Miami Herald spreading lies & misinformation

The Lamestream Media is at it again - The Miami Herald is spreading lies & misinformation.

The article is so full of misinformation that I don't know where to begin. What I really want to know is how people "made a few bucks" by spending around $600 to $1,000.00 plus sales tax to buy legal semi-automatic AK-47's at gun stores & then turning around to sell them on the black market for $100 or $200? Sounds like such criminals would be out of business very quickly.

''Someone will go in and buy a number of these weapons, legally, and then they'll turn around and sell them out of the trunk of their car, illegally,'' said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. ``It's a fast and easy way to make a few bucks.'' . . .

According to Miami's police chief . . .

''They're everywhere,'' Timoney said. ``At $100 or $200, everyone can afford one of these killing machines.''

Petition to Save the Second Amendment

Everyone should sign this Save the Second Amendment petition. This is in response to the Solicitor General's filing.

US Government supports DC Gun Ban?!

My jaw hit the floor when I read the twisted argument made by the US Solicitor General in support of reversing the DC Court decision to hold the DC handgun ban as unconstitutional.

Quick read: Gov't says, yes, it's an individual right. BUT we join with DC in asking Court to reverse the DC Circuit, because it applied strict scrutiny to the DC law. It should only have applied an intermediate standard. That is, the legal position of the US is that DC CIrcuit was wrong, a complete ban on handguns is NOT per se unconstitutional, it all depends on how good a reason DC can prove for it.

I guess I should not be surprised since Bush has already said he would not veto a renewal to the ban on semi-automatic rifles that have removable magazines & two or more "evil features" such as a barrel shroud (shield to protect shooter from burning his or her hand on rifle barrel) or a pistol grip (helps shooter have good control of the gun) if such a bill were to be approved by congress. Bush is WAY too liberal for my taste - a so-called "moderate" as the Liberal press likes to call him which to me means Liberal who is a Republican in name only. Our country needs a true conservative who is in FULL support of individual liberty & the 2nd Amendment to be elected in our next election. Anything less is not acceptable.

H/T to Sebastian & Of Arms & the Law.

Update:
Also see related commentary from Front Sight, Press, The NRA, Say Uncle, Alphecca, The Liberty Sphere, The Liberty Zone, Red's Trading Post, John R Lott, & David Kopel.

Update #2: Much stronger reaction from the NRA.

Update #3: Reaction from the Second Amendment Foundation.

Dial 911 and Die, or Defend Yourself

Audio from a 911 call was released yesterday of a woman in Hammond, Indiana, who had dialed 911 last November 12, 2007 to report that alleged stalker Ryan Lee Bergner was in the process of breaking into her house. She then locked herself in her upstairs bedroom with her gun, and waited for either the Police to arrive or for the stalker to break into her bedroom. Which do you think came first? You guessed it, he broke into her bedroom before Police could arrive. Lucky for her she had her gun & was able to stop his attack with 3 shots. Ryan Lee Bergner did not survive his gunshot wounds. Police have ruled the shooting to be Self Defense & no charges will be filed.

See news report here & here.

Images used in video are from A Human Right.

Hat tip to The Real Gun Guys & Oleg Volk for finding this.

Catch the Fox News Jan 10th GOP debate

This is 1 of 10. To see remaining 9 use the "more from this user" option at youtube.

SAF, NRA, & others win lawsuit against San Francisco & its Gun Ban

Good news: San Francisco gun ban struck down for violating California State Law. Below is the SAF Press Release:

NEWS RELEASE
Second Amendment Foundation
12500 NE Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 454-7012 • FAX (425) 451-3959 • www.saf.org
CA APPEALS COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF SAF LAWSUIT
For Immediate Release: 1/9/2008

In a unanimous decision today, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the City of San Francisco’s handgun ban is illegal under state law, upholding a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and several other groups.

“This is a great day for gun owners and civil rights in California,” said SAF Founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is the second time we successfully fought a gun ban in San Francisco, and what this demonstrates is that the city’s leadership is as horribly out of touch with the law as it seems to be out of touch with reality.”

SAF was joined in the lawsuit by the National Rifle Association, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, California Association of Firearms Retailers and several private citizens.

In its ruling, the court held that Proposition H, approved by voters in November 2005, is invalid as preempted by state law. Gottlieb said this was essentially the same case that SAF battled on its own 23 years ago when the city, under then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, adopted a gun ban.

“We urged the city well in advance to drop Proposition H from the 2005 ballot, and warned them that if they pushed the measure and it passed, we would meet them in court,” Gottlieb recalled. “We kept our word, along with our colleagues at the NRA, LEAA and our friends in the CAFR.

“This has been a horrible waste of the court’s time, the city’s legal resources and the taxpayers’ money,” he added. “The only reason this case went forward after the ban was struck down by the trial court is that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors wanted to mandate their extremist anti-gun rights philosophy as public law.

“Every judge in every court that this and the earlier case went before has sided with us,” Gottlieb stated. “This is a battle that had to be fought, and this is a ruling that we expected from Day One of our lawsuit. This wasn’t just a fight over gun rights. It was really about defeating social prejudice against gun owners; a type of bigotry made even more insidious by the fact that it was fostered and defended by a city administration whose attitude toward gun owners is anathema to American values.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Below is the NRA Press Release:

San Francisco Gun Ban Ruled Null and Void

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

NRA Wins Big in California State Court of Appeals

Fairfax, VA – The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

“Today’s decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco,” declared Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist.

In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation’s most restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City’s mayor and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own homes.

“We promised our California NRA members in 2005 that we would fight any gun ban instituted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and we haven’t given up that fight,” continued Cox. “Today we see our second win for the Second Amendment against the San Francisco gun ban. We beat them once in court and the City’s attorney appealed based on his personal disagreement with the court’s first decision to overturn the ban. Now we’ve beaten them again. The California State Court of Appeals has upheld the state preemption law.”

Today’s decision came in the form of a 3-0 opinion in favor of the lower court ruling overturning the gun ban.

“This decision is a thoughtful and well-reasoned legal opinion,” concluded Cox. “I'd like to thank our approximately 4 million members, including the hundreds of thousands of members in California, for their continued commitment to protecting our cherished freedoms.”

-nra-

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

You can also read the court order.

Is the California Lead Ban coming to Arizona?

On Friday Jan 18th the Arizona Game & Fish Commission will be discussing issues related to gun owners & hunters in a meeting open to the public located at the Arizona Game and Fish Department at 5000 W Carefree Hwy starting at 8 AM. Item # 10 on the announced agenda is of particular concern to me because it is to discuss "issues associated with lead from spent ammunition":

10. Presenter: Ron Sieg, Flagstaff Regional Supervisor. Presentation and discussion regarding issues associated with lead from spent ammunition, current Department programs and ideas regarding any future program . The Commission will be provided with a presentation on issues associated with lead from spent ammunition, updated on current Department sport harvest programs and offered some ideas regarding any future program. The Commission may vote to provide direction to the Department on this issue .

The NRA-ILA has issued an alert asking all gun owners to attend the meeting to present our viewpoint.

Hat tip to Call Me Ahab.

Update - good news!

CWI - Carrying While Intoxicated

SayUncle has it right. There are too many States that ban carrying weapons while in Bars or even worse - while in restaurants that in addition to food & soda also happen to serve Alcohol. Arizona is one of those States.

It is a violation of the 2nd Amendment for a State government to tell me that I can't bear arms just because I happen to be in a location open to the public that happens to serve Alcohol. Not only that, but when I'm in a location that serves Alcohol I'm probably at greatest risk of being attacked by some crazy drunk guy. Making such locations a Gun Free Zone does not keep bad guys from bringing guns there, all it does is create yet another Defenseless Victim Zone.

I would propose that it would be far more acceptable & logical for States to ban the carrying of a weapon while intoxicated in public. They could call the infraction a CWI - Carrying While Intoxicated. The penalty could be somewhere between a simple fine & the current penalty system for a DWI. That way folks like myself can still carry & be prepared to protect ourselves & our families while we are in a public restaurant or other location that happens to serve Alcohol.

Of course an even better solution would be to simply say that it is illegal to do something illegal while carrying intoxicated. For example, it should be illegal to commit aggravated assault with a deadly weapon while intoxicated, but wait, that is already illegal. ;)

The Arizona Legislature passed SB 1363 in 2005 that would have allowed anyone to carry in restaurants or any other locations that serve Alcohol as long as the person carrying does not consume alcohol. It also had a provision to recognize private property rights & allowed businesses to ban weapons while inside their premises. However, our then and current liberal Democrat Governor, Janet Napolitano, vetoed the legislation.

Update 1: Sayuncle has additional related info here.

Update 2: New 2008 Arizona Legislation introduced.

Update 3: New 2009 Arizona Legislation introduced.

All American Blogger & Concealed

I just listened to the 1/7/08 "Interview with Guy Midkiff of Concealed" episode of the "A Field Guide to American Politics" podcast by Duane Lester of All American Blogger. They had a great 2nd Amendment discussion, I highly recommend checking it out. If you have iTunes you can search for "A Field Guide to American Politics" to subscribe to his podcast. Or you can also listen to this specific episode online here.

My Car and its Contents are MY Private Property

A debate is going about whether or not a business owner who has a parking lot open to the public can tell his or her employees what is and what is not allowed to be within their cars while parked there. I personally think the answer is simple & straight forward. If a business has a parking lot that is not locked up & protected by security guards than the parking lot is essentially open to the public. If the public can park their privately owned vehicles with their privately owned contents than why can't the employees?

Trying to tell employees that they are not allowed to have a lawfully stored gun in their privately owned vehicle which is an extension of their own home is a violation of the private property rights of that employee.

Below is a related article by the NRA-ILA that sums it up quite nicely:

Parking Lot Gun Laws and the Right to Transport Firearms


Should people who lawfully possess firearms be able to leave them locked in their motor vehicles, on business property? Common sense would say, "yes." All 50 states allow the transportation of firearms in motor vehicles for all lawful purposes and 48 states allow the carrying of firearms in vehicles for personal protection, in some manner.¹ More than one of every four of America`s 65-80 million gun owners carries a firearm in his or her vehicle for protection.²

The U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of 46 states protect the right to arms and/or self-defense.³ And since 1986, federal law has protected the right to transport firearms in vehicles interstate.⁴

However, over the last few years disagreements over the right of people to leave firearms locked in their vehicles on business property have arisen. As a result, five state legislatures have passed, and during their current legislative sessions additional states are considering passing, laws to protect that right.⁵

The issue began in 2002 in Oklahoma, when the Weyerhaeuser corporation fired employees for having guns in personal vehicles on company property. The Oklahoma Legislature responded, unanimously in the House and by a vote of 92-4 in the Senate, by prohibiting "any policy or rule" prohibiting law-abiding people "from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle."

Arguments raised against the right of people, particularly employees, to leave firearms in locked vehicles on business property are unconvincing:

* A business owner`s private property rights are not affected by a law preventing the micro-management of the lawful contents of a person`s privately-owned automobile. Moreover, an employer`s private property interests do not trump a person`s right to have a firearm available for self-defense, if needed, during the daily commute to and from work. As with all civil rights, employers and owners of commercial property may not act with disregard to the rights of citizens. Reasonable accommodation is the foundation of the protection of all civil rights.
* A commercial landowner is subject to numerous limits, imposed by the federal, state and local governments, on what may and may not occur on its property.
* Employees have a legitimate private property interest where their automobiles and their contents are concerned. In our legal system, property rights extend to property other than land.
* Most gun-related violent crimes in workplaces are committed by non-employees. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 84% of all workplace murders are committed by strangers; 7% are committed by current or former employees.⁶ Naturally, strangers and former employees are not bound by any company policy pertaining to employees.
* Anyone determined to commit a violent crime will not be prevented from doing so by a mere company policy against having guns in cars. This should go without saying, since criminals are already willing to break laws against murder, rape, robbery and assault.
* Laws protecting the right to leave firearms in locked motor vehicles do not authorize a person to have a firearm outside his or her vehicle.
* Laws protecting the right to leave firearms in locked motor vehicles on business property specifically protect the property owner from liability for any related injuries or damages. Also, if a business prohibits people from possessing the means to defend themselves in their vehicles, it is potentially liable for injuries and damages incurred for failure to provide adequate security.
* The problem of workplace crimes has been exaggerated. The nation`s violent crime rate has declined every year since 1991 and is now at a 30-year low, the murder rate is at a 39-year low, and workplace violent crime has decreased more than violent crime generally. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health says, "the circumstances of workplace homicides differ substantially from those portrayed by the media and from homicides in the general population."⁷

Notes:

1. Only Illinois and Wisconsin do not have such laws.

2. USA Today/CNN/Gallup National Poll, Dec. 17-19, 1993.

3. The constitutions of the United States and all states except California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York protect the right to possess firearms for protection, recreation, sports, hunting, and other lawful purposes. Iowa and New Jersey`s constitutions protect the right to self-defense in general terms.

4. 18 U.S.C. sec. 926A.

5. In 1998, Kentucky`s Attorney General determined that state law prohibits employers from prohibiting people from having firearms in their vehicles. Minnesota`s Right-to-Carry law (2003) prohibits employers from prohibiting carry permit holders from having firearms in their vehicles. Laws protecting the right of any lawful possessor of a firearm to have a firearm in a personally-owned vehicle were passed in Oklahoma and Alaska in 2005, and Mississippi in 2006.

6. "Violence in the Workplace, 1993-1999," Dec. 2001 (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vw99.pdf). The study also noted, the highest percentage of work-related murders occur between 8p.m.-12 a.m., when most businesses are closed.

7. "Violence in the Workplace," July 1996 (www.cdc.gov/niosh/violhomi.html).

Posted: 2/15/2006 12:00:00 AM

Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Great Editorial on Gun Free Zones by John Longenecker

A great article on gun free zones by John Longenecker was posted today on the Buckeye Firearms Association Website:

. . . Public places need to understand that individuals bent on murder will not listen to their gun ban. They never do and they never will. Murderers do notice where a target-rich environment is unarmed and unable to stop them in the few moments they need to kill. The few short moments they need is a lot less than six minutes . . .

You can't fight crime after-the-fact: you can chase it and maybe you can catch it, but only after it's come and gone . . .

Concealed carry anywhere anyone has a right to be must be made part of any serious-minded approach to fighting violent crime . . .

The full article is definitely worth reading.

The Truth on the expired Clinton Gun Ban (Assault Weapon Ban)

Glenn Beck on Gun Rights

Nail Gun Regulations?

Richard Williams was sentenced yesterday to life in prison without parole for murdering his wife with a nail gun. My heart goes out to their children & extended family members for their tragic loss. Richard's attorney tried to blame the murder on depression. That often works but did not this time. I was surprised he didn't blame it on the excessive availability of unregulated nail guns. It is after all the nature of anti gun folks to blame anything & everything for causing violence other than the actual criminal who performed the violence.

I suddenly wondered how often nail gun violence takes place, so I did a google search for "nail gun death" and there were about 197,000 results. With all of that nail gun violence out there, why hasn't the Brady campaign asked for legislation regulating nail guns? They are after all supposed to be interested in stopping all forms of violence are they not?

They could campaign for new legislation requiring the ATF (BATFE) to issue FNLs (Federal Nailgun Licenses) to all Nail gun dealers. The BATFE would be renamed to the BATFEN (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, and Nail guns), and nail gun dealers would be required to run a background check on all purchasers of Nail guns. All Nail guns would be issued a unique serial number that investigators could use to locate the original nail gun purchaser. The ATF could then harass all Nail gun dealers for allowing customers to place a Y instead of a Yes on their forms or for abbreviating the county name. BATFE agents can't be expected to know what a Y means after all.

But no, the Brady folks won't be calling for any such thing. Why? Because they know such tactics would not work to reduce violence. In fact, reducing violence doesn't even appear to be what they are actually after. They simply hate guns, and want them to be outlawed altogether. Why else would they be in support of the DC handgun ban which not only did not reduce violence in DC, but actually increased it?

Disarming Pilots in 1987 Led to Tragedy

Great article by Tracy Price. Gun free zones & Gun free pilots prevented pilots from being able to defend themselves on September 11th:

. . . airline pilots flew armed in large numbers from the dawn of commercial aviation to 1987 with no record of incident. When the federal government disarmed pilots in 1987, many pilots predicted cockpit takeover attempts — including the late Captain Victor Saracini, who, in horrible irony, was the captain of United flight 175 on September 11, 2001 when his Boeing 767 was hijacked and crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. It was the disarming of pilots in 1987 that inevitably led to the September 11 cockpit takeovers . . .

Also see related info provided by the Airline Pilots Security Alliance: see read this & also this about their current efforts to arm pilots:

Years since Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act Passed: 3

% Flights protected by a team of armed pilots: Less than 1%

# Pilots avoiding the program due to mismanagement: 50,000

Aircraft defenseless against terror attack: est. 9 out of 10.

Cost to protect less than 5% of flights with air marshals: $688M per year

Cost to protect 98% of flights with standardized armed pilot program: $29M per year

Never Bring a Baseball Bat to a Gunfight

Yesterday morning (Tuesday Jan 1st 2008 in San Antonio TX), while two vehicles were stopped at an intersection a man got out of his car with a baseball bat to attack another man who was still in his car. Apparently the maniac assumed he was defenseless. It turned out that the man the baseball bat wielding maniac attacked was licensed to carry a concealed weapon. The CCW permit holder was able to use his weapon to stop the attack & lived to go home to his family. Unfortunately for the baseball bat wielding maniac, he did not survive the two gunshot wounds that were required to put a halt to his attack.

There will probably be a call to put a halt to baseball bat related violence. Next thing you know the Brady folks will probably call for new legislation to regulate baseball bats. The ATF would then create a new licensing division to hand out FBBL's - Federal Baseball Bat License's.

New converts to the shooting sports

I took my Sister-in-law & a couple of her boys to the local gun range yesterday to shoot my AR-15 while we're up in Washington for Christmas. None of them had ever shot one before, and in fact, my Sister-in-law had never shot anything before. We all had a lot of fun, and she even commented that she is thinking of saving up to get one herself sometime. Her boys can't wait.

Watch the videos from the NRA Celebration of American Values

I just realized I had not posted this link. For anyone interested, you can view the archived videos from the Sep 21-22nd 2007 NRA Celebration of American Values, which took place in Washington DC.

NICS improvement bill improved

Say Uncle, Sebastian, Of Arms and the Law, The NSSF, and the NRA have all covered quite nicely the NICS improvement bill which fixes a lot of problems in the existing NICS legislation. The VPC folks are now calling it a pro-gun Trojan Horse because it improves gun rights which is a direction the VPC does not want to go (The VPC would be more aptly named "Center for the Banning of all weapons"). What better endorsement could we ask for than the Violence Policy Center Folks saying it is bad?

. . . 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. That's why my organization, the Violence Policy Center, and other national gun control groups, have voiced their strong concerns about the version of the bill that was passed by Congress . . .