AZ: AZCDL Legislative Update

AZCDL Legislative update:

The pressure YOU applied to the House and Senate was successful – and just in the nick of time. We expect the Legislature to end this year's session tonight.

HB 2389, the AzCDL-requested bill that clarifies that it is permissible to carry a weapon, with or without a CCW permit, visibly or concealed, anywhere within a means of transportation, excluding public transit, was sent to the Governor a short time ago.

This was a real nail-biter. HB 2389 had passed both the House and Senate, but, because of amendments added in the Senate, it needed to go through a conference committee where the differences could be worked out. The House had assigned conferees, but not the Senate. Thanks to the pressure YOU put on the Senate Leadership last week, Senate conferees were finally assigned, a meeting was held, the differences ironed out, and HB 2389 passed out of committee. Over the last two days, again thanks to your letters and calls, HB 2389 passed the final votes in both the House and Senate, and was sent to the Governor's desk.

It is VERY important to contact the Governor, and urge her to sign HB 2389 into law. You can use your own message, or you can use the sample message below. Her email address is azgov@az.gov. You can also fax a letter to her at 602-542-1381.

Or you can mail it to her at the following address:

The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

You can also call her office, toll free, at 1-800-253-0883.

Following the sample letter are instructions on how to post your comments on the Governor's website.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Subject: Please sign HB 2389

Governor Napolitano:

The Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL) has informed me that important legislation, HB 2389, is awaiting your signature. I urge you to sign HB 2389 into law.

HB 2389 would make changes to ARS 13-3102 regarding carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle. Current law (ARS 13-3102.F) states that, without a concealed weapons (CCW) permit, it is permissible to carry a weapon or weapons "in a case, holster, scabbard, pack or luggage that is carried within a means of transportation or within a storage compartment, map pocket, trunk or glove compartment of a means of transportation."

Unfortunately, in 1994 an Arizona Appellate court decision (State v. Adams, 189 Ariz. 235, 941 P.2d) determined that "within a means of transportation" meant it must be obvious under ordinary observation to someone outside the vehicle that there is a weapon inside the vehicle. This created conflicts interpreting the statute. As a result:

· Wearing a holstered firearm within a vehicle = concealed carry, requiring a CCW permit. But, that same holstered firearm in a map pocket, trunk or glove compartment, equally accessible by a vehicle's occupants, does not require a CCW permit.

· Possessing a concealed weapons permit and being armed may put other occupants in the vehicle, who do not possess a CCW permit, at risk of arrest because of their proximity to your firearm. Yet, if that same weapon were in a map pocket, trunk or glove compartment accessible by all the vehicle's occupants, no crime is committed.

The proposed language clarifies that it permissible to carry a weapon, visibly or concealed, anywhere within a means of transportation, excluding public transit. Much like the states of New Mexico (NMSA 30-7-2) and Texas (TX Penal Code Title 10, Chapter 46.02), it would be legal for any law abiding citizen to carry anywhere inside a vehicle without the need of a permit, just like it currently is inside their own home or business, eliminating the confusing hodgepodge of lawful and unlawful places currently listed in statute. This would benefit both law enforcement and the law-abiding, making the law clear and rational, not subject to confusing roadside interpretations.

Again, I urge you to support sound public policy, and sign HB 2389 into law.

Sincerely,
Your Name
Street Address
City, AZ zip-code
telephone number

You can go to the Governor's website, http://azgovernor.gov/Contact.asp, where you will find a fill-in-the-blanks form to register your opinion. For "subject", scroll down and select "Legislation." For "topic", fill in "HB 2389."

You can add your own polite message urging her to sign HB 2389 in the "message/comment" area, or you can use the sample message above.

Stay tuned! Information on this and other bills can be found at the AzCDL website: http://www.azcdl.org/html/legislation.html

These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization. Join today!

AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom
http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html

Copyright © 2008 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights reserved.

Michael Bane Down Range Radio Special Heller Edition

Michael Bane just released a special edition of Down Range Radio with interviews featuring multiple experts discussing yesterdays DC vs Heller Supreme Court Decision.

Wayne LaPierre Discussing Heller Case

Wayne LaPierre discussed the DC vs Heller decision on Fox News yesterday:



H/T to Down Range TV.

Anti Handgun Verdon Brown

You can't make this stuff up. Check out Verdon Brown's response to this post about the proposed handgun ban in Canada. The Cliff Notes version is he explained what he thinks handguns are for & that he thinks handgun owners should "find a new hobby" - he proposes stamp collecting. He says he is not anti gun because he likes rifles & shotguns. He thinks Canada is better than all the other Countries that have tried & failed miserably to curb violent crime by making it illegal to own handguns, because Canada can "learn from mistakes" to make their proposed handgun ban work when all of the other Countries that have tried it so far have failed.

Mr Brown, I have just a few questions. Please tell me which mistakes Canada will learn from, other than the fact that gun bans always backfire. I'm sure Washington DC, the UK, & Australia, among other cities & countries would love to hear your ideas. Additionally, please explain to me how making it even more illegal for criminals to use guns they are already not allowed to own, while performing illegal violent acts they are already not allowed to perform, will somehow make the now disarmed victims more safe from the now emboldened (and armed) criminals than they were before they were disarmed by their very own government?

Even if a criminal happens to use a knife or a baseball bat instead of a handgun, how exactly would that help his or her disarmed victim? Does it hurt less to be killed by a baseball bat clubbing or a knife stabbing than a gunshot wound? I can't really say, but I do know that either way I'd prefer to have my handgun with me to give me my best chance while I fight for the lives of my family & myself.

Just to save us all some time, don't bother to tell me that we don't need handguns because we have rifles & shotguns. How many Police officers have given up their handguns so they can carry their rifles instead? I don't know about you, but I prefer to carry my handgun everywhere I go, if nothing else, just to have a portable firearm that I could use to fight my way to my rifle that probably would not be with me in a sudden emergency situation.

Why? Because a rifle won't fit in my waistband holster, and even if it could, a rifle would get very heavy lugging it everywhere I go. Handguns, Rifles, & Shotguns all have their independent advantages & proper purposes, otherwise we wouldn't have so many of all the various types. If handguns are so useless, why do the Police like them so much? Even in your very own petition you mention an exception that Police would still be "allowed" to have handguns.

I'm listening Verdon Brown, but I'm not holding my breath.

Update 1: Verdon Brown has responded. My counter response.

DC v Heller: Supreme Court Confirms 2nd Amendment Protects an INDIVIDUAL Right

In the DC v Heller case by a margin of 5 to 4 the Supreme Court ruled today that yes, the Second Amendment does in fact protect the individual right to bear arms. Full Decision available here as a pdf. From page 67 of the PDF, labeled as page 64 on the document itself is the decision:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

H/T to Down Range TV.

Violence Policy Center Lies Exposed

Howard Nemrove exposes VPC (Violence Policy Center) Lies. Howard Nemerov will be on NRA News tonight.

H/T to Sebastian.

CCW Facts vs Fiction

Nice article discussing CCW fact vs fiction.

I'm a Bitter Gun Owner & I Vote!

I'm definitely going to get one of these for my front yard:

New National CCW Reciprocity Bill

A new twist on the National CCW Reciprocity Bill. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) worked closely with GOA to make the bill iron clad to prevent it from creating any national CCW standards. Check it out, and if you like it, contact your Senators to ask them to co-sponsor Senator David Vitter's CCW Reciprocity bill.

MI: CCW Permit Holder Stops Bank Robber

Mr. Fawzi, a CCW permit holder, foiled the attempts of a bank robber who was attempting to rob a bank in Canton Michigan. Due to these types of outcomes, most criminals still agree that law abiding citizens should not be allowed to have weapons, much less carry them wherever they go. These types of results have the potential to put a bit of a damper on their attempts to gain illicit income which is very frustrating to the typical criminal. I imagine many criminals would like to vote for Obama since Obama would like to not only make it illegal for law abiding citizens to carry handguns, but would like to ban them completely as well so that only the Police & the criminals would be armed. Lucky for us Felons don't actually have voting rights.

California: A Perfect Example of May Issue Problems

Although the majority of our States have gotten rid of the discriminatory "May Issue" CCW permit practices by replacing them with "Shall Issue" CCW statutes, there are still a number of holdouts such as California as just one example. "May Issue" is the practice where a single individual (Usually a City Police Chief or a County Sheriff) is given absolute power to "choose" at his or her discretion who may or may not be granted a CCW permit upon request. "Shall Issue" is the practice of having a black & white list of requirements which must be met, and if they are all met, the requester SHALL be issued a CCW permit, regardless of what the Sheriff or Chief thinks about it. There is a long list of reasons why the unfair & fuzzy "May Issue" practice needs to be replaced by black & white "Shall Issue" statutes in the remaining holdout States, the following are just a few of them.

In "May Issue" States the Sheriff or Chief of Police can arbitrarily choose who receives a permit:

Many were issued to traditional holders . . . But others included wealthy white-collar businessmen, doctors, dentists and financial contributors to Carona's political campaigns.

In "May Issue" States people usually have to try to "prove" that they have reason to "need" to defend themselves.

Newly appointed Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens said Tuesday that she intends to review all the concealed-weapons permits that her indicted predecessor issued and revoke those of gun owners who can't prove a legal need to carry the weapons . . . if there's no need, she'll revoke the permits. "That's probably not going to be popular with a lot of people," she said.

I don't know about you, but I have not yet met anyone who can tell me what day I would need to have my gun with me for my own self defense. That is why I simply carry every day. Even if I did meet someone who could tell me what day I would "need" to bring my gun with me, I wouldn't actually need to go anywhere with my gun in that case because I'd just stay home that day.

Additionally, "May Issue" was first set up as a way to allow racist discrimination to try to keep guns out of the hands of certain races. A racist Sheriff was able to for example, arbitrarily decide that any white person will be granted a CCW permit, while any black person will be automatically denied. There is no requirement in the "May Issue" statutes for the appointed supreme all powerful dictator to state a reason for the denial. A simple "Denied" stamp is all the denied applicant of a "May Issue" permit ever sees (with no refund of application fee, often to the tune of hundreds of dollars, set high to make it harder for the poor to even apply).

I urge anyone living in a discriminatory "May Issue" State to talk to your State legislators & DEMAND that this discriminatory practice be replaced with a fair & balanced black & white "Shall Issue" CCW statute. Or if they won't listen, perhaps a voter approved initiative would be in order. You either meet the State CCW requirements (such as minimum age of 18 or 21, pass FBI & State criminal background checks, pass required shooting skills & written tests, etc) or you don't. That should be the end of the story, rather than adding "Sheriff did not receive generous political contributions" or "applicant is not white" or whatever non-stated reasoning the Sheriff or Chief may also use to deny an otherwise valid application.

Even better, urge your legislators to go Alaska or Vermont style & stop denying citizens their natural & preexisting (even 2nd Amendment protected) right to bear arms for their own self defense without a State approved permit. Whether they bear them in the open or in a concealed fashion is irrelevant so long as they bear them in a law abiding way - as in not used to perpetrate a crime such as armed robbery. I have no problem with leaving armed robbery illegal as it already is - it makes no difference to me if the armed robber is armed with a baseball bat or a gun. Put them in jail & throw away the key. We have no use for armed robbers in our society - the sooner we learn that, the sooner we'll see a drop in violence.

21 Reasons NOT to vote Obama

As if we needed any more reasons NOT to vote for Obama (from NRA-ILA):

On the Second Amendment,

Don’t Believe Obama!

The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms.

But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.¹

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.²

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.³

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.²

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.⁴

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.⁵

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.⁶

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.⁷

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”⁸

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.⁹

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.¹⁰

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.¹¹

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.¹²

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.¹³

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.²

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.¹⁴

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.⁹

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.⁹

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.⁹

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.⁹

1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)

2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 20087. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)

4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)

5. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.

6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php)

7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)

8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7. (http://www.joycefdn.org/pdf/98_AnnualReport.pdf)

9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)

10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.

11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.

12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)

13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)

14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)

Common Sense In Toronto Canada?

Unbelievably, there is at least one public official in Toronto Canada with Common Sense, a trait not so common with Toronto Mayor David Miller and many on the Toronto City Council. Toronto Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day made the following statement:

A handgun ban isn't the answer to Toronto's gun violence, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day insists.

"Studies in a variety of jurisdictions around the world show that if you want to see gun crime reduced you've got to go after the criminals," Day said during a press conference at Polson Pier yesterday.

He said a Canada-wide handgun ban would divert limited police resources to "going after innocent firearm owners."

I couldn't agree more. The best way to reduce violent crime is to lock up violent criminals, not add new laws banning guns. Making it illegal to commit violent crime with an illegal gun is about as idiotic as it gets. If the existing laws that say it is illegal to commit violent crime are not enough, creating a new law to say it is even more illegal to commit violent crime with an illegal weapon certainly won't help any.

I don't know about you, but it doesn't matter to me if a violent criminal shoots his or her victim or bashes his or head in with a baseball bat. The criminal is the problem we should go after, not the baseball bat, and not the gun.

Comparison of Heller & Miller Supreme Court Cases

Excellent write up by Robert Levy comparing the DC vs Heller & the US Government vs Miller Supreme Court cases.

AZ: AZCDL Legislative Update

AZCDL legislative update:
HB 2634, the AzCDL-requested bill that clarifies that a person with an expunged or set-aside felony conviction, or one who has had their rights restored, may obtain a concealed weapons permit, was signed by the Governor on Thursday, June 12, 2008.

HB 2634 changes ARS 13-3112 regarding the process for obtaining a concealed weapons permit. It provides that if an applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, they may apply for a permit if the conviction has been vacated or if their rights have been restored, provided that they are not currently a prohibited possessor under state or federal law.

DPS has interpreted the current statutory language in the strictest possible manner, in order to deny permits to people convicted of minor felony offenses decades ago, people who have since demonstrated no tendency towards criminal behavior. Many of these people are allowed to purchase and posses firearms under federal law (some are even federally licensed firearms dealers), and carry them openly under Arizona law, yet they cannot get a CCW permit due to DPS' strict interpretation of existing statutory law. HB 2634 allows these people the same protection under the law that every other citizen receives.

Stay tuned! Information on legislation can be found at the AzCDL website: http://www.azcdl.org/html/legislation.html

These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization. Join today!

AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom
http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html

Copyright © 2008 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights reserved.

Joshua McKim: Bear Attack Survivor

While in the forest picking mushrooms (in Wallowa Mountains above his hometown of Halfway), Joshua McKim was attacked by a Black Bear. Luckily he had his .45 with him (I substituted magazine for clip between () in the quotation below):

. . .the bear started moving.

Right at McKim.

McKim yelled.

"He kind of hesitated for a second," McKim said.

"Then he came on. Faster."

McKim fired the first of the eight bullets in the .45's (magazine).

"The first shot hit him in the shoulder."

The bear tumbled, rolling for about 10 feet until it came to a flat place.

. . . The bear righted itself and kept moving, not directly at McKim but in his direction.

The bear was closer now, 15 yards or so.

McKim pulled the trigger until the (magazine) was empty.

"I knew I was hitting him; I didn't know where," he said. "I wasn't about to let him get any closer."

The bear careened into a patch of brush and McKim couldn't see the animal.

"I wasn't about to go into the brush with a wounded bear in there," he said. "I couldn't see much."

Besides, he was out of bullets.

McKim walked half a mile or so to where half a dozen of his relatives and friends were looking for morels.

His dad, Ivan McKim, found the bear, dead, beneath a tree . . .

AZ: AZCDL Legislative Update

An Arizona Citizens Defense League legislative update:

SB 1070, the AzCDL-requested bill that makes it easier for lawful gun owners who have satisfactorily completed training to obtain a permit, or renew an expired one, was signed by the Governor on Tuesday, June 10, 2008.

SB 1070 makes changes to ARS 13-3112 regarding the process for obtaining a concealed weapons permit. It provides that if an applicant has adequate documentation that they satisfactorily completed the required firearms safety training, they have met the training requirement for a permit. Current law (ARS 13-3112.E.6) does not place any time limit on when a person must complete training. However, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) has established arbitrary dates for training validation. In 2007, DPS stated that training must occur within 12 months of an application. Prior to 2007, DPS set this period to be only 6 months. Once a person has obtained a permit, the initial training is good as long as a permit holder submits timely renewals. The language in SB 1070 recognizes that the training has no expiration date, and aligns the initial permit requirements with the permit renewal requirements.

When SB 1070 becomes law later this year, and you are one of the many gun owners who let their CCW permits expire because of the onerous pre-2006 renewal requirements (eliminated thanks to AzCDL requested bills), you will be able to renew your expired permit without having to start over, as long as you still have your expired permit or can show proof that you completed training within the last 5 years. The same law applies to those who took their CCW training within the last 5 years but never followed through to obtain a permit.

SB 1070 also codifies a DPS Administrative Rule that National Rifle Association (NRA) certified instructors meet the eligibility requirements for DPS certification. It allows that training can be conducted by NRA certified pistol and personal protection instructors, as well as DPS certified instructors.

Stay tuned! Information on these and other bills can be found at the AzCDL website: http://www.azcdl.org/html/legislation.html

These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization. Join today!

AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom
http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html

Copyright © 2008 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights reserved.

Seattle Mayor: Executive Order to Ban Guns

In response to a shooting, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels recently signed an executive order to ban guns at all city owned property. I guess he thinks that if the city places a sign on the wall banning guns, then criminals who plan to illegally shoot other people will not shoot them while on city property. Perhaps they will instead wait for them to leave the city property or perhaps they will use a knife instead.

I guess we just needed to make it illegal to possess a gun while illegally shooting people. That new executive order will save so many lives. Well not the lives of the now disarmed law abiding citizens, but just think of all the criminals who will now be able to work their evils in relative safety knowing their victims have all been disarmed by the Mayor?

New Reasons to Boycott Toronto Canada

I've previously mentioned the anti-gun Mayor David Miller of Toronto, Canada. I've also mentioned TorontoTheBad.com which is a website put up by Canadian Gun Owners asking anyone disgusted by Mayor Miller's tactics to boycott Toronto Canada & send them an e-mail letting them know WHY you will NOT be spending any of your tourist dollars in their anti-gun owner city.

After I sent an e-mail letting the Mayor & the Toronto City Council know that I will NOT be spending any money in their city as a result of their anti-gun owner rhetoric, I found out so much more by the responses I received! According to Toronto City Council Councilor Joe Mihevc & his executive assistant Sean Hill, they & other Canadians "overwhelmingly" endorse Obama (see below). The Councilor & his assistant also hold a considerable amount of contempt towards American Gun owners & Arizona Gun Owners in particular. Check out the below communications thread I had with them. My first e-mail was sent to the Mayor & all of the members of the Toronto City Council (# used to remove some identifying information):

To: mayor_miller@toronto.ca, councillor_pantalone@toronto.ca, councillor_carroll@toronto.ca, councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca, councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca , councillor_kelly@toronto.ca, councillor_lindsay_luby@toronto.ca, councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca, councillor_mcconnell@toronto.ca, councillor_mihevc@toronto.ca, councillor_moscoe@toronto.ca, councillor_rae@toronto.ca, toronto@torcvb.com, accesstoronto@toronto.ca, ceo@bot.com, chair@bot.com, hlipp@bot.com, ccosta@bot.com, gstone@bot.com, admin@showmetoronto.com
Date: Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Subject: I'm a gun toting yank who won't be spending money in Toronto!

Mayor Miller,

I am one of the millions of people that responsibly own firearms, who Adam Vaughan called a "Gun Toting Yank". I clearly understand that law abiding firearms owners are not welcome in the City of Toronto. As a result I have canceled my planned visit to Toronto with my family ## #. Instead I will take my money elsewhere. You can bet you won't be seeing myself, a so-called "Gun Toting Yank" or any of my friends or family in your gun hating city.

Sincerely,
Dustin #####, Proud Gun Toting Yank!
7646 # ###### ##
Peoria, AZ #####

This was the first response I received from Councilor Joe Mihevc & his executive assistant Sean Hill via his councillor_mihevc@toronto.ca e-mail address:

From: Councillor Mihevc councillor_mihevc@toronto.ca
Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: I'm a gun toting yank who won't be spending money in Toronto!

Mr. #####,

If the sole reason for not coming to Toronto from Arizona (and it is debatable that you were coming at all given the weak US dollar and high fuel and airfare costs) is that you cannot bring a concealed weapon to our City, then I think we as a City will have to live with that kind of consequence to a law that will reduce gun crimes in our City.

Sean Hill

Executive Assistant to Councillor Joe Mihevc

I don't know why he mentioned concealed weapons since I had never mentioned them. As I stated in my e-mail the boycott is because of the slander against law abiding gun owners. Here was my response to Councilor Joe Mihevc & his executive Assistant Sean Hill:

To: Councillor Mihevc councillor_mihevc@toronto.ca
Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: I'm a gun toting yank who won't be spending money in Toronto!

Actually no, I am not yet impacted enough by the weak dollar to avoid vacations because I make what Obama would consider to be a a disgusting amount of annual income which if elected he would love to tax much more. If that happens then yes, I would probably vacation much less. Instead of 4 or 5 vacations every year I would probably only vacation once or twice.

Additionally, no, that was not the only reason I will no longer be heading to Toronto. It was also the complete disrespect for gun owners by the Mayor & Adam Vaughan. If you think not allowing law abiding gun owners to to have guns will somehow keep criminals from obtaining or keeping them then you have failed to learn from the mistakes of other cities & countries that have banned guns & only found that violent crime actually increased. When you disarm law abiding citizens, only the Government, the Police & the Criminals will have guns. Not exactly an ideal situation for the now defenseless law abiding citizens left at the mercy of the Criminal element you have just given the great advantage to. When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away. When defenseless families are Raped, Plundered, & Murdered as a DIRECT result of being disarmed by senseless laws, it will bring serious questions about any of the IMAGINED benefits of such a useless ban.

This was the response from Councilor Joe Mihevc & his executive Assistant Sean Hill:

From: Councillor Mihevc councillor_mihevc@toronto.ca
Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: I'm a gun toting yank who won't be spending money in Toronto!

Well, Mr. #####, reasoning like that which you have articulated below (including your opinion on Mr. Obama - a candidate for a Party that Canadians overwhelmingly support), is why you are an American living in Arizona and not a Canadian.
Sean Hill
Executive Assistant to Councillor Mihevc

My response:

To: Councillor Mihevc councillor_mihevc@toronto.ca
Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: I'm a gun toting yank who won't be spending money in Toronto!

No actually I'm an American because I was lucky enough to be born here. And your endorsement for Obama gives me that much more reason to fight against his election. Thanks for the heads up.

No further responses as of yet. I will update this post if I do receive anything further.