|
Wal-Mart recently struck a deal with New York Mayor and Bully Michael Bloomberg on irrational and excessive standards for gun sales. Wal-Mart has the nation's largest seller of firearms, but I predict that is about to change because gun buyers will simply shop elsewhere. Wal-Mart will now keep certain records, including videotapes of all gun transaction, far beyond those required by law. WalMart is cooperating with Bloomberg's goal to run all gun dealers out of business! WalMart needs to take a close look at what happened to KMart when that retailer cooperated with
that other anti-gun bully,
Rosie O'Donnell. They also need to understand that criminals cannot and do not buy guns from licensed gun dealers such as WalMart! I run a 4-H Shooting Sports Club. I have an annual budget of about $4,000 to $5,000. I will no longer spend any of that money at WalMart. In fact, I'm buying
3 shotguns,
4 bows, 4 bow sights,
several dozen arrows, 2 cases of shotgun shells, and other
shooting supplies from Ace Hardware on Tuesday.
Sam
Walton and his favorite bird dog, Ol' Roy, are surely rolling
over in their graves. (10 May 2008) National Park rangers do a commendable job in protecting park property and the safety of employees and visitors over vast stretches of land. Nevertheless, because rangers cannot be everywhere at all times, serious criminal behavior (including murder and rape) still exists in parks and refuges just as it does elsewhere in society.
According to National Park Service data, between 2002 and 2007, there were 63 homicides in national parks, 240 rapes or attempted rapes, 309 robberies, 37 kidnappings and 1,277 aggravated assaults.
Laws and regulations which prevent law-abiding citizens from having the best means of self-protection -- a gun -- are immoral and unwise and have been proven to be ineffective in controlling criminal behavior. (Criminals by definition, do not obey the law.) The park service has deemed that national parks and refuges are so dangerous that its rangers are armed and even wear body armor. Law-abiding visitors and non-ranger employees are entitled to the same right of self-protection.
Therefore, I am concerned that the wording of the new rule continues to be too restrictive. The rule must be amended as necessary to fully comply with the wording and intent of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
If the National Park Service does not choose to fully comply with the US Constitution, as amended, the wording of the proposed rule must at least be changed to also allow open carry, without or without a permit, if the host state allows for such carry in a state park or refuge area; to clarify and specify that the new rule includes buildings and other structures on that federal property if the host state allows for such carry in buildings and other structures; and to guarantee the right of open or concealed carry to park/refuge employees and contractors, in addition to rangers, if the host state allows for such carry in a state park or refuge area.
I therefore recommend that the wording to the proposed rule for firearms in national parks be changed to:
"A person may possess, carry, and transport loaded, and operable firearms or other weapons within a national park area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport loaded and operable firearms or other weapons in the state in which the federal park, or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law."
And for National Wildlife Refuges:
"A person may possess, carry, and transport loaded, and operable firearms or other weapons within a national wildlife refuge area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport loaded and operable firearms or other weapons in the state in which the federal wildlife refuge, or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law."
Anything less is unsatisfactory and an insult to the integrity of law-abiding park visitors. (7 May 2008) The Preserving Records of Terrorist & Criminal
Transactions (PROTECT) Act of 2008 (S.2935) would require the FBI to preserve data generated from background checks for all gun purchases for 180 days. A perfectly satisfactory and effective process already exists for tracing guns used in crimes by using manufacturer, importer, and dealer records. There is absolutely no reason for any federal, state, or local government agency to maintain records on the purchasing habits of law-abiding citizens -- including the lawful purchase of firearms. S.2935 is merely a transparent effort to create a government database of gun owners to facilitate gun confiscation under future tyrannical governments such as occurred in the city of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and King George's assault on militia armories in Colonial America.
Congress and the Whitehouse must reject S.2935. (1 May 2008)
I am profoundly disappointed to learn that
Wal-Mart has caved in to the demands of New York City Mayor and
anti-liberty bully Michael Bloomberg regarding legal gun sales. I am an
NRA firearms instructor, Utah Concealed Firearms Permit instructor, and Utah Hunter Education Instructor. As such, I make gun purchase recommendations to my students. Unless Wal-Mart rescinds its agreement with Mayor Bloomberg, I will now recommend to my students that they avoid Wal-Mart for all their shopping, including gun-related purchases. Also, as a
4-H Shooting Sports club manager, I have a budget of over $4,000 for this year for shooting sports equipment. Unless Wal-Mart rescinds its agreement with Mayor Bloomberg, I will not spend any of this money at Wal-Mart. I urge
Wal-Mart to immediately rescinded any and all agreements they have made with any opponent of gun rights, including and especially Mayor Bloomberg. (19 Apr 1008) There is a mounting call for restricting
privately-owned firearms to only those arms with a "sporting
purpose". Gun-grabbers argue that firearms with a military
appearance or with a caliber larger than some arbitrary number have
no "sporting purpose". Now, even gun manufacturer advertising is
careful to note the "sporting purpose" of the firearms they make.
This superfluous standard runs contrary to the intent of the Second
Amendment to the US Constitution. When working out the wording of
the Second Amendment, the nation's founders were not thinking about
duck hunting or any other "sporting purpose". They wanted to ensure
that everyone understands that the Constitution guarantees (not
grants) the individual and personal God-given right to own and use
firearms. It is clear that they intended for us to have arms
comparable to those commonly used by any armed force employed
against the citizens by a tyrannical government or enemy nation.
(Some of the artillery used by George Washington's army was
reportedly on loan from, purchased from, or donated by, private
citizens! In fact, until the Gun Control Act of 1968, a US citizen
could buy surplus military cannons -- by mail!) The authors of the
Bill of Rights saw gun rights as essential to our ability to protect
ourselves, our families, our neighbors, our communities, our states,
and our nation from criminal attack, tyranny, and terrorism. The
Second Amendment is the nation's original "Homeland Security". (24
Mar 2008) Somebody heard a
gunshot near an Anchorage Alaska school yesterday, so school
officials called for a lockdown. Gunfire in a school zone? How can
that be?! It's generally unlawful to have a firearm within 1,000
feet of a school. Surely all criminals obey those gun-free-zone
laws, don't they? So, we have a congress-mandated gun-free zone
(school full of un-armed potential victims) and somebody shoots a
gun. The school's response is to confine those potential victims in
their classrooms so they'll be easier targets with no way to escape?
What "Einstein" came up with that idea? We gotta start letting
school staff carry guns in schools. They've all passed background
checks, so we already know they're certified law-abiding citizens.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. But an armed
teacher or janitor is there right now! (26 Feb 2008) Senator Edward Kennedy (the official poster child for term limits) has introduced
S-2605, a bill that seeks to ban the manufacture, importation, and
transfer (sale, gift, inheritance, etc.) of any semi-automatic pistol
that does not possess "a microscopic array of characters that identify
the make, model, and serial number of the pistol...etched into the
breech face and firing pin of the pistol," and stamp both sets of
characters into the cartridge case of a round of ammunition when the
round is fired. Representative Xavier Becerra has introduced an
identical bill, HR-5266 in the House.
Micro-stamping has repeatedly failed in scientific tests.
Micro-stampings are easily removed and, with use, will eventually wear
off the gun.
Most gun crimes cannot be solved by micro-stamping, or do not require
micro-stamping to be solved.
Most criminals who use guns get them through unregulated channels,
thus micro-stamping may increase gun thefts, home invasions and other
burglaries, and expand the black market in guns.
We already have over
20,000 federal, state and local gun-control laws
in this nation -- none of which has stopped a criminal from committing
a criminal act. If congress is to do anything at all about guns, put
all those existing gun laws in full compliance with the US
Constitution as intended by our nation's founders. Congress and the President
aggressively oppose any effort to require
micro-stamping, serial numbering of ammunition, or any other scheme which
attempts to control guns simply by unnecessarily increasing
production costs. (22 Feb 2008) Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
wants a
gun summit. We currently have over 20,000 gun-control laws in
this nation (none of which have any effect whatsoever on the
behavior of criminals). I wonder how many more would finally
meet the desires of Senator Clinton and the gun-control crowd. As a
life member of the NRA, I'm willing to compromise on gun control.
Here's my compromise: We cut those 20,000 laws down to 10,000
gun-control laws this year. I get half of what I want, the gun-grabbers
get half of what they want. 50-50. What could be more fair? Next year,
we can compromise the remaining 10,000 gun-control laws down to
5,000. Again, 50-50. Repeat until we have only one gun law left --
the Second Amendment. (19 Feb 2008)
A friend in Virginia recently tried to
donate blood at a Red Cross donation center, but was refused
because, as a concealed firearms permit holder, he was legally
carrying a concealed firearm. Permit holders undergo appropriate
firearm safety training and a full FBI background check to ensure
their fitness to carry a gun. Statistics show that permit holders
are more law-abiding than the general public. If involved in a gun
fight, they are less likely to shoot an innocent bystander than a
police officer. In fact, they are more likely end a confrontation
without shooting an attacker than is a police officer. For the Red
Cross to deny a law-abiding citizen the opportunity to donate blood
simply because he is exercising a Constitutionally-guaranteed right
is infantile and short-sighted. The Red Cross is doing nothing more
than creating another un-armed victim zone where criminals (who by
definition do not obey the rules) are free to reign unopposed. If
the Red Cross is going to prohibit donors from having the most
effective means of self-protection (a gun) the Red Cross must
immediately put in place an armed security force that will ensure
the safety of all patrons or accept full liability for any injury
sustained in their gun-free zones. (12 Feb 2007)
Fifty-five senators and 250 representatives have
signed onto a brief that urges the justices to strike down the ban
and assert that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to
own guns for their protection. I am disgusted by the fact that
Congress has the power and responsibility to terminate the DC gun
ban, thereby putting DC in compliance with the Constitution and
making the Heller case moot. Instead, Congress chooses to pass the
buck to the Supreme Court. This is but one more example of Congress'
failure to do its job by allowing presidents, judges, and even
un-accountable bureaucrats to do the job of the legislative branch.
Every congressman must work for immediate legislation that places
all federal and DC laws in strict compliance with the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment). Stop
allowing other entities to infringe on gun rights! (8 Feb 2008)
Under current federal law, firearm possession and transportation in our National Parks is
severely regulated.
Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma plans on offering an amendment to a broader bill on public lands issues in a move toward restoring the right of law-abiding Americans to
possess the most effective means of self-protection -- a gun -- on federal lands.
I urge Congress and the President to work aggressively for any and all legislation that will restore our Second Amendment rights as intended by the nation's founders. (7 Feb 2008)
Utah
SB-67, "Protection of Constitutionally Guaranteed Activities"
(aka Parking Lot Preemption) will prevent most employers from
banning lawfully possessed firearms in private cars parked in
employee parking lots. This bill is an extremely important step
toward restoring our right of self-protection. Under current law, a
woman who is employed by AOL, Phillips Petroleum, or any other
anti-gun company and who is in danger of harm from an estranged
boyfriend or husband cannot carry the necessary and most effective
means of self-protection while she commutes to and from work.
History shows that these gun-free zones can be extremely dangerous
places for law-abiding persons, since those with criminal intent
ignore the gun restriction. Unfortunately, SB-67 makes exceptions for parking on school premises, state and
local government entities, and religious organizations. I believe
the bill must be amended to remove these exceptions. The fact that a
law-abiding person works for a government entity, a school, or a
church cannot possibly justify any infringement of their right to
self-protection. (A
recent fatal shooting in a Lehi church parking lot makes this
painfully and abundantly clear.) I urge the Utah Legislature and the
Governor to take every possible step to ensure this bill, SB-67,
becomes law immediately with the above amendment. If this bill is
not passed, the state must require that all anti-gun employers
provide armed bodyguards for all employees who request them from
home, to work, and back home. (30 Jan 2008)
I oppose Senator Lautenberg's legislation to close
the supposed
gun show "loophole". Statistics clearly show that
criminals do not buy guns at gun shows. They steal them or buy them
on the black market. (No legislation, not even Senator Lautenberg's
misguided bill, will keep criminals from breaking the law.) As
anyone with an IQ above room temperature surely must know, all gun
sales by gun dealers must include a background check -- even at gun
shows. There is NO loophole for gun dealers. Hysterical anti-gun
activists such as Frank Lautenberg and Sarah Brady are trying to
regulate "unlicensed seller" transactions (those by private
individuals). However, these radicals ignore the fact that it is
already unlawful for any person (dealer or not) to transfer a
firearm to a restricted person. Therefore, there is already an
implicit background check requirement for non-dealers. If I were to
sell a gun in a private sale to another person, I'd hate to later
have the police knock on my door because that gun was used in a
crime. I'm sure that any private person selling a gun at a gun show
feels the same and is careful about to whom he sells. All that
aside, Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate
in-state transactions of any kind between private individuals --
even at a gun show. (Who cares about the Constitution anyway?) I urge
Congress to reject Senator Lautenberg's legislation to close the
supposed gun show "loophole". (29 Jan 2008)
Many law-abiding Louisiana citizens had their
firearms unlawfully confiscated at gunpoint in New Orleans after
Hurricane Katrina hit that city. Of course, this egregious
government action had no effect on criminals -- only on honest
people. Most will never see their confiscated property again nor
will they ever be compensated for the government-sanctioned theft. Utah
SB-157, "Rights of Citizens to Carry Firearms in Declared Emergency" (aka "Katrina RKBA")
will provide additional safeguards to prevent the government from
banning the possession of firearms during declared emergencies.
This legislation makes it clear to state and local governments that the right to possess and use the most effective means of self-protection is sacred and must not be infringed -- especially in times of chaos. This bill must become law immediately! (28 Jan 2008)
The Justice Department has filed an amicus curiae
(friend of the court) brief
defending the 1976 DC gun ban in the DC v. Heller case currently before
the Supreme Court. The DOJ claims that since the government bans
machine guns (Wrong! The federal government has never banned machine
guns in private law-abiding hands!), it should also be able to ban
handguns. What kind of logic it that? Where is the DOJ going to draw
the next line? The Justice Department also seems to believe that
trigger locks are not really that much of a burden, and that the
locks "can properly be interpreted" as not interfering with using
guns for self-protection. Yet, academic research on the impact of
trigger locks on crime finds that states that require guns be locked
up and unloaded face a five-percent increase in murder and a 12
percent increase in rape. Since the potential of armed victims
deters criminals, storing a gun locked and unloaded actually
encourages crime. The Justice Department calls on the Court to
acknowledge the Second Amendment as an individual right, yet asks
that the Circuit Court's decision in the case be reversed and
remanded (thrown out and sent back to the Circuit Court) with
instructions to determine whether DC's laws unreasonably restrict
resident's ability to exercise their rights. The DOJ is asking that
a different, much weaker standard be used for the Second Amendment
than the courts demand for other "individual rights" such as speech,
unreasonable searches and seizures, imprisonment without trial, and
drawing and quartering people. It appears that the
"pro-gun," Republican Department of Justice fears that any decision
from the Supreme Court which might determine that banning any class
of weapons is an infringement of the Second Amendment, might open
the door to challenges against other gun-control legislation.
If one accepts the notion that gun ownership is an individual right,
what does "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed" mean? What would the drafters of the Bill of Rights
have had to write if they really meant the right "shall not be
infringed"? Does the phrase "the right of the people" provide a
different level of protection in the Second Amendment than in the
First and Fourth? The US Constitution demands that the DC gun ban be
immediately be eliminated in its entirety. Anyone who disagrees
should seek to amend the Constitution -- not pass unconstitutional
gun regulation! President Bush has the power to fix this by
immediately ordering that the solicitor general's brief be
immediately withdrawn or significantly amended. The President,
Congress, and the NRA must apply all possible and necessary
pressure to the Justice Department to require them to withdraw their
"friend of the court" brief or amend it to fully recognize and
respect the Constitution as intended, written, and amended by our
nation's founders. Our politicians and the Department of Justice
must fight vigorously
for all our rights, including gun rights, guaranteed by the Constitution as clearly
intended by our nation's founders -- not as modified by the state
and federal governments over the past 75 years.
(21 Jan 2007)
Another victim of gun-free zones! A
woman was shot to death by her estranged husband yesterday in a
Utah church parking lot. Utah law allows businesses and
churches to
ban firearms on their property. The
LDS church has chosen to take advantage of that law as have
several businesses. (Remember last year's shootings in Salt Lake's
"gun-free"
Trolley Square Mall?) In light of several recent shootings at
churches and businesses around the nation, I believe it is time for
all businesses and churches to reconsider their bans. While legal,
it is myopic and morally wrong for any church or business to ban the
best means of self-protection (a gun) while failing to provide an
alternate form of adequate security and protection for visitors and
customers. This is especially true in cases of women with dangerous
husbands and boyfriends such as yesterday's tragic case. Do these
churches and businesses really believe that people with evil intent
will obey any gun ban? Do they really believe that persons who have
taken appropriate firearms training and who have undergone a
background check to certify their status as persons of sound
judgment as conditions to possess and carry a concealed firearm are
dangerous? (Utah updates this background check on every Utah
concealed firearm permit holder every day.) I urge the Utah legislature to immediately
pass
legislation that will hold government entities, churches, and businesses liable
for injuries resulting from their failure to provide adequate
security for visitors in any gun-free zone they create -- including parking lots. (7 Jan 2007)
Congressmen Zack Space (D-Ohio) and Steve King
(R-Iowa) have introduced the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2007"
(HR-4900). This legislation is needed to protect the rights of
firearms dealers, bring consistency to
ATF enforcement
actions and provide ATF with additional compliance tools long
sought by the bureau. HR-4900 will overhaul many of the
administrative penalties for licensed firearms dealers,
manufacturers and importers of firearms that currently treat simple
innocent paperwork mistakes as purposeful and willful violations of
the law. The legislation will also provide more flexibility in
punishing those who violate gun sales laws, establish a solid legal
requirement for determining the willful violation of the law, set
limitations on the availability of electronic gun owner information
to protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens, and ban the federal
background check tax. I urge Congress to immediately pass HR-4900.
(2 Jan 2007)
I don't think Governor Romney has any grasp of how
badly he's blowing it with gun owners. If there is one issue that
puts Governor Huckabee ahead of Governor Romney, this is it. Simply
shucking out a few bucks for an NRA membership does not fool any of us.
Governor Romney is following the same transparent path that made
Senator Kerry a joke among us gun owners. Governor Romney's fiasco
with being a "life-long hunter" won absolutely no points. Many of
the candidates, including Governor Romney, are profoundly ignorant
on the subject of firearms and gun rights. (For example, it's
painful to watch Governor Romney's
tortuous handling of the issue.) I strongly urge Governor Romney
and his wife
spend a couple of days at FrontSight
with no news media present or even an announcement until after the
visit. Heck, make it a family affair and take the boys, too! I just can't think of a better place than FrontSight for the
Governor to get some solid exposure to guns and what the Second
Amendment is really about. I can't think of a better person to talk
about gun rights than Dr. Piazza and his staff at FrontSight. I
guarantee this experience will make Governor Romney a more credible
candidate and a better president. However, the governor must not make this a political stunt like Senator Kerry's goose
hunt! (1 Jan 2008)
I thank Idaho Senator Mike Crapo for his
14 Dec letter (endorsed by 46 other senators, including my own) requesting the National Park Service and the Fish
and Wildlife Service remove prohibitions on law-abiding citizens
from transporting and carrying firearms on lands managed by these
agencies. As the letter contends, these regulations infringe on our
God-given and Constitutionally guaranteed right to
possess adequate tools for self-protection.
However, I am deeply disappointed and appalled that this letter does
nothing more than ask a couple of political appointees and
bureaucrats to change the rules. Congress has the long-forgotten
power to require -- not merely ask -- that these agencies honor the
Constitution and the Second Amendment. Indeed, Congress, itself, can
change these regulations without seeking the permission of any
bureaucrat! As a voter I expect my congressmen to
introduce and support legislation to immediately change 36 CFR 2.4
and 50 CFR 27.42 and all other federal laws and rules to fully
comply with the US Constitution and the Second Amendment. (17 Dec 2007)
According to many experts, "gun-free zones" are a fraud, because no alternate means of security is provided other than calling for the police. (When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.) Even FBI-certified concealed firearm permit holders cannot enter. This leaves only the criminal element (who by definition don't obey laws) armed, and free to wreak havoc without a meaningful deterrent. Concealed-weapon laws enacted in most states, including Utah, were designed to counteract random shootings, but are defeated by the recklessly created gun-free zones that are anything but gun free. We desperately need a tool to get the attention of those who would disarm law-abiding citizens by creating gun-free zones. In the wake of recent public shootings in so-called gun-free zones such as Salt Lake's Trolley Square Mall, at least one state (Arizona) will introduce a bill that says if you create a so-called "gun-free zone" you are liable for any harm it causes. Arizona's
Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act of 2008 does not prevent public places from banning the civil right to keep and bear arms. Arizona's proposed law only addresses the negligent nature of such zones, making those responsible for disarming innocent bystanders liable for damages. It does not affect secure locations such as airports and courts where armed security personnel provide protection. I am very pleased that the Utah Legislature chose to provide a means for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms in school zones which would otherwise be federal gun-free zones (unarmed victim zones). But, Utah,
like all other states, still has many gun-free zones with no provision for protection of customers and church-goers. These zones are proven to be dangerous, as recent shootings at Virginia Tech and other schools, Salt Lake and Omaha shopping malls and even churches have demonstrated. The states must stop this gun-free-zone madness, perpetrated by anti-self-defense zealots who would rather see innocent people die than risk harm to a criminal.
I urge legislators in every state to introduce and pass similar gun-free-zone liability legislation. (11 Dec 2007)
Michael Sullivan is the acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).
Unfortunately, President Bush has nominated Sullivan to permanently
take over the BATFE. The House Commerce & Justice Committee issued a
stinging rebuke to the BATFE because the Bureau has a long and
egregious history of extreme hostility toward law-abiding gun owners
and honest gun dealers. An example of this hostility is their
history of attacking dealers for nothing more than because customers
often enter "Y" or "N" abbreviations on 4473 forms (Firearms
Transaction Record) instead of spelling out the words "Yes" or "No".
The Bureau has a history of confiscating legal firearms from
law-abiding citizens, then extensively modifying those firearms to
full-automatic (often with unsafe results), then accusing the owners
of possessing fully-automatic arms! BATFE videos show this
incompetent "testing" conducted without standards! A top BATFE
executive openly admitted, on tape, to a policy of lying to the
public. The BATFE is out of control and must immediately be brought
under control or disbanded. Michael Sullivan is NOT the person to
accomplish this goal. He does not respect the
Constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms. He does not have the
will nor integrity needed to bring the BATFE under control. He must
immediately be replaced by someone who does. (4 Dec 2007)
The NICS Improvement Amendments Act (HR-2640/S-2084) would require federal
agencies to provide relevant records for use in NICS (National
Instant Criminal Background Check System). It would also provide
financial incentives to states to do the same, by rewarding states
that provide records to NICS and penalizing those that refuse to do
so over an extended period of time.
Unlike most congressmen who have (and will) voted on this bill, I
have actually read it! I am deeply concerned about this legislation
for the following reasons:
The accuracy of the list of up to 21 million people Congress may
soon add to the NICS list is unknown, controversial and being
ignored by power brokers pushing for quick adoption of this dubious
bill.
People might avoid seeking medical attention if it means they
might lose their rights.
Prior legal acts, medications, treatments and therapies might
lead to inclusion in the NICS list without notice.
Inclusion in the NICS database might, in the future, justify a
loss of employment, security clearance, passport access, voting
rights, teaching license and more.
A person unknowingly added to the list might be committing a
felony by applying for a gun at retail, with no practical mechanism
for advice or redress.
Federal prosecutors in Project Safe Neighborhoods (formerly
Project Exile) may be poised to prosecute "crimes" like a denied
attempt to purchase firearms at retail.
The idea of the mental health community issuing gun passes to
people it formerly categorized as unfit would seem like a joke if it
wasn't so serious.
The remedies some lobbyists seem so hopeful about strike me as
window dressing that will not see the light of day, if the
authorities in charge have anything to do with it, aside from the
fact that the whole scheme rests on a process that has been dead for
15 years because it hasn't been funded since 1992.
NICS clearly does not have adequate protection for the gun rights of
law-abiding citizens who have been and who might be wrongly denied
the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to own and use firearms.
HR-2640/S-2084 fails to fix the most serious NICS problems. As a minimum, HR-2640 must be amended:
To guarantee full funding for immediately, fairly, and correctly
processing applicants for removal from the NICS list. Certain
anti-gun congressmen have blocked funding necessary to process these
applications. This denial of funding must be prohibited.
To accurately identify and include only persons who are
dangerous to themselves or others.
To require and fund a full and immediate initial audit of NICS
and remove, at no charge, the records of all persons who have not
been clearly and correctly identified as prohibited persons. This
initial audit must be followed by mandatory annual audits with the
same purpose, also at no cost to the individual.
To immediately remove the names of some 83,000 veterans (there may
be up to 140,000!) that the
Veterans Administration entered into the system seven years ago, for
what the media have identified as alleged mental health reasons.
Soldiers should not have to petition or pay for that.
To immediately rescind Title 18 USC § 922(g)(9) (the so-called
Lautenberg Amendment) which ex post facto denies gun rights to
persons with nothing more than misdemeanor domestic violence
convictions. If a crime is not serious enough to warrant a felony
conviction, it is not serious enough to warrant denial of a
Constitutionally-enumerated right! Then, immediately purge the
records of all affected persons from NICS.
Former NRA president once said, "Judge a law by the worst reading,
and in the hands of the worst enemies of the Second Amendment."
HR-2640/S-2084 must be amended to guarantee that NICS will never be abused
by anti-gun legislators, judges, presidents, and bureaucrats and
that all past abuses and errors are fully and immediately rectified.
(1 Nov 2007)
I applaud Representative Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida for her
26 October comments regarding the Second
Amendment. Ironically, this comes at a time when certain anti-gun
presidential candidates are giving transparent, lip-service support
to the Second Amendment with the assumption that gun-rights
supporters are too stupid to see through their deceitful statements.
Since "We the People of the United States" established the US
Constitution and its authority as well as the authority of the US
government, the Constitution belongs to us -- not judges,
lawyers, bureaucrats, the ACLU or the mayor of Washington DC. "We
the People of the United States" elect legislators as our
representatives -- not judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, the ACLU
or the mayor of Washington DC.
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft said, "Just as the First and
Fourth Amendments secure individual rights of speech and security,
respectively, the Second Amendment protects an
individual right to
keep and bear arms." That is a plain, simple, common sense
description of the Second Amendment. But, Ashcroft was not a
representative of the people when he made that statement -- he was
merely one of the President's advisors.
What we desperately need is for the representatives of the people --
Congress -- to immediately pass legislation confirming the founders'
intent that all of the Bill of Rights guarantee individual rights,
that they shall not be abridged, and that all laws and regulations
that have abridged these rights are null and void.
Congress must cease to stand idly by while judges, lawyers,
bureaucrats, the ACLU, the mayor of Washington DC, the several
states, local governments, and Congress itself abridge our
individual civil liberties! The President must demand and sign such
legislation. (29 Oct 2007)
In his
editorial today,
Jay Evensen, editor of the Deseret News, let us know how
seriously he takes the First Amendment and the freedom from
government meddling needed for a free press. Unfortunately, past
Deseret News editorials regarding firearms indicate that the
freedom-loving editor has a far lower regard for the Second
Amendment than he does for the First. He clearly believes a right
considered so important that the founders deemed it important to
specifically prohibit government infringement is not so important
after all. Remember, Jay, it is the Second Amendment that guarantees
all other freedoms -- it is not about hunting or any other
sporting use of firearms. Jay, unless you take the Second Amendment
as literally and seriously as you do the First, one day you will truly miss it. (28 Oct
2007)
I applaud the stand that Barrett Rifles has taken with regard to gun
control. Barrett refuses to sell its products to government agencies
in California so long as California has its .50-caliber ban in
place. California has now banned ammunition containing lead for
hunting in much of the state. California has also mandated "microstamping" which will likely raise the price of handguns out of
the reach of ordinary law-abiding citizens. These egregious attacks
on the civil rights of Californians must be met with firm resolve by
the entire gun industry. I urge the entire firearms industry to
unite in an immediate and complete embargo on sale of arms, firearm
parts, firearm servicing, firearms training, ammunition, and
ammunition components to any government agency in California and in
any other state which imposes legislation similar to that which has
been thrust upon California citizens. (25 Oct 2007)
I recently wrote to several presidential candidates
about gun rights. I wrote because I'm not confident I can trust most
of them to protect my gun rights. I specifically asked what
gun-control laws each would fight to have removed from the books.
(The
Centers For Disease Control
found no evidence that any of the over
20,000 gun-control laws on the books in the US, including those
Romney
signed in Massachusetts, have stopped bad guys from committing gun
crimes.) The Mitt Romney campaign responded to me via
email on 23
October, but did not fully answer my questions or concerns. In part,
they said, "I firmly believe in the importance of responsible gun
ownership and sales. As a member of the National Rifle Association,
I do not believe that we need any more federal gun control laws. I
also recognize that some types of extreme weapons, those which were
not meant for hunting, sport, or self-defense, have no business
being on the streets." The letter said we don't "need any more
federal gun control laws." Again, what will Romney do about the
20,000 gun-control laws that infringe on my Constitutionally
guaranteed rights, yet have no effect whatsoever on criminal
behavior? The Romney campaign said "some types of extreme weapons,
those which were not meant for hunting, sport, or self-defense, have
no business being on the streets." As an attorney, Romney must
surely know that the Second Amendment is NOT about hunting or
protecting a hunting rifle with a finely-checkered walnut stock.
Instead, it was the intent of the founders for us to have the tools
needed to defend individual liberty from a tyrannical government.
Therefore, I ask that Romney explain what he means by "extreme
weapons". Is he referring to
the guns he banned as governor, simply
because they don't meet a cosmetic test? These ugly guns are, in
fact, the very guns the founders tried to protect for the militia
(Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311 of the U.S. Code defines the
militia as consisting of all able-bodied males 17 years of age and
under 45 years of age who are or wish to become citizens plus others
-- ie "the people".). (23 Oct
2007)
It is generally unlawful for 14-year-olds to possess
handguns and handgun ammunition. A
14-year-old shooter in Cleveland had both this week when he shot
2 schoolmates, 2 teachers, and himself. It is generally unlawful to possess a
firearm within 1000 feet of a
school zone. The 14-year-old shooter
in Cleveland did. It is unlawful to commit murder. The 14-year-old
shooter in Cleveland did. It may come as a surprise to some (ie
Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Adrian Fenty,
etc.), but those with criminal intent, by definition, do
not obey laws -- including gun laws! The Brady Bunch and their
allies have the odd
idea that disarming law-abiding citizens (including school
employees) and background checks for gun purchasers will somehow
cause persons with criminal intentions to stop committing gun
crimes. It is time for Sarah Brady and her ilk to grow up and work
with the NRA to put a proven gun safety program, Eddie-Eagle,
into every grade level every school in the nation. And, all laws
against guns in school zones must be immediately rescinded
law-abiding adults can carry arms for personal protection in
public
schools and colleges nationwide. (12 Oct 2007)
Once again, a child has
died of a gunshot. Children are almost always shot for one of only three
reasons:
1 - The child is a member of a gang
3 - A family member has gone wacko, or
2 - The child, or someone around him, does not have
adequate gun safety training.
Of course, all three causes of death are
tragic and a horrible waste of a young life.
The third is clearly the easiest to fix. To do so, we need to get
politicians, educators, and parents to pull their heads out of the
sand (or wherever they have their head) on the gun issue.
Prohibition has been proven to be the wrong answer. (Gun crime is
always highest where guns are banned.) Making guns a taboo only
entices children to explore them without adequate supervision. It's time for universal,
age-appropriate firearms training at every age level in our schools.
Politicians, educators, and parents must work to immediately get the
NRA's Eddie-Eagle program into every elementary school in the nation
and more advanced training by NRA-certified instructors or certified
police instructors for the older students including actual
handling and firing of firearms. If we, as a state and as a nation
do that, gun-related deaths and injuries will plummet. (24 Sep 2007)
The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968 became
effective 30 September 1996. It violates Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution ("No Bill of Attainder or
ex post facto Law shall be passed.") in that it retroactively punishes non-felons for relatively minor crimes committed prior to enactment of the Lautenberg bill.
(This is one of countless examples of the profound lack of
understanding of, and respect for, the US Constitution in Congress.
Due to their gross ignorance and/or negligence, nearly every US
Senator voted for this bill!) The Lautenberg Amendment potentially affects any soldier,
police officer or any other person who has been convicted of
domestic violence by voiding their right to possess a firearm.
Obviously, no one defends the behavior of wife beaters and child
abusers. But, the argument is about the punishment fitting the
crime. If the penalty for a crime is a $50 and no jail time,
permanent revocation of an enumerated Constitutional right is
clearly excessive. If the crime is deserving of revocation of rights, it is
deserving of a punishment of more than a year in prison. The gun
rights of all non-felons must be restored by immediately repealing
the Lautenberg Amendment. This is bad law! (23 Sep 2007)
The Brady Bill of 1993 (HR-1025) established a
waiting period and an instant check system. The US Constitution
specifically prohibits Congress from regulating the right of the
people to keep and bear arms. Therefore, this legislation is
unconstitutional. Additionally, this legislation has had no effect
whatsoever on the behavior of violent criminals. Dr. Ron Paul has
introduced HR-1096 (Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007) to
repeal the 1993 Brady Bill. HR-1096 would also remove the "sporting
purpose" distinction that is used to ban certain types of guns. This
vague term is used to ban guns arbitrarily deemed too ugly to be a
sporting gun. The intent of the Second Amendment is far more than
the sporting use of firearms such as duck hunting. Since all
gun-control laws have been 100% ineffective in keeping guns out of
criminal hands, Congress work vigorously for the immediate
implementation of HR-1096. Then, Congress must work to eliminate all
other laws which are contrary to the original intent of the Second
Amendment. (18 Sep 2007)
Section 215 of the S-456, the Feinstein "gang" bill
is likely (and probably intended) to place innocent persons at
considerable risk of being treated as gangsters. In essence,
families, gun shop employees, and even members of a church bowling
league would be considered an organized "gang" and subjected to
draconian prison sentences if a person in that group did any of a
number of things, such as:
having a gun (loaded or unloaded) in their glove box as they --
inevitably -- drive within 1,000 feet of a school, even if they
don't know the school is there;
selling a gun out of their store while being entrapped in a
Bloomberg-style "sting" operation;
teaching their son to shoot without giving him a written letter of
permission (which must be on his actual person), even if they are
standing right behind him at the range the whole time; or,
simply being one the 83,000 veterans whose names were illegally
added to the Brady system by President Clinton (or, presumably, one
of the thousands more who will be on the list if the current
Veterans Disarmament bill, HR-2640, passes), if they continued to
possess a firearm.
Section 215 must immediately be purged from S-456.
(18 Sep 2007)
As a military veteran and life member of the NRA, I
am opposed so-called School Safety Act, sponsored by Patrick Leahy
in the Senate and Carolyn McCarthy in the House (HR 2640). This bill
would be better named the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military
Order of the Purple Heart states that "For the first time the
legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban
on battle-scarred veterans." It is simply un-American to penalize
individuals (especially combat veterans) with no due process by
assuming they are guilty until proven innocent. Anti-gun zealots
such as Leahy and McCarthy are always looking to expand the number
of citizens who are prohibited from exercising their Second
Amendment rights. I don't believe that this bill will provide the
relief that supporters are promising. The McClure-Volkmer of 1986
supposedly created a path for restoring the Second Amendment rights
of prohibited persons. However, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer has
successfully pushed appropriations language which has defunded this
procedure since the 1990s (without significant opposition from the
many cowards who claim to support gun rights). It is therefore not
too difficult for some anti-gun congressman like Schumer to bar the
funding of any new procedure for relief that follows from the
McCarthy-Leahy bill. The McCarthy-Leahy bill is gun control, pure
and simple, and voting for it would tell me you don't care about
trivial things such as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
And, everyone who is even moderately informed (including anti-gun
bigots) knows that criminals, by definition, don't obey laws --
including the 20,000 anti-gun laws already on the books. There is no Constitutional authority for this bill nor for any other
form of gun control. In fact, the Constitution specifically
prohibits any form of gun control! Just as there is no background
check required to exercise any other Constitutionally-guaranteed
right (yet), there must be none for Second Amendment rights! We
lawful gun owners don't want Congress to expand the Brady Instant
Check, we want Congress to repeal it! Now! (5 Sep 2007)
I am deeply disappointed to learn that eBay has
chosen to further restrict the listing of firearms-related items
because, like hammers, kitchen knives, automobiles and baseball
bats, they might be used to cause harm.
This policy change, in my opinion, is extremely myopic. There are over 20,000 laws regulating firearms in the United States
-- most of which are rooted in ignorance-based paranoia and bigotry.
I hate to see a great institution such as eBay fall prey to the
hysteria of ill-informed policymakers and the anti-gun crowd. I
suggest the policymakers learn a bit about firearms and how safe
they are in the hands of normal people with a bit of training.
Statistically, the shooting sports are
among
the safest of sports -- even safer than the soccer games
American moms take their eight-year-olds to every day. I believe
that a couple of hours on the shooting range with a firearms
instructor will change eBay's mind. There is no reasonable reason why
eBay can't continue to profit as the medium for trade in any
firearms-related item not requiring the handling of a licensed
firearms dealer. I
urge eBay to reconsider the planned changes. (7 Aug 2007)
Congressman Ron Paul's bill HR-1897 will allow
law-abiding gun owners to be able to carry a handgun for
self-defense in a National Park. The US Constitution is very clear
that the federal government (including bureaucrats and politicians)
has no authority to deprive Americans of the right to keep and bear
arms -- even in National Parks. The bureaucracy of the Department of
the Interior has arrogantly refused to seriously consider changing
their current regulations to allow citizens the right to
self-defense, even though crime is on the rise in National Parks.
There is substantial evidence that criminals do not respect fun-free
zones such as National Parks and school zones. There are sufficient
other laws to punish those who commit a crime with a gun in National
parks. So, there is no need to criminalize the possession of a
self-defense tool in these locations. Congress and the president
must act immediately allow innocent persons to protect their own
lives, and those of other innocent persons, in National Parks. (5
Aug 2007)
On 29 June, I learned of the issue of OSHA's move to establish
extreme rules regarding ammunition and ammunition components. I immediately contacted the
NRA, CCRKBA, SAF,
GOA,
NSSF,
Utah State Rifle & Pistol Assn,
my congressmen, and several major retailers in the firearms industry. On 3 July, I got a
single response that seemed to indicate that
everyone, including the NRA was completely unaware of this OSHA rule change proposal! Later
that
afternoon, the NRA issued their press release. I never got a
response
from any other organization, although CCRKBA and SAF issued press
releases about the same time as the NRA. I'd say two things were a
factor in almost losing this one:
1 - OSHA tried to sneak this change through under the cover of
darkness, probably at the prodding of someone very powerful, very
smart, and very evil.
2 - The NRA bureaucracy apparently was caught with its pants down as were all
other major gun-rights organizations.
There is no excuse for any
organization with such an expensive budget as the NRA getting
blindsided by something like this. Wayne LaPierre's primary focus on
fund-raising rather than on saving our gun rights must change
immediately or he must be replaced with someone who will. SAF,
CCRKBA, and other gun rights organizations likewise must shift their
focus from fund-raising to gun rights. My guess is that 99% of
American gun owners still do not know about this very serious issue.
I am mad as hell about the failure of the firearms industry and of
the gun-rights movement to catch this earlier and to adequately
spread the news! This must never happen again! (10 Jul
2007)
Several paragraphs of proposed rule
changes in
OSHA-2007-0032 will have a severe and unwarranted adverse impact
on firearms retailers that also sell ammunition and reloading
components. Examples of extreme changes include: Paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(C)
would effectively prohibit any gun shop or retailer from selling
ammunition or reloading components, destroying much their business.
Gunsmiths would be unable to do their job correctly because their
facility requires test firing firearms yet would be unable to have
the ammunition in their facility. Paragraph (e)(1)(iii) would
require a customer who bought reloading components or ammunition
have to inform the local fire and police departments to transfer
their purchases to their homes. Paragraph (h)(3)(i)(B) imposes an
unreasonable twenty-pound limit on displayed smokeless propellants.
There are scores of variations and brands of powder available on the
market. Limiting what can be displayed will have a severe impact on
sales. Furthermore, eight-pound containers are necessary and
reasonable to competitive shooters. Paragraph (h)(4)(i)(C) limits
primer quantities to 10,000. To the knowledgeable person, this is a
very small amount, considering that there are nine basic types of
primers (large pistol, small small pistol, large rifle, small rifle,
large magnum pistol, small magnum small pistol, large magnum rifle,
small magnum rifle, and shotgun) in each brand, typically sold in
quantities of 1,000. That means a retailer could only display one
box of each type and only one brand! The proposed changes of
OSHA-2007-0032 attempt to fix a problem that history and
experience demonstrate does not exist. The changes appear to be
generated from a paranoid, misinformed source which is totally
ignorant of, or hostile to, the shooting sports and the firearms
industry. They are another example of an out-of-control,
over-reaching federal government. They must be rejected. (29 Jun
2007)
The
Tiahrt amendment keeps the
ATF
from requiring firearms dealers to conduct physical inventories of
guns, from denying licenses to low-volume gun dealers, and from
demanding that some dealers document all used guns sold in a
specific period.
Contrary to the lies and distortions coming from anti-gun prevaricators such as
Sarah Brady and New York's Mayor Bloomberg, the Tiahrt Amendment
does not prohibit law enforcement from accessing or sharing firearm
trace data as needed to solve crimes and catch criminals. Congress
must make permanent the Tiahrt restrictions on ATF's
ability intrude into lawful trade in, and ownership of, legal
firearms. (26 Jun 2007)
Senator Frank Lautenberg has introduced S-683 that would require
child-proof handguns. This absurd legislation would unnecessarily
complicate firearms. Increased complexity invariably leads to
increased chances of failure. This legislation clearly is a
wrong-headed way to improve safety. Every year, there are too many
tragedies because a child gets a hold of a gun and then
unintentionally shoots someone, frequently another child and
sometimes a sibling or a friend. This can best be resolved through
better education of both parents and children. I Congress and the
Whitehouse to oppose S-683. Instead, Congress must work with the NRA
to get quality gun education programs such as the NRA's Eddie Eagle
Course and the NRA's Home Firearm Safety Course into homes and
schools. (23 May 2007)
The advocates of harsh gun control have invented the term "gun show
loophole" to restrict private individuals who are not gun dealers
from buying and selling firearms. They want to impose criminal
background checks on these non-commercial transactions. As
reasonably informed people know, it already is unlawful for any
person (private or businessman) to transfer a firearm to a
restricted person. Closing the alleged "gun show loophole" will not
augment that law in anyway. Additionally, federal studies show that
criminals almost never obtain their firearms at gun shows. The "gun
show loophole" is merely a scam it further infringe on the rights of
law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, the US Congress does not have
authority to regulate private transactions at gun shows since they
are not interstate in nature. Congress and the Whitehouse must
reject legislation that would require criminal background checks on
private gun sales at gun shows or in any other venue. (23 May 2007)
The so-called "Gun
Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007", HR-96 is an effort to fix a
problem that doesn't exist. Everything about this bill is dishonest
and preys on the ignorance and/or bigotry of certain segments of our
nation. Since every gun show takes place entirely within the
boundaries of a single state, Congress has no legitimate
constitutional basis, under its "interstate commerce" power, to
attempt to control gun shows. The US Department of Justice conducted
a survey of prison inmates and determined that
criminals do not go to gun stores or gun shows to buy their guns.
Surprise! Criminals get their guns illegally! Additionally, all gun
show transactions between buyers and dealers already undergo a
background check in accordance with the law. Firearms are the most
severely regulated consumer product in the United States -- the only
product for which FBI permission is required for every single sale a
dealer makes, even at gun shows. A few gun owners do take advantage
of a gun show to sell a privately-owned firearm, but the vast
majority of gun show venders who are not licensed gun dealers do not
sell guns at gun shows -- they sell other products such as used
books, jewelry and camping equipment. In reality, the goal of this
bill is to harass gun show promoters and force them to stop
producing gun shows. It is a blatant effort to limit our
Constitutionally-protected right of
freedom of assembly and freedom of association. Personally, I do
not feel safer anywhere than in a gun show surrounded by hundreds of
law-abiding gun-owners. I urge Congress and the president to defend
my rights as a gun owner by opposing any and all efforts to pass
gun-control legislation of any kind. If Congress really wants to do
something about gun crime, pass legislation funding and mandating
that positive gun-safety training, such as NRA's "Eddie Eagle"
education program, be taught annually in all schools nationwide.
Congress and the president must reject HR-96. (8 May 2007)
The anti-gun crowd in Congress is exploiting the tragedy at Virginia
Tech to renew their cry call for "reasonable" gun-control laws.
Apparently, they seem to think that none of the more than
20,000
gun-control laws in this nation are "reasonable". I suppose I agree,
since the last truly "reasonable" federal gun law was ratified in
December, 1791. We call it the
Second Amendment to the US
Constitution and many consider it the original (and most effective)
Homeland Security legislation. Of course, what the gun-control crowd
really means by "reasonable" is a complete ban on guns and
ammunition for all law-abiding citizens or to make their purchase so
cumbersome as to effectively prohibit their purchase. Is there
anyone in the gun-control crowd who understands that criminals by
definition are people who disobey laws? One of their "reasonable"
bills is HR-297 (S-1706 if the Senate companion bill), the
NICS Improvement Act. This bill would only
worsen an already bad jumble of gun-control laws.
Bureaucrats have already used the Brady Law to illegitimately deny
the Second Amendment rights of innocent Americans. Americans have
been prevented from buying guns because of outstanding traffic
tickets, because of database errors, because the NICS computer
system has crashed, etc. I fear even our loyal combat veterans will
be denied their gun rights because of combat-related stress. Our
veterans, although mentally stable may be wrongly and unfairly
denied their gun rights because of this "mental illness". I
understand that some in the Senate may try to push HR-297 (S-1706)through by
Unanimous Consent in the Senate, which basically means that the bill
would get passed without a vote. I urge every congressman to
aggressively oppose this bill and urge their party leadership to
either kill it outright or amend it with pro-gun amendments such as,
An immediate repeal of the
DC gun ban,
Full interstate
reciprocity for concealed-firearm permit
holders,
Elimination of all restrictions on the
interstate transfer of firearms (NICS makes this law obsolete.),
Full restoration of gun rights to non-violent felons upon
completion of their probation,
Elimination of laws which deny gun rights to persons convicted of
certain misdemeanors
(If a crime is serious enough to warrant voiding a person's
Constitutionally enumerated right, it's serious enough to be a
felony!),
A congressional acknowledgement that the Second Amendment guarantees
individual gun rights,
Elimination of so-called
gun-free (disarmed victim) zones in and
around schools,
Federal funding for Eddie-Eagle gun-safety classes in all public and private schools
and mandatory annual gun-safety training, by an NRA-certified
instructor or law-enforcement officer, in all schools receiving
federal funding in any form, and
A 90-day sunset on all current and future federal gun-control
laws.
In its current form, HR-297 (S-1706) is completely unacceptable, not to
mention that Congress is specifically prohibited by the US
Constitutional from deciding who can possess firearms! Finally, all
the background checks and other gun restrictions in the world will
not stop bad guys from getting firearms or devising their own tools
of death. Again, is there anyone in the gun-control crowd who
understands that criminals by definition are people who disobey
laws? Every Constitution-respecting congressman must do everything
he or she can to oppose HR-297 (S-1706) until it is amended to
ensure it does not adversely affect any military veteran and is
amended to enhance gun rights as suggested above. (26 Apr 2007)
About a year ago, I wrote to my Congressmen,
the Whitehouse, and to members of the House and Senate Armed
Services Committees about a very serious civil-rights issue
affecting soldiers in the US Army stationed in Alaska. My letters
were never answered, apparently ignored. This comment is related to
that same issue. In November, 2005 Major General Charles H. Jacoby
Jr., the Commanding General of US Army Alaska, issued a three-page
policy outlining the most draconian firearms registration, storage,
and transportation rules imaginable. These restrictions apply to all
personnel living on post, including service members, their families,
and civilians living in base housing and carry serious penalties for
failure to comply. Later, General Jacoby took his gun control scheme
a step farther by releasing a policy statement forbidding any US
Army Alaska personnel to carry a concealed weapon any time,
anywhere, on post or off post regardless of Alaska law to the
contrary. The right of self-protection, including the right to
posses firearms is one of our basic, God-given rights. General
Jacoby has gone far beyond reason and his authority in depriving his
soldiers of that right. As anyone who has a modicum of knowledge of
history knows that gun-control laws do not affect criminal behavior.
They only deprive law-abiding citizens of a basic human right. If
General Jacoby were to have any soldiers in his command who are
prone to crime, his gun-control policies would not alter that
behavior. They would continue to get into trouble. A true leader
would deal with that bad behavior rather than punish all his good
soldiers. Now, General Jacoby has been nominated for promotion to
the rank of Lieutenant General and for the post of Commander of Fort
Lewis and I Corp. I understand that his nomination is on hold in the
Armed Services Committee pending answers to some serious, unrelated
leadership failures in General Jacoby's past. Instead of a
promotion, or even retention in the Army, General Jacoby must
immediately be removed from command and punished for abuse of his
authority. His gun-control policies must be immediately reversed.
(17 Apr 2007)
Salt Lake City's
Trolley Square Mall was posted as a
gun-free zone,
yet was was the site of some horrible murders a few weeks ago. Today, over
50 innocent persons were shot (32 fatally) in cold blood at Virginia Tech.
The shooter also committed suicide at the scene. This happened in spite of a university
policy
that states that nearly everyone is "prohibited from
carrying, maintaining, or storing a firearm or weapon on any
university facility, even if the owner has a valid permit, when it
is not required by the individual's job...." Surely in the wake of this, and
several other school shootings, even the most ardent gun-control advocates
see the folly of gun-free zones. Obviously, the police cannot
reasonably respond in time to stop tragedy before it begins.
In fact, when asked what could be done to avert a tragedy like this,
the president of the Virginia Tech responded, "We obviously can't
have an armed guard in front of every classroom every day." Since
the university president admits that he can't protect people on his
campus, why does he insist on taking away people's ability to
protect themselves? Many
judges understand the foolishness of gun-free zones and chose to
carry a gun in their own gun-free courtrooms - even though they
have an armed bailiff standing by! This year's Utah's legislature
was wise in not giving Utah's colleges and universities authority to
increase the number
or size of gun-free zones (i.e. unarmed victim zones). The legislature
now must take steps to either
reduce the number of gun-free zones in this state or establish civil
liabilities for business and other entities who establish gun-free
zones without substituting adequate protection for visitors. It's only a matter of time before
such a shooting happens in one of Utah's
gun-free churches. Innocent people need, and have the inherent,
Constitutionally-protected right, to protect themselves. It's past
time for the government and
gun-control advocates to respect the US and Utah Constitutions
and end their unlawful assault on that right. (16
Apr 2007)
While the news media has been silent of the
matter, I have learned that the Trolley Square Mall was posted as a
gun-free zone when the
recent shootings occurred. Surely in the wake of this, and
several school shootings, even the most ardent gun-control advocates
see the folly of gun-free zones. It's only a matter of time before
such a shooting happens in one of Utah's gun-free churches. Many
judges understand the foolishness of gun-free zones and chose to
carry a gun in their own gun-free courtrooms - even though they
have an armed bailiff standing by. Instead of increasing the number
or size of gun-free zones (i.e. giving colleges and universities
that power), the legislature must take immediate steps to either
reduce the number of gun-free zones in this state or establish civil
liabilities for business and other entities who establish gun-free
zones without substituting adequate protection for visitors. Why has
the news media, especially in Salt Lake City, been silent on the
fact that the Trolley Square Mall was posted as a
gun-free zone when several innocent people were shot? Why have
there been no editorials pointing out the folly of gun-free
(unarmed-victim) zones? (20 Feb 2007)
SB-251 would authorize state colleges and universities to
designate any staff or faculty office as a gun-free zone if the
person inhabiting that office has submitted a request in writing to
the university administration and has placed some sort of "no guns"
sign near the entrance to his office. Not only does this bill
violate a vital individual liberty specifically protected by the
US and
Utah constitutions, it is a poorly-worded compromise with the
law-breakers (administration) who run the University of Utah. Here
are some of the serious flaws in this bill: SB-251 mandates that a
state college or university enact a policy requiring a gun locker to
be placed in reasonable proximity to every "gun-free" office. Yet,
the bill does not actually require the installation of such lockers.
A university would merely have to have a locker policy. SB-251
contains no requirement for metal detectors to be placed at the
entrances to gun-free offices. Consequently, such an office would
not be a secure area. The state and/or university/college could be
subject to civil action should anyone be harmed or killed by an
attacker simply because the state and/or university/college did not
take adequate steps to ensure that gun-free zones are, indeed,
gun-free. SB-251 does address how to deal with offices occupied by
more than one person, including offices divided into cubicles. What
if two people are sharing an office and one of them wants it to be
"gun-free" and the other does not? SB-251 would "authorize a higher
education institution to make a rule that allows a resident of a
dormitory located at the institution to have only roommates who are
not licensed to carry a concealed firearm." That provision makes
absolutely no sense. SB-251 provides no provision for an alternative
for of protection of a person whose safety is known to be threatened
by a stalker or ex spouse, etc. More than anyone, these people need
24-hour immediate protection which and only be provided by a
personal weapon or by a university-paid 24-hour bodyguard. In the
case of
University of Utah v. Shurtleff (handed down on Sept. 8, 2006)
the Utah Supreme Court ruled: "We accordingly conclude that the
University is subject to Utah law prohibiting it from enacting or
enforcing any policy restricting the possession or use of firearms."
Nevertheless, the University continues to have at least three
policies restricting firearms. The state must immediately enforce
this Utah Supreme Court ruling. The legislature and the governor
must not compromise with university officials (especially those at
the U of U who are in clear violation of the law) in any way with
regard to the lawful possession of firearms on the campus of any
state college or university. Instead, the governor and the
legislature must immediately terminate or demand the immediate
resignation of the arrogant university officials responsible for the
anti-gun policies. (7 Feb 2007)
The Utah legislature wisely retained control over
all laws and regulations with regard to firearms in Utah. That
process ensures consistent treatment of firearms and firearm owners
throughout the state. The administration of the University of Utah
has arrogantly defied the legislature and Utah's attorney general by
unlawfully restricting legal firearms in the hands of law-abiding,
trained citizens. The University of Utah has contrived a gun problem
where none exists. Concealed-firearm permit holders have caused
absolutely no gun-related incidents on or around college or other
school campuses in Utah. Yet, U of U leaders are terrified of
21-year-old coeds having the option to carry an effective tool for
their own protection against assault. The Utah legislature put in
place a process that ensures those who chose to carry a gun for
self-protection have the training to do so safely. That process is
working exceedingly well in Utah and, similarly, in most other
states.
SB-251 is in the works as a compromise to allow university
officials to restrict lawful firearms. My question to the
universities and to the legislature is, "Where do we draw the line
in keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens?" I say the
line has already been drawn: Both the US and Utah Constitutions
clearly say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms
"shall not be infringed." Arrogant disregard of the law must not be
tolerated -- especially if that behavior is from university
academics. The legislature and the governor must not compromise with
any university administration with regard to firearms and the right
of self-protection. SB-251 must be rejected in its entirety.
Instead, the legislature must pass, at a minimum, a resolution
denouncing and reprimanding the U of U administration for its
actions in this issue and call for the immediate resignation of all
university officials who instituted and who perpetuate this shameful
infringement of individual rights. (5 Feb 2007)
I am deeply disappointed to see Salt Lake's Mayor
Rocky Anderson included in the list of mayors who have joined New
York Mayor Bloomberg's assault on lawful firearms. Anyone with the
slightest amount of common sense can see that Bloomberg's agenda
will gave no effect on criminal behavior. His sole goal is to disarm
law-abiding citizens, even if he must violate the law himself to do
so. I expect Mayor Anderson to immediately and publicly disassociate
himself entirely from Mayor Bloomberg and his anti-gun agenda. (2
Feb 2007)
The Utah legislature is considering some
gun-rights-related bills this year:
HB354 would
clarify the law allowing a person with
a concealed weapons permit to bring guns on a bus. The training and
screening required of these persons is adequate to ensure the safety
of bus drivers and passengers.
HB355 would allow hotel guests to bring legal weapons
into their rooms. Currently, hotels can deny guests the right to
bring in any "firearms or explosives." Consequently, hunters and
others might have to leave their legal firearms in their vehicles,
making them vulnerable to theft. It also leaves guests vulnerable to
attack in what is essentially their home for the night.
SB201 would allow Utahns to carry
concealed weapons without permits in the event of a declared
emergency. The lawless aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005
emphasizes the need for restoring the right of Utahns to carry guns
in a state of emergency even without a permit. People must be
allowed to fend for themselves in the event of a breakdown in police
services.
SB-251 would allow the University
of Utah to restrict lawful firearms on campus. Any such restriction on gun
rights must be rejected.
The legislature and the governor must ensure the
pro-gun-rights provisions these bills become law immediately. (30
Jan 2007)
The unconstitutional Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban
[922 (g)(9)] was passed as an amendment snuck into the 1996 omnibus
spending bill and signed into law by President Clinton. It was was
originally introduced by leading anti-gun Senators Frank Lautenberg,
Dianne Feinstein, and Edward Kennedy. Under the Lautenberg ban,
people who have been convicted of very minor misdemeanor offenses
that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, merely yelling at a
family member are prohibited from owning a firearm for self-defense.
If a crime is severe enough to warrant removal of a
Constitutionally-guaranteed right, it is severe enough to warrant a
felony conviction. If it is not severe enough to warrant a felony
conviction, it should not void the person's Constitutional rights in
any way. Every congressman and the president must support and defend
the US Constitution by working aggressively for the immediate repeal
of the Lautenberg gun ban. (23 Jan 2007)
The poorly-named
Gun
Show Loophole Closing Act, associated with Sen. John McCain, was
designed to close down gun shows completely. Under wording I just
read, currently legal gun shows are outlawed without prior federal
permission. Gun show promoters must agree to warrantless searches in
order to operate They may be arrested if private citizens talk at
the show about gun sales they wish to complete away from the show.
The right to assemble peaceably at a gun show, or even plan for one,
carries stiff prison terms unless federal licenses are issued in
advance. Massive new bureaucracy is created because all shows and
their exhibitors must be registered 30 days before the show, then
again 72 hours before the show, and again five days after the show.
That's in addition to registering anyone who walks in, plus "any
other information" the Secretary of the Treasury decides, by
regulation, is necessary on vendors, attendees, and the show itself.
Like most anti-gun legislation, none of this bill deals with
criminals (except to criminalize harmless, lawful behavior), and the
rest of that bill just gets worse. Any gun-related legislation,
including this, which carries John McCains name, must be opposed at
all costs. He cannot be trusted with any of our Constitutionally-guaranteed
rights. (20 Jan 2007)
The leadership of the University of Utah as well as
the editors of the major Utah newspapers have contrived a gun
problem where none exists. Concealed-firearm permit holders have
caused absolutely no gun-related incidents on or around college or
other school campuses in Utah. The university leadership and Utah's
news editors seem oblivious to the
fact that federal laws prohibiting guns in or around any school from kindergarten
to college has failed to keep campuses safe. Why, then, are U of U
leaders and newspaper editors so terrified of allowing 21-year-old
coeds the option to carry an effective tool for their own protection
against assault? Meanwhile, the Utah legislature put in place a
process that ensures those who chose to carry a gun for
self-protection have the training to do so safely. That process is
working exceedingly well in Utah and in some 38 other states. My question to the
universities, editors and to the legislature is, "Where do we draw
the line in keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens?"
I say the line has already been drawn: Both the US and Utah
Constitutions clearly say that the right of the people to keep and
bear arms "shall not be infringed." The legislature and the governor
must stand firm on that standard. (8 Jan 2007)
The University of Utah continues its goal of
disarming law-abiding students and employees. This time, instead of
simply defying the law,
the
university is talking to the legislature in order to impose its
gun control agenda. The university leadership seems oblivious to the
fact that prohibiting guns in or around any school from kindergarten
to college has failed to keep campuses safe. My question to the
university and to the legislature is, "Where do we draw the line in
keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens?" I say the
line has already been drawn: Both the US and Utah Constitutions
clearly say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms
"shall not be infringed." 'Nuff said! (3 Jan 2007)
Today's Spectrum editorial (Ban
guns from all schools, 18 Dec 2006) seems to imply that
only "school resource officers" are
competent to intervene in a situation such as a school shooting.
That implication is myopic and naive. It assumes that the police,
including "school resource officers," will always be in place to stop violence before it
begins. The sad, but realistic, fact is that police cannot be
everywhere at all times. They usually arrive just in time to draw
chalk lines around the bodies. We can't afford the level of police
protection the editors presume and we certainly shouldn't want such
a police state anyway. As everyone who is moderately aware of the
law knows, it is unlawful for anyone (with certain specifically
described exceptions) to have a firearm within
1,000 feet of a
school. Recent events surely have suggested to The Spectrum editorial staff that criminals do not respect these gun-free
(unarmed victim) zones -- or any other law, for that matter. Fortunately, Utah's lawmakers have seen the
need and right of Utahns (including school employees) to defend
themselves from violence. And that should be the sole purpose of a
teacher carrying a gun -- to defend themselves. If, in that process, they also save
the lives of our children, so much the better. That said, I don't support the proposal which would permit teachers with the
appropriate gun training to become "special function officers"
because of the precedent it might set. No one, including a teacher,
should ever need to have such a title to exercise his or her
God-given right to self-defense. I see no need for requiring school
employees to undergo training above and beyond (ie POST) what is
already required by the state's concealed firearm permit laws. I am
quite satisfied that the current standards for training for the Utah
Concealed Firearm Permit are adequate. Candidates are not only
taught firearm handling, but safety, situational awareness
(including the presence of innocent bystanders), firearm concealment
and retention, the laws regarding the use of deadly force, and how
to act once the police arrive at the scene so officers can more
easily sort out the bad guys. In fact, statistics show that citizens
with concealed firearm permits are less likely than police
to err in that "split-second when the
decision must be made to shoot or not" and more likely to hit
the bad guy instead of a bystander. As for a teacher
going "off the deep end and has immediate
access to a gun," that is a management problem -- not a gun problem.
Any teacher who is not "level-headed, rational, [and] stable" should
be, and is, removed from the classroom. Nevertheless, all school
employees undergo a background check and get another one before they
are issued a concealed firearm permit. They are constantly observed
by principals and other school staff for both professional and
mental competence. We therefore trust them with 20-30 children. Why
not trust them with an effective means of self-protection? Or, does
The Spectrum believe a yardstick is sufficient? The Spectrum
editors should never need a permit or special training to exercise
their right to express their opinions. The same standard should
apply to a law-abiding citizen's right of self-protection --
including school staff. Working in or near a school should never
deprive a teacher or an editor of their rights. (18 Dec 2006)
Childish stereotyping of male home-ec teachers (Teachers
and guns? What fun, Dec 10, 2006) who allegedly carry a gun only
to prove their masculinity has no place in a newspaper. Likewise,
trivializing the very real threat to children and school employees
by criminals who shoot up schools is no laughing matter. As everyone
who is moderately aware of the law knows, it is unlawful for anyone
(with certain specifically described exceptions) to have a firearm
within
1,000 feet of a school. Recent events surely have suggested to
the Salt Lake Tribune editorial staff and columnist Holly Mullen
that criminals, by definition, do not respect these gun-free
(unarmed victim) zones. Fortunately, Utah's lawmakers have seen the
need and right of Utahans (including male home-ec teachers) to
defend themselves from violence. I support the right of our school
employees to defend themselves. If, in that process, they also save
the lives of our children, so much the better. I am quite satisfied
that the current standards for training and screening for the Utah
Concealed Firearms Permit are adequate to weed out renegade home-ec
teachers and even renegade newspaper columnists. Candidates are not
only taught firearms handling, but safety, situational awareness
(including the presence of innocent bystanders), the laws regarding
the use of deadly force, and how to act once the police arrive at
the scene so officers can more easily sort out the bad guys.
Mullen's patronizing column regarding guns in school shows an
egregious lack of understanding of, or a blatant disregard, for both
the US and Utah Constitutions which guarantee our right of
self-protection. If only more of our state and federal politicians
as well as newspaper columnists and editors gave due respect to the
entirety of those two documents -- and not just to the portions that
fit their agendas. (10 Dec 2006)
Today's Deseret News editorial (Guns
don't belong in school, 10 Dec 2006) begins by implying that
only the "very best marksmen [who] are assigned to SWAT teams" are
competent to intervene in a situation such as a school shooting.
That implication is myopic and naive. It assumes that those "very
best marksmen" will always be in place to stop violence before it
begins. The sad, but realistic, fact is that police cannot be
everywhere at all times. They usually arrive just in time to draw
chalk lines around the bodies. We can't afford the level of police
protection the editors presume and we certainly |
