|
|
|
January 2008 Issue 159 |
|
ALLEGHENY Contacts:
Legislative Committee Chairman, Kim Stolfer (412.221.3346) - activist@fyi.net
Legislative Committee Vice-Chairman, |
|
|
|
|
|
January 2008 Issue 159 |
|
ALLEGHENY Contacts:
Legislative Committee Chairman, Kim Stolfer (412.221.3346) - activist@fyi.net
Legislative Committee Vice-Chairman, |
|
|
Gun Owners in PA Face Stiff Election Odds AGAIN
in 2008
In 2006 the anger over the Rendell instigated
Pay Raise resulted in over 50 House Seats changing hands or incumbents being
voted out. It appears that 2008 will
bring significant change AGAIN to the political landscape. The legislators listed below are either
retiring or seeking other office thus creating an opportunity and a challenge
for gun owners to elect freshmen legislators who embrace our freedoms.
·
Rep.
McIlhattan Rep. Yewcic
·
Rep.
Bennington Rep. Mantz
·
Rep.
Tangretti Rep. Raymond
·
Rep.
Steil Rep. Rubely
·
Rep.
Hershey Rep. Nailor
·
Rep.
Nickol Rep. Leach
·
Sen.
Armstrong Sen. Williams
There are additional House members considering
retirement and/or advancement into other offices (i.e. PA State Senate or
Congress that are as yet unconfirmed).
A quick review of these races reveals that gun
owners are taking the lions share of hits in these districts.
The time is now to prepare to volunteer your
time and efforts to helping candidates get elected that espouse our views and
beliefs. It is a ‘guaranteed’ fact that
the anti-gun groups are preparing and mobilizing to do the same.
Concealed Carry Permit Issuance Problems Growing
in PA
Despite a written guarantee from the Allegheny
County Sheriffs’ office from several years ago regarding notification of
expiration and early renewals, this office has recently been refusing to allow
‘early renewals’ of Licenses to Carry Firearms.
We have also been receiving complaints about
spotty notices being sent out for renewals as well.
We are currently exploring the reasoning behind
these position changes and our options for addressing them. Early indications are that the PA State
Police have adopted regulations that ‘prohibit’ early renewals by Sheriffs in
contravention of Section 6109 in the Uniform Firearms Act.
We will have a more in depth report on this next
month.
**Messages Below Were Posted
on a Statewide Gun Owners Forum (PAFOA-www.pafoa.org):
Small Victory and
One of my former trainees lives
out-of-state, but has family in
I went to the Sheriff's office to
file an administrative appeal. Nobody there had a clue what I was talking
about. In fact, I was told my client was "not denied" - they just
refused to issue his renewal because "you have to live in
I finally wrung a "denial appeal form" out of them, which is one page. It has about six inches of blah blah blah, and about two inches of space to explain why one is appealing. I threw that away, and send a letter to the Solicitor for the Sheriff's Department, laying out the law establishing the right of out-of-state residents to obtain a permit here, and under what conditions.
Lo, and behold, the Solicitor has now advised me he has recommended the staff at the Sheriff's office be reversed, and that my client's LTCC be renewed. The Sheriff now understands the requirements of the law. The total cost was well under $1,000.
There are many ways to fight. Some work well, some not so well.
Biting the bullet and going through the legal system works much better than mf'ing the cops or sitting on the porch and barking.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elston32 However, the fact that an
individual who live out-of-state has to hire a professional to inform local
law enforcement in-state law they should already know is really annoying and
an unreasonable burden. |
Yes, it is. But it is much easier than having to choose between knuckling under or risking your life.
Too many people use the fact the system is not perfect (slow, expensive, stacked in favor or monied interests, sometimes gives bad results) as an excuse to do nothing . . . nothing, that is, but whine or bluster.
There will always be somebody (be it individual official or group) who will try to dominate. It may be unfortuante, but, in life, "always the big fish eats the little fish." The question is not whether it should happen, because it will. The question is how one can resist.
I think it is important to recognize that one of the great things about the United States is we can resist government excess or abuse without having to put it all on the line.
This is why I am so contemptuous of those who proclaim: "They can have my gun when they pry my dead, cold hands from around it!* [* So long as I don't have to spend any money, miss any work, or risk getting my name on a list.]" Legal means of resistance are at hand, but these guys always have a reason not to put themselves out. They disregard a precious right to which we were all born (at the expense of those who went before us) simply because it is inconvenient. Then they attempt to cover thier sloth, selfishness and/or cowardice with a bumper-sticker slogan.
I feel very fortunate that it is not necessary for things to come to a choice between physical resistance or subjugation. I am grateful for this right in part because I know those who always have a reason not to put themselves out to defend thier rights in court or take a day off to attend a protest will ever risk their lives to help anyone, even themselves.
My client does not appear to have ever had a moment's doubt. It was just a matter of fact that he was going to fight. He was not happy, but he was not confused about what needed to be done.
If 10% of gun owners were like him, we would not have the problems we have.
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/14278-small-victory-allegheny-county.html
I called 3 weeks ago and asked the status of my application
for a LTCCF, was told it was in progress, its been 55 days so far and I have
since found this forum and I’ve been up all night reading. I called back today
and was greeted by a very nasty woman who said she could not check my status
over the phone, I continued to ask how long the process takes and was told 45
business days, I told her the UFA of PA says that a decision must be made
within 45 days, not 45 business days, and I was told "that law does not
apply to this county". In shock I asked if the AG felt the same way she
did and I was told to "contact whom ever I felt necessary to contact"
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/12780-just-got-off-phone-delco-sheriffs-office.html
Registration of Firearms
(PSP Record of
Issues/Problems—
BY PRED - original poster
#1 --I live
just inside the city limits, and if you guys remember the police shooting at
the Duncan Donuts,,,, That was about 1 mile from my house, About 2 days later I
arrived home from work to find 6, Yes 6 ATF agents waiting for me, They asked
to see all my guns, I asked if this was an AFT convention outside my house, and
then asked if they had a warrant, NO they didnt, So I asked them why they were
here, Response was the cop got shot with a 9mm, and I owned one,, I bought it
about 1 year ago,,, I showed the crowd of ATF The one they asked to see, It was
still in box,,,,
For me to carry in the open would be insane in this area, I would get to know
all the police and maybe the inside of their cars,,
What is it like out there in the country??
PB
#17 --I feel as though I am glad to see that they
are looking/canvassing the surrounding areas to see if the ones who have bought
a 9mm still have it in their position, I am happy to comply with that,
therefore I had no issue showing them what they were looking for, But they had
to ask, I don’t however it is their right to come into my house and inventory
my firearms, I wasn’t about to allow that, They even said as not to excite the
neighbors if 2 of them could come in with me, HOW ABOUT the 4 outside all
carrying exposed loitering in my drive exciting the neighbors?
After I told them that I would get what they were looking for, I told them I
was carrying at that point of time, I asked if they would prefer me to unload
it, They didn’t mind me carrying concealed, and didn't ask to see what I was
carrying, Or to see my CC permit, I guess they already knew I had one,
I did get the cards of two of them, And have them in my safe now, They were
pleasant and courteous throughout te whole thing, I told them that with what
happened to the officer, and all the helicopters flying about all night long,
and me with a 1/3 acre wooded back yard that backed up to some railroad tracks
that I WILL be armed when in the yard day or night,,,,,,,,,
It was all okay, And I am glad to help with showing them what they wanted to
see,
But keep this in mind----- Aren’t the records supposed to be purged every 30
days? How did they know what I had a year later? They are not supposed to!
So OC would be a big waste of time here, For me and the police, Plus there
would be so many frightened people.
I still carry each day,
The AFT was good to me, and there was also a Philly violent crimes person with
them, I have his name and # too!
It's a tough place here, Looking to move to Sullivan county someday!
PB
#43--When I said
they were good to me, It was in reference to their attitude and composure,,,
Hasseling me, Well It's their job to have 6 guys with Glocks? on their waists
gathering in my driveway and asking to come inside,,
They even went to the extent to park all the way down the end of my street
which is one way in their unmarked cars.
I know that they had no thoughts that it was me,,, But the first Q to see
everything I owned by 6 of them is a bit unraveling,, It is all over and done
with now, Crime will still happen, and the 9mm will still be one of the most
popular calipers, and The AFT will still come to peoples houses, I ndont they
should fish as they were trying to do, But I will show them a particular item
if they ask for a particular item to help in an investigation.
If I had sent them off with out showing them the one,,, and demanded a search warrant,
They would have been back with 20 of their friends and a search warrant for sure,
Then It would have really been a bad/horrible experience for me,
So I figure that sometimes it's better to roll over just a bit, Than to piss em
off, and roll over a whole lot, And get your house searched thoroughly.
Has this ever happened to anyone else?
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/14121-oc-philly-atf-hasseling-me.html
Judge says no law broken when
man carried firearm into polling place
By DON AINES chambersburg@herald-mail.com
CHAMBERSBURG, Pa. - Franklin County Judge John R. Walker followed the law Tuesday in returning a concealed weapons permit to Gregory Rotz, but the judge said he would prefer the state ban firearms from polling places.
"Personally, I'm going to contact my legislator and see if they can write a law because, if you have people walking around voting places with firearms, you are beginning to look like a Third World country down in Venezuela or somewhere," the judge said after ordering the return to Rotz of the permit, which had been revoked by former Sheriff Robert Wollyung.
During a brief hearing,
"Give it to him now, Mr.
Redding,"
Many of the approximately 50 people
in the courtroom, mostly Second Amendment rights supporters, applauded as
Approximately 6,000 people have
concealed weapons permits in
Carrying a weapon in a vehicle is considered concealing it, which is one reason many people get the permits, Anthony said.
Wollyung ordered the permit revoked
after Rotz, 36, showed up at the
"I went to the polling place to vote, and I had my firearm with me as I do everyday," Rotz said after winning his appeal. A constable at the center confronted him and delayed his voting until county officials told the constable "that it was not illegal for me to take my firearm into the polling place," Rotz said.
"He had it in plain view, the people that were at the polls were scared ... I asked him to step outside," said Constable Gerald Spielman, who was at the courthouse Tuesday. "I asked him to step outside and I checked with the courthouse," Spielman said.
"I had no choice but to let him go into vote" once he learned there was no law forbidding firearms in a polling place.
Rotz said the Friday after the election, he received the first of two letters, as required by law, notifying him of the revocation.
The hearing attracted people from
across
"I don't believe in open
carry. I think it's a tactical disadvantage" to allow others to know you
are armed, said Douglas Boldt of
"He has a God-given right to protect himself," said Boldt, who left his Heckler & Koch P7M8 in his vehicle.
"I support Mr. Greg Rotz.
Enforce the law, not personal opinion" read the badges of many of those
who attended. There were men from
If a person can lose a concealed weapon permit without having broken a law, he said, "then we've got a problem."
A number of state and borough police officers were in the courtroom, some not in uniform, though it was unclear whether they were attending as citizens or to bolster security. There were four or five deputies at a time in the courtroom.
"I would like to sincerely commend Mr. Rotz's supporters for their professionalism and cooperation with my office," Anthony said. A device called an unloading station was set up outside the building and the weapons were checked in at a table outside Anthony's office. The supporters then re-entered the building through another entrance to go through the metal detector.
Rotz's supporters headed off to a restaurant after the ruling, but Boldt suggested they also go to a local range.
"Who wants to go shooting?" he said.
Philly Police Faulted for Shootings
Philadelphia
Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson is seen at a news conference in
Philadelphia, Thursday, Jan. 3, 2008. Johnson ends a tenure marked by concerns
about violent crime and shootings by police, including a police shooting New
Year's Eve that left four people inside a home, including a child, wounded.
For the second year in a row, city
officials are being asked how police officers responding to celebratory New
Year's Eve gunfire ended up shooting innocent bystanders.
This year, police chasing an armed reveler
shot into a house filled with partygoers, leaving one man in a coma, a second
wounded and a 9-year-old boy with a graze wound to the chest.
A year ago, police fatally shot a man in
the back of the head as he tried to flee when neighbors started shooting guns
into the air.
The latest shootings came as Police
Commissioner Sylvester Johnson ends a six-year tenure marked by public concern
about gun violence and the police response to it.
Johnson has repeatedly been asked to answer
questions about the department's use of deadly force, including two months ago
when officers killed a distraught teenager wielding a clothes iron. City police
fatally shot 16 people in 2007 and 20 the previous year.
"It seems that there's too much of a
policy to shoot first and worry about the outcome later," said Bruce
Ginsburg, an attorney representing two of the shooting victims. "It puts
everybody in the city in danger."
Johnson, who retires Friday after 43 years
with the department, defended his officers while promising an investigation of
the New Year's Eve shootings.
"It's hard for you to say when an
officer has a gun pointed at him, is he reacting too fast? We had one (officer)
killed, we had six others who were shot" this year, he said Thursday at
his final news conference.
Johnson's replacement, Charles Ramsey, has
pledged to address the number of police shootings. Ramsey has noted that in his
tenure as police chief of
The party's host, Clinton Rogers, 30, told
reporters that bullets started flying through the front door at him, friends
and relatives just after midnight. Parents jumped in front of their children
and two men who were shot ran upstairs, trailing blood.
The spray of bullets left Abebe Isaac, 33,
in a medically induced coma after he was shot in the face. Michael Johnson, 32,
remains stable after being shot in the side. Nyger Page, 9, was treated and
released after suffering the graze wound.
Ginsburg represents Page's family and also
that of Bryan Jones, who was shot to death by police as 2007 arrived.
Jones, 20, had set out on foot in the
waning moments of 2006 to retrieve a young nephew from a party and was fleeing
gunfire when he was shot.
Police have said officers responding to a
report of gunfire were fired at by people on a porch and that an officer fired
at Jones when he saw him reaching for his waistband. Jones, however, had no
weapon and no criminal history, Ginsburg said.
"Nothing was learned about the
unnecessary death of a young man last year," he said.
Ginsburg plans to file a wrongful death
suit on behalf of Jones' family.
Jan 4, 2008 By MARYCLAIRE
DALE, AP
http://www.examiner.com/a-1138099~Philadelphia_police_again_faulted_for_collateral_damage.html
Mall, church
shootings bring criticism of `gun free zones'
Reaction to last month's shootings
at the Westroads Mall in
Pro-gun researcher and oft-published author John Lott weighed in, as did Vin Suprynowicz with the Las Vegas Review Journal, and so did Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb and Gun Week Senior Editor Dave Workman. Lott, writing on the Fox News website, noted that the Omaha Mall shooting was the subject of 2,794 stories worldwide.
Yet a critical fact was not covered, he lamented: These shootings happened in so-called gun free zones.
"Despite the lack of news coverage," Lott wrote, "people are beginning to notice what research has shown for years: Multiple-victim public shootings keep occurring in places where guns already are banned. Forty states have broad right-to-carry laws, but even within these states it is the 'gun-free zones,' not other public places, where the attacks happen."
Not known for pulling any punches in his criticism of the bias in news reports about firearms and self-defense, Lott demanded to know, "When will part of the media coverage on these multiple victim public shootings be whether guns were banned where the attack occurred?"
He noted that the press, while reporting on whether teachers can have firearms at school and doing spot reports on a growing movement by university and college students who want to carry defensive handguns legally on campus, "the media haven't started checking what are the rules where these attacks occur.
"Surely," Lott observed, "the news stories carry detailed information on the weapon used (in this case, a rifle) and the number of ammunition clips (apparently, two). But if these aspects of the story deemed important for understanding what happened, why isn't it also important that the attack occurred where guns were banned? Isn't it important to know why all the victims were disarmed?”
Lott blasted the media for not specifically pointing to the signs at the Westroads Mall that said guns are prohibited on the premises. And he spared no criticism for anti-gunners, who have lobbied and labored to create "gun free zone" restrictions, and for businesses that succumbed to the pressure.
"If a killer were stalking your family," Lott noted, "would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, `This Home Is a Gun-Free Zone'? But that is what
the Westroads Mall did." Likewise, the sharp-tongued Suprynowicz unloaded on the "gun free zone" philosophy in a Dec. 16 column that was a verbal ear-burner. Suggesting that employers or business owners, or officials ought to be held legally liable for injuries or fatalities if they post buildings under their control off limits to defensive handguns, Suprynowicz delivered a blistering assessment of the downside of gun-free zones.
"If you frequent public buildings or work for an employer who bars you from carrying your otherwise legal self-defense weapon" he suggested, "consider advising your loved ones in writing that-in the event you should die under circumstances where you could have saved yourself and others with your handgun you want the proprietor sued personally.
"Guns save lives," he said. "Since banning guns costs lives, shouldn't the individuals who ban self-defense-not the victimized taxpayers-pay the price?"
Suprynowicz acknowledged that private property owners have a right to ban firearms on their property. However, he stressed that government agencies should make it clear to the managers of buildings that are open to the public "that they will not be shielded from the financial repercussions should employees or customers die under circumstances where they could otherwise have defended themselves and others with their own firearms."
Gottlieb and Workman came out
swinging with back-to-back opinion pieces that followed both the
Springs, the latter which ended
abruptly when an armed private citizen acting as a volunteer security guard at
the
After
"If there is a true outrage
(about
The pair collaborated last year on the fast-selling America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age, which roared to the top of the charts on Amazon.com and sold out its first printing in 39 days. The timing of the shootings was incredibly coincidental with release of the book, which shreds the notion that "gun free zones" are safe.
In their Op-Ed about the
A week later, they were back in
circulation again with an opinion piece analyzing the
"We must stop this `victim disarmament' insanity in our work places, shopping malls and even our churches," they contended. "If necessary, we should pass legislation at the state and federal level that shields armed citizens from criminal and civil liability when lawfully acting in defense of themselves and others during attacks in public places.
"This is America," they concluded, "where self-reliance should be nurtured, not neutered, and where the heroism exhibited by (the armed citizen in the New Life Church incident) Jeanne Assam should stand as a warning that citizens are tired of being told to cower in fear and ‘wait for help.’ We will rise to the occasion and fight back.”
The New GUN WEEK,
January 15, 2008
*Federal Legislative Update:
DC Fires Blanks In Automatic Weapons
Suit
January 10, 2008--In a unanimous decision today, the D.C. Court of Appeals tossed a
long-running suit by the D.C. government against more than 20 of
the nation’s largest gunmakers, importers, or distributors. The court found
that the suit is now barred by federal law, but the decision noted that the
District might have kept the suit alive if it had initially pursued another
line of arguments. The case also included nine individual plaintiffs who had
been shot or were survivors of gunshot victims.
In 2005,
the court issued an en banc decision which
reversed the dismissal of the case in D.C. Superior Court. While the appellate
court affirmed the dismissal of negligence and public nuisance claims, it
reversed the dismissal of claims that the gunmakers had violated the D.C.
Assault Weapons Manufacturing Strict Liability Act of 1990. Under that law,
gunmakers, importers, or distributors of assault weapons or machine guns “shall
be held strictly liable in tort, without regard to fault or proof of defect,
for all direct and consequential damages that arise from bodily injury or
death” resulting from discharge of the weapons in the District.
But later
that same year, Congress passed a law that prohibited a growing number of
similar suits across the country, which essentially made the District's strict
liability act moot. The federal law also required the dismissal of most pending
gun liability suits nationwide, so the D.C. Court of Appeals tossed the
District’s suit today after rejecting a due process argument. The defendants
had included Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Browning Arms Co., Colt's Manufacturing Co.,
Glock, Inc., Sigarms, and Smith & Wesson Corp.
However,
the court noted that the suit may have continued if D.C. government attorneys
had initially sought to prove violations of another local law that prohibits a
gunmaker or seller from knowingly and willfully engaging in illegal sales of
firearms. While it would have been much more difficult to prove complicity in
illegal firearms sales, such an argument could have fit into an exclusion in
the new federal law, the decision stated. Judge Michael Farrell wrote the panel
decision issued today and the court's 2005 en banc opinion.
“The plaintiffs will view this as small comfort to them since they chose, as was their right, to pursue another cause of action with substantially reduced proof requirements,” the decision stated. http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/01/dc-fires-blanks.html
House Bill Filed To Modernize ATF
Functions
Reps. Steve King (R-IA) and Zack Space (D-OH), have introduced HR-4900 the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2007." According to the National Rifle Association (NRA) the bill would roll back unnecessary restrictions, correct errors, and codify longstanding congressional policies in the firearms arena. This bipartisan bill may be a vital step to modernize and improve ATF operations.
Of highest importance, the measure totally rewrites the system of administrative penalties for licensed dealers, manufacturers and importers of firearms. Today, for most violations, ATF can only give a federal firearms license (FFL) holder a warning, or totally revoke his license.
HR-4900 would allow fines or license suspensions for less serious violations, while still allowing license revocation for :he kind of serious violations that would )lock an investigation or put guns in the hands of criminals. This prevents the ill-too-common situations where ATF has punished licensees for insignificant technical violations-such as improper use of abbreviations, or filing records in the wrong order.
Among its other provisions, HR-4900 would:
Clarify the standard for "willful" violations-allowing penalties for intentional, purposeful violations of the law, but not for simple paperwork mistakes;
Improve the process for imposing penalties, notably by allowing FFLs to appeal ATF penalties to a neutral administrative law judge, rather than to an employee of ATF itself;
Allow a licensee a period of time to liquidate inventory when he goes out of business;
Reform the procedures for consideration of federal firearms license applications; Codify limits on disclosure of firearms trace data-which Congress has already limited through a series of appropriations riders over the past three years; Require ATF to establish clear investigative guidelines;
Clarify the licensing requirement for gunsmiths, distinguishing between repair and other gunsmith work and manufacture of a firearm;
Focuses ATF's efforts on violations of firearms, explosives, arson, alcohol and tobacco laws, rather than on broader areas such as gang or drug investigations;
Eliminates a provision of the Youth Handgun Safety Act that requires those under 18 to have written permission to use a handgun for lawful purposes (such as competitive shooting or safety training)-even when the parent or guardian is present;
Permanently bans creation of a
centralized database of dealers' records; Allows importation and transfer of
machineguns by firearm and ammunition manufacturers for use in developing or
testing firearms and ammunition, and Restores a policy that allowed importation
of barrels, frames and receivers from non-importable firearms, when they can be
used as repair or replacement parts, as well as other housekeeping
improvements. The New GUN WEEK, January 15, 2008
Antis cry
foul as Congress passes NICS bill (HR 2640)
by Dave Workman GunWeek Senior Editor
Over loud objections from some anti-gun organizations, Congress passed the NICS (National Instant Check System) Improvement Act of 2007, which contains some key new provisions long sought by gun rights advocates.
After many improving amendments, both the Senate and the House passed the bill originally filed as HR2640 within a two-hour window. Passage was onl-a voice vote, precluding any record of how each member of Congress voted on the bill.
The Violence Policy Center (VPC), Legal Community Against Violence and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence were furious over the vote, issuing a press statement claiming the legislation had been "hijacked by the gun lobby." On the other side, some hardcore gun rights activists claimed the National Rifle Association (NRA) had "sold out" because the legislation was also supported by some of Congress' most virulent anti-gunners including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D- MY) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).
After the measure passed, Gun
Owners of Americathe most ardent group criticizing the NRA's positionwas
silent. Over the months of negotiations,
been congratulating Oklahoma Sen.
Tom Coburn for putting a hold on the bill, which
But when Coburn removed his hold, he had this to say about the legislation: "It is a balance, a balance for protection, but it is also a balance to preserve rights, especially for our veterans-the very people who continue to protect our rights. They are going to be preserved."
Neither Sens. Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama both on the 2008 presidential campaign trail-were present for the vote.
The VPC's reaction represents a significant split in the anti-gun community, because the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence hailed passage of the bill as a means of "strengthening" the original Brady Act of 1993 that created the NICS system. (See Hindsight, Page 15 for additional comment on NICS improvement bill.)
Under provisions of the new bill, the FBI is permanently barred from charging fees for NICS background checks. All federal agencies that impose some type of mental health adjudication or commitment must now provide for "relief from disabilities," the first step toward restoring the gun rights of tens of thousands of
American citizens.
Perhaps most important, the bill contains a provision that will cover costs for "relief from disabilities" investigations by awarding attorneys fees to applicants who successfully challenge a denial of relief in court. Earlier this year, when the original legislation was being debated in the House, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) had urged that funding for these investigations be provided so that people filing appeals would not have to pay to have their rights restored when the disability had been wrongly imposed by a government agency.
CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb told Gun Week that getting the funding provision into the bill was a significant victory for the rights of American citizens, especially military veterans, who may have been wrongly disqualified by the NICS system from exercising their constitutional rights.
Meanwhile, VPC's Kristen Rand asserted that the bill "will waste millions of taxpayer dollars restoring the gun privileges of persons previously determined to present a danger to themselves or others."
Another critical element of the final legislation-and one that appears to have ignited anti-gun furor is a (Continued on Page 7)
Schumer, McCarthy hail last minute passage of HR-2640
(Continued from Page 1)
requirement that if an agency handling a relief from disabilities appeal does not act upon that application within one year, regardless of the reason (including lack of funding), the appellant can then seek immediate review in federal court. The legislation goes even farther: if the appeal is successful the government agency would have to pay the plaintiff's legal fees.
Additionally, the bill requires that incorrect records that cause a "disability" for someone purchasing a gun must be removed from the system within a month. Also under the bill, agencies such as the Department of Defense or Veterans Administration must not only notify a person who has been disqualified for mental health reasons, they must also notify that person when the disability has been removed. , ,
Anti-gunners contended that this legislation would allow persons who had been adjudicated as mental defectives to have guns. Up to now, such a disability was a lifetime prohibition on firearms ownership. The VPC and other groups were furious because this relief measure is similar to investigations formerly conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for relief from disabilities to people convicted of certain crimes.
Passage of the legislation brought some surprising remarks from Congressional anti-gunners.
McCarthy-who was elected to Congress on a gun control platform following the murder of her husband and wounding of her son by Long Island commuter train gunman Colin Ferguson-declared, "Together, we have crafted a bill that will prevent gun violence, but maintain the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens."
"This bill will make
47 senators back allowing CCW in
national parks
PA
Senators BOTH MIA
Forty-seven
The measure is being pushed by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which noted recently that the National Rifle Association has been "instrumental" in generating the letter.
In their letter, the senators explain to Kempthorne that the prohibition on firearms in national parks "infringe on the rights of law-abiding gunowners." The letter reminds Kempthorne that the public is allowed to have guns on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management or the US Forest Service/ Department of Agriculture. Wildlife refuges are open to hunting, but concealed defensive handguns are prohibited.
"These inconsistencies in firearms regulations for public lands are confusing, burdensome, and unnecessary," the letter states.
The proposal would have national parks allow firearms to be carried consistent with the laws of the state in which the park or refuge is located.
According to The Missoula (MT)
Missoulian, the state's two Democrat Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester are
leading the charge to change the parks regulations. They were joined by the two
Republican senators in both neighboring
Tiahrt provision part of budget
The combined federal appropriations measure for 2008 that was approved by the House and Senate before lawmakers left for their Christmas holiday break included the Tiahrt Amendment which New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his anti-gun coalition had been trying to kill.
The amendment authored by Rep. Todd
Tiahrt (R-KS), which has been renewed for the past three years, will continue
to restrict the sharing of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
gun trace data to law enforcement agencies for another year. Bloomberg and
cohorts had wanted the data for use in lawsuits against the firearms industry,
including licenses gun shops around the nation. The New GUN WEEK,
January 15, 2008
Anti-gunners Label HR-2640 Passage as a
Trojan Horse
Some like to say that "the enemies of my enemies are my friends." Others suggest that we can learn from both our enemies and our friends.
These sayings come easily to mind when considering the sudden pre-holiday passage of HR-2640, the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act, which had been put on hold by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). What passed was not the original bill, but one that included many improvements designed to assuage the fears of Coburn and others who didn't like the bill as passed earlier by the House. Once those amendments were adopted and the bill passed the Senate, the House concurred less than two hours later. As is common when Congress is rushing to catch a plane home, there were no roll calls. Passage was by voice vote. But that doesn't mean anyone was trying to hide from passage. Progunners and anti-gunners alike admitted that they voted for passage.
All of which seemed to make serious anti-gunners very unhappy.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), which had been listed as an early supporter of the measure, and which had labored to make the improving amendments, was quick to proudly announce its passage. NRA called it a pro-gun bill.
Anti-gunners, however, were decided split. A Dec. 19 Violence Policy Center (VPC) news release was headlined "Gun lobby hijacks bill intended to improve buyer background checks."
Passage Condemned
That press release reprised comments from leading national anti-gun organizations condemning passage of HR-2640. The anti-gunners warned that the bill intended to improve the records available to the National Instant Check System (NICS), designed to weed out prohibited persons from among prospective gun buyers, would now do far more harm than good.
The VPC said the legislation that passed finally in a record two-hour time span as both houses of Congress rushed to wrap up business hastily before taking a holiday resuscitated "a failed government program that spent millions of dollars annually to allow persons prohibited from buying guns to regain the ability to legally acquire firearms."
VPC should know. They were the ones responsible for Congress denying funding for "relief of disability" which is authorized by law since 1992 and every year since. Obviously, VPC sees passage of HR-2640 as a threat to their efforts to deny more and more people gun rights throughout their lives.
"The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would be required to establish a `relief from disability' program to allow persons now prohibited from possessing a firearm because they have `been adjudicated as a mental defective' or `committed to a mental institution' to apply to have their bar on firearms possession removed," the VPC whined.
"As a result of the bill, more than 116,000 individuals would be eligible to apply. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) used to run a similar program that, in addition to those with mental disabilities, even allowed felons to apply for `relief.'... Under the bill (HR-2640), states would also be required to establish such `relief' programs to restore the gun privileges of those with mental health disabilities in order to be eligible for potential grant money to upgrade records submitted to the NICS," VPC continued.
Kristen Rand, legislative director of the VPC, said, "This bill was intended to be Congress' response to the mass shooting at Virginia Tech that left 32 people murdered. But rather than focusing on improving the current laws prohibiting people with certain mental health disabilities from buying guns, the bill is now nothing more than a gun lobby wish list. It will waste millions of taxpayer dollars restoring the gun privileges of persons previously determined to present a danger to themselves or others. Once a solution, the bill is now part of the problem."
The Dec. 19 VPC press release quoted Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, saying, "It is ironic that the gun lobby has coerced the Senate into providing resources to rearm mentally disabled veterans during a time when the VA is struggling to provide adequate mental health care to those in need."
Then VPC quoted Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Legal Community" Against Violence, commenting, "The bill's original intent, to increase reporting of state records to the NICS database, is an important objective that would improve enforcement of federal laws governing persons prohibited from possessing firearms. The changes made by the gun lobby risk undermining those laws, and we call on the House to have a full debate on the merits of this legislation."
Possible Hearing
This suggests that the anti-gunners are hoping to push through a 2008 Congressional hearing at which they hope to gut or at least amend-HR-2640 as passed.
Not all anti-gunners are unhappy with passage of the greatly amended HR-2640. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), one of the co-sponsors of the original HR-2640 which is not what the Senate passed and the House immediately concurred on, hailed passage, as did even Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence also hailed passage of HR-2640, perhaps feeling that by claiming a victory the anti-gun group's donors would be inspired to give more money for more gun control efforts.
Some pro-gunners are among those who considered passage of HR-2640 as a defeat for the firearms civil rights cause. Gun Owners of America (GOA) didn't like it in its original form and suggests that passage of the bill, even with its many improving amendments, is a sell-out to antigunners. Another group, the Second Amendment Sisters, immediately called on President Bush to veto it.
But the
"The core of the bill's
problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes you a `prohibited person' on the
basis of a ‘medical finding of disability,' so long as a veteran had an 'opportunity'
for some sort of 'hearing' before some `lawful authority' (other than a court).
Presumably, this `lawful authority' could even be the psychiatrist
himself,"
Pro-Gun Opposition GOA, SAS and others-including some close friends-have never liked the background check, whether it was delayed by the original Brady Bill's five day waiting period or consummated "instantly" by the dealer's electronic or phone inquiry from NICS. However, the reality is that the background check has existed for almost ten years, and most pro-gunners will agree that felons and other prohibited persons should not have legal access to firearms. It is not likely to be abandoned.
Admittedly the original NICS system was flawed. States were not required to provide mental health adjudications to the FBI, and only about half of the states actually did. The Virginia Tech mass murders were linked to these "loopholes."
As Dave Workman's report beginning on Page 1 indicates, HR-2640-as amended-makes a lot of significant changes for the better.
As the ancient Roman poet Ovid noted, "We can learn even from our enemies.”
Taking that saying into consideration the VPC offers us a worthwhile lesson when they said passage of HR-2640 is a "Trojan horse."
"Much has been made of the bill's bipartisan, triangulating support: Democrats! Republicans! The National Rifle Association! The Brady Campaign!," the VPC snarled.
"Beyond this cheery bon temps,
little public attention has been paid to what the bill actually does beyond its
title. And that's because if you start looking at the details of the
bill-especially after NRA backed changes made by Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn-it
becomes clear that the measure is nothing less than a pro-gun Trojan
Horse," said the VPC. "That's why my organization, the
NEWS RELEASES:
CCRKBA BACKS
PROPOSAL TO EASE CCW RULES FOR MILITARY STATIONED IN NEB.
