The U.S. imposes gun control in Iraq.

"US troops will be given orders to arrest any Iraqis who carry or sell guns, it was announced today.
The commander of US ground forces, Lieutenant General David McKiernan, today said that the new administrators of Iraq will soon establish laws aimed at restoring law and order on the streets.
'We'll focus our effort on eliminating so-called gun markets, and will arrest anyone who possesses or sells guns,' he said in an announcement, which was read in Arabic on the coalition-run Voice of New Iraq radio station.
'Coalition forces will hunt down these people who, through their irresponsible acts, are threatening the lives of every man, woman and child,' the statement said. Lt Gen McKiernan urged citizens to report anyone possessing a weapon to coalition forces."

So in the aftermath of war, when Hussein loyalists & criminals are roaming relatively free, the U.S. decides the best thing to do is to disarm the populace??? I see Lt. General McKiernan used the obligatory line about 'the children'.
That's a fine way to start a new government - instilling from the very onset that weapons are bad & the ordniary citizen cannot possess them.

What should be in the back of our minds, despite the urge to brush it off as rampant paranoia is that these are U.S. troops disarming a civilian populace. If they will follow orders to enforce civilian disarmament in a foreign country then what guarantee is there that they wouldn't follow orders to do it here?

House Speaker Dennis Hastert has opened the door to a vote on the assault weapons ban.

"Speaker Dennis Hastert opened the door Thursday to a vote on extending an assault weapons ban that expires next year, and the leader of House Democrats prodded President Bush to urge the Republican leadership to bring the bill to the floor.
Hastert, R-Ill., said he hadn't yet decided whether the GOP-controlled House would vote on renewing the ban, which was approved in 1994 on 19 military-style automatic weapons. 'I need to have some discussions with the president and (Republican) leadership before I make that decision,' he said.
Hastert made his comments after a statement earlier this week by Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, that the votes "are not there" in the House to extend the ban. DeLay's spokesman, Stuart Roy, later said Republicans have no intention of calling the bill up for a vote."

So it appears that Rep. Hastert is awaiting direction from the White House as to bring up the assault weapons ban renewal in the House.
I think that Bush, giving his past record on the Right to Arms, sincerely wants the Assault Weapons Ban renewed & possibly expanded upon. However he would either be a fool or have something very very significant up his sleeve to risk alienating gun owners who would account for a lot of votes in 2004.


"The issue cuts across party lines. While Democrats generally lead the campaign for such measures, some suburban Republicans favor gun control, while Democrats from rural areas or those with active hunting populations oppose it, and the issue has worked to the detriment of Democrats nationally in recent elections."

Again, judging votes by party doesn't work when it comes to gun control. In fact every federal gun control law enacted has had Republican support in some form.

as I said in a previous post:

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 & 205 anti-gun Representatives. That's counting D, F & Not Rated. 64 out of 100 & 205 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 13 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 Senate, which would mean 56 C rated voters in addition to the F,D & Not Rated.


This is from a CNN.com article about the vote on the Assault Weapons Ban renewal:

"The bill hasn't been discussed by the leadership yet, and I haven't had a discussion with the president yet so I'm not ready to make that decision,' about scheduling the bill, Hastert, R-Illinois, said."

The following refers to the earlier comments that DeLay made about not having the votes to pass it & it wouldn't be voted on in the House:

"But Hastert said DeLay was "caught off guard" when he made that comment. The House speaker, however, would not commit to a vote and refused to say whether he supported a renewal of the ban. He voted against it in 1994."

Now this I find most interesting:

Asked about Hastert's comments, DeLay said he still didn't believe there were enough votes to reauthorize the ban. 'We don't like to bring up legislation we don't think can pass,' DeLay said.
He said there is no bill on the issue and suggested it was premature to talk about the issue.
'Who brought this up? Who introduced it? There have been no motions,' he said. 'I think, quite frankly, that this is a media driven issue."

The last part either shows rep. DeLays dishonesty or his ignorance. Rep. McCarthy & Rep. Conyers along with almost 70 co-sponsors have introduced legislation to not only renew but vastly expand the Assault Weapons Ban.

There is an increasing possibility that the Assault weapons Ban will be renewed & possibly expanded. It all depends upon whether or not Bush wants to push the issue. I would like to say I have faith in Bush to do the right thing but considering his past I cannot. The only thing that could keep him from actively attempting to renew the assault weapons ban is political pressure from voters. I don't think he would risk the election over this, but then again I could be wrong. So perhaps if we all e-mailed, faxed, wrote letters & called to inform him that our vote depends on his respecting our Rights it might provide enough incentive for him to reconsider renewing unpopular & unconstitutional laws.

President George Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Fax: 202-456-2461 or 202-456-1907
Phone: 202-456-1414

President George W. Bush: president@whitehouse.gov
Vice President Richard Cheney: vice.president@whitehouse.gov

The Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence & the Million Mom March are demanding Bush to actively support the Assault Weapons Ban's renewal.
It is amusing to see their justification for continuing the ban. Of course they mention having the support of major police organization, which are typically anti-gun, as well as throwing in the obligatory phrases such as "police will be outgunned" & "our children will be at further risk".

But let's move on to what they are citing as truths.

"The facts:
Assault weapon bans work. In 1989, when President Bush stopped the import of certain assault rifles, the number of imported assault rifles traced to crime dropped by 45 percent in one year. After the 1994 ban, there were 18 percent fewer assault weapons traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994."

Hmmm, I wonder if that had anything at all to do with the overall crime rates dropping? & I wonder why they only mention the first 8 months of 1995 instead of the whole year? Perhaps the whole year, like the whole truth would be harmful to their position. Odds are it is a direct comparison to the one year before & after the ban's enactment, but still it's misleading as the ban only affected weapons manufactured after the date of enactment & there were & still are plenty of post ban guns available, albeit at higher prices.

"Assault weapons are not just "ugly guns." Semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize death and injury from a very rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to accommodate silencers and with military features such as grenade launchers, folding stocks, flash suppressors, barrel shrouds and bayonets which are all ludicrously unsuited for civilian use. In contrast, semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend on the accurate shooting of one bullet at a time."

Then why does the Assault Weapons Ban deal mainly with cosmetic features? Flash suppressors don't come in handy unless you're firing at night in an otherwise dark (i.e. non-urban) area. Sound suppressors are already illegal to own without a federal permit & in any event they do absolutely no good for projectiles that travel over the speed of sound (around 1100 fett per second) which is the ammunition used in virtually every 'assault rifle' & most pistols. barrel shrouds are a totally cosmetic feature, unless you have just fired all your ammunition & intend to use your bayonet, then it keeps the hot barrel from burning your hands. But bayonettings have never been a problem in this country so I still fail to see why they are concerned by them. They've never, ever to my knowledge been used in a crime in this country. Ditto for grenade launchers. They're useful for firing flares but grenades for them are heavily regulated & have never to my knowledge been used in a crime in this country. Folding stocks are a great assett for storing a rifle or carbine in a small space. But except in emergencies firing one with the folding stock folded is not a good idea. First of all accuracy is difficult to non-existant when firing in such a manner, second recoil is much more pronounced & in some cases painful. So the last statement is false as 'assault weapons', or at least those defined as such by the '94 ban are designed to be fired from the shoulder & depend on accurately firing one shot at a time. Then again .50 BMG rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder ( if your prone) & depend on accurately firing one shot at a time. That doesn't seem to keep them from being the targets of proposed bans though.

"Assault weapons were used…
To kill five children and wound 29 others in a Stockton, California schoolyard in 1989. The AK-47 held 75 - that's right, 75 - bullets.
To kill eight people and wound six others at a San Francisco law firm in 1993. Two TEC-9's with 50-round magazines were used in the massacre.
To kill two CIA employees and wound three others outside the CIA's Langley, Virginia headquarters in 1993.
To kill four ATF special agents and wound 16 others at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, when the officers were attempting to serve warrants on the cult in 1993.

Hmmm, what do the all of these have in common? 'assault rifles'? nope - they were acts committed in violation of the law. Murder is illegal, as is enforcing an unconstitutional law via a questionable search warrant & instigating a ifrefight to serve said warrant but even setting aside the BATF's actions against the Davidians there is something else misleading here: 2 of the 4 BATF agents at Waco were killed by friendly fire, as was the wounding of several BATF agents. They didn't have 'assault weapons' though, they had submachine guns.
But the BATF & Waco aside, a ban on 'assault weapons' would not have deterred any of these crimes. In fact Columbine High School was shot up by two kids & at least one of the weapons used by these deranged punks was a TEC-9 if memory serves. & the shootings at Columbine occured several years after the ban's enactment.

In short they use flawed but emotionally appealing arguments to justify their position. You would think that they would increase their knowledge of firearms a little seeing as how they try to explain why one is more dangerous than the other. Perhaps they do know more than they let on, or perhaps they just never bothered to look past the appearances of certain weapons. Deceit from these people is nothing new, nor is ignorance.

The Justice Department plans to increase prosecutions for gun crimes. This is due in part to a report from Americans for Gun Safety which criticizes the Justice Department for being lax about enforcing federal gun laws. In case you're not familiar with Americans for Gun Safety, they claim to be a group that supports an individuals Right to own arms but does it via a sensible approach. I am sure there are some who do see their way as sensible, Sarah Brady for example. To the rest of us they appear to be Fuddites. Don't be fooled by their talk of Rights. What they advocate are privileges, not Rights. But I digress.

"The department plans to commit $900 million to the initiative over three years and has added more than 600 prosecutors and agents to aid in the effort, officials said."

Which coupled with the BATF's switch to the Justice Department means more woes for gun owners. the BATFE is the new kid on the block & very eager to prove it performs a valuable service, so I suspect that they will do everything they can to increase their numbers of arrests. Usually they'd go on an arrest binge such as this to increase the numbers of arrests they made (hence an increase in job security) but with many of the cases thrown out of court. Now with a lot of dollars & new prosecutors looking to justify their jobs I suspect that more arrests will lead to trials.

"The officials said Mr. Ashcroft had also sought to step up prosecutions of would-be owners who lied on background checks, and the number of prosecutions for false statements rose 8 percent last year, officials said."

So technical & paperwork violations are becoming more of a reason for prosecution. Of course this would cover a convicted felon who tries to purchase a gun & lies about his felony when he fills out the form, but it also would cover the law abiding person who mistakenly puts the wrong address on the form.

"Jens Ludwig, an associate professor of public policy at Georgetown University, said although advocates pointed to a pilot program in Virginia as a model, that program "has not been as successful as is widely believed." Although his comment drew a rebuke from Mr. McNulty, the professor said his own research did not support the idea that a push to remove illegal guns from the street had contributed greatly to a significant drop in firearms murders in the late 1990's in the Richmond, Va., metropolitan region."

In effect Prof. Ludwig is saying that Project Exile, which is the unnamed program from Richmond, Va. that he makes reference to, isn't an effective means of reducing unjustified gun violence. So more or less the program is a feel good measure that potentially does more harm than good.

"The new study, which analyzed information from the Justice Department from 2000 to 2002, found that illegal possession and use during a crime accounted for 85 percent of the more than 25,000 federal firearms cases in that period."

What bothers me is the 15%. I feel that use of a gun during a crime should be the only reason to prosecute a person who owns or possesses a gun, but even allowing the convicted felon/illegal possession charges to be seen as legitimate, then what the hell is the other 15% about?

According to the AGS study:

"In The Enforcement Gap: Federal Gun Laws Ignored, AGSF found that just two statutes, both related to street criminals in possession of firearms, account for 85% of federal gun prosecutions. The rest - laws intended to punish illegal gun trafficking, firearm theft, corrupt gun dealers, lying on a criminal background check form, obliterating firearm serial numbers, selling guns to minors and possessing a gun in a school zone - are woefully under-enforced."

illegal gun traffickers - people who operate outside an unconstitutional prohibition on their liveleyhood.
firearm theft - a legitimate cause for prosecution.
corrupt gun dealers - gun dealers who do not 100% respect the governments authority to enforce unconstitutional gun laws
lying on a criminal background check form - anything from a serial killer claiming he never broke any laws to a person writing in the wrong zip code by mistake.
obliterating firearm serial numbers - a person who decides to alter his own property w/o the permission of the government
selling guns to minors - a 21 year old sells a pistol to his 20 year old brother.
possessing gun in a school zone - prosecuted for being prepared to prevent another Columbine High School massacre?


Meanwhile Maine catches criticism from the AGS study because only 10% of prosecutions involve guns.

"U.S. Attorney Paula Silsby responds that the statistics don't show how many of those crimes were pursued at the state level, or how few gun crimes Maine has to begin with.

"Maine's problem, unlike other states, is not a lot of violent crime committed with firearms. The number one violent crime problem in this state, according to every law enforcement official that you talk to, is domestic violence," Silsby said."

Facts should never get in the way of a good 'study'. But if it's any consolation Silsby "plans to creatively apply gun laws to reducing domestic violence, by reminding would-be abusers in an ad campaign that people convicted of domestic assaults lose the right to own a gun. "

Of course if Silsby actively promoted the idea of women defending themselves & proclaimed an amnesty from prosecution for defense against domestic violence then perhaps it would actually reduce the domestic violence cases.

In Louisiana they plan on increasing the number of gun law prosecutions.

"...acting U.S. Attorney James Letten...[said] 'I've met with the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) and said our office would gladly prosecute anyone who committed a provable lie on a federal form, whether they were successful in getting firearms or not,"

Again, I foresee a bunch of 60 year old veterans on trial for putting the wrong zip code or drivers' license number on the federal form.

"Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said the agency is increasing prosecution of gun law violators, with substantial increases last year in cases brought for illegal gun trafficking, obliterating the serial number of weapons and making false statements on background checks.
'Our message is clear: Gun crime means hard time,' Comstock said. 'The forces of law and justice will take down and prosecute offenders, and they will face the consequences of their actions."

The forces of law & justice? One of them will surely prevail, it's unfortunate that they're not on the same side though.

So being extra careful is good advice to avoid legal hassles. Speaking of advice, this article gives some do's & don'ts for aquiring weapons with minimal government hassle. It covers both the legal & illegal methods. It is not legal advice & in fact it describes ways in which the law can be broken. I include it here because it is useful knowledge to have.

"I realize that some people might worry about professional freelance thugs using the information here to obtain guns to rob or assault with. But hell, they already have guns, don't they? And if not, they have no qualms about simply stealing one. My suggestion to any such persons is that they find a more ethical line of work, before they get ventilated by someone they thought would be an easy victim."

If the above intrigues you then read the whole thing.

There's some good news, but not as good as it would first appear.

The jury in the NAACP lawsuit against the gun manufacturers has found that the gun manufacturers were not at fault.

"While the jury cleared 45 firearms manufacturers and distributors, the panel could not reach a verdict relating to 23 other defendants, according to the Associated Press. The lawsuit was filed by the NAACP against 68 defendants, claiming that the industry knew corrupt dealers were supplying guns to criminals in minority communities, and took no steps to stop them. Judge Weinstein will allow NAACP and industry attorneys to submit written arguments interpreting the verdict. Gottlieb said there should be no reason for Weinstein to labor over a final ruling."


However before we start the celebrating I must regretfully remind ya'll that the jury in this case had only an advisory role, which means the judge could still decide in favor of the NAACP.

The following is from the Associated Press via Yahoo:

"NAACP attorney Elisa Barnes said the verdict showed the case was too complicated for a jury to decide. The judge could still rule in favor of the NAACP based on 'the facts and the record,' she said."

So it is still entirely possible that the judge could in fact disregard the jury's decision & side with the NAACP. Given the judge in question this is far from unlikely.

The Washington Post has an article about the House not having the votes to renew the assault weapons ban.

"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said most House members are willing to let the ban expire next year. "The votes in the House are not there" to continue the ban, DeLay told reporters.
His spokesman, Stuart Roy, said, "We have no intention of bringing it up" for a vote."

That's basically the same thingDeLay & his Aide saia few days ago.


"...several Republicans close to the White House said Bush has no plans to lobby lawmakers aggressively to extend the ban. That would allow him to officially oppose the NRA without completely turning against the powerful gun lobby by fighting hard to maintain a ban on semiautomatic weapons."

That would confirm the theories of many including Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) who opine that Bush is statting support for the Assault Weapons Ban to appease potential voters who are in favor of the ban while being confident that the House will not pass any renewals of the ban therefore not forcing him to alienate a core constituency ( gun owners) by signing it into law. While politically this makes for good strategy I still find it dishonest.

Here's where the danger comes in:

"...several Republicans, who requested anonymity, said some pro-gun GOP leaders worry that if members are forced into a rollcall vote, they might switch under pressure from gun control advocates.
'If the president demands we pass it, that would change the dynamics considerably,'said a House GOP leadership aide. 'the White House does not want us' to vote...Most congressional Democratic leaders and presidential candidates strongly support the assault weapons ban and appear ready to wage a public fight over an issue they believe may pack a political punch with independents and women, in particular."

So while it would seem Bush may in fact be counting on the House rejecting any renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, if he is pressured into pressuring Congress then there may indeed be enough votes to pass it.

According to Rueters, Democrats are in fact pressuring Bush to push for a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban.

"The president's position is clear," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters. "If Congress passes it, he will sign it. The president thinks that the current assault weapons ban should be reauthorized."

That still falls in with the theory that this is more or less a political bluff. However the big question is what will Bush do if that bluff is called.

"Asked if Bush would pressure House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a fellow Texan, to reverse course and hold a House vote, Fleischer said, 'It's a matter the House has to work out, of course, by listening to the will of its members ... I think when the president states his position like this it helps get the message to the Congress."

Again it could be just part of the political bluff, but then again it could be ( & more likely) that Bush does in fact support the Assault Weapons Ban. In previous posts I have explained that Bush does not have a great record of defending the Second Amendment. It could simply be that while he wants the ban renewed he realizes that any active campaigning on his part to accomplish this will make him a less than sure thing for the Oval Office in 2004.

"This little game of footsie ought to stop,' Schumer told reporters, adding that if Bush doesn't follow through, voters would ask 'is the president being a straight shooter with the American people.'
'The House does everything the president wants,' Schumer said. 'If the House says we're not doing it, you know something is going on.'
Schumer said the president was trying to have it both ways, saying he supported the ban while having aides whisper to the NRA not to worry."

CNN has a story on Bush & the Assault Weapons Ban.

"White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said the president's position 'is clear.'
'The president said in the 2000 campaign that he supported the assault weapons ban because he thought it was reasonable,' Fleischer said. 'He stated then that he would support the reauthorization of it, and he states that again today."

So again this could fall within the 'political bluff' theory of Bush's support, but in any event it is still disturbing that he finds the Assualt Weapons Ban, or any other federal gun control 'reasonable'. ( Everyone in the back - Federal firearms laws are constitutionally prohibited!")

"Asked whether the assault weapons ban was a lower priority for Bush, Fleischer said that was not the case.
'No, the president has many priorities, and he judges each one as it comes up,' Fleischer said. 'Right now he is clearly focused on job creation, given the fact that the important decisions are getting made on Capitol Hill now about the package in the Senate and as it approaches the conference."

So this could be stalling if you believe the 'political bluff' theory, or it could simply be that Bush hasn't gotten around to dealing with the Assault Weapons Ban. Yet.

However if Bush's priorities change, or if Schumer & other Democrats bring enough pressure to bear on Bush over this, thereby providing a political excuse I think there's a chance that he would activley campaign for the ban's renewal, which could potentially change the dynamics in the House enough to pass it. By my earlier estimates, the House would only need 13 or so votes to pass a renewal. Assuming they will vote according to the ratings determined by GOA, they have about 50 or so Representatives that could go either way.

So it seems unlikely that the House will renew the Assault Weapons Ban, but not improbable, especially if Bush starts directly asking them to.

This is from a story in The Washington Times about the dissent of 6 judges in the recent 9th Circuit decision to deny hearing en banc a challenge to the california assault weapons ban.


"Mathew Nosanchuk, a leading opponent of individual gun ownership, said the dissenters' "individual policy preferences dressed up as a legal opinion" have no legal basis and thought it would be unlikely the Supreme Court would take such a case.
'I'm Jewish. I find [Judge Kozinski´s reasoning] very offensive, and it does history a discredit,' said Mr. Nosanchuk, litigation director for the Washington-based Violence Policy Center. 'In these times we defend ourselves with freedom of expression and a free press. The idea that we have to be armed to fend off another Warsaw Ghetto uprising is completely contorted."

Mathew Nosanchuk is the Litigation Director & Legislative Counsel for the Violence Policy Center, a very anti-gun organization. He apperently is not a student of history. Or perhaps he is actually on the opposing side of things.

Lemme point this out for ya:
"'I'm Jewish. I find [Judge Kozinski´s reasoning] very offensive, and it does history a discredit...The idea that we have to be armed to fend off another Warsaw Ghetto uprising is completely contorted."

He's Jewish. He doesn't want to do history any dis-service. He doesn't think we need arms to fend off another Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

The people who were trying to fend off the first Warsaw Ghetto Uprising were Nazi's!!!!!!! The Jews were the ones who initiated the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, unfortunately too late to do much real good, except take some of the bastards with them.
So if we take his words at face value, he's arguing against gun ownership being necessary to put down another Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. That would mean he assumes that guns won't be necessary to contain the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto until their turn comes to ride the cattle cars into the death camps. It would also mean that he is taking the side of the Nazi's, but merely arguing that guns won't be necessary to accomplish their ends.

Of course, what is more probable is that Mr. Nosanchuk is not familiar enough with the history of the Holocaust, especially the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943, to keep from tripping over his own words.

Of course his main point about arms not being necessary for defense against tyranny is equally flawed, but pointing out that freedom of expression & a free press can't stop a platoon of stormtoopers like accurate fire can would probably be too much for him to take.

The jury in the NAACP lawsuit against gun manufacturers is in its third day of deliberations. (It's the second story down)

"Jurors said they were at an impasse over whether the industry's marketing and distribution practices were specifically harmful to the N.A.A.C.P.'s members. The judge will make the final ruling, but the jury was empaneled to advise the judge in the suit, which claims that the industry could do much more to keep guns from being sold to criminals."

Of course if (or more likely when) the (very biased) judge decides against the gun manufacturers I hope every gun owning member of the NAACP cancels their membership & stops payment on any uncashed checks they've sent to them. Further I'd like to see them demand a full refund of any donations paid since the lawsuit was filed. Finally I want to see the NAACP's reaction if &/or when a gun store refuses to sell a firearm to a black person because of their race. It would obviously be a case of discrimination & therefore wrong, but isn't this what the NAACP is suing the gun manufacturers over? Selling guns to black people?

There are many many legitimate areas where the NAACP could be useful. In the past they have been very useful in promoting equality for black people. Now it seems they want black people equally disarmed & defenseless. The Klan never feared the NAACP or any other (unarmed) group more than a black man with a shotgun. It's a shame the NAACp has forgotten this.

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.