month after USA Today published the results of a Gallup poll that found 73% of adult Americans believe the Second Amendment affirms an individual civil right, and that 91% of American gunowners insist that it is an individual right. The poll further showed that 63% of non- gunowners also believe it is an individual right. The survey was conducted Feb. 8-10 and contacted 1,016 adults with a 3% margin of error.

Dellinger will lead off the oral arguments, saving some of his 30 minutes for rebuttal. It is not yet clear who will follow, either Gura or Clement, but they will have a solid 30 minutes to present their arguments and answer questions from the justices.

The landmark case has been under constant debate for months, essentially because it has the potential to alter if not upend the political and judicial landscape regarding private gun ownership in the United States. Gun control lobbying groups are vocally fearful of an individual rights ruling, arguing that it could jeopardize scores of restrictive gun laws, including the handgun ban in Chicago and New York's Sullivan Law.

Conversely, gun rights advocates are hopeful for a ruling that upholds the individual right interpretation, as it will provide momentum to challenge those same restrictive gun laws.

An individual rights ruling will reverse judicial attitudes about the right to keep and bear arms at the appellate level. Federal appeals courts, including the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, have adopted the "collective right" position when ruling on Second Amendment cases.

Gura told Gun Week that he has good feelings about his chances before the high court.

"I think it's a great case," he said, "and I think we're in great shape. I'm glad I don't have to be arguing the other side of it."

The ruling will come down at the height of the presidential campaign season as parties prepare for their nominating conventions this summer. It will bring the issue of gun rights to the fore in a campaign in which both sides have been doing everything possible to avoid the gun rights issue.

In recent months, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both considerably shifted earlier positions on gun rights, with both now insisting they support the Second Amendment as an individual right, but with "reasonable restrictions." Both Clinton and Obama have long records supporting restrictive gun control.

Ironically, the case has also caused the Bush Administration to soften its hardcore stand on the Second Amendment from the days when former Attorney General John Ashcroft made it the official Justice Department position that the amendment protects an individual right. With the Clements brief, the Administration now has taken the position that there is an individual right, but it is subject to "reasonable" regulation. The New GUN WEEK, March 15, 2008

******Mark your calendars Now: April 7, 2008********

Gunowners Help Needed To Stop Harrisburg Gun Control Juggernaut

Throughout the Rendell administration gun owners have been the misdirected focus of efforts to control and stop crime. With the willing help of the Philadelphia legislative Caucus, they've been able to block our legislation and introduce a myriad of bills (35 anti-gun bills in the House and 18 in the Senate) that represent the cream of the crop of gun control as advanced by Sarah Brady, Josh Sugarman and their teams. Up to this point we have been able to stop most of the gun control as represented in the committee of the whole in 2006 and the virtual daily attacks on us that occurred in the Judiciary Committee in 2007. This was achieved by the direct involvement of gun owners working together throughout the state.

Now we ask your help again as it is ONCE AGAIN TIME for gun owners to step up and let your voices be heard in the halls of power in the Harrisburg capital building!

On Monday, April 7, 2008 the Second Amendment-Second to None Rally in Harrisburg starts at 10AM in the rotunda (plan on being there at 9:00am) to celebrate our constitutional right to bear arms and to advance our mutual interests in freedom and legislation we have asked to be introduced that would achieve those goals. We cannot get there without your help! Up until now we've managed to show an increasing interest in the direct involvement of gun owners with each prior rally building upon the last. What we are looking for this time is a dramatic example of the desire of citizens to protect the freedoms that are an inseparable part of our heritage. We would like to see thousands of gun owners devote one day of their time in an election year to coming to Harrisburg and joining with us in making a statement that will be heard nationwide.

This is an opportunity for all of us to be able to say to those in Harrisburg who would limit or take from us the right to bear arms-NO MORE! This is a statement that will be heard not only in the halls of Harrisburg but in every election race for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, the Pennsylvania Senate, Congress and indeed even President. It is also an opportunity for you to express through the media and your attendance at this rally to the United States Supreme Court that they should support what the founding fathers have bequeathed all of us and overturn the insane gun control laws in Washington, DC and reaffirm that we have an individual right to bear arms and protection of ourselves and our nation.

In the end it is all up to you as to whether or not you believe this right is important enough to turn off the TV or push away from the keyboard and learn how to really fix politics because at this rally each one of you will have the opportunity to join in the team that goes around and personally makes a political statement to each legislative office in the capital. This is a grassroots rally! It is meant to be your presence that is important and that is why we are going to show you how Pennsylvania gunowners practice politics. While you will obviously see many politicians at this rally as well as, hopefully, representatives from every national gun rights organization, in reality the real focus of this rally is to bring you to Harrisburg so that you can involve yourself in this process and learn what it takes to defend freedom. We will teach you how to wield REAL political power effectively, in Harrisburg to engage the legislators directly, ask questions, and explain why these flawed concepts won’t work. We will be there right with you shoulder to shoulder and we will show you what has made us the most important state in the nation in stopping these attacks on our freedom, but in the end it is all up to you and we hope you make the right choice.

Right now we have a slim majority in the legislature who will act appropriately when gun control is brought before them and the key leaders within this majority have worked tirelessly to set up this rally and to advance and promote legislation that will achieve those goals. This is a pivotal moment in Pennsylvania history and with your help we will make it a defining moment for not only the second amendment but the Pennsylvania constitutional right to bear arms, article 1 section 21 wherein it states "the right of the citizen to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned". It is important to remember that the Constitution is really a piece of paper. What gives it true power is the citizens belief in it and willingness to stand by it at critical moments and this is one of those moments!

Please join with us on April 7 and we look forward to working with all of you!

**Here is how the events will unfold on April 7^th:

9:00AM Sign up, get your second amendment badges, and organize into groups under team leadership. Getting gun owners organized is a lot like herding cats or stacking marbles on a moving ship in the ocean.

10:00AM Press Conference with legislators and second amendment leaders (lasting approximately about 1 hour).

11:00AM After the press conference everyone will break up into smaller groups under team leadership. Your team leader will take you to specifically assigned state reps so that all 203 of them will hear from gun owners all across the state. Once these assigned legislators are visited then each team will float to other Representatives in the Senate and House including the personal representative of each attendee. The biggest issue is that ALL 203 Reps and 50 Senators hear from gun owners, especially the anti-gun legislators that introduce these bills intended to strip your rights away. Your team leader will break around lunch time, after lunch meet up with your team leader to finish up. We plan these legislative lobbying events to run between 9am and 3pm.

You can help even further by doing the following:

Download the flier, print lots of copies, take it to your gun clubs and post it, take it your local gun stores have them post it as well, email all of your gun owning friends and relatives, let the word go far and wide across PA -- shout it loudly so that everyone knows the Second Amendment Is Second to None. Also visit the ACSL & PFSC websites and view the list of proposed firearm laws pending in Harrisburg. (Courtesy of ACSL Legislative Committee)

CONSERVATIVES FOR OBAMA

By Dennis Pavlik

February 28, 2008

The fictional Sherlock Holmes once said: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left must be the truth no matter how improbable.” In this year’s presidential race all of the conservatives have been eliminated. I would recommend Mike Huckabee, as an acceptable alternative to the remaining field but fear it is too late for him to be elected. This leaves three candidates: John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, one of whom will be president: As a conservative, I pick Obama.

When I pick a president I evaluate three criteria: What are their policies on issues important to me; How will they lead the debate and other elected officials; And their effectiveness in implementing their policies.

Consider John McCain. He introduced and spearheaded McCain/Feingold – The bill to silence grassroots activists and put the process in the hands of the political elite, big donors, and liberal media. He indicated a favorable leaning toward reintroducing the “Fairness Doctrine” which would eliminate the conservative voices from the airwaves. He worked diligently for Amnesty to Illegal Aliens and against border security. He is supporting “Hillary Light” socialized medicine. He was against the Bush tax cuts and simply doesn’t understand that you can lower tax rates and increase revenue simultaneously. GOA rates him as unacceptable giving him an overall D on gun issues supporting many antigun measures ( http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm ). I believe that like Bush, his Whitehouse attorneys would argue for the DC Gun Ban. He would support UN treaties to take over our economy like the Law of the Sea, and Global Warming. Some pundits say he gets the war on terror. Does he really? – I believe McCain would continue the war of attrition; killing our soldiers, and destroying the dollar. The terrorists know they can not win militarily. Their intent is to collapse the dollar as we are borrowing heavily and no longer produce the essentials of military weaponry. This is just death by slow bleed. McCain’s actions tell me he is a Globalist at heart. I haven’t heard him repudiate any of his stands. His campaign slogan should be “VOTE FOR ME I’M LESS BAD THAN THE OTHER TWO.” He mocks conservatives and refuses to call out either Obama or Hillary on the issues. I don’t believe there are any significant philosophical differences between McCain, Obama, and Hillary.

For you conservative Pennsylvanians – McCain is to the USA as Ridge was to Pennsylvania. Under Ridge we got more gun control in 4 years than in the last forty. He gave unprecedented power to the liberals in the Education System to politicize the academic agenda. He successfully neutered the conservatives in the Party. If you liked Ridge, you’ll love McCain.

McCain will be effective in getting his agenda through Congress. He knows how to use power and punish those that threaten. I believe a McCain presidency will destroy the conservative movement. His election would establish a low bar for the Republican Party – Simply put: All you gotta be is a little to the right of the leftists and they have to vote for you. The Republicans in Congress will have to support their president, so coupled with the Liberal Democrats he will be able to get his Globalist agenda passed. McCain is the slow boat to a Socialist America.

Now look at Hillary. Her policies are right out of the Socialist playbook. She is a jet plane to socialism. Like McCain she promotes socialized medicine, global warming, control of the economy, and banning your right to self-defense. She supports open borders and Amnesty to Illegals. She is for a faster surrender to the terrorists than McCain. Hillary’s masquerade as a middle of the roader would allow her to be a very effective president and advance her agenda. She demonstrated this to my satisfaction in her role as fixer in her husband’s administration. I believe she would use the full power of the government – like the IRS and FBI to destroy her political enemies. The Democrats will back her as the Republicans would back McCain.

This leaves Obama – He is the rocket ship or “Star-gate” to the Socialist takeover of America. I not only believe He would surrender to the terrorists; I believe he would put them in charge. And this is his greatest weakness. Because he is not a member of the club and is so far to the left the Conservatives in both parties could mount an effective challenge to his legislative agenda. This would be the best chance of conservatives to retake the Republican Party and establish a beachhead amongst the Democrats.

In 1996 I was at a World Federalist Association Dinner. The speaker told the audience the presidential election was over, they won. Stop any efforts on that race and concentrate on the Congressional Races and continue establishing their agenda in the social fabric (schools, media, social organizations). I commented that it appears they had written off Dole and were confident of a Clinton Victory. The speaker said they hadn’t written off Dole, it’s that he is a Globalist as well as Clinton, just a slow boat compared to a jet plane, both are going to the same port.

Sun Tzu said if you present the enemy with only bad choices so he is forced to choose the lesser of defeats, you will have ultimate victory. This is what our enemies understand. This is the dilemma we are in. Unfortunately the presidential race is over. We have only evil to choose from. This is why we must write off our losses, choose the lesser of the evils, Obama. And concentrate on battles we can win.

(The above article represents the private personal views of Dennis Pavlik and does not represent any official position of FOAC regarding the upcoming Presidential race. The material presented herein is submitted to all gun owners for informational purposes and to educate gun owners on the wildly varied views that currently exists regarding these candidates in the public domain. As always it is our position that we respect the right of each citizen to decide on a candidate based on their own values and beliefs!)

Obama, Clinton say they support lawful gun use, but with limits

by Dave Workman, Senior Editor

Democrat juggernaut Barack Obama, the less-than-one-term senator from Illinois who, when he served in that state's legislature supported stiff gun laws and a handgun ban, now insists he supports the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms... "for the purposes of hunting and target shooting."

It's right there near the top of his BarackObama.com campaign website, where he insists that if he is elected president, he will "will provide state game and fish agencies with additional resources and encouragement to reach out to young men and women to educate them about hunting and fishing opportunities, hunter safety, and the basic principles of fish and wildlife management.

Obama, who admits that he "did not grow up hunting and fishing, but he recognizes the great conservation legacy of America's hunters and anglers and has great respect for the passion that hunters and anglers have for their sport," has reportedly backed off—at least for the duration of the campaign— positions he took as an Illinois state senator in which he supported a ban on the sale or transfer of "all forms of semiautomatic weapons" and legislation that would "increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms."

He did not favor "allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms" and he would "require manufacturers to provide child- safety locks with firearms." This information was gathered by a Project Vote Smart questionnaire.

While Obama has largely avoided the gun issue, as has Sen. Hillary Clinton, during the campaign, that may change abruptly when the Supreme Court rules later this year on the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the challenge to the Washington, DC, handgun ban that will clarify the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Obama's campaign website insists that if he becomes president, he will work to expand access to places to hunt and fish. He supports the Open Fields Incentives legislation that "provides incentives to farmers and ranchers who voluntarily open their land to hunting, fishing and other wildlife-related activities."

Serious questions remain in the gun rights community about Obama's sincerity on gun rights and hunting issues, considering his lengthy track record and previous positions on firearms ownership. According to a Dec. 22, 2007 story in USA Today, Obama, who hails from the Chicago area, said matter-of-factly in response to a 1996 questionnaire that he supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Now, however, he has acknowledged that "a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable."

However, he insists that "reasonable restrictions" on the possession of handguns are feasible, and he has maintained that the handgun ban in Washington, DC, is a "reasonable" law.

When he served in the Illinois legislature, according to the USA Today story, he supported legislation to limit handgun purchases to one a month, but not an outright ban.

On his website there is a statement about Obama's "respect" for the Second Amendment.

"Millions of hunters own and use guns each year," his statement reads. "Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting."

There is not a word about self-defense, or the right to protect one's property, or right-to-carry laws.

Meanwhile, The Washington Bureau Mouth of the Potomac reported that Clinton has come up with another new wrinkle• she wants a presidential summit on gun control.

That came up in the Q-and-A session after a woman asked about dealing with shootings such as the NIU shooting

Clinton started with a line about recognizing that there is "no conflict" between letting lawful gunowners have weapons and keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys and the mentally ill.

She went on to propose:

"I believe we really should have a summit where everybody comes together on all sides of this issue," Clinton said. "Let's figure out how we can be consistent with the Second Amendment, which I wholeheartedly support, and do more to keep people safe." The New GUN WEEK, March 15, 2008

Ammo registration proposed in 10 states

(PA—HB 2228)

by Dave Workman, Senior Editor

Controversial ammunition coding legislation introduced in at least 10 states that gun rights activists believe will lead to creation of de facto state handgun registries can be traced to a consulting firm in Washington state that lists as one of its clients a Seattle company with a patent pending on the coding technology.

Four anti-gun Democrat lawmakers in the Ever- green State are backing legislation that would require all pistol ammunition sold there to be coded beginning on Jan. 1, 2010.

Virtually identical legislation has been introduced by five anti-gun Democrats in the Arizona legislature, and the Washington state-based consulting firm Gordon Thomas Honeywell is offering "model language" for this legislation. The technology is being promoted as "a modern crime fighting tool." A note at the bottom of the draft legislation states, "Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs can also provide drafting guidance."

Gun Week contacted Briahna Taylor, a governmental affairs consultant with Gordon Thomas Honeywell, but she referred us to Steve Mace, president of Ammunition Coding System (ACS), the Seattle-based firm that now has a patent pending on this bullet coding technology. Ultimately, we were contacted by Russ Ford, ACS vice president for research and development.

The Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs website lists ACS as one of its clients.

The same model bill language used in Washington and Arizona has also been used as the basis for legislation introduced in New York, Illinois, California, Hawaii, Tennessee, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Mississippi. Pushing this legislation nationwide is a group calling itself Ammunition Accountability, not to be confused with ACS.

Ford said he and his partners developed the original language for the sample statute, working "closely with some legislators and a lobbyist, a retired deputy sheriff in California."

"The basic premise of the bill came out of California," he said, adding that Gordon Thomas Honeywell had polished the language.

Taylor noted that ammunition coding is not the same thing as "gun microstamping," which requires etching of a unique code on the firing pin and inside the chamber of a semi-automatic pistol. "Microstamping" legislation has been enacted in California and will be a requirement for new hand- guns beginning in January 2010.

Anti-gun Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) recently introduced "The National Crime Gun Identification Act," which would mandate gun microstamping in all 50 states.

Coding and microstamping, Taylor said in a brief mail, "are very different technologies."

ACS acknowledges on its website that "The implementation of the ACS technology will require legislation to establish an ammunition sale database. In those states that have already developed and implemented bar-coding systems that include driver's licenses and other forms of identification, the integration of a database system to record ammunition sales will be relatively simple and inexpensive to implement."

Ford told Gun Week that his motivation for pushing this technology is to separate responsible firearms owners from people who are misusing guns.

He also acknowledged that "our ultimate goal is to license the technology" to ammunition companies. Both he and Mace have other jobs, and the ammunition coding venture actually involves four friends, including him and Mace, who attended high school together. All are gunowners, Ford said.

He claimed that tests conducted a couple of years ago showed that laser etching can be done very fast, so that it would not slow down ammunition assembly lines.

In a "Q&A" link on the ACS website, the company insists that ammunition coding does not violate the Second Amendment, nor does it amount to a "backdoor gun registration scheme."

The ACS website explains that, "State and federal legislative proposals to implement ACS would be based upon the existing firearm dealer licensing and gun tracing statutes enacted by Congress in 1968. The United States Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, affirmed the constitutionality of the licensing and tracing provisions of the current federal law.

"Moreover, even the National Rifle Association supports the privacy protections contained in federal gun tracing regulations," ACS stated.

However, that does not mean the NRA supports cartridge etching. The NRA and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, both oppose cartridge coding legislation.

"Legislation could be carefully drafted to insure that any information acquired under an ACS program could not be used to single out gunowners or function as a gun registration scheme. When a bullet or cartridge case is recovered at a crime scene, only duly authorized law enforcement agencies would have access to ACS bullet coding information. The ACS 'trace' would be completed using the same proven methods used by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies today in conducting crime gun traces. Only minimal personal identifying information is necessary to make ACS technology work (less personal information than is disclosed under normal circumstances by a person making a purchase by credit card or check)."

Activists Disagree

Many gun rights activists don't see it that way, however. Heated discussions about the legislation have erupted on both TheHighRoad.org and KeepAndBearArms.com Internet gun rights forums.

Some directed their wrath at Democrats, whose party has traditionally pushed gun control schemes while New Jersey gun rights activist Michael Everall suggested that all of these bills are being promoted "by a single vendor as a commercial enterprise; in effect using (state legislators) as their sales force (without paying them)."

Ford acknowledged that "We are decidedly in favor of recouping our investment in this. We are a for-profit enterprise... and we would like to turn a profit someday."