The Consumer Federation of America has announce its support for the "Assault Weapons Ban & Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003" according to Join Together, an anti-gun organization.

"Susan Peschin, CFA's Firearms Project Director, states, "It's no secret that the current assault weapons ban does not meet its stated objective. Reauthorization of the ban under the McCarthy-Conyers bill includes substantial improvements to prevent the gun industry from continuing to flood America's streets with these deadly weapons."

"CFA is a non-profit association of more than 285 groups, which, since 1968, has sought to advance the consumer interest through advocacy and education."

The CFA is comprised mainly of non-profit 'pro-consumer' organizations. They have a page on their website about their bias against firearms. They claim they are first & foremost an 'advocacy' group & work to influence the White House, Congress, various agencies & the Judiciary.


Menawhile House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says that there are not enough votes to keep the assault weapons ban from sunsetting.

"A group of mostly Democratic senators last week opened a drive to get the extension passed in the Senate, and called on Bush to help.
They said they were optimistic it would clear the Senate but that it would need active help to win in the House, where pro-gun sentiments are stronger and Delay has considerable control over the agenda.
'The votes in the House are not there to reauthorize it,' said DeLay, a Texas Republican and staunch foe of gun control."

While this may seem like good news I wouldn't get confortable just yet. Politics are unpredictable. Politicians even more so. Kim duToit is skeptical about the McCarthy-Conyers bill (the assault weapons ban & law enforcement protection act of 2003) having enough support to pass. While I agree that it may be unlikely, I do believe there is enough of a possibility of it passing to warrant concern. There are simply too many elected officials who are 'flexible' on the second amendment.

Yes, I know we have a Republican controlled Congress. Yes I know there are more anti-gun Democrats than there are anti-gun Republicans. But there are more anti-gun Republicans than there are pro-gun Democrats & Republicans combined. Look here for the House of Representatives. Look here for the Senate. Anything less than a "B" rating means they are not oppossed to voting for gun control if it suits them. According to my calculations there's 18 pro-gun Senators & 176 pro-gun Representatives. That's counting the B minus among the pro-gun. !8 out of 100 & 176 out of 434.
There are 64 anti-gun senators & 201 anti-gun Representatives. That's counting D, F & Not Rated. 64 out of 100 & 201 out of 434.
In the Senate it would merely take the F,D & Not Rated Senators to vote for the McCarthy-Conyers assault weapons bill for it to pass. In the House it would take 17 C rated Representatives in addition to the F, D & Not Rated Representatives for it to pass. The Senate would have enough votes to negate a presidential veto, but it'd take 261 or so from the House, which would mean 60 C rated voters in addition to the F,D & Not Rated.

As for Bush? It could go either way, but considering his past record on gun rights I doubt he would veto it if it came across his desk.

So if we go by GOA's rating system, which I find to be much more honest than the NRA's recomendations we find there is a very clear anti-gun majority in both houses of Congress. & if the elected officials vote according to their GOA rating, then it is possible that the McCarthy-Conyers Assault Weapons Ban would become a reality.

Now another possibility that Kim duToit brought up is that the McCarthy-Conyers bill could be a negotiating tool. They could use this as a starting point to negotiate a 'reasonable compromise'. For more on the definition of 'reasonable compromise', see the NRA. ( yes, that was a cheap shot, but a deserved one). Simplisticly this means they have nothing, but we have something, so unless we give them half they'll take it all. Childish? Yes. What's worse is we (gun-owners) usually fall for it, or at least our elected officials fall for it on our behalf.

I don't discount that it could pass or it could be used to gain support for a less restrictive measure. Either is feasible. Of course it'd be wondeful if Mr. duToit & Rep. DeLay were correct & it wouldn't have the votes to come out of the House, but I'm not that optimistic.

Think they just wanted to stop at 'assault weapons' as defined in the 94 ban? Think again.
Here's the text of the 'Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003'. Here's a summary of the proposed law.


What they have put together is the most sweeping gun control law to come down the pike in quite a while. It would not only continue the ban on assault weapons as defined by the 1994 ban, it would expand the definition to include virtually every semi-autmoatic rifle, shotgun, & quite a few pistols. Think your duck gun is safe? Not if it's a semi-auto that can take 6 shells. The limit is 5 & since it does not define the dimensions of the 'rounds' used by shotguns, you can go ahead & assume that they'll use the Aguila Mini-shell to test your capacity. The Aguila Mini-shell is 1 & 3/4 inches long, compared to the traditional 2 & 3/4 & 3 inch shotgun shells. Needless to say 6 Mini-shells could fit into the space of most shotgun magazines. They couldn't cycle the action of most semi-autmoatic shotguns but they would fit in the magazine & fire in the chamber. In any event hunting shotguns are not excluded from the ban.

My personal preference has never been geared towards the newer semi-automatic rifles. I think some of them are neat, but they're nothing I particularly cared to own as my sense of aesthetics & utility are better served by a design from the first part of the 20th century. I'm sure some of you may feel that way as well. So the 1994 assault weapons ban never affected me personally, except for the magazine provision & the fact that congress decided it has the authority to tell me what I can & cannot buy despite the Constitution. But even though I was infuriated by their interference with our Rights I simply didn't want any of the weapons affected by the ban.
But this one is different. They thoughtfully guaranteed that any body who might be able to rationalize that they didn't want one of the banned weapons anyway would have to be a bolt action or single shot only kind of guy. Like hunting with a semi-auto shotgun? It's probably banned. Like having a pistol caliber semi-auto carbine at the cabin? It's banned. Enjoy your grandfather's M-1 Carbine that he brought back from WW2? It's banned. But what got me the most, what hit closest to home is that those bastards are trying to ban the M-1 Garand!!!!!

Here's the relevant part:

" `(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'. "

Lemme point something out in case you missed it:

"...and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event" -Emphasis mine. Idiocy theirs.

Lemme sum it up for ya: M-1 Garands, M-1 Carbines, M-1A's, Ar-15's. Banned. Doesn't matter if you just made High-Master ( a prestigious rating in certain target matches) with one, it's banned according to this new proposal.

In addition it would ban the import of all magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds, ban the sale of parts for the prohibited weapons & establish severe penalties on the transfer of any weapons defined as assault weapons by this bill.


In other words, this is not the top of the slippery slope, it's half-way down it!



Here are the co-sponsors:

"IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 8, 2003
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. NADLER, Ms. LOFGREN, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. WATERS, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. WEINER, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. CASE, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. ACKERMAN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. HONDA, Mr. STARK, Ms. SOLIS, Ms. LEE, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. NORTON, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. RUSH, Ms. WATSON, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. OWENS, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. CUMMINGS, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. FARR, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. HOLT, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. HOEFFEL, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. FATTAH, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. BISHOP of New York, and Mr. LANGEVIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary "


Please call them or e-mail them & inform them that they will not only lose your vote but their opponent, even if it's a third party opponent, will gain an active & vocal supporter if they don't immediatley withdraw their names from this proposed law. & if your elected official hasn't signed, make him or her aware of the poltiical repercussions that will accompany any & all support for gun control in any form.

& please do not think this ban won't pass. I hope it won't but there is only a minority of pro-gun Representatives & Senators in Congress & frankly they don't have the votes to stop it without our making our feelings known.

Remember the words of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

& remember the reason the assault weapons ban of 1994 was so important in the first place:

"In 1996 Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who favors banning gun possession by civilians, conceded that the arguments advanced by supporters of the "assault weapon" ban were "laughable." The "only real justification" for the law, he said, "is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." (the preceeding was from Jacob Sullum's article Ban Aid.)

So take this seriously. Tell your Representative & your Senator that you've had enough of them deciding how you may exercise your Rights.

Here's the GOA link to help you find your elected officials.

Here's some additional contact info:

House Majority Leader, Republican Tom DeLay
242 CANNON HOUSE OFC BLDG.
WASHINGTON, DC 20505
Office: 202-225-5951
Fax: 202-225-5241

Senate Majority Leader, Republican Bill Frist
416 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
Office: (202) 224-3344
Fax: 202-228-1264

THE WHITE HOUSE
1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20500
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
Fax: 202 456-2461

Speaker of the House, Republican Dennis Hastert — (202) 225-2976

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
310 FIRST STREET, SE
WASHINGTON, DC 20003
Offices: 202-863-8500
Fax: 202-863-8820

In Indiana a teacher is suspended for bringing a gun to school.

"Indianapolis, May 9 - Students from Broad Ripple High School's yearbook staff spent their Friday morning outside, snapping photos around the school. At noon, they noticed a car trunk ajar. When they looked inside they noticed, in a pouch, sitting in the trunk, a 38-caliber handgun.
The car belonged to a substitute teacher. The students told the principal what they found and school police escorted Eric Harris off the property. "

Apparently armed adults who wish to defend themselves are not positive role-models for our kids. While I am sure that the kids who did such a good job of ratting out the teacher will be held up so others can follow their example.
The only way school shootings are going to stop, or at least be severely limited is if teachers, administrators & other adults are not prohibitied from having arms on school property. Gun Free School Zones mean 1 thing: everyone is defenseless. At Columbine High School in Colorado it took the police several hours before they entered the school. I believe it took about twice as long for the police to enter the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland last Friday after a man started shooting. In Virginia & Mississippi school shootings were stopped when teachers &/or students retrieved their weapons from their cars & stopped the shooter by force or threat of force. It would have been over much quicker & with even less casualties had they been allowed to have their weapons on them instead of in their cars.
But apparently in Indiana, as in most other places, the state thinks it's better to be an unarmed victim waiting to happen than to be an individual capable of defending yourself & others.

Updating an earlier post - The latest results (as of 7:00 a.m. M.D.T.) from the current Keep & Bear Arms.com poll:


Should firearm manufacturers pledge that if the ban on ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds is renewed, they will only market and sell limited-capacity feeding devices to all Government entities as well as civilians -- in effect making the government abide by its own laws?

Yes. 95.6% 2753 votes
No. 4.4% 127 votes
Total Votes: 2880

Larry Pratt of GOA thinks the White House has poked gun owners in the eye. He also cautions that it is not certain that we have enough votes to defeat an extension of the assault weapons ban.

"No one should assume for a second that there are a majority of pro-gun legislators in the Congress that will join to kill this bill. It may be that Democrats in Congress will call the President's bluff and attach the Feinstein reauthorization bill as an amendment to some "must pass" bill.
With all the "horse trading" that goes on behind closed doors, don't be surprised if some fence-sitters in the Senate trade their votes in favor of the ban to gain the support of certain Democrats for tax cuts."


Mr. Pratt may in fact be correct.It seems that the Republican Party of late doesn’t have a very good record when it comes to opposing gun control. The following is from an article at Strike The Root.com by Michael Powers:

"N.R.A. members staunchly supported Bush in the 2000 election, and they are justified in their incredulity regarding his vow to renew the ban. But his sudden about-face should come as no surprise. Recent anti-gun legislation confirms that Republicans are just as eager to deprive peaceful Americans of their ability to defend themselves as Democrats.
Consider the following legislation, all of which occurred within the last six years: ..."


& finally, David Codrea writes that the NRA is more interested in asking about a senator’s views on sports than it is in finding out if he truly supports the Right to arms. Chris Cox, the NRA-Institute for Legislative Action’s executive director recently interviewed Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee)

"But then I forget—a big part of NRA management’s new fundraising strategy is their emphasis on “NRA Sports”. And while Cox has displayed a passing knowledge of football, this “interview” demonstrates his true area of expertise.
Softball."

Sen. Frist received a “D” rating on gun issues from GOA. It would seem that a pro-gun organization would want to get some clarity on exactly where Sen. Frist stands, especailly on the assault weapons bill. Unfortunately the NRA is not a pro-gun organization.

Here is a search engine to find your Representative & Senator in the 108th Congress, courtesy of Gun Owners of America. Unless your Representative is Ron Paul (R-Texas) I urge you to write & demand they vote against any bills extending the assault weapons ban. Don't assume they will. & remind them that your vote will depend on theirs.

An Ohio man who stopped a violent felony is rewarded by being arrested, charged & having to come up with $25,000 bail.

"The neighborhood watch activist who critically injured an armed robber inside a Northside bar returned to jail Saturday after an appearance in Hamilton County Municipal Court.
Judge Karla Grady set Harold McKinney's bond at $25,000 even though his attorney, Mark Naegel, vouched that his client should be released because of his outstanding character.
McKinney, 54, of Northside, served in the Army and attended the University of Cincinnati and Western Hills High School, Naegel said."

It seems that in Ohio they would rather have had a bar robbed &/or shot up. This man did what all of us are supposed to do: he acted according to his ability to protect the life & property of himself & others. Because he was not on the government payroll they are trying to make an example out of him. In fact they are charging him with a more severe crime than the men who were trying to rob the place.

"McKinney, a member of Cincinnati's Citizens on Patrol Program (COPP), remained in the Hamilton County jail on Saturday, facing charges of felonious assault and carrying a weapon in a tavern.
Joseph Person, 18, was taken to University Hospital in critical condition. He faces two counts of aggravated robbery.
His alleged partner, DeMeico Hester, 18, was discovered at a nearby coin laundry, police said. He remained at the Hamilton County jail on charges of aggravated robbery."

If you are in the Cincinnati area contact McKinney’s attorney Mark Naegel as I’m sure any & all help would be appreciated.

The NY Times has an article on Bush's support of the assault weapons ban despite the NRA's objections.

"Mr. Bush's position 'cuts against the N.R.A.'s position,' said Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, 'and it will put the president — for one of the first times since he signed the campaign finance reform bill — at odds with his own political base.'
'He's built up enough positive political capital in other areas that it won't be fatal,' Mr. Franc added, but the issue could hurt Mr. Bush in Middle America, considered critical to his re-election chances in 2004."

Actually a lot of people see this is a very clever political move. Those people reason that the assault weapons ban will not have enough congressional support to be extended therefore Bush is supporting a measure that will attratc new boters while having relatively little risk of having to sign it into law. I disagree. Bush mentioned his support for the assault weapons ban during his campaign. In fact his father banned the import of 'assault weapons'. So I see that Bush could actually support the assault weapons ban regardless of the political considerations.

"This is a president who has been so good on the Second Amendment that it's just unbelievable to gun owners that he would really sign the ban," said Grover G. Norquist, a leading conservative and an N.R.A. board member who opposes the weapons ban. "I don't think it's sunk in for a lot of people yet."

Again I disagree. Bush has not been "so good on the Second Amendment". Since he's been in office his administration has stated that the Second Amendment is an individual Right but one subject to restrictions. I do not see "subject to restrictions" as part of the Second Amendment.
His administration has asked the Supreme Court to decline hearing two Second Amendment cases, one of which was the Emerson case. His administration has supported strict enforcement of federal gun control laws. His Department of Justice argues against people who challenge gun control laws. In fact the Department of Justice's attorneys successfully argued against Thomas Bean, a man who lost his Federal Firearms License because of a felony conviction in Mexico for possessing ammunition. Here is a copy of the decision in U.S. vs. Bean for any legal buffs out there.
(To summarize Mr. Bean was convicted of possessing ammunition, which is a felony in Mexico. Upon his return to the U.S. he found that the Mexican felony disqualified him from owning possessing & trading in firearms. he sought relief from the BATF, but the BATF cannot process any requests for relief because congress has withheld funding for that speicific function since the early 90's. He took his case to court & the lower court ruled that the inability of the BATF to act on his request constituted a denial & they felt they had jurisdiction to grant Mr. Bean relief, which they did. The Department of Justice appealed to the Supreme Court & had the lower court's ruling overturned, based on the argument that the BATF's inability to act did not constitute a denial & therefore it was not open to judicial review.)
Add to that Bush's support of a continuation of the assault weapons ban & I cannot conclude that he has been "so good on the Second Amendment".

Meanwhile Sen. Feinstein (D-california) is pushing for continuation & strengthening of the assault weapons ban.

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D) California: 'It still needs improvement. We can still build upon it, but it is critical that we get this reauthorization.'
The Bush administration has said it will support an extension of the ban but it remains uncertain if the White House wants to expand it to cover Feinstein's new proposal.
It includes blocking the import of clips that carry 10 or more bullets."

Democrats are asking for Bush's help in re-newing the assault weapons ban.

"Schumer and other backers of the assault weapons ban told a news conference they are seeking renew the 1994 law as written, recognizing that they can't expand it in the current political climate.
The sole change they seek is a ban on importing high-capacity ammunition clips that let an assailant shoot dozens of bullets in a matter of seconds. The 1994 law banned their U.S. manufacture, but not their import.

Action on measures to strengthen or expand gun control 'isn't in the cards right now,' said California Democrat Dianne Feinstein. She said she would rather preserve the status quo so she can build on it in the future than 'lose everything (and) go back many steps' by overreaching now."


Jacob Sullum, the senior editor at ReasonOnline has an interesting piece on the underlying reasons for the assault weapons ban.

"The VPC complains that "the gun industry moved quickly to make slight, cosmetic design changes in their 'post-ban' guns to evade the law." That was possible because the focus of the law—the essence of what makes a gun an "assault weapon"—is slight and cosmetic."

It is definitely worth a read.

I rarely post the writings of others in their entirety, but I feel the subject is interesting enough in this instance to justify it.

For some background I first became aware of the following letters on a Bulletin Board I frequent, Gunnyragg.com. It was also on Guns & Ammo's Forum. The letters are from Gary Gorski, the plantiff's attorney in the Silveira vs. Lockyer case.
Here is a link to the thread on Gunnyragg.com & here is the link to the thread on Guns&AmmoMag.com.
(The Guns & Ammo Forum is sponsored by Guns & Ammo magazine & hosted on Outdoors Best's server.)

These letters are reprinted with the permission of Gunnyragg & Gary Gorski respectively.

Here is the initial post at Gunnyragg.com:


En Banc Order from Ninth Circuit SILVEIRA V. LOCKYER

http://www.gunnyragg.com/dissent.pdf

Gary Gorski, Attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit to overturn California's Assault Rifle Ban, sent me this today. It is rather lengthy, but it is the dissenting opinions of the judges who voted for the entire panel to hear the case. Constitutional Law Buffs should find it fascinating reading.

As a matter of fact, it gave me a whole new outlook on MILLER -- SCOTUS, 1939. Where the attorneys screwed up in MILLER was not to present evidence that a sawn-off shotgun DID have militia applicability; one of the dissenting judges says as much. The salient point in all the dissenters' writing is that the RKBA is an INDIVIDUAL not a collective right.

This case is going to the Supreme Court and I would ask all of you to get behind Gorski. This is some real action; the kind I can get my teeth into. His e-mail signature gives all the contact information:

Gary W. Gorski

Attorney at Law http://www.gwgorski.com/
SEPS EXERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATER INFINITAS
("Often Tested, Always Faithful, Brothers Forever")
916.965.6800
916.965.6801 fax

The next is a letter sent to the NRA's attorney from Gary Gorski

Gary forwarded me a copy of his e-mail to C.D. Michel NRA Attorney. I am beginning to REALLY like this guy!

Below is the docket entry for Silveira, whereby you, C.D. Michel (the NRA’s attorney), claim that no briefing was ordered per your attached press release below. I just need to know – are your really that stupid, lazy, or just a plain liar trying to play attorney. Let me make a suggestion: stay the fuck out of my clients’ business, and my business. You have no connection with any Second Amendment litigation other than trying to interject yourself into the cases of others. It is now apparent why you have never raised a Second Amendment issue; because you are a walking cluster fuck as an attorney. Where has your so-called litigation strategy gotten you and your clients (i.e. the NRA) – money in your pocket, and that is it. So, go bury your head or ass, whichever you prefer, in the sand and let the real attorneys do what should have be done 20 years ago while you were too busy billing your clients for whatever it is that you do – I can’t figure it out; otherwise, I would not be working for free had you been acting like a true constitutional advocate. Maybe you should also explain in your press release how you opposed the Silveira Petition for Rehearing by raising a standing argument that went out 40, may be 50 years ago – really Chuck, you sound like a first year law student raising some hypothetical esoteric issue in Civ Pro whereby everybody stares at you with a dumbfounded look. I noticed how none of the Circuit judges addressed your stupid standing argument, and I am certain if it was valid, it would have been addressed. You simply look like a fool to the Court, and you are an embarrassment to your clients. By the way, since this is the type of statement I would make to the media, I thought I would just tell it to your face. If you ever want to discuss this in an open forum, I would be more than happy. By the way, I did blind copy this email to the media and those involved in Second Amendment issues. I just want you to know that I would never talk behind someone’s back about how I feel about them. I have no more respect for you than a pile of my dog’s shit – in fact, I have more respect for my dog’s shit because at least it does not smell as bad. But out little boy; the lesson is hopefully over. 12/19/02

Filed order ( Stephen R. REINHARDT, Frank J. Magill, Raymond C. FISHER, ): Defendants - Appellees shall file a response to Plaintiffs - Appellants' petition for rehearing en banc. Fifty (50) copies of said response shall be filed within twenty one (21) days of the filed date of this order. [01-15098] (ru) 1/9/03 Filed Appellees Gray Davis, Bill Lockyer's response to appellants' petition for enbanc rehearing, served on 1/9/03 (PANEL & ALL ACTIVE JUDGES) [01-15098] (ru)

For re release:

This is my PERSONAL opinion, not expressed on behalf of any client.

The Silveira case is still the absolutely wrong case for SCOTUS review.

After consultation with the leading Second Amendment scholars across the country, there is near universal agreement on this. The basic argument of the few in support of taking Silveira to the SCOTUS is that Silveira's lawyers are stubbornly going to do it anyway, so we might as well support them. But we can support the issue ONLY IF AND WHEN they get cert granted by SCOTUS. Until then, it is still a reckless move which plays into the hands of those who would give us a 2A right with no teeth.

FYI, the Nordyke v. Alameda case (challenging Alameda's gun show ban), which also directly raises the 2A issue, is still under consideration for en banc review in the Ninth Circuit. In fact, the court has ordered Alameda County to submit a brief in response to the Nordyke's en banc request. This type of response brief was never ordered in response to Silveira's en banc request, and indicates that the court actually has an interest in the case. CRPA and NRA will submit briefs if en banc review is granted. We would still need to changes a lot of minds, but the Silveira dissents may be influencing the other Ninth Circuit judges.

Remember, the recent Nordyke 3 judge panel decision attacked Reinhardt's Silveira opinion and was cited in the Silveira en banc order dissents - which I must say were precipitated at least to some extent by the Nordyke panel opinion (wherein the judges said there WAS a 2A right but their hands were tied by Hickman).

And let's recall that NRA and CRPA submitted an amicus brief on the Second Amendment in support of the Nordyke's to the 3 judge Ninth Circuit panel (so much for the fringe's "NRA does not want the issue heard at all" theory).

There are now also TWO cases in DC court which are better suited than Silveira for SCOTUS review.

To reiterate a somewhat oversimplified reason why Silveira is a BAD case - look at what Judge Pregerson said in the Silveira en banc order: He believes in the 2A - BUT THE AWCA STILL IS CONSTITUTIONAL. To further understand how a court could do this, look at the Bailey case on Connecticut's AW law - Connecticut had a RKBA provision in its state constitution. Didn't stop the Conn. Supreme court from finding the law constitutional.

A similar thing happened in Oregon. That state RKBA constitutional provision now just protects muskets.

It all hinges on the test applied, and where the court draws the line of protection. "Strict scrutiny" is almost certainly NOT going to be the test. If an AW law is the first case to address the issue, we are probably going to wind up with a "reasonableness" test - something subject to political and subjective application.

Establishing the parameters of that line of protection will mean YEARS of continued fighting in court and Congress even after 2A is confirmed as an individual right. It will be the "full employment act" for 2A lawyers (and unfortunately, uneducated wanna bees), and will require tremendous efforts by pro self defense groups. Those who argue that NRA, etc., doesn't want a 2A case in SCOTUS because they would lose their reason for being (which, by the way, has always been percentage wise more about shooting, safety programs, training, etc, than politics) are legally utterly clueless.

Silveira bites off more than the court (or the lawyers on the case) can chew. It will hurt us.

CRPA, and now additional "friends of the court" will almost certainly be filing an amicus brief in SCOTUS to ask them NOT to hear that Silveira case.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions


C. D. Michel
TRUTANICH-MICHEL, LLP
Attorneys At Law
Port of Los Angeles Office
407 North Harbor Blvd.
San Pedro, California 90731
Phone: (310) 548-3703
Fax: (310) 548-4813


Gary W. Gorski

Attorney at Law http://www.gwgorski.com/

SEPS EXERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATER INFINITAS
("Often Tested, Always Faithful, Brothers Forever")
916.965.6800
916.965.6801 fax


Finally here's a copy of a letter that Gary Gorski sent to Gunnyragg concerning the NRA's attorney & the Silveira vs. Lockyer case:

Another e-mail from Gorski regarding the NRA lawyer's Press Release. You think I am the only person that thinks the NRA sucks as a Second Amendment organization?
This attorney is serious in his effort to bring the case before SCOTUS. Why doesn't the NRA support it?

------------------Gorski's E-Mail ------------------

Michel is wrong, uninformed, completely inexperienced in S Ct litigation, and it shows.

Apparently Michel and his associates are unaware of the intricacies of S Ct practice. It takes a lifetime and you learn something new every day. San Pedro, CA, is a long way from Washington, DC, and that shows too.

NRA also has a poor track record on 2A issues. The list of 2A cases won by the NRA is very short. NRA politicians dictate their litigation, which is why they so often lose and are wrong.


What Michel misses entirely is that the S Ct very often takes cases in order to decide fundamental issues, irrespective of specifics, such as the AW issue. That is not an issue in Silveira until trial. Complex fact issues are for trials first and there has been none yet in Silveira.

Look at Gideon, Miranda, US v Lopez, Brown, Roe. The details of the specific laws and the specific parties are lost in history, but the fundamental principles are not.


The issues presented to the S Ct in Silveira are standing, individual rights, incorporation, and strict scrutiny. That is what the cert petition will raise, but of course Michel and his colleagues cannot be trusted with any detailed material because they have a Master to obey and an agenda to sabotage the cases in which NRA is not involved.

Michel's is a political NRA approach. They want to be in and control the loop the way they see it, even though they have no plan or ideas on how to maximize a S Ct outcome. Their DC copycat case is an example of how not to win a broad ruling, and only how to dump in the sandbox like kids do. It is litigation graffiti, spam, and a wormlike virus.


The recent Silveira decisions show six federal appellate judges adopting the view of the Silveira supporters on standing, individual rights, and incorporation. Only one took a pot shot at AW. That is six more than the NRA has persuaded lately.

The smart money is on the Supreme Court taking a similar approach to that of Judges Kozinski, Gould, and Kleinfeld, as well as the Emerson judges and leaving the AW issues for trial. There is no record or evidence on AW at this stage.


Michel is not what you would call a gifted progressive insightful constitutional scholar. He's there in San Pedro knocking out the hours for his Masters. A few law professors may agree with him. Others disagree. None go to him for ideas or advice.


The closer you are to the Court, the more you realize these are new questions for them, but the arguments for a strong RTKBA are powerful, persuasive, and well documented. NRA simply never figured out how to do this.

NRA supported Emerson despite the underlying facts, and the mediocre cert petition coming out of Lubbok hardy raised the Second Amendment, mainly the losing commerce clause arguments.

With Silveira there has been a great deal of time to prepare thoroughly. Unfortunately, NRA has not used that time wisely or at all, but is still preaching worn out negativism.


A strong RTKBA is a concept whose time has come. Unfortunately, NRA is far behind. They are deceiving their members also and trying to raise money using Silveira. That may be telemarketing fraud. Nordyke did not even raise the Second Amendment issues, and is a narrow equal protection case. NRA likes the case because they think they can control the lawyer handling it.

The strongest reason for supporting Silveira is that it raises the important 2A issues very thoroughly in an appeal from a decision written by Judge Reinhardt. It's hard to say whether Reinhardt or Michel is most off base, but the two are in bed together and with Sarah Brady, so to speak.

Eugene Volokh raises some very interesting points about what standards are used to determine if a law is constitutional. The gist of it is that there are different standards for different situations, some being subject to stricter scrutiny than others. He therefore concludes that the 'strict scrutiny' test may not necessarily be applied to cases involving the Right to Arms.

Prof. Volokh has stated before that he does not think (but is not positive) that the [federal] assault weapons ban violates the second amendment due to its narrow scope. If the ban were broader & prohibited more arms or more types of arms then perhaps it would, but he reasons that because it does not affect the ability of the populace to have arms then it is perhaps constitutional.

So let's explore this subject.

I do not question Prof. Volokh's understanding of how tests are applied in matters of law to determine whether or not they comply with the constitution. What I do question, as many others probably do, are the specific tests applied to specific laws. While it is true that different interests exist that cannot necessarily be addressed by one static rule I think there is a static rule which can be applicable in most cases: "Is the governments interest so compelling that it merits the restriction or prohibition of a fundamental Right?"

In order to apply this rule we have to determine what constitutes a fundamental Right, & whether all aspects of the actions used to exercise that Right are considered to be part of the Right itself, or merely separate but closely related actions. I refer you back to an earlier post in which I argue that the Right to Arms is in fact absolute.

In this case we should examine the Right to Arms & how 'assault weapons' may or may not be necessary to the exercise of this Right. But first let’s look at what ‘assault weapons’ are.

Assault weapons by practical definition are shoulder fired weapons, firing a medium-powered cartridge, capable of fully automatic fire & are of a handy size (i.e. having a barrel shorter than 20" or so). The phrase was first used by Adolf Hitler in describing a new weapon (the SturmGewehr 44) designed for use on the eastern Front in WW2.
The legal definition of assault weapon is not dependant upon mechanical function as the practical definition is. Instead it relies strictly upon cosmetic features (with the exception of ammunition feeding devices) to determine a weapons' status.

U.S. Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 921 Subsections 30 & 31 respectively define the objects of the Violent Crime Control & Law Enforcement Act of 1994, otherwise known as the Assault Weapons & High Capacity Magazine Ban.

" (30) The term ''semiautomatic assault weapon'' means - (A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as - (i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v)Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; (vii) Steyr AUG; (viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; (B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of - (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount; (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and (v) a grenade launcher; (C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of - (i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; (iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; (iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and (v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and (D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of - (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and (iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine. (31) The term ''large capacity ammunition feeding device'' - (A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but (B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition. "

The weapons that are prohibited are essentially semi-automatic versions of weapons that have a 'military' appearance & are capable of using magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds.

How does this affect the public?

Since the ban took effect on September 13th of 1994 the weapons that were manufactured prior to the ban were grandfathered. Weapons manufactured after the ban had to comply with the conditions of the ban, namely not having the undesirable features defined by the ban. Manufacturers started producing weapons w/o bayonet lugs, flash hiders, etc... while retaining the same mechanical function.
They also started using what is called a 'thumbhole' stock. This stock has a functional pistol grip, but it is connected to the main body of the stock. For example, here is a picture of a VEPR K rifle with a pistol grip. In contrast here is a picture of basically the same rifle (VEPR) with a thumbhole stock. As another example here is a picture of an M96 Recon Carbine with a pistol grip. To make it legal in California they have omitted the pistol grip altogether as seen here. Mechanically the rifles pictured are no different from one another. They fire one shot for each separate squeeze of the trigger.

The availability of pre-ban weapons & magazines, except for models introduced a short time before the ban, is not really a concern. The types of weapons & magazines that were prohibited had been in production for almost 50 years. What did become an issue were after-market accessories.

Under the assault weapons ban it is perfectly legal to acquire a folding stock & attach it to a weapon manufactured before the ban, but attaching the same stock to a weapon manufactured after the ban is a felony. This applies even if the weapon in no other way violates the ban. A good example would be the Ruger 10/22. It's a semi-automatic rifle chambered for the .22LR cartridge. The .22LR is a favorite of small game hunters because of its relatively low power, negligible recoil, & low price. The 10/22 has been manufactured since the 1960's & is a very popular rifle. A common practice was to buy a 10/22 & then fit it with after-market accessories, such as a folding stock. One is shown here about half-way down the page. To get an idea of what the 10/22 would look like with a folding stock here is a picture of a 'folding-style' stock on a 10/22. (The 'folding-style' stocks are different than folding stocks in that they are permanently affixed in one position, hence negating the advantage of a folding stock but retaining the look. The real advantage to folding stocks is they allow storage in compact spaces, not that they may be fired as many contend like a pistol when the stock is folded.) If I bought a brand new Ruger 10/22 & replaced the factory stock with a folding stock, I would be committing a felony. The mechanical functioning of the 10/22 would be the same, only the appearance would have changed.

Another consequence of the ban is that pre-ban weapons & magazines have increased significantly in value. In some cases pre-ban weapons &/or magazines have quadrupled in price. Some have remained fairly consistent as far as price is concerned, but these are generally the older items that have been in production for a very long time & domestic distributors have a substantial supply of them. So while the price of a 15 round magazine for the Beretta 92 in 9mm is not severely inflated (between $30 & $60), the price for a 16 round magazine for the Para-Ordnance P-16 is ($130).

It can be argued that the object of the ban is so narrow that it does not hamper anyone’s ability to own arms generally. At the most it prohibits possession of certain types of arms, which in many cases can still be had if one is willing to pay the inflated price. & there is only a small percentage of the populace who would believe they have need of these specific types of arms.

However I find that even if the above arguments were plausible in fact they would still lack sufficient justification for the prohibition or restriction of these types of weapons.

For instance imagine a law that restricted speech that involved politics. I think most would agree that would be a violation of the First amendment. Similarly we could reason that a ban on all weapons that had defensive uses would be in violation of the Second Amendment. But what about a law banning speech about small unit infantry tactics? The majority of such discussions are harmless, but I’d imagine a few have been used for criminal purposes. Obviously only a small percentage of the population would be likely to engage in that type of discussion. If one does wish to talk about small unit infantry tactics, one could do so by joining a military institution, either a college or a branch of the military. & the majority of speech would not be affected by this hypothetical ban, so is it narrow enough in scope to comply with the Constitution’s prohibition upon Free Speech?

The answer is no. While there is the danger that discussion of small unit infantry tactics could be used to plan & execute a crime, it could also be used to repel an invading army, or most likely to pass the time discussing military history or current events.

Likewise there is no justification sufficient enough for the government to ban weapons, even if that ban affects only a small percentage of the total number of available weapons.

According to AWBansunset.com, who credit the original data to David Kopel, assault weapons account for less than 3% of firearms used in crimes.

For perspective, according to the Center for Disease Control in 1999 38% of the total traffic deaths were due to alcohol related crashes. You'll find this figure here on page 6 of the PDF. Since it is already illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol the only option left to the legislature would be to either ban cars or ban alcohol. But the legislature doesn’t consider doing this, even though banning automobiles would save approximately 42,000 people according to the CDC's 1999 figures (page 34 of the PDF). Merely banning alcohol would save 15,786 people according to the same CDC study.
The legislature however is not even contemplating a ban on alcohol or automobiles.

According to Prof. Volokh's own observations of a CBS report, firearms related deaths accounted for 28,663 people, of which a little over 11,000 were homicides. If we were to assume that 3% of the homicides & accidents (786) combined were contributable to assault weapons then we would arrive at 355 deaths according to my calculations. (Please note that this estimate is in all probability very high in relation to actual firearms deaths attributed to assault rifles.)

So the legislature feels it is of urgent necessity to ban an object which may save 355 lives per year, but will not even contemplate banning an object that could save 42,000 lives per year or a substance that could save 15,786 people per year.

Now to be fair Prof. Volokh has argued, & quite persuasively that firearms bans are usually bad policy even if there is no constitutional question. I contend however that part of the reason that the assault weapons ban is contrary to the Constitution is precisely because it is bad policy.

I am not trying to state that if the assault ban were effective then it would be permissible. But precisely because of its ineffectiveness it fails to demonstrate any substantial government interest which would merit the restriction of a Right, even in part.

The Constitution describes the powers delegated to the federal government. It is subject to some interpretation in parts, & in my opinion has been subject to too much interpretation (i.e. the commerce clause). The Bill of Rights specifically limits federal government (& via the 14th amendment state governments) from interfering with the Rights of the people & the states respectively. The Second Article of the Bill of Rights specifically protects weapons from prohibition. It does not prohibit regulation entirely, but it does seem clear that if the regulation impedes upon ones ability to own or possess a weapon or weapons then it is not constitutionally permissible. This means the federal government could pass a law requiring a certain type or caliber of arm be purchased but not that a certain type or caliber of arm could be banned altogether.

Now where do assault weapons fit in with the Right to Arms?

The main purpose of the Second Article of the Bill of Rights was to ensure that the federal government would not prohibit martial arms to the populace. This was so the people could not be intimidated by the organized military of a government bent on domination, be it foreign or domestic. In order to accomplish this final check against tyranny 3 things are necessary: the Means to resist, the Will to resist & the Knowledge to resist. It can be argued that the First Article of the bill of Rights would protect the Will to resist & the Knowledge to resist as much as it is possible to protect these two things, even though it doesn’t mention them specifically. However the Second Article of the Bill of Rights specifically protects the Means to resist.

Assault weapons are a necessary component of having the Means to resist oppressive government, whether foreign or domestic. As long as modern militaries are equipped with assault weapons, & perhaps even for a long time after modern militaries develop a better, more effective weapon for general issue, then assault weapons will remain a necessary part of the Right to Arms. While it is entirely possible that a successful defense against government oppression or foreign invasion could be affected using only bolt action rifles whose design goes back over 100 years, that’s not to say it should be the only option. One could successfully walk up 19 flights of stairs carrying a 100 pound chair, but that’s not an endorsement for doing it, especially if there’s an elevator handy.

Does the assault weapons ban place a significant burden on the people?

I would have to say yes. Even if relatively few people would wish to own assault rifles I see no reason why their Rights should be less valuable than say, a majority who wished to own handguns. While it does not affect every person, or perhaps even the majority of people I would say that it affects a sizable minority in the least. While assault weapons are still available there price is artificially influenced by the ban & therefore could place them out of the economic reach of many. & probably of most concern is the percentage of gun owners who are not able to legally alter their weapons through after-market accessories to suit their needs.

So is the government interest in banning assault rifles so compelling as to over-ride the Rights of the people?

I think not. Ideology aside there is no practical justification for the government to ban a category of weapons that are used so infrequently in crime. But even supposing there was a significant percentage of assault weapons used in crime it would not be justification to restrict the Rights of the people for the acts of criminals.

I have a great deal of respect for Prof. Volokh’s research, conclusions & opinions, this despite the fact that he is only a few years older than I. I must in this case respectfully disagree with his idea that because of its limited scope the assault weapons ban may be constitutional. However I do not doubt for a second that more judges would agree with Prof. Volokh’s theory than would agree with mine. This is not to admit error on my part, but to realize that there are many justices who do not agree with the idea of limited governmental power for the sake of the Right to Arms.

Instapundit carries the news that the 9th Circuit is divided over the Second Amendment. This comes as a result of the decision by the 9th Circuit to not rehear en banc the Silveira vs. Lockyer case in which a California assault weapons ban has been challenged on the grounds that it is violative of an individual's Right to own & possess Arms.
Eugene Volokh has some specifics on the dissent. It seems 6 of the judges did not agree with the courts decision, or at least the reasoning behind the decision. Prof. Volokh also comments on Judge Kleinfeld's dissent.
What this means in practical terms is that the case is now open to review by the Supreme Court, although as Prof. Volokh points out there is some question as to whether they will hear it.
HowAppealing has some thoughts on this decision. But if you're not satisfied with merely reading the summation & opinions of bloggers, you can see the 9th circuit's decision for yourself here. & you can read the original (amended) decision in the Silveira vs. Lockyer case here.

Update: Clayton Cramer has posted some interesting excerpts from the dissenters.

Jeff Cooper's Commentaries.

I found this while searching for something else, as is often the case in this world. If you're not familiar with Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper he is a very experienced firearms writer. He did his time in the military, was a history professor & has written quite a few books as well as countless magazine articles. He teaches marksmanship, both basic & advanced. His views on the proper use of the rifle will make you re-think the way you shoot & he's no slouch when it comes to pistol-craft. He was one of the main drives behind the Bren-Ten & the 10mm cartridge in the early 80's & he came up with the 'Scout Rifle' concept in the mid 80's. Last but not least he is credited as being the founder of 'practical marksmanship'. Many of his techniques that were innovative when he first began teaching them are now basic training in military & police departments.

If you're not familiar with him then you should rectify that. The above link is a good start. He currently has a column in Guns&Ammo magazine. If you find he seems to know what he's talking about, then perhaps you should look into his books. I would recommend Art of the Rifle as a good one to start with.

This has been your public service announcment.

The NRA has one of its members arrested for passing out pro-gun literature at an NRA event.

"April 29, 2003 – The National Rifle Association apparently had one of its members, a pro-gun activist, arrested at its national convention on Sunday, April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out pro-gun freedom literature from the Free State Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was Timothy Condon, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member Services for the rapidly growing Free State Project. He was arrested by the Orange County Sheriff's Department Sunday for "trespassing" outside the Orange County Convention Center when he refused to leave or cease handing out the Free State Project literature (see sample).
'I believe there is a First Amendment problem with prohibiting people from passing out political literature on public property where there is no problem caused by it,' said Condon, who also happens to be an attorney who practices law in Tampa, Florida. "What is even more bizarre to me is that the National Rifle Association would have one of its own members arrested for passing out literature that supports the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms."

Apparently he was passing out literature promoting the FreeState Project, an effort to politically take over a state & attempt to bring that state in line with certain views concerning Freedom, Rights, etc. A sample of FreeState Project literature can be viewed here.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Legally I think the charges will be upheld, as the public property was rented out by a private organization, thus creating a temporary ownership of the property which would negate the prohibition of governmnet denying free speech on public property. However this probably wil do some harm to the NRA's already questionable reputation as it should.

Keep & Bear Arms.com tells us that the Cato attorneys have asked the NRA to butt out of their court case that challenges the D.C. gun ban.

An excerpt from the Keep & Bear Arms.com story:

"The CATO lawsuit was already tackling the D.C. gun ban -- the redundancy, coupled with the complication NRA brought in, will cost time and allow anti-gunners to rally against us. CATO's suit didn't go after Ashcroft and thus won't bring the full weight of the Justice Department and their competent attorneys with unlimited resources in as defendants. Is NRA really this stupid? Or do they actually need help on their case -- help from the superior legal team at CATO? Or, worse yet, are they deliberately trying to sabotage the CATO case? Few could deny that NRA is seeking to hog some credit for the good work of others -- especially so since the NRA hasn't filed a pure Second Amendment case and pursued it to the Supreme Court since their founding in the late 1800's. Perhaps it's all of the above."

The story has links to various backgorund material such as motions filed by the Cato attorneys to seperate their case from the NRA's. It also covers the charges made by the Cato attorneys that the NRA counsel is engaging in professional misconduct & is damaging their case.

Michael Marks writes about his recent experience with the California legislature when it considered a proposal to ban .50 caliber rifles & ammunition.


"Climbing aboard a plane headed back to reality, I could not but pity the citizens of California who find themselves hurtling towards the cliff of bankruptcy while their driver is asleep at the wheel. What will soon follow will make the closing scene of Thelma & Louise look like a minor fender-bender. Hospitals won’t have beds, criminals won’t have to worry about courts or jails, unemployment will soar and Californians will be left to warm themselves by the dying embers of a once-thriving economy. But hey, at least they won’t have to worry about a crazed terrorist shooting at their armored limousines from four miles away.
The brush with California legislation was revealing and truly saddening. Californians are hard working and creative -- they deserve legislators with the same traits. In spite of thoughtful and realistic efforts by true leaders like Mr. La Suer and Mr. Spitzer, business-as-usual prevailed in the Democratic majority. With people like Gray Davis, Koretz, Goldberg, and Longville running the show, Californians are well-advised to become acquainted with the motto of the U.S. Navy SEALS: the only easy day was yesterday."

Barbara Renner relates how she & her friend were 'Targeted by the TSA'

"So, in the meantime, unless there is a serious emergency like a death in the family, my travel will be conducted on the nation’s highways.
And my advice to gun owners is that if you need to take a weapon with you, don’t fly!"

for related reading check out Keep & Bear Arms.com's Airplanes & Guns page.

A new poll is up over at Keep & Bear Arms.com

Should firearm manufacturers pledge that if the ban on ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds is renewed, they will only market and sell limited-capacity feeding devices to all Government entities as well as civilians -- in effect making the government abide by its own laws?

Yes. 97.3% 1312 votes
No. 2.7% 36 votes
Total Votes: 1348

JPFO Alert on the bipartisan nature of the Assault Weapons Ban & the 'High' Capacity Magazine ban

"Two facts to consider:
[1] Clilnton, Schumer, Feinstein, and their gun-prohitibionist allies in Congress weren't the first to ban useful semi-auto rifles and pistols. They were inspired by George Bush, Sr., who earlier (mis)used his executive order power to ban importation of many similar weapons.
[2] The ban on high-capacity magazines that was part of the 1994 crime bill (the bill that gave us the "assault weapons" ban) was also not originated by Democrats. It was the brainchild of firearms manufacturer Bill Ruger and was first supported by -- yes, President George Bush, Sr. "

RMGO condemns Project Gestapo otherwise known as Project Exile.

"Project Gestapo is a private/public partnership designed to do one thing: prosecute ANY firearms violations at the highest level possible and with the most resources at the prosecutor's disposal...Some gun owners have bought into the Project Gestapo trap, banging the "don't pass new laws, just enforce those we have now." Much of Project Exile is an attitude about gun laws -- that violating these laws cannot be tolerated in any form. But banging that gong is dangerous, since it empowers bureaucrats to launch a witch hunt for gun owners."


They also aren't happy with the NRA's involement:

"The most alarming sources of Project Gestapo's funding are the NRA and Sarah Brady's gun-grabbing organization. In February of 2000 the NRA's Wayne LaPierre joined James Brady and a bevy of lawmakers at a Denver news conference to unveil the launching of Project Gestapo in Colorado. They showed TV advertisements, billboards and other tools used to get citizens to turn in their neighbors for "illegal guns."

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tx) is not happy about Bush's support of renewing the Assault weapon/Magazine Capacity ban. In fact he's circulating a letter among Congressmen to express his feelings on the matter.

"We are sure we need not remind you that a large and active part of our constituency supports the right to keep and bear arms. It will be a slap in the face to these millions of law-abiding gun owners if this White House and Congress support renewal of the semi-auto ban.
Mr. President, we are asking that you listen to the will of the people, that you keep your oath to defend the Constitution and do what is right. Support the sunset clause and let the American citizens buy and use what was rightfully theirs."


This is the man the NRA is considering withdrawing its support from? This is the same man whom the NRA feels may not be worthy of support because he disagrees with them on a constitutional matter? That says more about the NRA's lack of character than they realize.

There's a new tactic to watch out for as I fear it will become a popular & effective one: when restricting firearms proves too difficult restrict the ammunition.


"The city bill, which has gained support from a handful of co-sponsors, including Councilmen Leroy Comrie (D-St. Albans) and Peter Vallone Jr. (D-Astoria), would require ammunition dealers to collect more information from buyers, including proof of permit, caliber, make and model of the weapon. The bill would also amend the city code to raise the minimum age limit for purchasing a rifle or shotgun from 18 to 21."

"This is something that we'd like to see replicated around the state," he said. "New York City can be a model for the rest of the state."

Keep your eyes open for this in your neck of the woods.

The NAACP has rested its case against the firearms industry. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry feels the case as presented was very weak, but is concerned that the bias of the Judge will play the most important role.

"Despite the stunningly poor case the NAACP offered, Keane remained pessimistic about the trial's outcome. 'We are not under any delusions. Due to Ms. Barnes and the NAACP's blatant judge shopping, the verdict is almost certainly preordained. The NAACP is offering the same evidence from the same expert witnesses in front of the same judge as the 1999 Hamilton trial. The NAACP case is Judge Weinstein's mulligan,' Keane said. Weinstein's Hamilton decision was reversed on appeal. 'Judge Weinstein, not the 'advisory' jury will decide this case,' Keane added."


For some background on the case including the Klu Klux Klans friend of the court brief filed in support of the NAACP's position, look here & scroll down a little.

Lautenburg's proposal to add new restrictions to the Brady laws is pronounced dead on arrival by the Washington Times.

"Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, New Jersey Democrat, said yesterday that "chances are slim" for success of his bill, which would extend the time allowed for background checks on gun buyers during periods of heightened security alerts."

It goes on to paint a picture of the NRA that is not entirely accurate. It does this mainly through comments from gun control advocates.

"Some critics have called Republicans 'the handmaidens of the NRA,' but even gun-control activists see little evidence that defending firearms ownership has hurt the Republican Party at the ballot box.
'There is some truth to that,' AGS' Mr. Bennett said. 'But this comes in cycles, and Republicans would be foolish to think they have found the answer in the NRA's extreme position on this issue."

AGS is Americans for Gun Safety, a group that claims to respect the Rights of gun owners while calling for more stringent licensing & registration. They are more or less an organization comprised of Fuddites & gun control advocates in the guise of responsible gun owners. Anything other than Sarah Brady's idea of reasonable gun control (i.e. no one can own guns except her & the government) is viewed as an extremist fringe ideaology by them. So it's natural they they would try to give the NRA too much credit, when in fact the NRA does their side more good than ours.

It would be nice to see the Gun Owners of America included in articles such as these.

The State Police will be armed with suppressed submachine guns at Massachussets' airports.

"The Massachusetts Port Authority, which oversees Logan, has purchased 30 of the guns for $2,500 each. The MP-5's have 30-round clips and a two-round burst capacity, which allows two shots to be fired automatically with one push of the trigger...Massport Chief Executive Officer Craig Coy said the new weaponry, which will be deployed in June, will act as a deterrent to terrorism...The MP-5's are outfitted with a noise suppressor units so they'll create less alarm among travelers if they're used. The guns are also designed for accuracy in indoor environments"

Let me point something out:

"the new weaponry...will act as a deterrent to terrorism"


So let me get this straight, a suppressed weapon capable of two shot bursts in the hands of 30 people will deter a specific kind of crime (terrorism) yet those weapons are prohibited to the average citizens who vastly outnumber the State Police & may face many types of crime including terrorism more often than the State Police?

Massachussets is in effect saying "firearms are tools & can be used effectively to deter crime but we do not want the average citizen to directly benefit from their availability because we do not trust them with their own lives".

Ironic isn't it? This country started its War for Independence because the government was sending troops to disarm the citizens of Massachussets. Now the government in Massachussets sees fit to only arm itself.

Dudley Brown of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners has a summary of Colorado's new concealed carry law.

Also look here for a previous post about Colorado's New CCW law comapred with the old law & a proposed law.

Alphecca's weekly anti-gun bias table is up. Go give it a look & browse the rest of his blog while you're there.

Kansas is about to begin Project SafeNeighborhoods. This is a federal program which strictly enforces any & all gun laws. For more on Project Safe Neighborhoods which is a minor variant of Project Exile, please look here.

"Melgren said television announcements and 16 billboards, including four in Spanish, would inform convicted criminals in Topeka that they would face a minimum of five years in federal prison for possessing a gun."

I wonder what would happen if billboards that said " Federal firearms laws are constitutionally prohibited" were placed beside each one of these Project Safe Neighborhood billboards?

We have something similar in Colorado, only the 'convicted criminal" part is left out & in most cases it merely states that if you carry a gun you will go to jail.

There is some question of the accuracy of the evidence against McVeigh.


Clayton Cramer also weighs in on this.

Sen. Lautenburg (D-NJ) of the Lautenburg Amendment fame is at it again. This time he wants to alter the Brady law so that no sales can be made without direct governmental approval while we are at a heightened state of alert. Current law allows a sale to got through if no word from the government has been given after 3 days. Lautenburg wants that 3 day cut-off to be eliminated unless we are at the lowest level of national security for 180 days straight. Since the attacks on the world trade center we have not fallen below the midpoint on the national security alert system, not even for one day. Lautenburg's proposed bill would also add restrictions & penalties for licensed gun sellers.

In a CNS article Jeff Johnson compares Lautenburg's proposal to Nazi gun laws.

Disturbing news from Portland, Oregon:

"Portland police may soon be asking for more than a license when making a traffic stop, but also requesting a motorist to stick out a thumb and forefinger.
Next month, more than a dozen officers will carry handheld devices on the street that will allow them to instantly verify a person's identity by analyzing their fingerprints.
The Portland Police Bureau was awarded a $250,000 federal COPS grant to equip each of its five precincts with a device and distribute another 10 to investigative officers in the detective, gang enforcement, drugs and vice, and tactical operations divisions."


It seems since there is federal money involved that this idea could catch on quickly. I have a few religious friends who with or without justification would view this as a "mark of the beast" type move by the government. Religious objections aside, it definitely has an Orwellian flair to it. Perhaps not strictly Orwellian, but it definitely seems reminiscent of Big Brother. Not quite as intrusive as a Television monitor watching your every move, but not as harmless as having Andy Taylor welcome you into town.

The courts have long held that taking fingerprints is not a violation of teh 4th amendment, as you leave your fingerprints everywhere & thus have no reasonable expectation of privacy concerning them. I disagree. When you go out in public you show your body to everyone, but this in no way would be seen as justification for the government collecting nude photos of you against your will.

In any event this technological advance bears watching.

Nicki Fellenzer is disgusted by most gun owners.

"Let me break this down for you, fellow gun owners and gun rights advocates: A national campaign dedicated to protecting you, your families and your freedoms was unable to get one tenth of you to shell out ten lousy bucks per year!"

"Oh, but you already support the NRA, and if you supported every gun group out there you’d be broke? Then I would suggest to you: be a little more discriminating. Do some research. Find out who out there is really fighting for your rights and then dole out your support accordingly"


I understand how she feels.

We have a new Fuddite of the Week: from Farmington, Minnesota I give you Bob Johnson.

"It's time for gun owners to disassociate ourselves from the extremists who argue that any attempt to sensibly regulate firearms takes us down the slippery slope toward confiscation. There is no threat to losing our right to own guns for sport.
The real threat to gun owners is the same threat hanging over the rest of the population -- that the safety of our families will be jeopardized if the rhetoric of the gun-rights groups prevails."

Mr. Johnson is the owner of a national investment banking firm. I believe he would rather not do any business with gun owners who are willing to be called extremists in order to protect certain Rights, even if they're his. So please inform him that you'll be taking your business elsewhere.

Nicki Fellenzer writes of a man in Oklahoma who was harrassed, persecuted & prosecuted by local government. It seems the man in question, Mr. Dennis Maly was approached by local police because they suspected the conversation he was having with his daughter was actually solicitation of a prostitute. when it was discovered that his daughter was not a prostitute they arrested him anyway.

"The charges? Carrying a concealed weapon (the knife Dennis Maly still had in his pocket), not notifying the arresting officer that he was armed (even though the arresting officer screamed at Maly to "SHUT UP!" every time Maly tried to inform him that he had a gun) and not following a police officer's instructions (attempting to inform Officer Jason Skaggs he was armed, as required by the law, even after being told to shut up)."

Mr. Maly was aquitted of all charges, but only after a long & costly court battle. The D.A. simply wouldn't drop the charges & admit that the police officers had done wrong. All in all it was a terrible ordeal for him to go through & an example that the police can be just as bad, if not worse than criminals. After all, criminals rely strictly on force or the threat thereof: police have the weight of the government behind them. While Mr. Maly was aquitted, no monetary compensation can undo the wrongs which were done to him. It is unlikely that the officers in question will receive anything more than a reprimand & it's doubtful they'll receive that.

& remember that gun control advocates maintain that the police will protect us therefore it's unecessary for the citizen to have arms.

Ms. Fellenzer sums it up best:

"Remember Dennis Maly next time an impotent oppressor in a three-piece suit tries to place limits on your right to keep and bear arms. Because next time it could be you in fighting to keep your dignity, maintaining your innocence and defending yourself against trumped up charges meant to cover up incompetence and paranoia on the part of those who want power over you. The more you allow the government to erode your rights, the closer we will all be to a society where the case of Dennis Maly is the status quo."

The Denver Post has an op-ed supporting the extension of the Assault Weapons Ban.

"...millions of other people support reasonable federal gun control and believe law-abiding citizens can exercise their Second Amendment rights without keeping and trading assault weapons designed for nothing more than killing a lot of people in a short amount of time."

They seem to fail to understand that the second amendment prohibits federal gun laws. Also they fail to realize that many people use "assault weapons" for purely recreational purposes such as target shooting & competitive shooting.

"An AK-47 rifle was used in the recent killing of a 15-year-old boy and wounding of three teenage girls when gunmen opened fire on a packed New Orleans school gym. A TEC-9 was used in the Columbine High School massacre"

They fail to understand that murder is illegal, as is taking a firearm onto school property, as is possession of a firearm by a minor. Since these murders happened after the passage of the assault weapons ban I think it undermines their point to mention them, as the ban did nothing to prevent these crimes. Then again no gun control law that I'm aware of has ever prevented someone who was determined to commit a crime, such a murder. & the murderer in Louisiana that was mentioned was in fact a member of a gang who was retaliating against a member of a rival gang, the 15 year old victim.

"Many Second Amendment defenders argue that, while our country is under the threat of terrorist attacks and engaged in war, American citizens should be able to arm themselves with assault weapons. This logic escapes us."

Of course it escapes them: they disagree with the idea that citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves against criminals so obviously protection against foreign invasion or tyrannical government is beyond their comprehension.

"The weapons ban was put into place to save us from ourselves, if you will. It is designed to keep weapons with unusual firepower off the streets so that police won't be outgunned and to help reduce the number of innocent victims in the line of fire when someone decides to shoot up a school or a workplace."

That's not entirely true: the school shootings that they mentioned earlier happened after the Assault Weapons Ban was passed. 'Assault weapons' have been used in fewer than 1% of all crimes so the threat to public safety was negligible at the time of passing. The Assault Weapons Ban mainly deals with cosmetic features on certain arms. It does not deal with the design or function, so many firearms are still available which are functionally & mechanically identical to those banned . The only real difference is aesthetics. There is no unusual firepower that these prohibited arms possess. They simply 'look scarier'.
They fail to understand that if schools & workplaces were not places where most arms are prohibitied then their appeal for mass murderers would be diminished as their victims would not be defensless. Most of these shootings happen where there are no firearms available for defense, therefore they can do what they wish with impunity. There have been two school shootings which were stopped thanks to individuals running to their cars (which were parked off campus to comply with the law) & retrieving their firearms to use them in order to subdue the shooters.

"As for fighting terrorism, several branches of the military and law enforcement are assigned to do that. Police also have enhanced firepower to protect the masses. There is no reason to now arm citizens with assault weapons to fight this enemy."

They fail to understand that the police & military cannot protect the individuals. They also fail to understand that the police & military's record of fighting terrorism is not something that inspires confidence. In fact the police have been more likely to commit violence against the citizen ( i.e. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Omayra Soberal) than to prevent it. As far as terrorism is concerned, the police could not do anything ot prevent the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. I do not think that we should simply sit back & rely on the police to protect us, especially based upon their record.

They fail to comprehend that the reason the federal government is prohibited from making gun control laws by the second amendment is that the citizens should always be able to protect themselves against the government, which includes but is not limited to the police & military. It is unlikely that the police &/or military will ever go door to door in an effort to round up certain citizens for extermintaion such as happened in 1940's Germany, but it is not an impossible circumstance.

"Let's be reasonable. An assault-weapons ban is not an attack on the right to bear arms. It's a reasonable gun-control measure that deserves renewal because there is no good reason for the average citizen to possess such firepower."

They fail to understand that a ban on military style weapons is an attack on the Right to own & possess arms. They also fail to understand that there is a good reason for the average citizen to possess such weapons: it is necessary for the security of the other Rights they enjoy.

Let me point out something that seems to be the source of much confusion especially in the press: the 'assault weapons' that are banned are merely cosmetically different, not functionally than other firearms which are not banned. The Assault Weapons Ban does not deal with fully automatic firearms, which continually shoot as long as you hold the trigger down & there's ammo in the gun. Those are still regulated by the NFA of '34 (Temptations sing: Federal Firearms laws are constitutionally prohibited!). The arms that are the subject of the ban are semi-automatic. They fire one shot each time you pull the trigger. If you pulled the trigger & held it back you would still fire only one shot. You must release the trigger in order to fire another shot. This is the same functioning as many non-prohibited arms, some of which are used for hunting.
The press sometimes gets the banned weapons confused with fully automatic weapons. Sometimes this is simply due to the reporters ignorance concerning the function of the respective types of weapons, other times it is intentional.

Here are the members of the Denver Post's editorial board:

"The members of The Post editorial board are William Dean Singleton, chairman and publisher; Gregory L. Moore, editor; Sue O'Brien, editorial page editor; Bob Ewegen, deputy editorial page editor; Peter G. Chronis, Angela Cortez, Dan Haley, Al Knight and Penelope Purdy , editorial writers; Mike Keefe, cartoonist; and Barbara Ellis and Susan Clotfelter, news editors."


Here is the contact information page for the Denver Post.

Carl F. Worden has an essay on the JPFO's Unpopular Speech Page entitled Is It The NRA Vs. The GOA In Texas All Over Again?.

It deals with the NRA's threat of withdrawing its support of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tx.) over his opposition to the bill that would prevent frivilous lawsuits against gun manufacturers. He recounts a similar confrontation between the NRA & the GOA over the Assault Weapons Ban & a politician who supported it.

According to a story in the USA Today dated March 25th, the FBI's database no longer has to be accurate.

"The Justice Department lifted a requirement Monday that the FBI ensure the accuracy and timeliness of information about criminals and crime victims before adding it to the country's most comprehensive law enforcement database. The system, run by the FBI's National Crime Information Center, includes data about terrorists, fugitives, warrants, people missing, gang members and stolen vehicles, guns or boats.
Records are queried increasingly by the nation's law enforcement agencies to help decide whether to monitor, detain or arrest someone. The records are inaccessible to the public...Officials said the change, which immediately drew criticism from civil-liberties advocates, is necessary to ensure investigators have access to information that can't be confirmed but could take on new significance later, FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said.
The system 'is replete with inaccurate, untimely information, but everybody does their best to keep it up to date,' said Beryl Howell, former general counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 'That's a goal we shouldn't just throw out.'...because the system collects its data from so many other organizations, [the Justice Department said] 'it is administratively impossible to ensure compliance."

More or less the FBI realized that it was impossible to keep the level of information they prefer to have in their files accurate, so instead of downsizing their files to include only accurate information they had the accuracy requirements lifted.

Keep in mind that the NICS checks which are required for every firearm purchase from a licensed dealer use this same FBI database. I have never been delayed myself, but know of a few people with spotless records who had to wait the full 3 days before making a purchase. I do not know the exact cause of the delays & it is certainly possible that their info was confused with someone else's & required a little sorting out, but if the FBI's information is no longer required to be accurate then I can foresee an increase in the delays & denials of firearms purchases even for those with no criminal history whatsoever.

Ted Lang has a piece entitled "Gun Control: Racist & Anti-Semitic Gun Ban Origins over at the Etherzone. It's short but worth a read.

The Fifty Caliber Shooters' Policy Institute has an alert on their website that claims Sen. Feinstein has again proposed a ban on .50 caliber rifles.

Here is Sen. Feinstein's press release about her proposed ban of .50 caliber rifles.

"Despite their deadly power, these weapons are widely available to civilians and subject to less regulation than shotguns, machine guns, and handguns."

Actually shotguns & rifles, including .50 caliber rifles are subject to the same regulations provided they are not capable of automatic fire & their barrels are not below a certain minimum length.

it goes on to claim certain capabilities of a .50 caliber rifle, including "Piercing a manhole cover, a 600-pound safe, or an armored car". Well, last time I checked, a man hole cover was approximately 3 inches thick. I'm sure a .50 BMG cartridge could dent it, but piercing it is a stretch, as is piercing a 600 pound safe, althought that would depend upon how the safe is constructed. As for piercing an armored car, I hope she doesn't realize that, again depending upon the armor, a lot of very old cartidges can pierce very light armor. The .30-30 Winchester of lever action fame comes to mind, as does the .30-06 Springfield.

I could go on pointing out the errors in fact but then you'd have no excuse to read the statement. I will point out that she did neglect to mention the number of times a .50 caliber rifle has been used in a crime here in the U.S. This is probably due to that number being zero which would not really help her position.

On Sen. Feinstein's website there's an offer to have breakfast with her when you're in D.C. If you can stand to go to D.C. , the 'criminal safety' capitol of the U.S. then perhaps you can try to talk some sense into her.

An Arizona man has some advice for police officers about enforcing laws: make sure they exist first.

WorldNetDaily has an article on the coalition of pro-gun organizations who are uniting to opposs an extension of the assault weapons ban & more importantly any politician who votes for it.

"The coalition is not going to target politicians whose vote we have no chance of changing,' he said. 'We're going to use grass-roots pressure against vulnerable politicians who really should be voting pro-gun but have had no pressure by the institutional gun lobbies...Our message to them is simple as well: Vote for this ban, or a compromise on it, and you lose gun owners' votes forever. There will be no 'kissing and making up,' [Dudley] Brown said."

For more information read this statement by the coalition.