Letters to the AmmoLand Editor: Got something on your mind? Let us know and you can see it here.

Virginia --(AmmoLand.com)- I am constantly reading on the Net and in the media about so-called “gun rights” and “gun control.”

Some examples;

“The final briefs seeking to shape the Supreme Court’s coming decision on the reach of the Second Amendment’s protection of gun rights suggested Friday that states might be free to violate other parts of the Bill of Rights…”

“The National Association for Gun Rights, often referred to as “NAGR”, was founded to assist the growing movement of pro-Second Amendment organizations, especially state-level gun rights groups.

“The National Rifle Association is the largest gun rights lobbying organization in the United States.”

On one hand, we preach that guns are mere machines, inanimate objects and tools. On the other, we appear to be attempting to give ‘rights’ to these inanimate machines.

I submit to you a request; that we remove the phrase “gun rights” from our vocabulary and replace it with the more human, and more accurate, “gun-owner rights.”

The First Amendment does not guarantee rights to printing presses as machines; it guarantees the rights of people to use printing presses, radios, televisions and the Internet without restriction.

The Second Amendment guarantees no rights to guns themselves, as they are mere machines. However, it does guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear them.

The psychology behind what may appear as a minor ‘grammatical nit’ should be clear.

It is relatively easy for most people to hate an object. You can make up lies about an object, demonize an object and attempt to regulate and control objects. You can do so without fear of insulting the object, hurting its feelings, being sued by the object or facing any repercussions, it’s just a defenseless, soulless object.

When we replace gun rights with gun-owner rights, however, the issue becomes personal. Where many people and politicians [as opposed to people] find it easy and guilt-free to demonize guns as objects, it is far more difficult to for them to demonize a large segment of the population, gun-owners, as people.

Laws can not control inanimate objects, only what law-abiding persons do with those objects. Therefore, it’s technically not gun control, or a war against guns, it’s gun owner control, and a war against gun owners.

So let us end this futile battle for so-called, non-existent gun rights and gun control, and renew the charge in support of the very real and very important rights of the people who own defensive and recreational firearms.

It may seem like a grammatical nit, but impressions are everything.

That’s my opinion, and you’re welcome to it!

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

No More Gun Rights and No More Gun Control

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners

Colorado - -(AmmoLand.com)- At a campaign rally on a cold winter evening, thousands of individuals crowd around a stage to hear a Presidential candidate speak on life, liberty, and the Constitution. Homemade signs litter the crowd as the fiery congressman from Texas speaks to a sea of activists, many whom had never before taken an interest in politics. As he concludes, cheers erupt from the mass of people as they celebrate the one man speaking what no other candidate dares to say. Ron Paul has ignited a crowd desperate for a leader and in doing so has energized the thousands in attendance, as he asks for their support in the upcoming Presidential primary.

The next day, about 75 percent of them do not show up to vote.

The above illustrates the difficulty facing the liberty movement today—the willingness of its participants to engage in philosophical discussion, policy talk, or social activism, but their reluctance to engage in political action, the only thing that counts on Election Day.

Unfortunately this has even bled into the issue of gun rights, self-defense, and second amendment advocacy. Individuals who claim to support the rights of gun owners are too often preoccupied with personal recognition or high ideals, instead of focusing on eliminating bad policies and enacting good ones.

Even nationally recognized organizations that pledge to defend the rights of gun owners often find themselves caught up in the pomp and circumstance of putting on a show for the cameras instead of focusing on tangible results.

With the shock of last year’s election fading and 2010’s mid-term elections rapidly approaching, we see many in the gun rights movement cling to the same techniques that have proven unsuccessful in political campaigns.

I count myself tremendously blessed to have experienced a number of facets of the liberty movement. I have been able to volunteer for Ron Paul in his candidacy for President as well as separately learn from many in the gun rights movement who have spent decades defending the Constitutional amendment that protects all others.

Later…
When I served as campaign manager for a Ron Paul-endorsed candidate for Congress, I was able to put those skills into practice. This essay relates what I have learned.

Liberty candidates and their supporters all too often believe a fancy website with an automated real-time ticker will revolutionize the campaign and bring immediate media attention to their cause. They believe simply announcing a “money bomb” will be all that is needed to reform the system and transform their candidacy from an upstart radar blip to a powerhouse ready to take on the political world. But, as wonderful as money bombs and interactive website assuredly are, there is more to real politics.

Despite the signs, the blimps, and the unmatched enthusiasm of Ron Paul’s supporters, on election night when the returns came back the votes were not there. Not in Iowa, or New Hampshire, or Wyoming, or Michigan. Paul’s supporters were often quick to react to the tactics of the political establishment and media, tactics we believed to be underhanded (and which oftentimes were). But the liberty movement limited its effectiveness when it only played defense. Ron Paul’s supporters watched political talking heads dismiss him as a fringe candidate, who purportedly had a handful of supporters spamming polls with text-message votes, and their only response was to complain about the bias they were up against. Just as gun rights advocates should not expect favorable editorials from the New York Times or the Huffington Post, we should never be content to sit and complain. We can whine about how unfair the media is and how we will never be given a fair shake, or we can do something about it. We can hit the establishment where it really hurts, not in the online polls, but where the political class is most vulnerable—in local elections and the grassroots organizations that are the base of the political pyramid.

Dedicated To Destroying Principles
One look to our town councils, state houses, or local political parties will show us the people we are up against. Many of these folks have dedicated their lives to destroying the principles we believe in.

They care nothing about the right to self-defense or those they hurt by refusing to allow honest Americans to carry firearms.

They have sold gun owners down the river for only a paycheck, their proverbial 30 pieces of silver, and sometimes only out of a desire to have a title or control an office. In response we have committed ourselves not to taking their titles and offices away from them but instead to complaining about the system and offering symbolic actions. If elections were won by rifle shoots, turnouts at gun shows, or empty holster protests, our movement would have achieved victory 20 times over. Instead we will continue to lose, and lose badly, until we realize it is up to us, as the next generation of freedom advocates, to learn how to win.

The starry-eyed second amendment activist believe a sound philosophy is what should take precedence above everything else in political life. He believes an un-comprising adherence to principle should trump hard-won victories, party politics, and a desire for power, fame, and fortune. The starry-eyed activist is 100 percent correct. It is in this that the true believer in the second amendment has the advantage.

When working for a political nonprofit that would by all definitions be described as one run by “Establishment Republicans,” I was often railed and berated for my defense of the Constitution, and the second amendment. As a gun owner living in the state of Virginia I am permitted to open carry by law. I exercised this right and carried a properly holstered pistol to the office each and every morning.

Though the office was filled top to bottom with self-described “conservatives,” day after day I was railed and berated for promoting my Constitutional right to carry a firearm. I was informed that cowboys weren’t allowed in the building, told I “wasn’t being responsible,” was called named on the email list-serve, and at times had to sit and patiently wait as co-workers brought Nerf guns down from other floors to engage in a “shootout” outside my office.

After one such defense of the ideals of our founding fathers I was called “young,” “naive,” and with a sigh and a chuckle was lectured by colleagues about how they, “Remembered when they were that immature and idealistic.” My response was simple: “good.” While I will not always be young, I hoped I would always be idealistic—always willing to put principle ahead of politics, even if that meant costing myself an election, being called names, or remaining unpopular with those in power.

The advocates of gun rights have a tremendous advantage over their entrenched political counterparts. While we face a foe that has the techniques and technical knowledge to win elections, we take solace in the fact that our foe is morally empty. Training oneself how to write a direct-mail letter, assemble a press release, or become a better public speaker is merely a skill that can be learned and refined. But having that skill and choosing to throw away political prestige in order adhere to a sound Constitutional philosophy is a road few people are willing to take. However, this does not mean we who support gun rights should fail to cultivate the technical skills our opponents’ possess. Our side must learn how to succeed not just on the Internet or in the journals of intellectual thought, but in the political races and campaigns that shape our government. Gun owners are among the most dedicated individuals one will find in any cause, political or non. Very few are willing to budge on any aspect of the second amendment no matter how small.

Yet this philosophical correctness is not enough to initiate the transformation that is needed in government. Believing you are correct is not enough. Even actually being correct is not enough.

Politics is not an art, expressive and creative, no matter how much so many of us want it to be. Campaigns and elections are very much a science, with tried and true methods that move votes from the living-room couch to the election booth. The science of elections is based on numbers, statistics, and techniques that have concrete goals.

Yard Signs vs Robo-Calls
Yard signs are popular campaign memorabilia—but yard signs do not vote. Volunteer for any candidate in virtually any race, and you will be hounded about yard signs. The candidate always wants to know what color they will be, where they will go, and how many can be placed along the highway. Yet yard signs are something that campaigns seem to do just for the sake of doing them; statistically they have an extremely low impact on changing minds, switching votes, or mobilizing the base.

By contrast, as much as many of us complain about automated pre-recorded messages from candidates—robo-calls—there is a reason campaigns, even in the age of advanced social networking, continue to do them: they work. Despite the anecdotal stories you hear about someone becoming angry at the flood of automated calls he has been receiving and pledging not to vote for that candidate out of spite … it does not happen. Ask yourself, if you truly believed in the message a pro-gun candidate was proclaiming and thought he was the only candidate in that race would defend your right to own a firearm, would you really refuse to vote for him simply because of a few automated telephone calls? If so, then statistically you weren’t going to vote for him anyway. Such voters are negligible.

Some dismiss old-fashioned direct-mail letters that include surveys and requests for contributions as either out of touch with the new way of doing things or simply as junk mail from groups that are out to make a quick buck. In reality, direct mail serves as a proven method to gauge what issues are important to an organization’s membership base. An organization which takes the time to find our which specific second amendment issue is most important to you, is an organization setting itself up to best serve you and its members.

From a fundraising angle, there is a reason groups send out physical mail asking for help to fund project proposals: it works. Every part of a direct mail letter is a scientific instrument used to provide the best product and service to the member of that organization. Direct mail should not turn off gun owners but instead bring them into a world where they too can learn what works and what doesn’t when it comes to recruiting for a cause or spreading a message. There is a reason most direct-mail letters are printed in courier font. It is because most donors to political organizations are over 70 years old, and the font reminds many of them of a typewriter. It gives them a tactile connection to an organization with which they feel philosophical sympathy.

What is effective and what is easy are often two completely different things.

The most effective way of changing minds and recruiting new voters or members is the tactic so many of us shy away from—door-to-door recruitment. Political operatives, campaign workers, and volunteers all agree when asked what the best technique is to influence voters: knocking on their door, handing them a piece of literature, and talking with them. Despite right-wing jeers about Barack Obama’s label as a “community organizer, the ability to sort and mobilize a community is the most basic and most effective way to win in politics.

A successful movement breaks down its locality as specifically as possible in order to appoint outgoing organizers who are a good match for their areas. In the realm of political campaigns, the selection of “precinct captains” is made to ensure that those in charge have a friendly face and a strong tie to the community. In today’s world, we could live almost our entire lives without ever leaving our house. Delivery services, tele-commuting, and Netflix have made it theoretically possible never to need to engage another person in meaningful conversation. Yet despite all of our modern conveniences, deep down people long for individual connections.

Talking With A Complete Stranger
Going out of your way and initiating conversation with a complete stranger can be nerve-racking. You will undoubtedly run into individuals who make it quite clear that you are not allowed on their property again, especially when you mention how much you love guns. But the most important question to ask of yourself about that is, “So what?” We pay respect to a congressman from Texas who at age 72 sought the nomination for president despite being harassed, bullied, and excluded from debates by members of his own political party, and yet we are unwilling to endure the discomfort that might occur from an interaction on a neighbor’s porch?

A little awkward conversation is a small price to pay in the fight for liberty.

You don’t have to wait for the next campaign season to become active—organizing can, and should, be done everywhere and all the time. Instead of talking about the poor leadership that exists within your local political party, force a change. Find out the date of the next election for party chairman and spend the next several months recruiting gun friendly individuals who live in your county. Use established political techniques to build a network of activists and then file the paperwork to become a candidate. Make it clear that under your leadership the party will take a solid stand on the second amendment and will never leave a fellow gun owner out in the cold. Instead of talking about philosophy and the need to bring in new leadership to the county party, become the vehicle that accomplishes it.

Familiarize yourself with the Campaign for Liberty and make it a point to visit their web site each day. The organization formed by Ron Paul has established a national local coordinator program, offers new featured articles every morning, and hosts both statewide and regional conferences containing some of the best political training you will ever receive. Those who adhere to the ideals of freedom no longer have any excuse for not getting deeply involved. Through groups like the Campaign for Liberty, you can learn the political techniques you need to wrest control of government from those who have contributed to its overgrowth.

Your fellow gun owners do not need your homemade signs or your blog posts. They need votes to win their elections and restore strict constitutional government. There must come a time when each defender of liberty says “enough” and commits himself to a struggle that enacts change rather than merely discussing it. That time is now. This is your country, and it’s being taken from you one election at a time. Take it back.

About:
Steve Bierfeldt is the Director of Development for Campaign for Liberty. A version of this article first appeared in “Young American Revolution,” the official publication of Young Americans for Liberty, and is the premier publication for young libertarians, conservatives, and anti-statists of all stripes. www.YALiberty.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Gun Rights Politics is About Precinct Organizing, not YouTube Clips

Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore

Maryland – -(AmmoLand.com)- Perhaps the answer lies in the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution of Maryland:

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
We, the People of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare:

Article 1. That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

Click here for the on-line version of the Maryland Constitution.

About:
Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc. (AGC), located in Marriottsville, Maryland. The Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc. was formed on July 1, 1944 when a number of World War II veterans in the Baltimore, Maryland area began looking for a place for recreational and competitive shooting. They organized with several other Baltimore area shooting clubs to form the “AGC” Visit: www.associatedgunclubs.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Why Do Maryland Politicians Fear Your Guns?

This letter to the editor is in response to a recent OpEd in the Sun Sentinel of Fort Lauderdale, FL: RE: Editorial “Setting up gun fund as sacred cow is poor budget management”

Letters to the AmmoLand Editor: Got something on your mind? Let us know and you can see it here.

Fort Lauderdale, FL - -(AmmoLand.com)- Poor budget management is robbing trust funds period.

For years the legislature fought gun owners over paying for a statewide licensing program that would provide uniformity and fairness to gun owners. Legislators did not want taxpayers to fund a gun program. Gun owners are tax payers too and wanted tax dollars to fund the program.

In 1987, the concealed firearms licensing law passed with a financial contingency.

The legislature insisted that the gun owner program not be dependent upon General Revenue or any government funding whatever.

The NRA, Unified Sportsmen of Florida and gun owners, insisted upon only being responsible for funding the program. They insisted that licensing fees only be an amount necessary to administer the program, no more, no less. Further, they insisted that the fees be held in a trust fund and used solely for the benefit of and administration of the program and never used for any other purpose.

That was the agreement. Language was put in the bill to insure that the terms of the agreement were met.

Gun owners have kept their part of the agreement. In the 22 plus years that this program has been in effect, not one single dime has ever come from general revenue or any other government fund — 100% of the funding has come from gun owners.

In keeping with good management practices, the trust fund is allowed to build funds in excess of current needs so that when the massive computers, both hardware and software, need to be repaired or replaced, and other equipment is needed to provide efficient administration of the program, money will be available. That is the only way to run the program without raising license fees.

Now the other half of the agreement needs to be kept.

Last year when the program needed to use trust fund money to hire new employees to keep up with the dramatic increase of license applications and clear the backlog of unprocessed applications, the legislature attempted to take $6 million from the trust fund. That not only would have crippled the program but it violated the agreement, the spirit of the law and the trust of gun owners.

Governor Charlie Crist stepped up and vetoed the raid on that trust fund, protecting the program and the agreement. No other trust fund has the same agreement and requirements as this one.

Further, there are legal ramifications that go beyond the agreement. This specific trust fund facilitates the exercise of a constitutional right.

• When government takes citizen money for general use by government, it’s a tax.
• When government confiscates user fees from trust funds intended to be used to administer specific programs and converts it to government use for other purposes, it’s a tax.
• When government leaders claim to oppose tax increases and promise not to create new taxes but then raid trust funds, they have created a new tax.

If the Legislature raids the concealed firearms licensing trust fund, they have created a tax on the exercise of the Second Amendment right.

Courts have ruled that states may not tax the exercise of a right protected by the federal constitution.  Passing this new legislation to insure that this trust fund is protected is appropriate.

About:
Marion P. Hammer is past president of the National Rifle Association and Executive Director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida. She has represented gun owners in Florida
for 35 years.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

“Gun Trust Fund” Protects Exercise of Constitutional Right

AnyTown USA City Council Looks to Ban Guns

Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA --(AmmoLand.com)- A new Rasmussen poll has revealed that an overwhelming majority of Americans reject the notion that cities have a right to ban handguns, siding with the Second Amendment Foundation’s position in its lawsuit to overturn the Chicago ban.

Oral arguments in the SAF case were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. Court observers predict the high court will overturn the Chicago ban, thus incorporating the Second Amendment to state and local governments through provisions in the 14th Amendment.

Results from Rasmussen’s national telephone survey found that 69 percent of the respondents say cities have no right to ban legal handgun ownership, while 25 percent believe cities can ban guns.

“The Rasmussen survey clearly shows that Americans have grown weary of anti-gun municipal demagoguery,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “A victory in our case before the Supreme Court should send a clear signal to gun prohibitionists like Chicago Mayor Richard Daley that arbitrarily disarming law-abiding citizens under the guise of fighting crime is an idea that has no place in this country.”

SAF is joined in its case by the Illinois State Rifle Association and four Chicago residents, including Otis McDonald, for whom the Supreme Court case is named.

The Rasmussen poll also found very little difference between current public sentiment and earlier surveys that noted 70 percent of American adults believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees the individual right to own a firearm.

“For years,” Gottlieb said, “the anti-gun lobby has been claiming majority support for its Draconian agenda, but polling data like this new information from Rasmussen shows that the public is not about to surrender a significant civil right. We believe the Supreme Court is on the verge of expanding the scope of that right by applying the Second Amendment to the states.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Americans Say Cities Have No Right To Ban Guns

FirearmsCoalition.org

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)-  Oral arguments in the Supreme Court case of McDonald v. Chicago were an interesting show on March 2.

Most of the Justices made their positions on applying the Second Amendment to the states – and what mechanism to use to do it – fairly clear from the outset. Most observers agree that the Court will declare that states must recognize a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

A secondary issue in this case is not just whether the Second Amendment should apply to the states, but also how it should get there. The 14th Amendment was written and ratified specifically for the purpose of, among other things, clarifying who is a citizen of the US and to make the rights of US citizenship applicable and enforceable in the states.

That intent was thwarted however by a Supreme Court dominated by Justices with a strong state autonomy philosophy. In a ruling known as the Slaughterhouse cases, the Court interpreted, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” to be limited in scope to only such rights or privileges as were bestowed by the Constitution, not those which pre-existed and were merely reiterated in that document.

In the 140 years since that egregious decision no Court has been willing to reverse their esteemed predecessors and open the Pandora’s Box of “unenumerated rights”. mentioned in the Constitution. Instead they created a novel construct around another clause of the 14th which says, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” They have used this clause to somehow selectively “incorporate” virtually all of the Bill of Rights. Now they are poised to do the same with the Second Amendment.

This controversy leads to much speculation about how the Court will split on this question. Roberts and Scalia very clearly want to incorporate under Due Process.

Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas are likely to join them, but some of them could come out with a partial dissent favoring application of the right by means of the Privileges or Immunities clause rather than the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor seemed resigned to the fact that incorporation is inevitable, but would clearly prefer to selectively apply some limited version of the Second Amendment with lots of room for restrictions. Stevens might be the lone holdout dissenting on the grounds that applying the Second Amendment in cities like Chicago will cost lives – as if guns are only used for crime.

After losing in the 7th Circuit and being granted a review by the SCOTUS, Alan Gura, attorney for Otis McDonald and the Second Amendment Foundation, decided to use the opportunity to try and restore the Privileges or Immunities clause to its proper place in constitutional law. Some didn’t like that idea and so the NRA elbowed their way into the case to have their attorney, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, argue for the more traditional Due Process incorporation.

Advertisement

During the oral arguments Gura and James Feldman, Special Counsel for Chicago were both rigorously questioned, almost badgered, by the Justices to the point that neither ever got more than a few words out before being interrupted again. The contrast between this and how the Justices handled Clement, was simply startling. Clement was able to breeze through his talking points with only a few, very cordial interruptions for polite, agreeable questions.

It was very clear that the Justices – at least the vocal ones – were downright hostile to the idea of overturning Slaughterhouse and most were equally hostile to the idea of not applying the Second to the states. It was also clear that these justices were predisposed to buy what Clement was selling. That had to be tough on Gura. This was his case from the beginning and he was very unhappy when NRA forced their way in and took one third of his argument time. Then to have their lawyer come out the heroes of the day while Gura’s arguments remained largely unuttered… It had to be frustrating, especially since Gura was planning all along to include Due Process in his arguments.

Since Clement came in, Gura had little choice but to concentrate virtually all of his time on the Privileges or Immunities argument.

In the end, it doesn’t matter how the right to arms is applied to the states so long as it is applied. Of course, winning this case is only the beginning. There will be multiple lawsuits over many years costing millions of dollars, and still the citizens of Chicago will probably have a difficult – if not impossible – time acquiring and maintaining legal handguns for self-defense in their homes – much less out in the wilds of the city streets.

About:
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Deciphering the Court Deciphering Your Rights

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)-  Are the 50 states required to obey the Second Amendment?

Or can they do whatever they want, with no obligation to respect our right to keep and bear arms?

That’s what’s at stake in the Chicago gun-ban case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, at the U.S. Supreme Court, where oral arguments will be heard this Tuesday, March 2, with a decision expected in June.

I’m hitting the road tomorrow (for two Texas conventions) and will be at the Court for eyewitness reports. The circus atmosphere does not appear to be in the air — yet this case could have more far-reaching consequences than the Heller case.

There’s no disagreement that when the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights were ratified in 1791, they were designed to control the federal government only, not the states. Did the 14th Amendment change that?

The Colonists and the Founders were intensely afraid that a strong central government would eventually confiscate the rights cherished by early Americans — the very things that made America great and that have drawn people here like magnetism.

It was not a baseless fear, as we can see clearly from constant and growing federal usurpations of our rights and freedoms, with massive accumulations of power in Washington, D.C.

The First Amendment says it plainly: “CONGRESS shall make no law…” (emphasis added). The whole idea was to control the central government, not the states (which had their own protections and statements of rights).

The idea that the states should also be obligated to respect the fundamental rights in the national Bill of Rights didn’t arrive until 1868, with the 14th Amendment. And that was a result of the end of slavery – the former Confederate states did everything they could think of to deny virtually any rights to newly freed slaves – especially the right to keep and bear arms.

Congress, led by the northern states, declared that all Americans had rights and that, “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” (the key 52 words of the 14th Amendment’s 435 words, emphasis added). The historical record is emphatic in noting that the right to arms, especially for freedmen, was a prime mover in passing this amendment.

That language is clear, but here’s where it gets tricky, and the heart of the McDonald case. Passage of 14A didn’t automatically protect all citizens. What exactly are all the rights, privileges and immunities of the people? For reasons too complex to go into now, rights in the Bill of Rights have been applied to control the states, but only one at a time, by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There were two main ways to do this — the Privileges and Immunities clause (which protects only citizens), and the Due Process clause (which applies to “any person”). The Court has essentially abandoned the P&I clause, and relied mainly on Due Process.

A set of cases, combined into “The Slaughterhouse Cases” (look that up, it’s fascinating) pretty much gutted the Privileges and Immunities clause, by saying the only rights you have as an American are extremely narrow. The P&I clause has essentially been a dead letter since that case in 1873 — and this is why McDonald v. Chicago is seen as so critical — it could breathe life into the heart of the 14th Amendment. The Second Amendment is the subject matter, but the 14th Amendment is what’s at stake. OK, OK, they’re both at stake.

With a key chunk of the 14th essentially dead, the High Court has relied on Due Process to apply (legal eagles say “incorporate”) the Bill-of-Rights rights against the states. That’s why states can’t search and seize your property without a warrant (well, in theory at least — the states have usurped enormous powers too). The Due Process clause is why free speech cannot be denied by the states (again, only in theory — the abuses here are so great it’s the subject of my next book: Bomb Jokes At Airports — And 186 Other Things You’d Better Not Say).

So now we’re at the case in hand. Chicago has pretty much outlawed or severely infringed firearms rights for anyone in the city. All the city’s powers are basically derived from the state of Illinois. Does Chicago have legitimate power to outlaw your rights? It says yes.

Is Chicago obligated, under the 14th Amendment, to honor and respect your rights? It says no, it can do as it pleases and screw your rights, just like other abhorrent petty tyrants currently running loose without nooses in the United States. (FWIW, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey filed briefs supporting Chicago, a total of three arguing against RKBA rights.)

I say, along with a huge chunk of this great country, that the states should be as totally bound to protect and safeguard the rights you have as an American citizen as all government should be. (38 briefs were filed in defense of our rights, including one by 251 congressmen and 58 senators). I go a bit further and say the bigots who have been denying and repressing your rights all this time belong in prison, but we’re not likely to go that far. This time.

People who know about these things believe it is most likely that, if the High Court decides the states are obligated to honor the Second Amendment (and by implication, the entire rest of the Bill of Rights) they will apply the Due Process clause to justify their reasoning. That’s how it’s always been done, that’s the most safe and precedent-ready route, and that’s the best argument to press. Or is it?

Hopes are huge and the Court has subtly signaled that it is ready to finally breathe life into the P&I clause, and that has become the dominant argument for the petitioners (McDonald, et al.) and their attorneys, led by Alan Gura. The Court has all it needs to go the Due Process route, why not give it the encouragement it needs, seems to want, to rebirth P&I.

And here’s where it gets really interesting. McDonald v. Chicago is seen as the best opportunity in more than a century to fix the harm done by Slaughterhouse. There is virtually unanimous consensus that Slaughterhouse was bad law, decided for bad reasons, and that it needs to be overturned. It has killed off a crucial part of a crucial constitutional amendment, and the times, and the Court, and the legal system are ready to set it right. It means upsetting a huge apple cart, but it’s time.

Even though the subject matter of McDonald is gun rights, and a positive decision will have enormous positive impact on everyone’s right to arms, many on the political left are supporting this case. Talk about strange bedfellows. They want that 14th Amendment restored because they see it as a linchpin for all sorts of possible “civil rights” they envision in the future. Think of every wacky demand the left makes, and then imagine these are “found,” one by one, to be civil rights the federal government can force the states to honor and protect.

Yes, we’re delighted that the states may be forced — by our friends the feds — to honor our right to keep arms and our right to bear arms. We can conveniently overlook and rationalize any concerns about federalism — the concept that states are sovereign and independent, and in many matters can decide on their own how their territories will be run. Force from federal mandates seems just fine to protect free speech or stop search-and-seizure abuse, or to protect RKBA. But how well that flies if it’s “newly discovered privileges and immunities” (polygamy? drugs? animal rights? affirmative action? debt? medicine? carbon neutrality? diversity? greenness? diet?) remains to be seen.

Those are far fetched and unlikely concerns, according to most people in the know. And the idea of losing the case, leaving states free to trample our precious right to arms, is just unthinkable. Giving up the best chance we’ve had in our history to right the wrongs of Slaughterhouse is not an easy option to consider. But the NRA, with laser aim on reinstating the rights of Chicagoans, has stepped into the fray, and asked for and received part of the tiny argument time (30 minutes) Alan Gura has before the Court.

The NRA has retained Paul Clement, the former solicitor general whose experience before the Court is unrivaled (and who wrote the pro-rights brief signed by 58% of the U.S. Congress for this case). The NRA wants to make sure the Due Process arguments are firmly made, since Mr. Gura has chosen the somewhat riskier focus on the Privileges and Immunities clause (though both camps make arguments for both approaches). The NRA’s request for time, unusual but not unheard of, was definitely a fly in the ointment, but an ointment they felt needed a stir and examination.

To be sure, many of the friend-of-the-court amicus briefs filed in this case brought up and documented well the value, need and reasons to re-establish the P&I clause — but it would break very new ground. So the NRA’s position is not out in left field — they are recognizing and making the more traditional case based Due Process. It’s a double-barreled approach for success. which is a good thing. Probably. You never know when the Supreme Court gets its hands on an issue.

The most dangerous game may be the side note about Chicago’s gun-registration scheme. If you can have a gun there at all it must be re-registered every year, most guns simply cannot be registered, and if you miss your renewal date (and fee for every gun you own) the gun(s) becomes permanently unregisterable and contraband. Is that OK? The Court’s handling of this policy if they decide to touch it (and it seems they may have to based on the facts of the case), is fraught with danger for gun rights.

So there you have it.

In the amicus brief my company Bloomfield Press filed with lead attorney Chuck Michel and dozens of district attorneys, gun rights groups from Texas, Virginia and Arizona, sheriff Richard Mack who was behind the original Brady law case (which he won) and others, we mainly left the 14A arguments for others. Instead, we addressed some essential points that got far less attention.

Our brief establishes this crucial point: the Second Amendment protects an American right that is long standing, deeply rooted and truly fundamental, and therefore meets the tests for incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

We did this with five separate arguments, two of which were a direct result of the work I did with attorneys Dave Kopel and Stephen Halbrook on my 10th book, Supreme Court Gun Cases. We found 92 gun-related cases the Court had heard (starting in 1820) up to that time (2003) and they were uniformly consistent with an individual right to keep and bear arms. (By my count, the Court has actually heard 103 gun-related cases at this point. McDonald will be the 104th).

In 14 of these prior cases the Court repeatedly stated every basic tenet of self defense in effect today. The Heller case forced the modern-day judiciary to finally unambiguously recognize and accept self defense as a core reason and justification for the right to arms in the first place. The public already understood this well. We carefully documented which classic cases supported which aspects of self defense (innocence, reasonable belief, grounds for belief, actions not words, necessity, equal force, immediacy ends, retreat and chase, plus rightfully armed, mutual combat, wounding and withdrawal) to show how solidly grounded these rights and issues are in the High Court’s existing jurisprudence.

Supreme Court Gun Cases

The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed! has the complete case that saved the Second Amendment, with 400 key quotes highlighted and plain English analysis, plus summaries of the first 96 gun cases the High Court has decided.
http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm

My next post is planned for the evening before the oral argument (I’m breaking my infrequent-posts rule, but you understand). I’ll be down at the courthouse to see the theatrics, though I’m not expecting much. The wind went out of those sails with the Heller case (and camping out in early March is a much tougher gig than in D.C. in October). Still, with both the left and the right focused on this seminal 14A hearing, well, I’ll let you know what I find. Fortunately, I’ll spend the night in my hotel.

P.S. In Heller, when we waited with bated breath for the bottom-line result we wanted to hear “Affirmed.” And we did. In this case, we’re rooting for “Reversed.” That means the lower court decision supporting Chicago’s gun-rights denial, which is being challenged here, is overturned.

The McDonald v. Chicago petitioners website, with background:
http://www.chicagoguncase.com

The amicus brief joined by Bloomfield Press:
BLOOMFIELD PRESS McDonald v. Chicago amicus curiae brief

Background on all Supreme Court Gun Cases:
http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm

My initial summary and press release on the issues:
http://www.gunlaws.com/McDonald_v_Chicago_BP_Amicus.htm

Every amicus brief filed:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/feb2010.shtml#mcdonald

Supreme Court official website: http://www.supremecourtus.gov

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

What’s At Stake In The Chicago Gun-Ban Case, McDonald v. Chicago

Iowa Gun Owners

Iowa - -(AmmoLand.com)- Members and Friends of Iowa Gun Owners, your emails and phone calls into the Capitol have been taking a toll on the anti-gunners in the Capitol as many elected officials have told us. We are writing you now to urge you to stand up for your gun rights again.

The Senate bill that we asked you to oppose last week, Senate File 2357, was brought up on the Senate floor yesterday evening with an amendment being offered. Both the bill and the amendment are overtly hostile to your gun rights.

The bill, Senate File 2357 and its Amendment, S-5126 are set to receive a vote as early as this morning!

It is vital that you act today and contact your State Senator and demand that he or she oppose this legislation.

Allow us to briefly review what this legislation would do.

If passed this bill would:

• Allow virtually anyone who knows you to apply to the court for a no-contact order – even if no physical contact has ever occurred between the two of you. As condition of this no-contact order you would be required to hand over all of your firearms and ammunition.
• Not require that you even be present at the court hearing. This bill does not even ensure that you have the right to even have legal counsel present or a chance to confront your accusers in a court of law.
• Allow an anti-gun court to decide who is qualified to take possession of your firearms should they decide to take them from you.
• Allow this same court to decide that no one is qualified to take your guns and order the sheriff’s department to seize them, and make you pay the sheriff for the right to lose your guns! Yeah, you get to pay the government $50 per gun that they seize from you!
  Declare you a felon, and unable to ever own guns again, if you fail to turn over so much as a single .22 cartridge.

There is more but I am sure you get the idea.

Even as amended this bill is very dangerous. Don’t let them fool you by saying ‘all we are doing is making Iowa code mirror federal code.’ That is not true!

Even federal language, as bad as it is on this issue, provides for some standard of due process. The amended version of this bill simply states that ‘Upon the issuance of a protective order…the court shall inform the person who is the subject of such order or conviction that the person shall not possess, ship, transport, or receive a firearm…”

Just like that, you are done owning firearms. Also, there is no mention, in either the bill or the amendment, of how or if you can get your guns back. The amendment talks about the protective order being lifted but there is no requirement for the state to return your guns to you! This has the appearance of a lifetime gun ban – all because some ex-girlfriend went to the court saying that she is afraid.

It is vital that you send out the pre-written email below to your State Senator immediately as the vote could happen at any time.

In additional Gun Rights News
Iowa Gun Owners would like to call special attention to State Senator Keith Kreiman (D-47). Senator Kreiman has refused to move the REAL Right-to-Carry bill out of his sub-committee and onto the Floor for a vote all session. He is aggressively opposed to your right to keep and bear arms.

Care to guess who is sponsoring the bill we are discussing above?
That’s right – Senator Keith Kreiman. Sarah Brady of Handgun Control Inc. would certainly be proud of Senator Kreiman.

Please take a moment to send Senator Kreiman an email as well. Let him know what you think of his refusal to pass REAL Right-to-Carry as well as his support for the bill mentioned above. As the Chair of the committee holding up our carry bill and of the committee that is producing this anti-gun legislation, Senator Kreiman needs to be contacted whether or not he is your Senator.

Feel free to use the second pre-written email below for this purpose or you may compose your own. His email address is: keith.kreiman@legis.state.ia.us .

If you need assistance in figuring out who your State Senator is please click here to find out.

If you need to locate your State Senator’s email address please click here for that information.

If you would like to call your State Senator please call 515-281-3371 and ask to be transferred.

———————————————————————
(Pre-Written Email)

Dear State Senator _____________________,

I am writing to urge you to OPPOSE Senate File 2357 and the amendment currently filed on the bill, S-5126.

This bill would allow me to lose my gun rights based on the accusation of a mere acquaintance who says that he/she is afraid of me – with no physical contact. As amended, this bill would not even require that I be present for this process and would deny my due process rights by not even allowing me to confront my accuser.

Also, should some anti-gun court decide to take my guns away under this proposal the court gets to decide who is qualified to take my guns!

The court would even have the option to allow the government to seize my guns, and make me pay them to do it!

Lastly, there is no mention of how I can ever get my property back! This seems to be a lifetime gun ban based on the words of one person in a hearing that I might not even be able to attend.

Regardless of how many amendments are added to this bill to make it ‘better’ this bill will always be anti-gun and I certainly expect you to vote no on it. I will be watching to see how you vote on this important matter.

Sincerely,

———————————————————————

Pre-Written Email to Senator Keith Kreiman
———————————————————————

Dear Senator Kreiman,

As a gun owner and someone who cherishes the Constitutional protections that I enjoy as an American I am very upset that you are bringing forth SF 2357 as well as the anti-gun amendment S-5126.

These proposals will take guns away from people based merely on the allegations of another person and there is no guarantee that the affected party can even be present at the hearing!

From making Iowans pay the state to come in and seize their guns, to allowing anti-gun courts to decide who is ‘qualified’ to take possession of the seized property of an Iowan who has not even been convicted of anything, this bill is anti-gun and un-American to the core.

How dare you try to force this on law abiding Iowans!

In addition, I would like to express my frustration at your refusal to move SF473, the REAL Right-to-Carry bill out of committee. This bill would increase public safety by allowing more law abiding Iowans the right to carry a weapon for self-defense.

Please represent the views of the voters who elected you to office in the first place and not those of the anti-gun special interest groups in the Capitol.

Sincerely,

———————————————————————

Thank you for your continued activism and your willingness to help us as we fight for your right to keep and bear arms!

For Freedom,

About:
Iowa Gun Owners (IGO) was formed in January of 2009 to combat the oppressive gun laws in the State of Iowa. IGO does not believe that you, as a law abiding citizen, should have to beg permission from the government to be able to defend yourself and your family. That’s why we are working so hard to get a Vermont/Alaska style carry law passed in Iowa. In these states, unless you are a convicted felon or otherwise barred from possessing weapons, you don’t need a permit to carry a gun for self-defense! Join us now! Visit: www.iowagunowners.org

Iowa Gun Owners

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Iowa Gun Bill Takes Away Your Guns, Charges You For Doing So & Denies You Due Process, All In One

The Nevada State Special Session of the Legislature meets this week on Tuesday. They are looking for ways to fill the budget deficit and don’t think they have overlooked the cash that has been spent on guns and ammo in the last year.

Gun Owners of Nevada

Nevada --(AmmoLand.com)- The legislature is considering a means of “revenue enhancement” that would make privacy for CCW holders a huge problem. This is the exact same bill that was rejected by the legislature last year.

InsureNet is lobbying for this bill so they can install 1,000’s of camera or “scanners” on nearly all of Nevada’s public roads. If it passes it would allow InsureNet, to photograph/scan every license plate on our roads. This data would be scanned and analyzed by InsureNet for the purpose of catching uninsured motorists. It’s a nice premise but it comes with some serious problems.

The problem is, in Nevada, every CCW holder has essentially given up his/her right to privacy. The minute you ask the government for “permission” to lawfully carry concealed, your license plate and vehicle registration is noted as a CCW holder. In other words, those who have jumped through the hoops of paying for the privilege to carry a lawful firearm—these lawful gun owners would be captured by an unaccountable, out of state corporate entities database! We constantly hear of databases being hacked.

Do you understand the ramifications of this bill? Can you see the possibility for misuse? Gun owners did not create the spending problem at the state level. And gun owners should not have to fear privacy violations by an out-of-state corporation just because of being a CCW holder.

You know how unaccountable our state legislators can be to gun owners. A private business has even less accountability to you. What if someday we have a truly anti-gun Governor (think Obama)? What if the Governor wanted to know which CCW holders were at a particular “political rally?” Do you see the problems this can cause now and in the future? This bill must NOT be the answer to our states over-spending. Gun owners need to tell their legislative representatives that the right to privacy as a gun owner is already too heavily compromised by the Unconstitutional permit system.

Nevadans do not need more cameras taking pictures of our auto license plates. Of course everyone needs to have car insurance. But this idea is being introduced because our state government is spending money like the proverbial drunken sailors that they are. Lawful concealed carry holders should not be subjected to this level of potential violation of privacy.

When the Nevada state legislature did not pass this bill last year, they were thinking clearly. They are not thinking clearly now. They are seeing dollars signs and they are NOT thinking of you or your CCW.

Do NOT allow them to pass this bill that would make it too easy for the rights of law abiding gun owners like you to be violated.

Contact your representatives immediately.
Tell them “NO to InsureNet”. Tell them NO to scanning our license plates.

Tell them that until lawful Nevada gun owners can carry a self defense weapon as they do in Alaska (permit optional) that you do NOT want any type of ‘scanning’ of license plates. Constitutional Carry (permit optional) is moving ahead in Iowa, Arizona, Texas and many other states. Why not Nevada?

They need to hear from you. Spread the word. Do not just post this message on bulletin boards and forums. Do not just email this message to your gun buddies. You must call. It is imperative.

Emails are great but it is really too late. If you are going to email, please go here.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/assembly/feedbackmail.cfm

Or email all of them at once by cutting and pasting this:

bbuckley@asm.state.nv.us, joceguera@asm.state.nv.us, hgansert@asm.state.nv.us, shorsford@sen.state.nv.us, jlee@sen.state.nv.us, bcegavske@sen.state.nv.us,

If you can, please email and call.

Here are the most important phone and contact information. A suggested message follows.

In the Assembly please contact:

• Buckley, Barbara
  775-684-8537
  bbuckley@asm.state.nv.us
• Oceguera, John
  775-684-8595
  joceguera@asm.state.nv.us
• Gansert, Heidi
  775-684-8837
  hgansert@asm.state.nv.us

In the Senate please contact:

• Horsford, Steven
  775-684-1429
  shorsford@sen.state.nv.us
• Lee, John
  775-684-1424
  jlee@sen.state.nv.us
• Cegavske, Barbara
  775-684-1445
  bcegavske@sen.state.nv.us

*******************************************

Dear Member of the Nevada Legislature:

During this Special Session, fix the budget problem without scanning license plates.

I believe everyone should have auto insurance but I do not want an out of State Corporation to set up 1,000’s of cameras on Nevada roads.

Privacy is too important to be entrusted to a no-bid contract with InsureNet or with any other private company.

Sincerely,

*******************************************

About:
Gun Owners of Nevada: As a single issue organization, GONV seeks to prevent any further encroachment upon the rights of law abiding citizens to own, possess and carry personal defense weapons. Our goal is to implement “Vermont Style Carry” within the state of Nevada. Visit: www.gonv.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Bill Would Allow Tracking of Nevada Gun Owners Movements

CCRKBA.org

Oakland, California --(AmmoLand.com)- Oakland, Ca is proposing more anti-gun ordinances. They will vote on their new anti-gun Effort this coming Tuesday, February 16. It is imperative that we mount a full-scale opposition to their effort.

Please Attend The February 16 Oakland City Council Meeting To Voice Your Opposition!

When: Tuesday, February 16, at 06:00 p.m.

Where: Third Floor Oakland City Hall 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Oakland, CA 94612

Wear business clothing. Coats and ties are encouraged.

The Ordinances: These new laws would

1. implement the draconian AB 962 ammunition sales restrictions immediately instead of waiting for the state law to take effect next year;
2. add ALL ammunition, including rifle and shotgun ammunition, to the restrictions;
3. require that all ammunition sellers obtain an FFL,
4. require that all lost or stolen firearms be reported within 48 hours; and
5. require the Chief of Police to send a letter to all handgun purchasers outlining their “obligations” as owners of nasty guns.

Background:
The “Legal Community Against Violence” (LCAV), a San Francisco-based violently anti-gun group of lawyers, came up with another pre-packaged anti-gun legislative program. They shopped it to around 190 Bay Area municipalities.

Oakland’s city government is not prone to being reasonable.

The BIG Danger:
LCAV started their targeted anti-gun onslaught in the late 1990s when they helped create the so-called East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership. With LCAV’s help, the “Partnership” was instrumental in passing anti-gun laws in most of Alameda and Contra Costa County towns.

If these laws pass in Oakland, THEY WILL MIGRATE TO YOUR TOWN! An Oakland victory will embolden LCAV to push their agenda all over the greater Bay Area and up to the state level!

WE MUST STOP THEM NOW!

About:
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Freedom Hating Legal Community Against Violence Pushing More Anti Gun Ordinances on Law Abiding Gun Owners

Firearms Owners Against Crime

Pennsylvania --(AmmoLand.com)- Radnor Township, Pennsylvania Considers Mandatory Reporting of Lost or Stolen Firearms Ordinance..?

On February 8 the Radnor Township commissioners conducted an open meeting to listen to arguments for and against enacting an ordinance requiring the mandatory reporting of lost or stolen firearms. As it has in the past cease-fire PA utilized local political contacts to pressure the local elected officials (otherwise known as strong-arm tactics) into considering this legislation.

Of course this group is not one to let the truth stand in its way and this meeting was no exception to that rule. Openly manipulating the facts such as how many prosecutions were conducted by the municipalities with these ordinances in place and numerous other falsehoods were prevalent throughout much of the testimony of the other cease-fire PA officials.

Local gunowners presented a strong defense and factually challenged every contention of the anti-gun organization but, as it has been shown in the past, the backroom political deals continued to dominate in these situations further justifying the reasoning behind a statewide preemption Law. If only this law actually had some teeth in it?! Perhaps the answer is to be found in House Bill 1541 that has been introduced by Rep. Daryl Metcalfe.

This particular hearing resulted in enough questions being raised by those in opposition to this ordinance that a vote was postponed for two weeks so that answers could be obtained from the solicitor. While this may just have delayed the inevitable it is clear to the casual observer that the fight was worth it and it did draw out the officials from freedom hating Cease-Fire PA and showed them to be unscrupulous in their presentation and despicable for their ignorance of the law.

About:
The Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC) is non-partisan, non-connected Political Action Committee organized to empower ‘all’ gun owners, outdoors enthusiasts and supporters of the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution Visit: www.foac-pac.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Pennsylvania Preemption Law Violations Continue

Firearms Owners Against Crime

Pennsylvania --(AmmoLand.com)-  First let me wish everyone a Happy Valentines Day!

Each month we try to cover as much of the information that is directly relevant to the gun control/second amendment debate. It is growing increasingly difficult to be able to present these issues in a way that will not overwhelm the average individual.

We face so many overt issues such as preemption violations, covering legislative issues at the state and federal level-pro and anti-gun, educating legislators on the issues, etc. that the more underhanded and sinister attacks on our freedoms are difficult to document and report on in a timely fashion.

We have a host of deeply troubling behind-the-scenes initiatives such as reports of censorship running rampant on the Internet, federal agencies collecting information on gun owners from gun dealers, state legislators electing anti-gun committee chairman in secret, legislative meetings being held without advising pro-gun leaders and the list goes on and on.

On top of all of this is the issue of the average gun owner turning a blind eye to these and so many other issues. I’m sure all of us know some gun owners who have a myriad of reasons as to why they don’t need to be involved. All one has to do is to go to a gun show or the average gun club and take a look around.

I encourage you to grab these guys by the scruff of their philosophical neck and do your best to wake them up! We need everyone in this struggle for our freedoms and our heritage.

In the attached newsletter is information related to the 5th Annual Second Amendment Rally in Harrisburg scheduled for April 27th. Please take this information (Flyers are available on the website) and share it around to your friends and post it at your gun club. There are many changes involved with what we are doing with this rally to make it easier to sign up and so that more attendees can have a chance at prizes without any requirement to purchase anything. With 2010 being an election year and so many pro-gun pieces of legislation filed our behalf is extremely important that we make a strong impression by our presence in Harrisburg to talk about these issues and encourage legislators to bring these bills to the floor for a vote. Please try to do whatever you can to help us have an even better rally than we’ve had in the past!

Please take a moment to review the attached February/2010 FOAC e-newsletter that represents the latest information about the expanding variety of issues that are pertinent to our Freedoms. You are also encouraged to forward this article to your friends and fellow gun owners. For more important developments and news links that contain up to the minute information on political, election and recent firearms issues please visit our website–FOAC. If you would like FOAC to hold a special meeting or speak to any gun club in your area to energize local gun owners please contact us for further details.

About:
The Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC) is non-partisan, non-connected Political Action Committee organized to empower ‘all’ gun owners, outdoors enthusiasts and supporters of the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution Visit: www.foac-pac.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Firearms Owners Against Crime Gun Owner Update – Feb 2010

(Senator Gronstal (at left) hurls hundreds of 2nd Amendment petitions to the floor in disgust. The papers are seen in the lower right corner moving so fast that the camera had a hard time capturing their motion. And no, the man sitting down and using a laptop is not a staffer who just 'missed' the throw.)

Iowa Gun Owners

Iowa --(AmmoLand.com)- You have got to take a moment to learn about the outrageous conduct of State Senator Michael Gronstal in the Capitol yesterday in Des Moines. Senator Gronstal, who has an A+ rating from a national gun group and who even takes their PAC money, made it very clear yesterday what his views on the 2nd Amendment really are.

But you don’t have to just take our word for it – check out the pictures!

Iowa Gun Owners Betrayed!

Voters in the Council Bluffs and Carter Lake area today were slapped in the face by their State Senator, Mike Gronstal.

For a long time Senator Gronstal has told the voters in his district what he’s recently been telling representatives of Iowa Gun Owners: “I’m pro gun.”

Knowing that he says he’s pro-gun and knowing that he’s received an A+ endorsement from a national gun group, not to mention the fact that he took money from that organization, one would think that he would be quick to help us pass our REAL Right-to-Carry bill.

What a faulty assumption!

After approaching him two weeks ago to ask him for his direct support to move our Senate version of the REAL Right-to-Carry bill (S.F. 473) out of committee and onto the floor for a vote and getting a noncommittal answer, we approached him again today.

This time we brought with us hundreds of petitions that many of you signed at our gun shows in Council Bluffs (this is Sen. Gronstal’s district so these petitions were signed by his voters) or through the mail that you’ve received from us. We brought these to him to show him that you – the voters in his district – want him to represent you and support the 2nd Amendment.

We presented these petitions to him and respectfully asked him to help move this bill and guess what he did with your petitions: he threw them on the floor!!!!

That’s right; at the Capitol, in the rotunda, in front of a hundred people.

His actions spoke loud and clear on what he thinks of your 2nd Amendment rights. He thinks its trash – not even worth looking at!

Further, he made it very clear what he thinks of your right to petition the government for redress of grievance when he threw your wishes on the floor without even looking at them.

This is outrageous! Senator Gronstal may be the Senate Majority Leader and one of the most powerful men in Iowa, but he was put in that position by the voters of Senate District 50.

Please take a moment to express your frustration with his antics by using the pre-written email below. Also, if you would prefer to call him (or do both) feel free to call him at his office by calling 515-281-3901. You don’t have to be a resident of the Council Bluffs area to do this either. As the Majority Leader in the Iowa Senate, Gronstal has assumed the primary leadership position at the Capitol – contact him today.

IGO Executive Director Aaron Dorr (at middle right holding yellow petitions) speaks to Senator Gronstal.

After receiving another non-answer from the Senator, IGO Executive Director Aaron Dorr (at right) delivers a stack of hundreds of signed petitions to Senator Gronstal.

——————————————————————
Pre-Written Email

State Senator Michael Grontstal,

I find it outrageous that you care so little for the opinions of the voters of your district.

That you would actually throw our petitions on the ground and stomp off is the height of arrogance.

Regardless of the issues involved, when you are presented with signed petitions, from actual voters, I expect you to do the job you were elected to do and represent us.

I expect you to fight for our 2nd Amendment rights by moving SF473 out of committee and I also expect you to apologize to the members and representatives of Iowa Gun Owners and show more respect next time you are speaking with them.

Sincerely,

——————————————————————

Compromises

Many of you have acted on our recent email alert and have done a fantastic job at letting the members of the House know that you do not support any compromised bill when it comes to your gun rights.

In fact, yesterday, when representatives of Iowa Gun Owners were talking with one State Representative for a few moments he received multiple emails on his cell phone from you! He said he gets a steady supply of IGO member communication.

Another State Representative told us that the pressure that Iowa Gun Owners has brought to bear at the Capitol this session has been ‘incredible’ and that we’ve been gaining ground steadily.

Thank you for that! This only happens due to the constant pressure that you are keeping on your elected officials.

As our recent article stated the sell-out Baudler bill (HF2255) was brought forth in committee yesterday. Your pressure helped us to generate much opposition to this bill proposal. In fact, Representative Dwayne Alons (R-4) made a courageous stand and led an amendment charge trying to replace the compromised bill with the REAL Right-to-Carry bill that would allow all Iowans who are not felons to carry without a permit. (Rep. Alons deserves your thanks for this and can be contacted by emailing this address: dwayne.alons@legis.state.ia.us.)

Unfortunately we lost this vote 14-7, with members of both political parties voting both yes and no.

The good news here is that your contact with your elected officials has caused serious concern in both parties. Yesterday’s vote confirmed this when we saw Representatives who cosponsored this compromised bill vote in favor of amending that same bill in committee. They are feeling your pressure.

Now we have to prepare to halt this bill on the floor assuming that it does come up.

We will give you more updates when the time comes but please be prepared to call, email, and visit with your State Representatives and Senators when you get our alert.

In the meantime, more and more of you are contacting us wanting to come to the Capitol to express your outrage at your inability to carry a gun for self-defense.

If you would like to come down to the Capitol sometime please get in touch with us and we’d be happy to show you around.

Contact Us
You can contact us in the following ways:
Email: info@iowagunowners.org
Phone: 515/309-7858
Mail: P.O. Box 3585, Des Moines, IA 50323
Website: www.IowaGunOwners.org

Yours for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms,

About:
Iowa Gun Owners (IGO) was formed in January of 2009 to combat the oppressive gun laws in the State of Iowa. IGO does not believe that you, as a law abiding citizen, should have to beg permission from the government to be able to defend yourself and your family. That’s why we are working so hard to get a Vermont/Alaska style carry law passed in Iowa. In these states, unless you are a convicted felon or otherwise barred from possessing weapons, you don’t need a permit to carry a gun for self-defense! Join us now! Visit: www.iowagunowners.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Anti-Gun Senator Gronstal “Slaps” Iowa Gun Owners in the Face

Wisconsin Gun Owners

Madison, Wis. —-(AmmoLand.com)- A recent editorial appearing in the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel (It’s time to reconsider concealed carry law) ought to alarm gun owners. That’s because it underscores a push to create tougher gun laws by using concealed carry as a carrot to lure in and dupe activists into complacency and surrender, say leaders of Wisconsin Gun Owners (WGO).

“We’ve been warning gun owners to prepare for a tough fight on concealed carry, and to expect marginal state republicans to cave in to pressure from anti-gun bureaucrats,” said Corey Graff, executive director of WGO. “If liberals suddenly claim to support concealed carry in exchange for tougher gun laws you can bet gun owners stand more to lose than we do to gain. You know something’s amiss.”

One of the bargaining chips up for grabs is to make carrying a concealed weapon a felony in Wisconsin, in exchange for passage of a permit bill. It is currently a misdemeanor.

Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm and Milwaukee Chief of Police Ed Flynn (Flynn no friend of the Second Amendment, someone who recently told his “troops” to throw gun owners found to be open carrying to the ground and ‘then decide what rights they have’) are proposing a comprehensive gun control package.

“We all should be willing to live with concealed carry if it is part of comprehensive firearm reform and if prosecutors are given the ability to severely punish those illegally carrying guns [emphasis added],” opined the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “In other words, the trade-off is worthy if also included are tools that, as Flynn describes it, make it just as dangerous for folks to carry illegal guns as they think it is to go without them.

“And getting caught with a concealed gun but without a permit should carry significant penalties.”

In other words: Those caught exercising their right to bear arms should face significant penalties, WGO pointed out.

WGO warned activists that such a package would be a step back not only in the proposed gun control package (including closing the so-called “gun show loophole”) but also on concealed carry.

“We want to move in the direction of more freedom for gun owners, not less,” said Graff. “Carrying concealed weapons in Wisconsin should not be a misdemeanor as it currently is, but it sure should not be upgraded to a felony.

“We should not allow unelected bureaucrats to herd us into a gun control scheme. There is a right way and a wrong way to fight for concealed carry, and giving up more ground than you gain is most definitely the wrong way,” Graff said.

WGO also warned gun activists that preemptively surrendering is not a good way to negotiate and leaves them vulnerable to accept a restrictive piece of CCW legislation — such as forcing gun owners into a criminal database monitored by law enforcement.

“…[I]f concealed-carry legislation is crafted, it should be done with reasonable access for law enforcement to the database so they can know who’s carrying,” the Sentinel concluded.

Be ready: With bureaucrats leaking their intent to shove a fistful of new anti-gun regulations down our throats, and the institutional gun lobby proving itself willing to concede the concealed carry fight before it begins, gun activists need to be ready to demand both a good concealed carry package — and fight like hell to oppose more oppressive gun control as well.

If you’re tired of the broken system of compromise and access — a system which has netted gun owners only more gun control — we urge you to Join Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. today!

About:
WGO works for grassroots gun owners, not politicians. While many gun lobbies fight for “reasonable gun control,” WGO sets a higher standard: Defining the terrain of pro-gun political battle. Sure, many groups claim they’re “pro-gun” — all the while they provide cover for anti-gun deals cut by politicians — but only WGO truly informs gun owners, remaining committed to a 100% pro-gun position. We oppose all gun control — regardless of the political party — and work tirelessly to restore the Second Amendment. Visit www.wisconsingunowners.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Wisconsin Concealed Carry: Is a Sell-Out in the Works?

National Association for Gun Rights

Colorado - -(AmmoLand.com)-While inches turned into feet of snow and life along the East Coast came to a standstill, government agencies were far from dormant.

While some southern cities struggled to cope with the massive amounts of fallen snow, some local governments seized this opportunity to declare states of “emergency.”

Sounds benign, right? After all, government is here to help…

Authorities in King, North Carolina declared a state of emergency which not only prohibited citizens from driving on the snow-packed roads, but also banned the sale alcohol and banned the purchase or possession of firearms outside of their homes.

By declaring a state of emergency, the King City Council and police chief effectively declared martial law and rescinded the Constitutional rights of King’s citizens.

King Police Chief Paula May has tried to distance herself from the decision, and the ensuing public outcry. She claims that North Carolina state law was to blame for the ban on the sale and possession of firearms outside the home.

For the liberty-minded, these “emergency powers” should be cause for great concern. Regardless of the level of government, these assaults on liberty cannot go uncontested.

While many people, gun owners especially, are drawn to the glamor of Presidential and Federal politics, often many battles for liberty go on unheralded. In state legislatures and city councils across the country, liberals are working hard to strengthen the iron-grip of government on the rights of their citizens.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, and in this modern age of the internet, vigilance is easier than ever.

All, however, is not lost.
Many liberty-minded state legislators are stepping up to fight these “state of emergency” attacks on our gun rights.

In Colorado, for instance, state Senator Scott Renfroe (R – Greeley) has introduced a bill to protect the Second Amendment rights of Colorado residents.

Renfroe’s bill would prevent the Governor of Colorado from suspending citizens’ right to keep and bear arms during a declared state of emergency.

National Association for Gun Rights’ Director of Operations Luke O’Dell will be testifying in favor of Renfroe’s bill later today in the Colorado State Senate State Affairs Committee.

You can listen to live audio of the hearing on the Colorado General Assembly website, by clicking here.

Editorial Disclaimer: The opinions and views expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of the staff, AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, or other sponsors and partners. See the Editorial-Review Process for more details.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

The Tyranny of Emergency – Gun Rights Suspended…Again

Maryland Shall Issue.org

Maryland - -(AmmoLand.com)-  Senator Brian Frosh (D), District 16 Montgomery County and Chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, and Delegate Sandy Rosenberg (D), District 41, Baltimore City have introduced the Gun Safety Act of 2010.

This proposed legislation would fundamentally change the face of gun ownership in the State of Maryland as no bill has in the last 10 years.

Now that the text of the bills have been released, we can give you our full response.

Highlights :

1. An individual with more than one DUI conviction may not purchase a firearm within 5 years after an alcohol-related conviction.
2. Maryland State Police shall inspect each state-licensed gun dealer at least once every two years to ensure compliance with gun law. Cost of inspection shall be covered by licensing fees, which may be increased as necessary.
3. Gun dealers shall provide records of their inventories and sales to aid State Police inspectors. The records shall include: (I) the name and address of each person from whom the dealer acquires a firearm and to whom the dealer sells or otherwise disposes of the firearm; (II) a precise description including the make, model, caliber, and serial number of each firearm acquired; and (III) the date of each acquisition, sale, or other disposition.
4. Law enforcement officials may use body-wires to collect evidence against gun traffickers and would be traffickers.
5. Penalties for illegal sale or transfer of firearms increased from 1 year, $1,000 to 5 years, $10,000.
6. Ignorance of the requirements to conduct background checks of firearm purchasers shall not be a defense for individuals charged with illegally selling guns.
7. Individuals buying handguns shall secure a handgun purchasing license before acquiring a handgun. Licenses may be issued by local police or Maryland State Police. Police shall secure fingerprints, verify IDs, and conduct background checks. Licensing fees shall be set at a level to cover costs.
   (the following is paraphrased in places)
   (A) A regulated firearms dealer or person may only sell or transfer a handgun to another person if the purchaser or transferee presents to the seller or transferror a valid Maryland driver’s license with an approved handgun
   purchase designation or photographic identification card with an approved handgun purchase designation issued to the purchaser or transferee by the Motor Vehicle Administration.
   (B) A person may only purchase or receive a handgun if the person:
   (1) Possesses a valid Maryland driver’s license or state issued ID as outlined in (A).
   (C) The MVA shall issue a driver’s license with an approved handgun purchase designation or photographic ID with an approved handgun purchase designation.
   (D) In order to obtain the required driver’s license designation or state issued ID card an applicant must submit the following to a state or local law enforcement agency.
   (1) A completed application on a form provided by the Secretary (of the Maryland State Police)
   (2) A non-refundable fee set by the Secretary
   (3) Proof of satisfactory completion of a firearms safety training course approved by the Secretary
   (4) A complete set of the applicant’s legible fingerprints to be taken by a state or local law enforcement agency
   (5) Any other identification or documentation required by the secretary
   (6) A statement made by the applicant under the penalty of perjury that the applicant is not prohibited under federal or state law from possessing a handgun
   (G) Provides for the revocation of the handgun approval designation and the surrender of the driver’s license or state issued photographic ID if the Secretary determines that the licensee no longer meets the qualifications set forth in the rest of the bill.
8. Felons illegally possessing any firearms shall be subject to a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

——————————————————————————–

Our analysis, corresponds to items under “Highlights”above:

1. The penalties for the DUI convictions are not usually as harsh as the 5-year prohibition on firearms ownership proposed by this bill.
2. An obvious ploy to drive up dealer costs and force them to bear the financial burden for a new level of bureaucracy in the hopes of bankrupting them. The open-ended fees are blatantly punitive. This provision of the bill will also create opportunities to revoke or suspend dealers’ licenses for minor record keeping errors.
3. Obtaining dealers’ records of sales will allow the Maryland State Police to create de facto registration lists of all firearms sold in Maryland. They can then start cross referencing your purchases of ammunition and gun supplies against their registration list and use them to continue their midnight raids. We saw this with the ammunition logs in the past that we have all but eliminated. There’s no indication that they will not continue to abuse their power with this either. The Maryland State Police has demonstrated that they can not be trusted with this sort of power.
4. “Would-be traffickers”. That is you. In their eyes, every gun owner in this state is a “would-be” trafficker. Do you relish the thought of there being state agents tapping your gun club meetings, gun shops and shooting ranges? This will give them basically unlimited license to use a wire to record your conversations if you fit their definition of a “would-be” trafficker. The section of Maryland code where this provision is contained lumps us in with murderers, rapists, sex offenders, pornographers and kidnappers. Furthermore, let’s also not forget that the Maryland State Police has already been implicated in illegal surveillance of peace activists and death penalty opponents.
5. This sounds great, except that provision #6 above would lump the citizen who accidentally runs afoul of the law in with the hardened criminal who deliberately seeks to circumvent the law. Case in point: A person moves to Maryland from another state where face to face sales of all firearms are permitted and decides to sell part of their lawfully purchased handgun or Maryland regulated long gun collection after moving here. This person, unaware of our convoluted laws, now faces 5 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine just as a person actively engaged in the deliberately illegal sale of guns would be. While ignorance of the law is never an absolute defense, this provision would seemingly prohibit it from even being used as a mitigating factor in a defense.
6. See preceding comment.
7. This is the nuclear option in this bill. It essentially brands all purchasers of handguns (and we would presume regulated long guns) with a Scarlet G for Gun Owner on their drivers license. You will have to jump through an entirely new set of hoops just to be approved for jumping through the hoops that we already have to navigate in order to purchase a handgun. We would expect this to also be applied to regulated long guns.

Where to start on this aspect of the bill?

This is proposing that anyone wishing to purchase a handgun actually have a designation added to their driver’s license that labels them as being licensed to purchase that firearm. This means that you have essentially been branded for being a gun owner.

This should be an outrageous affront to any civil liberty minded citizen even aside from the gun issue.

There have been numerous times in the history of the world where citizens have been singled-out for what they thought, what they believed, what God they prayed to or didn’t pray to, or who they associated with and it has never ended well. Whether it be a yellow star, a tattoo or a special designation on a government-issued ID, governments have time and time again demonstrated that they simply can not be trusted when it comes to singling out designated undesirables from the general population.

All rhetoric aside, this bill is fraught with pragmatic dangers for the gun owners of Maryland as it increases not only the bureaucratic difficulties of lawfully purchasing a handgun, but also increases the financial burden for these citizens. How many Maryland Families will be deprived of their right to protect themselves because they do not possess the means to meet this new financial burden?

In response to item (D) above, we raise the following specific concerns:

Section D will be a de facto handgun ban for huge swaths of the Maryland population. The Maryland State Police are only accepting fingerprints done on the LiveScan system that can, with one exception in Baltimore, only be done at a few privately-owned locations across the state. Citizens without the means to access one of those locations, either due to geographic distance, financial hardship, disability or a combination of the above would be out of luck. Not clearly defining either the forms required or the costs associated with the applications gives the Secretary free reign to make the process as expensive as possible and gives the Secretary unlimited power to dissect our personal lives as they see fit

——————————————————————————–

Commentary:

The Scarlet G for Gun Owner aspect of the bill alone, if passed, would most likely bring about a landmark lawsuit against the State of Maryland because of the blatant effort to create so much financial and administrative hardship for citizens to exercise a Constitutional right that it equates with a government led effort to ban the individual possession of handguns. Per the usual modus operandi of the anti-gun wing of the Maryland General Assembly, we can expect that they will expand this to first include all firearms and then all ammunition.

In a time of an unprecedented financial crisis for governments and citizens alike, Senator Frosh is proposing a monstrous addition to the Maryland State Police’s workload and then asking cash strapped citizens to back it so that they can be granted the privilege of exercising a fundamental right. In addition, such a law, if passed, would certainly be challenged in court, forcing the state to spend even more of its limited resources trying to defend indefensible regulations. Given that Senator Frosh is rumored to have his eye on the Senate Presidency, we have to question the judgment of an elected official who ignores the budgetary exigencies of both the State and citizenry in the name advancing a personal radical anti-gun agenda.

We must unleash a response to this abomination unlike any in the history of our community. The damage resulting from the passage of this bill will set back our efforts for decades. We must flood their emails, their snail mail boxes, their fax machines and shut down their phone service. MSI can only provide you with the information and the tools that you need to stop this. It is up to each of us as individuals to take the fight to them and stop this before it ever gets heard in committee.

• Snail mail letters are best and can easily be done with the Activist’s Tools.
• Phone calls are good.
• Emails are easy and a good follow up to the above actions.

——————————————————————————–

Here’s what we need you to do :

• Contact your Senator and let them know that you oppose SB645.
• Contact the members of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee and let them know that you oppose SB645.
• Contact your delegates and let them know that you oppose HB820.
• Contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee and let them know that you oppose HB820.
• Contact the press. Here is one resource.
• All of the information you need in order to easily make mail contacts can be found in the Activist’s Tools below.
• Remember to stick to the facts when making your contacts. Avoid over emotional rhetoric that only fuels their stereotypes of our community.

——————————————————————————–

Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Phone Numbers

• Brian Frosh – Chair
• 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3124 (toll free)
• Lisa Gladden – Vice Chair
  1-800-492-7122, ext. 3697 (toll free)
• Jim Brochin
  1-800-492-7122, ext. 3648 (toll free)
• Jennie Forehand
  1-800-492-7122, ext. 3134 (toll free)
• Larry Haines
  1-800-492-7122, ext. 3683 (toll free)
• Nancy Jacobs
  1-800-492-7122, ext. 3158 (toll free)
• Alex Mooney
  1-800-492-7122, ext. 3575 (toll free)
• Anthony Muse
  1-800-492-7122, ext. 3092 (toll free)
• Jamie Raskin
  1-800-492-7122, ext. 3634 (toll free)
• Bryan Simonaire
  1-800-492-7122, ext. 3658 (toll free)
• Norman Stone
  1-800-492-7122, ext. 3587 (toll free)
• House Judiciary Committee Phone Numbers
  Delegate Joseph Vallario – Chairman (D-27A)
  (410) 841-3488,
• Delegate Sandy Rosenberg – Co-Chair (D-41) Lead sponsor of HB820
  (410) 841-3297
• Delegate Curtis Anderson (D-43)
  (410) 841-3291
• Delegate Benjamin Barnes (D-21)
  (410) 841-3046
• Delegate Jill Carter (D-41)
  (410) 841-3283
• Delegate Frank Conaway Jr. (D-40)
  (410) 841-3189
• Delegate Kathleen Dumais (D-15)
  (410) 841-3052
• Delegate Don Dwyer Jr. (D-31)
  (410) 841-3047
• Delegate William Frank (R-42)
  (410) 841-3793
• Delegate J.B. Jennings (R-7)
  (410) 841-3698
• Delegate Kevin Kelly (D-1B)
  (410) 841-3404
• Delegate Benjamin Kramer (D-19)
  (410) 841-3485
• Delegate Susan Lee (D-16)
  (410) 841-3649
• Delegate Gerron Levi (D-23A)
  (410) 841-3101
• Delegate Susan McComas (R-35B)
  (410) 841-3272
• Delegate Tony McConkey (R-33A)
  (410) 841-3406
• Delegate Victor Ramirez (D-47)
  (410) 841-3340
• Delegate Todd Schuler (D-8)
  (410) 841-3526
• Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17)
  (410) 841-3037
• Delegate Michael Smigiel Sr. (R-36)
  (410) 841-3555
• Delegate Kriselda Valderrama (D-26)
  (410) 841-3210
• Delegate Jeffrey Waldstreicher (D-18)
  (410) 841-3130

About:
Maryland Shall Issue is an all volunteer, non-partisan effort dedicated to the preservation and advancement of all gunowners’ rights in Maryland, with a primary goal of CCW reform to allow all law-abiding citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon; and to the education of the community to the awareness that ’shall issue’ laws have, in all cases, resulted in decreased rates of violent crime.” Visit: www.marylandshallissue.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Maryland General Assembly Introduces ‘Racist’ Gun Safety Act of 2010

Unofficial California Law Enforcement Open Carry Discussions

AmmoLand Gun News

Sacramento Ca --(AmmoLand.com)- We received this by email with no further explanation but it gives a great inside look at California Open Carry law.

Read the Document Above and the text below to see what fears and concerns regular police officers face with regards to open carry in California.

It is also a good primer for those considering Open Carry in California of the consequences and possible out comes of open carry encounters with police.

Thank you for your inquiry. This is a very in depth topic and hopefully I can give you the information you are looking for.

My references for my answers are found in Penal Code 1025 and 12031. Both are relatively lengthy sections so I will try to synopsize them for you.

In a nutshell, you are allowed to openly (NOT concealed by a shirt or jacket, etc) a firearm. You are also allowed to carry a loaded magazine on your person (NOT in your gun) at the same time (12031 (g).

The gun itself CANNOT have a live round in the chamber. Provided you ARE the registered owner of the gun AND you have not been convicted of a felony, or been convicted of a crime against a person (assault of some type) or property or of a narcotics or dangerous drug or have served time (10231 (2)(E)), you may openly carry a firearm.

I would advise you to please read both sections thoroughly and contact your attorney for further clarification if needed. I can only assume what your intent to carry a firearm is. But, I want to make it clear that you understand our position as a law enforcement agency.

Though we recognize the Penal Code allows a person to carry a firearm legally, the law also allows us to take pro-active measure to insure our safety and the safety of the public.

For that reason, it would NOT be deemed unreasonable for an officer who is responding to a call of an armed subject or if the officer suddenly discovered an armed subject (whether or not the subject may have a firearm in their hands at the time of contact) to draw their firearm and point their loaded weapon at the subject until they are able determine who the subject is and their intentions.

This scenario has occurred more times than I can count. It can be an extremely volatile situation as the officer may perceive it to be a life or death situation. I only mention this to not sway you from your rights to carry a firearm, but to better inform you of the realities of our job and for you to weigh the risks versus benefits of carrying a firearm in public.

I hope this information has helped you.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Random Discussions on California’s Open Carry Law – Penal Code 1025 and 12031

National Rifle Association

FAIRFAX, Va. --(AmmoLand.com)- Delaware gun owners and Second Amendment advocates earned a victory this week as the Newark Housing Authority (NHA) withdrew a gun ban that had prohibited its residents from legally possessing firearms in their homes.

The Caesar Rodney Institute (CRI), a research and education organization in Delaware, recently released a series of Special Reports drawing attention to the plight of public housing residents being stripped of their right to self-defense, which prompted swift action from NRA.

Thousands of Delaware’s most vulnerable residents live in some of the state’s most dangerous neighborhoods, and have been prohibited from possessing firearms to defend themselves from the drug dealers and thugs who infest their communities. Violating the gun ban can result in eviction, which for many families would mean living on the streets.

As CRI reported, a residents’ handbook containing rules and regulations for anyone living in property operated by the NHA contained a section requiring that tenants “not possess explosives, firearms or flammable material on NHA’s property.”

According to Rob Detwiler, chairman of the NHA’s Board of Commissioners, that section of the handbook is misleading, and will be removed—effectively ending the ban.

The NHA is the first to withdraw its ban, rather than face litigation from NRA. The state’s three other public housing authorities—the Dover Housing Authority, Wilmington Housing Authority, and Delaware State Housing Authority—still ban their residents from owning firearms.

Commenting on NHA’s decision, immediate past NRA President and Dover attorney John Sigler said, “Obviously I am very pleased to learn that the Newark Housing Authority’s Board of Commissioners has reconsidered its ban on the otherwise lawful ownership and possession of firearms within their public housing properties. They are to be congratulated for doing the right thing by lifting their ban and restoring their residents to full citizenship.”

“Newark did the right thing for their residents and for the taxpayers whose monies support the Newark Housing Authority,” Sigler continued. “By acting responsibly and quickly to resolve this issue, the Newark Housing Authority’s Board of Commissions has saved the taxpayers the expense of attempting to defend an indefensible position in court. Now it is time for the Wilmington Housing Authority, the Dover Housing Authority and the Delaware State Housing Authority to follow Newark’s lead.”

NRA moved quickly to inform the other housing authorities of possible legal action if the unconstitutional gun bans are not immediately withdrawn.

“It has been brought to our attention by members of the National Rifle Association and by the Caesar Rodney Institute that the Dover Housing Authority, Newark Housing Authority, and Wilmington Housing Authority contain lease provisions that prohibit a resident from possessing a firearm. Such a restriction is unconstitutional,” said NRA General Counsel Robert Dowlut in a series of letters sent to the executive directors of the agencies.

A person shouldn’t be forced to give up his Second Amendment rights just to have a roof over his head. Many public housing projects are high-crime areas where people most desperately need the right to defend themselves. NRA has long fought this battle both in the courts and in legislatures around the country and recently settled a similar lawsuit against the San Francisco Housing Authority.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Housing Authority Lifts Gun Ban, Restores Second Amendment Rights

National Rifle Association

FAIRFAX, Va. --(AmmoLand.com)- The hand-wringers at the Brady Campaign must have figured out what the rest of us have known for quite some time.

Having been rendered all but entirely irrelevant, at least for the time being, the group is resorting to weird publicity stunts, in a vain attempt to again be taken seriously by its former not-so-secret admirers in the national anti-gun news media.

Last month, the group gave President Obama an “F” for “failed leadership” on gun control, accusing him of “squandering” the opportunity to push for tighter gun control laws.

Now it’s attacking Starbucks for allowing law abiding people to carry firearms in its stores as provided for by state law.

Get this doozie: “It’s everyone’s right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns,” the Brady Campaign says, in its modern rendition of FDR’s famous “freedom from fear” quote.

Not surprisingly, while the Brady Campaign easily fabricates a “right” to feel free from fear, it angrily scoffs at the right to self-protection by encouraging its minions to sign a petition demanding that Starbucks establish a gun policy more restrictive than state law.

“I demand that Starbucks stand up for the safety of its customers and prohibit guns in your [sic] retail establishments,” the petition reads.

A call to Starbucks has confirmed what was pretty obvious on its face. The company is in the business to sell coffee, not jump in the middle of a Brady-generated squabble that state law has already resolved in favor of the right to carry firearms, in certain circumstances. Starbucks also isn’t in business to help Brady get its name in the paper.

The Brady Campaign’s resorting to this kind of silliness is understandable. It was once the most influential anti-gun group in town, able to claim some of the “credit” for the temporary imposition of the federal handgun waiting period between 1994 and 1998 and the federal “assault weapon” ban between 1994 and 2004.

But in recent years it has experienced the longest losing streak in gun control history.

• The waiting period has expired in favor of the instant check system.
• The 1994 gun ban has expired. T
• he number of Right-to-Carry states has continued to rise.

The list goes on, at the federal, state and local level. And the group’s core arguments about the Second Amendment were rejected entirely by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. President Obama even signed bills into law which included provisions allowing the carrying of firearms in national parks according to state law, and protecting the sale of surplus military ammunition components to the private sector.

And today, the media’s gun control darling is not the Brady Campaign’s leader, former Fort Wayne, Indiana mayor Paul Helmke, who spends his time blogging about gun control on the Huffington Post website, where members on the fringe gather to rant about mainstream America. Today, the leader of the gun control movement is billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who spends his time (and money) as mayor of America’s most influential city.

Gun owners who like coffee ought to drop Starbucks a line and respectfully encourage the company to stay above the fray into which anti-gun activists are trying to drag them. Click here to do so.

As for the Brady Campaign, let’s hope things continue at the present rate. If they do, before too long we’ll have to explain who the group was, before it was forced to close its doors for lack of interest.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Maybe the Social Bigots of the Brady Campaign Should Switch To Decaf

Virginia Citizens Defense League

Virginia – -(AmmoLand.com)- FIRST – There will be NO meeting of the Militia, Police, and Public Safety subcommittee #3 (Death Start) today (Friday) morning at 7:30 AM. In fact all meetings have been canceled.

Here is the status of the bills heard tonight (mostly good news). Bills passed out of subcommittee move forward and get voted on by the full committee next Friday:

HB 1070, Delegate Athey, alllows CHP holders to carry into emergency shelters – STRONGLY SUPPORT – Passed out of subcommittee

HB 886, Delegate Athey, 10th Amendment protection of manufacture/sales within Virginia – SUPPORT – Rolled into HB 69 (next)

HB 69, Delegate Carrico, 10th Amendment protection of manufacture/ sales within Virginia – SUPPORT – Passed out of subcommittee

HB 871, Delegate Cline, clarifies the right of a first time CHP applicant to an Ore Tenus hearing if denied a permit – SUPPORT – Passed out of subcommittee

HB 109 is Delegate Cole’s bill which repeals the authority of a locality to charge a tax on the sale of handguns and also requires those sales be recorded with the locality. Any records kept by localities under this law would be required to be destroyed. The bill passed out of subcommittee. STRONGLY SUPPORT – Passed out of  subcommittee

HB 1191, Delegate Griffith, Clerk of Court can issue CHPs if judge OKs him or her doing so – STRONGLY SUPPORT – was amended to protect Clerks from civil suit and passed out of committee

HB 236, Delegate Janis, shooting within 1/2 mile of subdivision OK if done safely – STRONGLY SUPPORT – being reworded and will be heard in full committee

HB 1217, Delegate Lewis, gun safety, including the NRA’s Eddie Eagle, to be taught in elementary schools – SUPPORT – passed out of subcommittee

HB 490, Delegate Lingamfelter, State Police to develop a plan for lifetime CHPs – STRONGLY SUPPORT – passed out of subcommittee

HB 684, Delegate Jackson Miller, makes butterfly knives illegal to carry concealed – OPPOSE - not heard, possibly dead unless heard in full committee

HB 520, Delegate Morrissey, requires of anyone selling 3 or more guns at a gun show have an FFL license – STRONGLY OPPOSE – Dead

HB 995, Delegate Nutter, “assault firearms” may be purchased with military ID or CHP as proof of citizenship – STRONGLY SUPPORT – Tabled by Nutter (probably dead)

HB 171, Delegate Pogge, provides that no employer, property owner, etc. may prohibit a gun locked in private vehicles in a parking lot – STRONGLY SUPPORT – Substitute wording added to make some exceptions for certain businesses, passed out of subcommittee

HB 1146, Delegate Jim Scott, prohibits anyone who has had parental rights taken away from ever possessing guns – STRONGLY OPPOSE – referred to the Courts of Justice committee

HB 1379, Delegate Sickles, weakens firearms preemption for child care facilities in Northern Virginia – STRONGLY OPPOSE – modified and passed out of subcommittee

HB 1209, Delegate Ward, requires that the State Police be notified of a change of address within 24 hours of a machine gun owner moving – STRONGLY OPPOSE – Dead, withdrawn by Delegate Ward

You can watch the progress of all the gun bills by clicking here:

http://www.vcdl.org/static/2010leg.html

About:
Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right. Visit: www.vcdl.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

VCDL Virginia Firearms Subcommittee Gun Rights Report

National Association for Gun Rights

Illinois - -(AmmoLand.com)- “Watch out for wooden nickels,” is something my Grandpa used to tell me when I was a kid. The sentiment couldn’t be more apt now though.

I’ve watched with some skepticism as Establishment Republicans have been swept into office on a tide of genuine political discontent. As the GOP claims “great” victories in states like Massachusetts and Virginia, gun owners should be hesitant to jump on the GOP bandwagon.

On Tuesday evening, GOP pundits were championing Congressman Mark Kirk’s victory in the Illinois Republican U.S. Senate primary. Many of those same talking heads are enthusiastically trumpeting Representative Kirk’s chances to win the Senate seat formerly occupied by President Barack Obama.

Is this Republican success reason for gun owners to be optimistic?

Hardly.

Congressman Kirk has long been an enemy of gun owners, supporting legislation to close the so-called “gun-show loop-hole”, ban certain types of semi-automatic rifles and require background checks to purchase ammunition.

Kirk is not the only anti-gun Republican looking for a promotion. His gun-hating compadre Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware is preparing to make a run for the Senate as well.

What does this mean for gun owners?

We cannot allow ourselves to be sucked into the hallow victories being celebrated by the Republican Party. Gun owners must be able to discern between the pro-liberty, pro-gun candidates and the anti-gun wolves hiding in Republican clothing.

That’s why your involvement with the National Association for Gun Rights is so important. We are here to help you cut through the election year lies, through the political propaganda and expose the anti-gunners from BOTH parties.

Right now the staff at the National Association for Gun Rights is assembling data on candidates from across the country. We’re beginning to target House and Senate races, and we’re preparing our candidate surveys.

Gun rights surveys are an important part of holding politicians accountable and finding out their views on the Second Amendment. If you’d like to read our survey, you can click here.

Please take a moment to forward this article to your freedom and gun loving friends and family members, remind them that just because a politician has an “R” after their name doesn’t mean they’re pro-liberty or pro-gun.

Editorial Disclaimer: The opinions and views expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of the staff, AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, or other sponsors and partners. See the Editorial-Review Process for more details.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Watch Out For GOP Wooden Nickels in the Battle for Our Gun Rights

Kansas State Rifle Association

TOPEKA, Kansas --(AmmoLand.com)- The Kansas Firearms Freedom Act, House Bill 2620, crafted by The Kansas State Rifle Association was introduced this morning in the Kansas House of Representatives by Representative Ray Merrick and several other co-sponsors.

The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is principally a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the “commerce clause,” with firearms as the object – it is a state’s rights exercise. Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state is beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.

“The FFA may affect congressional authority other than for firearms.” said Patricia Stoneking, President of the Kansas State Rifle Association. “This legislation is actually about reducing excessive Federal regulation in areas such as education and intrastate trade.”

Proponents contend that the commerce clause was amended, by the Tenth Amendment, and that the Tenth Amendment, being the most recent expression of the enacting authority, must prevail over an unlimited interpretation of commerce clause authority to regulate firearms made and retained in a state.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation have filed a lawsuit in federal court to validate the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. The renewed debate over states rights and the pending litigation over the FFA have set the stage for re-examination of the scope of federal commerce clause authority. While it is still unclear exactly where this re-examination will end up, the outcome could drastically change application of federal authority.

“The Firearms Freedom Act has been enacted by two states, Montana and Tennessee.” said Stoneking. “Kansas makes the twenty-first additional state to introduce this bill and five other states have expressed their intentions to introduce this legislation at this time.”

About:
The Kansas State Rifle Association has one purpose. To promote and strive for the improvement and protection of the firearms and sport shooting industry and protection of second amendment principals by encouraging and stimulating well-qualified individual citizens to run for public office and to take a more active and effective part in governmental affairs. Visit: www.ksraweb.net

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Kansas State Rifle Association Sponsored Kansas Firearms Freedom Act Introduced

New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense

Belleville, NJ --(AmmoLand.com)- For decades, gun owners have known intuitively that the 2nd Amendment recognizes a pre-existing right to self-preservation and was enshrined in our Constitution as a safety valve to ward off a tyrannical form of government.

That right has been under attack since the agency we know today as the ATF brought a case to the Supreme Court in the 1930’s which was interpreted to imply that the Second Amendment was a ‘collective’ right. That assault continued through the 1950’s as the specter of socialism, known today under its more innocuous term ‘liberalism’ began challenging a personal rights interpretation in favor of ‘collective’ rights which are dispensed by the government.

Then, came the 1960’s. Woodstock. JFK. RFK. Martin Luther King, Jr. Malcolm X. A cultural sea-change and series of assassinations caused a kneejerk reaction culminating in the 1968 Gun Control Act, which was to be the last compromise intended to allegedly prevent gun trafficking and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Suffice to say, that social experiment and its attendant philosophy has been a promethean failure, judging from the immediate spike and steady increase in violent crime on a national basis we’ve experienced since then.

Why am I reminding you of this history? Simple.

Recently, a case before the Supreme Court in Heller vs. DC established legally what we’ve known all along. The Second Amendment is a personal right, just like the right to free worship, free speech, privacy and other liberties we hold dear. It was a win, but just barely, and only a first step.

Soon, a case will again be heard by the Supreme Court, which if decided in our favor, will overturn decades of anti-gun rhetoric and place gun laws such as seen in states like New Jersey, California, Massachusetts and elsewhere in direct violation of the personal rights we have to protect ourselves against crime. It will sweep away decades of useless and in fact dangerous “gun control” laws which have done nothing but encourage violent crime and place Americans in danger.

In short, all our cards are on the table. This case is the last straw. And the outcome is far from a foregone conclusion. In the Heller vs. DC case, though we won, it was only by the narrowest of margins, far too close for comfort. The present composition of the Supreme Court is such that the uniqueness of our American form of government which recognizes and is supposed to protect personal liberties has been tainted by the notion that our Constitution should be measured by an international standard. Call it ‘legal collectivism’ if you’d like.

This administration is no friend to gun rights. Just because America hasn’t heard anything about another Assault Weapon Ban or other incremental legislation doesn’t mean that our liberty can’t be sold up the river by back-door dealing. All it takes is for the administration to sign off on a UN Small Arms treaty or regulate our right out of existence through taxation, trumped-up environmental concerns or other schemes to steal your liberty. The most recent State Of The Union address should indicate to you that this government does not have a single concern about you as an individual.

Liberty is always under threat from legislation, regulation, elitism or multinationalism. In other words, tyranny in any form.

Yet for some reason, gun owners are still sitting back in hinterland America waiting to see what happens, instead of being the Patriots we need right now and taking the initiative to make things happen. The Second Amendment March needs every one of you out on the mall in DC to make a statement. Two hundred fifty years ago, Americans left their farms and families to fight in a hopeless cause. For some reason, we contemporary Americans seem to think our time is too valuable or the risk greater than it was when Thomas Paine described the ‘summer soldier.’

At the Second Amendment March, we’ve heard every excuse imaginable for why people can’t manage to show up in DC such as “it’s too expensive”, “it’s too far”, “it’s too short a notice”, and a whole list of other silly excuses. But everyone grumbles when another anti-gun law or regulation is proposed. Now is the time to grumble in Washington DC. The timing of our march is critical because it happens as the case of McDonald vs. IL is being decided. If the case goes our way, it’s freedom. If not, it will signal an era of darkness and the sun will set on that dream which was America.

We’re in the last battle of a very long war against our rights. This is it. All our chips are on the table, the cards are dealt and we need to be out in force showing our government that we’re mad and we’re not going to take it anymore.

If ever there were a time for gun owners to get off our butts and mobilize, now is the time.

Though our Supreme Court justices are not supposed to be swayed by popular sentiment, if those justices who side with multilateralism to decide our rights are prepared to ignore the Original Intent of our founders and subjugate the Constitution to international opinion, our presence should persuade them otherwise.

Every voice is important. If you think you can’t make a difference, then the enemies of freedom have already won. The alarm bell is ringing. Time to wake up, America. The bell tolls for you.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

For Whom The Bell Tolls – Make Sure It’s Not Gun Owners

CalGunLaws.com

Oakland City, CA --(AmmoLand.com)- The evening of February 3ed 2010 at 6:00p.m., the full City Council of Oakland (”OCC”) will consider and vote on whether to adopt amendments to three ordinances that impact the rights of lawful gun owners in that city. (See proposed amendments)

The aggressive package of amendments is the Legal Community Against Violence’s (”LCAV”) most recent attempt at pushing its gun ban agenda locally, while pushing the “envelope” of the legal doctrine of preemption as outlined in the Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco case (which limits the authority of local governments to regulate firearms and ammunition).

LCAV’s last attempt to push these ordinances was in San Mateo County where they failed, likely as a result of NRA/CRPA litigation threats and the enormous public outcry by pro-gun rights supporters, especially those from the Calguns community.

Despite LCAV’s biased representations of the legal soundness of these ordinances, they are clearly illegal in most instances, and are at best “grey areas” of the law subject to test case litigation in others. Civil rights attorneys from the law firm of Michel & Associates have drafted a letter on behalf of NRA and CRPA contesting the legality of the amendments and served the OCC with the letter. (See the NRA letter).

CRPA has also weighed in separately on the Oakland amendments issue, submitting a letter to the OCC offering examples of effective, violence reducing programs that exist as alternatives to these ill-conceived, counterproductive ordinances that only serve to burden law abiding gun owners and sellers. (See the CRPA letter).

Please visit the Cal-NRA website and voice your opposition to these proposals. For information and action tools visit CalNRA.com. Make your voice of opposition heard by the OCC!

And if you live in the Oakland-area and want to attend, the meeting will take place in Oakland City Hall located at 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Oakland, CA 94612 at 6:00p.m. Please attend and speak out, respectfully.

About:
CalGunLaws.com is an online research resource designed primarily for use by attorneys and interested firearm owners. CalGunLaws.com strives to provide easy access to and facilitate understanding of the multitude of complex federal, state, and local firearm laws and ordinances, administrative and executive regulations, case law, and past and current litigation that defines the California firearms regulatory scheme in theory and practice. CalGunLaws.com is designed and organized to make it easy to research the law and to locate source materials and related information. All of the articles are cross referenced. Note the two sections on the right: Related Items and Related Law. Related Items will take you to any article related to the one you are currently viewing. Related law takes you to the related law and statutes for the item you are looking at.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

NRA/CRPA Oppose Gun Control Ordinances Considered By Oakland City Council

Montana Shooting Sports Association

Kansas --(AmmoLand.com)- Rep. Merrick has introduced HB 2620, the Kansas Firearms Freedom Act.

This brings to 22 the number of states with introduced FFA bills, in addition to the two states with bills enacted (Montana and Tennessee).

Two more states and it will be a majority of states onboard this effort to challenge the authority of D.C.

Idaho, West Virginia, New Mexico, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia and North Carolina are reputed to be working on FFA bills.

The  Firearms Freedom Act

Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.Since its passage in Montana, a clone of the Firearms Freedom Act has been enacted in Tennessee, and has been introduced in the legislatures of Alaska, Texas, South Carolina, Minnesota and Florida. Legislators in many other states have announced that they will introduce FFA clones when their legislatures next convene.

The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the “commerce clause,” with firearms as the object – it is a state’s rights exercise.

See: www.FirearmsFreedomAct.com

About Montana Shooting Sports Association:
MSSA is the primary political advocate for Montana gun owners. SAF is a national organization headquartered in Bellevue, WA that works nationally to advance the interests of gun owners. Visit: www.mtssa.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Kansas Introduces Their Own Firearms Freedom Act

Washington, DC – -(Pajamasmedia.com)- The Violence Policy Center (VPC) — the anti-gun rights group that Barack Obama repeatedly voted to fund while he was a director of the Joyce Foundation — believes that African-Americans are too violent to deserve the entire Constitution.

Blacks in the United States are disproportionately affected by homicide. For the year 2007, blacks represented 13 percent of the nation’s population, yet accounted for 49 percent of all homicide victims.

As noted at the beginning of this study, the devastation homicide inflicts on black teens and adults is a national crisis, yet it is all too often ignored outside of affected communities.

For blacks, like all victims of homicide, guns — usually handguns — are far and away the number one murder tool. Successful efforts to reduce America’s black homicide toll must put a focus on reducing access to firearms.

For an organization to make a public declaration that suggests an entire race be denied the same level of constitutional protections as others is both shocking and bewildering. The study received financing from left-wing groups dedicated to social engineering, including the David Bohnett Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and the Public Welfare Foundation.

The goal of the Violence Policy Center in this report is the goal of the group in every report it has ever issued: an erosion of gun rights for all Americans, with the ultimate goal being the prohibition of all firearms save those under state control.

Towards that totalitarian end, the VPC does not seem to have any qualms about advocating a return to racist policies that left African-American communities helpless targets for most of a century.

Nor does Sugarman or his group explain how disarming law-abiding blacks will make them anything other than victims for those that refuse to follow existing prohibitions against murder…..

Read the entire article at PajamasMedia.com

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Violence Policy Center “Blacks Should Have Reduced Gun Rights”

Oregon Firearms Federation

Oregon - -(AmmoLand.com)- The first hearing to reverse pro gun rights gains made in the 2009 session will be held on February 2nd at 8am.

(The pre-session hearing on this bill was scheduled for 8am. It was heard at 7.22 am before either Republican Senator had arrived.)

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold an “informational” hearing on SB603.
(Invited testimony only, neither OFF nor NRA was “invited.”)

SB 603 was actually a bill from 2009 which you may recall corrected an error in Oregon law that allowed a person with a felony conviction to petition to have his rights restored to BUY a gun, but then was forbidden from owning it

Your efforts for months finally got this error fixed, but now at the urging of the Department of Justice, Senator Floyd Prozanski has introduced SB 1008 to reverse the corrections he himself made in SB 603.

What’s so odd about this is that 603, which Prozanski rewrote to correct the mistake mentioned above, passed out of his committee with no opposition, passed the full Senate with no opposition, passed the House Judiciary and the full House with no opposition and then was re-passed by the Senate with no opposition.

Now Prozanski is claiming that a five page bill that was largely his own work, was a “drafting mistake” and must be overturned.

This is an amazing assertion.

He claims he did not understand the changes he himself made and that every other legislator AND the Governor made the same “mistake.”

(We strongly suggest you read both 603 and 1008. See if you think the 43 page 1008 is easier to understand than the 5 page 603.)

(Please see this link for the “rebuttal” Senator Prozanski asked us to post.)

It’s essential that you contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and urge them not to rush to overturn this bill in a short “special” session. If they are, in fact, that confused, a rush to replace this simple bill with a 45 page “correction” would be a tremendous mistake.

Contact info for the Committee members and a sample message follow.

SENATE JUDICIARY.
Floyd Prozanski CHAIR
sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE, S-417, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986 -1704

Brian Boquist Vice Chair
sen.brianboquist@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., S-305, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1712

Susanne Bonamici
sen.suzannebonamici@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., S-403, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1717

Jackie Dingfelder
sen.jackiedingfelder@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., S-407, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1723

Doug Whitsett
sen.dougwhitsett@state.or.us
900 Court St. NE., S-303, Salem, OR, 97301
503-986-1728

Sample Letter: ____________________________________

Dear Senator,

SB 603 passed out of your committee with no opposition. It passed the Senate twice, with no opposition. Now it is being called a “drafting error.” SB 603 corrected a major error in Oregon law, and was thoroughly discussed and vetted. I strongly urge you not to reverse the gains made in this bill in the short time you have in the February “special session.”

In spite of what’s been said, SB 603 does NOT allow felons to walk out of prison and get firearms. In fact, there remain substantial hurdles to a restoration of firearms rights. Let’s give this law a chance to prove itself.

Sincerely,

_______________________

About:
The Oregon Firearms Federation has proven itself to be Oregon’s only no compromise lobbying group, OFEF takes the same tough stands and serves as a vehicle for educating gun owners, promoting their rights and when necessary, fighting the freedom haters in court. Visit: www.oregonfirearms.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Oregon’s First Anti-Gun Bill Hearings Announced

National Rifle Association

Fairfax, Virginia – -(AmmoLand.com)- The 2010 NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits will be an exciting weekend, as thousands of NRA members will come together May 14-16, 2010, in Charlotte, NC. You can contribute to the success of our meeting by participating as an Annual Meeting Volunteer.

If you can spare a half-day or more while attending the Charlotte Annual Meetings, you can assist the NRA staff in making this year’s Annual Meetings our best yet!

You will find that participating in the Annual Meetings as a volunteer is one of the most satisfying and enjoyable activities you will ever experience as an NRA member.

Volunteers are needed in a wide variety of activities including the NRA Store, Membership Services, the Airgun Range, Firearm Inspectors, and Exhibitor Registration. The store, in particular, requires lots of manpower; especially needed are volunteers who have cashier experience. Membership Services is a busy place as many members renew or upgrade their memberships. And we will need many NRA-certified instructors to assist young people at the air gun range. There are other opportunities as well.

For more information or to volunteer, please contact Dennis Eggers, Volunteer Coordinator, at (270) 522-0909, or via e-mail at DEggers@nrahq.org. Additional information and a registration form are available at the Annual Meeting site: www.nraam.org.

If you would like to volunteer your time, please complete the Volunteer Registration Form and forward it to Dennis Eggers, 203 Choctaw Drive, Cadiz, KY 42211 or to deggers@nrahq.org. Thank you. We hope to see you in Charlotte!

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Volunteers Needed For 2010 NRA Annual Meetings In Charlotte

Virginia Citizens Defense League

Virginia – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Militia, Police, and Public Safety subcommittee met tonight and vetted and then voted on a bunch of gun bills.

Delegates Lingamfelter, Griffith, Nutter, and Wright, all Republicans, voted pro-gun.

Delegate Keam, a Democrat, voted mixed – supporting some pro-gun bills and some anti-gun bills.

Keam seemed genuinely interested in learning more about the whole gun debate.

We had a good turnout, with lots of people wearing GSL stickers. The antis were there as well.

Here is the status of the bills.

Note: the bills that passed out of the subcommittee will be voted on by the full committee next Friday.

• HB 8, Carrico, allows CHPs to be renewed by mail. STRONGLY SUPPORT: Passed 4 to 0!
• HB 26, Wright, clarifies that Circuit Court Clerk can only ask for certain information from CHP applicants and nothing more. STRONGLY SUPPORT: Passed 5 to 0!
• HB 52, Cole, sets the penalty for not having your CHP with you when carrying concealed to a $25 civil penalty (not a crime), and that penalty can be waived by the Court upon presentation of your CHP. SUPPORT: Passed 5 to 0, but was also referred to Courts of Justice to have the bills’ wording tweaked.
• HB 79, Lee Ware, block Circuit Court Clerks from giving our CHP information except to police for legitimate police purposes. It will keep newspapers from printing CHP holder’s names and addresses. STRONGLY SUPPORT: Passed by 4 to 0 with 1 abstention!
• HB 108, Cole, requires localities to auction off guns purchased in a “buy-up”. STRONGLY SUPPORT: Passed 4 to 1, with a pro-gun amendment!
• HB 109, Cole, repeals a law allowing counties to require the reporting of handgun sales. STRONGLY SUPPORT: Not heard, I believe (I had to step out of the room to talk to the press)
• HB 152, O’Bannon, lets electronic security employees carry concealed with a CHP when working. STRONGLY SUPPORT: Killed by a 5 to 0 vote
• HB 171, Pogge, allows a person to have a firearm in their locked vehicle while on private property, including the parking lot of a person’s employer. The bill also legally immunizes the employer from the misuse of such a firearm. STRONGLY SUPPORT: Not heard this week
• HB 637, Armstrong, waives the CHP fee for designated US Coast Guard boarding members. NEUTRAL: Passed by a 5 to 0 vote.
• HB 684, Jackson Miller, makes carrying a butterfly knife concealed illegal. OPPOSE: Passed by for the week so the bill could be improved. The committee didn’t like adding butterfly knives as a concealed weapon generally and they are working on some other qualification – such as one with a very long blade.
• HB 870, Cline, removes the option for a locality for fingerprint new CHP applicants. STRONGLY SUPPORT: Passed by 4 to 0 with 1 abstention!
• HB 871, Cline, clarifies that a person has the right to an ore tenus hearing under certain circumstances if the CHP is denied. STRONGLY SUPPORT: Passed by until next week.
• HB 879, BaCote, allows firearms to be banned in a library by local ordinance. STRONGLY OPPOSE: Killed by a 5 to 0 vote!
• HB 885, Athey, allows a person to have a concealed handgun in a private car or boat if secured in a container or compartment. STRONGLY SUPPORT: Passed by a 3 to 1 vote with 1 abstention!
• HB 995, Nutter, allows military ID or a CHP to be used as proof of citizenship for purchase of an “assault firearm.” STRONGLY SUPPORT: Passed by for a week to improve the language.
• HB 1092, Crockett-Stark, allows retired law enforcement officers to carry anywhere they go. NEUTRAL: Passed by a 5 to 0 vote, with wording to be improved before the full committee votes on it.
• HB 1151, Iaquinto, makes carrying a butterfly knife concealed illegal. OPPOSE: This bill was rolled into HB 684.
• HB 1191, Griffith, allows the Circuit Court Clerk to be authorized by a judge to issue CHPs. STRONGLY SUPPORT: Passed by for the week for wording improvements
• HB 1209, Ward, requires the State Police to be notified of change of address of a machine gun owner or change of location of the machine gun. STRONGLY OPPOSE: Passed by for the week.
• HB 1210, Loupassi, allows judges to carry concealed wherever they may go. NEUTRAL: Killed by a 3 to 2 vote.
• HB 1234, McClellan, gun show bill, requires private sales be done through a dealer and puts other burdens on the gun show promoter. STRONGLY OPPOSE: Killed by a 4 to 1 vote!! Good coverage on local Richmond TV. Same baloney from anti-gunners and same outcome. Anti- gun Richmond Mayor spoke for the bill. A reporter asked me what I thought might happen with the Senate version of the bill. I said it was the same bill as was just killed and if it passed the Senate it would go to this same subcommittee. I pointed out that Einstein said insanity could be defined as doing the same thing twice in a row and expecting a different result.
• HB 1256, P.J. Miller, widens the number of retired police officers who qualify to carry concealed without a CHP. NEUTRAL: Passed by a 5 to 0 vote.
• HB 1257, P.J. Miller, allows a retired law-enforcement officer to purchase their duty gun for $1 (maybe we just need to pay our officers better) NEUTRAL: Passed by a 5 to 0 vote.

About:
Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right. Visit: www.vcdl.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

A Good Night For Virginia Gun Owners

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(AmmoLand.com)- In politics, like baseball, there is a time to bunt and a time to swing for the fence.

This year is ripe for home runs. The political climate this year offers a unique opportunity for rights advocates to make major gains – both legislatively and politically.

To make those gains we need to pull out all of the stops and go big.

The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts was clear proof that voters are unhappy. Politicians who were already concerned about disgruntled voters are now terrified as they look toward the November elections. Pundits and analysts can spin the Brown victory any way they wish but the facts are clear.

Voters are not happy with the way Democrats have exercised control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. The backlash won’t stop at congressional elections and the local politicians know it. Many state legislators rode the wave of Democrat ascendancy to gain control of their state legislatures and as they watch that wave crashing on the rocks, they know they have a serious fight on the way this November.

Rights groups go to great lengths to maintain a non-partisan position, supporting and endorsing candidates based on their positions rather than their party affiliation. But the fact is that the official position of the Democrats is to restrict firearms while the official position of the Republican Party is to support individual gun rights. That means that Democrats being in trouble is good news to the rights movement. The trend is anti-incumbent with an emphasis on Democrats so all of those politicians coming up for reelection, regardless of party affiliation, are desperate to make friends and avoid stirring up enemies.

What this means for grass roots rights activists is unprecedented influence. Few issues can stir up more voters than the gun issue – and unlike most other hot-button issues, only one side of the gun issue can deliver large numbers of voters – our side. In 2004 the Democrats downplayed “gun control” for the first time since the assassination of NRA Life Member John F. Kennedy. Since the Kerry run for the presidency, Democrats have carefully tiptoed around the gun issue, offering lip-service to both sides of the fight, declaring support for the Second Amendment, and using back-room deals and parliamentary tricks to quietly sideline all but the most innocuous gun bills. The strategy has worked well, effectively neutering pro-rights forces by lulling GunVoters to sleep. Well GunVoters are not asleep this year, but without clear votes on major, well publicized gun legislation – either pro or anti – there will be little to energize and activate them leading into the November elections.

2010 is the year to change the trend.
With politicians scrambling for support wherever they can find it, rights activists are finding a warmer reception in more political offices than ever before. Republicans are ready to actively back much stronger pro-rights legislation than they have been willing to support in the past and pro-rights Democrats are more willing to demand that their party leaders give them an opportunity to go on the record with pro-rights votes they can use to bolster their support with the GunVoters back home.

This is a strategic opportunity. This is the year to introduce and force record votes on bold pro-rights legislation. In this environment, getting critical votes is more likely than in recent years and the chances of passage are as good as anyone has ever seen. But the real beauty is that even if pro-rights legislation fails, as long as we get the record vote, we win!

Having a clear record vote on a strong, widely supported rights bill provides ammunition needed to stir up our troops and get them involved in working to defeat those who voted against us. It allows GunVoters to take credit when those politicians are replaced by new folks who are more rights-friendly. A new legislature with new leadership and a bunch of new politicians who owe a debt of gratitude to GunVoters is unlikely to take a chance on offending that important support base when the same (or an even better) pro-rights bill is introduced next year.

The bases are loaded and we have players in the outfield who have bet heavily on our team. This is a game-changer moment. It’s not a time to bunt. We need to swing for the fences. Taking an easy single – getting some marginal tweak to bad legislation – might be an easy score, but it would also give cover to the enemies of the Second Amendment. Now is not the time for timid, baby-step proposals. 2010 should be a year of rights activists swinging for the fences in every state legislature in the country.

About:
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Swing for the Fences – Signs Are Good For Big Gains In Gun Rights

GrassRoots South Carolina

As currently drafted, H. 4022 could cause innocent South Carolina gun owners to lose their right to keep and bear arms for life!

If passed as written, South Carolina gun owners who rely on H. 4022 and abide by South Carolina law will still be considered to be in violation of federal law. This means the federal government will still prosecute South Carolina gun owners who abide by South Carolina law. H. 4022 must be amended to better protect gun owners in South Carolina.

GrassRoots GunRights has proposed language to fix the problems with H. 4022. GrassRoots delivered this letter

————-
P.O. Box 2446
Lexington, SC 29071
www.SCFirearms.org
January 27, 2010
The Honorable John M. “Jake” Knotts, Jr.
SC Senate
Post Office Box 142
Columbia, SC 29202
RE: H. 4022

Dear Senator Knotts,
H. 4022 claims to be the “South Carolina Firearms Freedom Act.” But, GrassRoots GunRights sees H. 4022 as a power struggle between the federal and state governments, not as a pro gun rights bill. As H. 4022 is currently drafted, the best South Carolina gun owners can hope for is to suffer only minimal collateral damage. But, if properly amended, H. 4022 can be turned into a pro gun rights bill. GrassRoots GunRights will first explain why amendments are needed, and then propose the needed amendments below.

The biggest flaw in H. 4022 is that it will legislatively entrap otherwise innocent South Carolina gun owners. As H. 4022 is currently drafted, South Carolina gun owners who abide by South Carolina law will still be considered to be in violation of federal law.

Thus, the federal government will still prosecute South Carolina gun owners who abide by the so called “South Carolina Firearms Freedom Act.”

H. 4022 fails to protect South Carolina gun owners who lawfully abide by the so called “South Carolina Firearms Freedom Act.” It is South Carolina gun owners who will bear the entire financial burden of defending themselves in this power struggle between the federal and state governments. It is South Carolina gun owners who will risk going to prison for violating federal gun laws in this power struggle between the federal and state governments. It is South Carolina gun owners who will risk losing their rights to keep and bear arms for the rest of their lives in this power struggle between the federal and state governments.

While South Carolina gun owners bear all of the financial burdens, all of the risks of going to prison, and the risk of forever losing the right to keep and bear arms in this power struggle between the federal and state governments, the state of South Carolina will sit on the sidelines and watch. This is not right and can never be legitimately portrayed as a pro gun rights bill.

To better protect gun owners in South Carolina, H. 4022 needs to be amended to include the language found in a similar bill – H.B. 1863 – introduced in Texas in 2009. H. 4022 needs to be amended by adding the following to Section 1 of the bill:

• “Section 23-31-725. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
• (A) The attorney general shall defend a citizen of this state whom the federal government attempts to prosecute, claiming the power to regulate interstate commerce, for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in this state.
  
• (B) On written notification to the attorney general by a citizen of the citizen’s intent to manufacture a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition to which this chapter applies, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from a federal district court in this state that this chapter is consistent with the United States Constitution.”

The above language would provide some protection for gun owners in South Carolina from the collateral damage that would otherwise occur in the power struggle between the federal and state governments. Failure to include the above language will demonstrate a total lack of concern for gun owners in South Carolina.

There are two additional problems in H. 4022, both contained in proposed Section 23-31-715. Section 23-31-715 states “[t]his article does not apply to the following: … (4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.” Thus, the so called “South Carolina Firearms Freedom Act” will exclude both single shot shotguns and fully automatic firearms from the protections of H. 4022. The exclusion of shotguns and fully automatic firearms will be discussed separately below.

There is no legitimate reason to exclude shotguns from the protections in H. 4022. This problem is most likely due to the bill’s drafter being unfamiliar with firearms and not understanding the significance of the words used. A single shotgun “round” is usually composed of multiple “projectiles” (the only exception being “slugs”) which can be discharged “with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.” Thus, a single shot shotgun is excluded from the protections of H. 4022. This problem can be remedied by replacing the word “projectiles” with the word “rounds.” Amending H. 4022 in this way will give protection to shotguns, but will continue to exclude fully automatic firearms.

There is no principle that allows the federal government to regulate fully automatic firearms under the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States, but not semi automatic firearms. South Carolina should not give support to the liberal “politically correct” crowd by enacting into law a liberal “politically correct” difference in H. 4022 when no principled difference exists.

Most importantly, since H. 4022 makes reference to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, H. 4022 should honor the words and intent of the United States Constitution by recognizing that fully automatic firearms are the very arms – i.e., those carried by individual soldiers – that our founding fathers envisioned when enacting the Second Amendment. South Carolina should not join the ranks of the liberal “politically correct” ilk and create a difference where none legitimately exists.

GrassRoots GunRights takes positions on proposed legislation based upon principle – not liberal “politically correct” politics. Therefore, GrassRoots GunRights requests that proposed Section 23-31-715(4) simply be deleted and thereby include both shotguns and fully automatic firearms under the protections of H. 4022. Deleting Section 23-31-715(4) is the principled thing to do even if it is not the liberal “politically correct” thing to do.

Bottom line:

1. Add a Section 23-31-725 as described above to better protect South Carolina gun owners from collateral damage.
2. Delete proposed Section 23-31-715(4); or as a lesser favored alternative, substitute the word “rounds” for the word “projectiles.”

If you have any questions concerning this issue, please contact me.

Sincerely,
Robert D. Butler, J.D.
VP GrassRoots GunRights
www.SCFirearms.org
————

*ACTION STEPS:*

Call and email each member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee today! Tell these lawmakers “I support the GrassRoots GunRights proposed changes to H. 4022.”

Sen. Jake Knotts
(803) 212-6350
SIV@scsenate.org

Sen. Creighton Coleman
(803) 212-6180
CBC@scsenate.org
Sen. Shane Massey
(803) 212-6000
shanemassey@scsenate.org

Thank you for taking immediate action on this very important issue affecting your gun rights!

About:
The mission of GrassRoots is to educate and promote acceptance of responsible firearms ownership within the State of South Carolina and to protect the rights of law abiding citizens with regard to firearms ownership. Initially we focused all of our attention on merchants who posted against the lawful carrying of concealed weapons in their stores. Since then we have broadened our scope and are currently increasing information delivery to all firearms owners, SC concealed weapons permit holders, and firearms instructors. As GrassRoots continues to grow we will further broaden our objectives to improve all aspects of lawful ownership and carrying of firearms in South Carolina. Visit: www.scfirearms.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

South Carolina Firearms Freedom Act Bill Needs Help

Virginia Citizens Defense League

Virginia – -(AmmoLand.com)- I received a letter on Saturday, which as I began to read it I quickly realized it was from an anti-gunner. I stopped reading at that point to see if this one followed all the same patterns I have seen over the years.

First I looked to see if it was from New England. Yep, the postmark was from New Jersey – no surprise there.

(Uhh not everyone in NJ! – Ammoland is headquartered in NJ – AmmoLand.com)

Next I looked to see if it had the writer’s name and/or address. Nope, no indication in the letter of either and no return address on the envelope. It was simply signed “Can’t Understand You.”

Also, par for the course. The writers always tend to be cowardly – not wanting to hear what I have to say in response to their accusations and colorful language by not providing any kind of information on how to contact them.

Here is the letter.
Notice the typical paranoid and insulting tone of the letter:

“It is only fitting that an organization like yours would fester in the state that is home to the most infamous of all gun worshipping organizations. [PVC: Hmmm, well Virginia has VCDL, GOA, NRA, and the Firearms Coalition. I wonder which one this refers to? ]

“Seriously, you people are all certifiably crazy. Keep your guns in Virginia and don’t bother the rest of us in the other forty-nine states. You are pathetic and insecure. I guess your meaningless and unfulfilling lives are made whole when you are packing a pistol. [PVC: Nothing wrong with carrying a revolver, either!] Maybe it makes you feel like real men. [PVC: Lots of women carry guns, too, and their numbers are climbing rapidly.]

“Try not to shoot some innocent unarmed person with one of your precious guns. [PVC: So it's OK to do so with a gun that I don't really like? ]

“Sincerely,

“Can’t Understand You” [PVC: It should have been signed "I think you are just like me and I hate and distrust myself."]

About:
Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right. Visit: www.vcdl.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

A Letter From An Anti-Gunner

Kansas State Rifle Association

From Pat StoneKing, KSRA President

Kansas - -(Ammoland.com)- Hope you can come by and see us at Kansas Days! I will be at the NRA Hospitality Suite along with the NRA Representatives for Kansas on Saturday, January 30th from 9:30am to 11:00am.

We will be happy to answer any questions you may have about legislation and political issues in Kansas.

Kansas Days is also a great way to meet your legislators and political candidates! I will be there representing KSRA all weekend and several members of our Political Action Committee will be attending the Banquet Gala with me on Saturday evening.

Kansas Days is being held at the Topeka Capitol Plaza Hotel located at 1717 SW Topeka Blvd.

Veiw the schedule of events and get more details on Kansas Day.

About Kansas Day:
The political climate was such that in late 1891, four Kansas newspapermen felt obligated to meet and discuss the date of the Republican Party in Kansas. The four “founding fathers” included Harry W. Frost, Topeka, first president of the Kansas Day Club; C.M. Harger, Abilene; Ewing Herbert, Hiawatha; and William Allen White of Emporia.

The Kansas Day Club’s first meeting was originally scheduled for the first week in January 1892, but respect dictated delay because of the death of Senator B. Plumb of Emporia. It was quite by coincidence that the replacement date chosen fell on the anniversary of Kansas’ statehood. The banquet has been held every year since 1892 except in 1945 because of World War II.

The first meeting was attended by 105 young Republicans, Harry Frost attributed the Club’s success to the “tendency of birds and men to flock together.”

In his address to the second annual meeting in 1893, Mr. Frost said the mission of the Kansas Day Club was: “To promote Republicans, and to call together in a social way, upon the anniversaries of Kansas’ admission into the union, the Republicans of the State.”

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

The Kansas State Rifle Association Kansas Days Celebration Invitation

National Rifle Association

Fairfax, Va. – -(AmmoLand.com)- Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the National Rifle Association’s motion to allow it to participate in the upcoming oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision to grant our motion,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist.

“NRA’s solitary goal in McDonald is to ensure that our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms applies to all law-abiding Americans, regardless of the state in which they live. We are hopeful that the Court will share our view that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the states.”

Last September, the Court agreed to consider the McDonald case, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court incorrectly claimed that prior Supreme Court precedent prevented it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment.

The NRA believes the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that Supreme Court precedent does not prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

As a party in McDonald, the NRA looks forward to participating in the upcoming oral argument.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement will be representing the NRA at oral argument, which will occur on March 2.

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

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

U.S. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion for Divided Argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago

Maryland Open Holster Rally A Success

Maryland Shall Issue.org

Maryland --(AmmoLand.com)- Our first rally during the General Assembly session was a success thanks to the 100 Maryland gun owners who took time out of their day to take our message directly to the legislature.

While we’d obviously have liked to seen 1,000 people there, we realize that every initiative must start somewhere and we look forward to seeing the rest of you there next year.

The speeches delivered by Delegate Smigiel, Delegate Dwyer and Larry Pratt were very inspiring and covered a great deal of ground as it pertains to our rights. We thank them for taking time out of their day and urge you to do so as well. Delegate Eric Bromwell (D – District 8, Baltimore County) and Delegate Wendell Beitzel (R – District 1A, Garrett and Allegheny Counties) also stopped by to visit with members.

Thanks go to all of our Executive Members who had a part in making the day a success, but especially Dan Miller for taking care of the details of the permits and working with the officials in the legislative complex. Executive Member Ron Dominiecki also did an outstanding job preparing our visit to the legislative office buildings where a smaller group of members received an orientation of the locations of the various delegations’ offices so that we can work with them effectively throughout the session.

The blue shirts were an unqualified success and EM Kyle Hopson hit a grand slam on these. We’ve received numerous reports of members eating lunch in town or walking on the sidewalk and having people stop and question what we were doing. So far, all reports seem to indicate a positive response, thus illustrating our longstanding belief that the majority of Maryland citizens believe in our mission.

I can speak to this first hand as a group of EMs were enjoying lunch at Galway Bay between the rally and the tour of the buildings. A lady came up to us and questioned us about our shirts and I wondered at first where this was leading. After our guys explained what we were about, the lady remarked that she thought that we already could get permits with no problem. She will soon be joining MSI.

About:
Maryland Shall Issue is an all volunteer, non-partisan effort dedicated to the preservation and advancement of all gunowners’ rights in Maryland, with a primary goal of CCW reform to allow all law-abiding citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon; and to the education of the community to the awareness that ’shall issue’ laws have, in all cases, resulted in decreased rates of violent crime.”

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Maryland Open Holster Rally A Success

Maryland Shall Issue.org

Maryland - -(AmmoLand.com)-  The 2010 Session of the Maryland General Assembly has been under way.  Here is a run down of current bills and how Maryland Shall Issue stands on each.

House Bill Summary, Status and hearing dates: Hearing Date January 26, 2010 1:00pm

HB52 Recognition of Out of State Permits – Strongly Support
As we’ve told you previously, Delegate Mike Smigiel (R), District 36, Eastern Shore, has introduced HB52 which would recognize permits from states contiguous to Maryland. This bill would allow those citizens with permits in PA, WV, VA or DE to safely transit the state border without surrendering their rights at the state line. The State of Maryland would benefit from the revenue that these people would bring to our state because the antiquated laws on self-defense currently discourage them from visiting.

These citizens with permits have already passed all of the requirements for a permit in the state of issuance and there is no reason for them to not be entrusted with exercising their rights in Maryland.

We encourage you to first take the time to contact Delegate Smigiel and thank him for his support of the 2nd Amendment.

Then we need you to use the Activist’s Tools below to contact your District’s Delegates and tell them to support the bill. Follow that up with letters to the members of the House Judiciary Committee. Emails are the way to go at this point, so make use of the excellent resources below.

The hearing for HB52 has been scheduled for Tuesday, January 26th at 1pm in the House Office Building. Information regarding parking and security procedures are also outlined below.

We encourage you to come and support the bill even if you don’t feel comfortable speaking. This will be a good opportunity for you to observe the hearing process and maybe build your confidence for future testimony.

You may submit written testimony. This is entered into the official record of the proceedings and can not be dismissed in the way that an email can. You need 35 copies of any written testimony and it needs to be submitted to the committee office by 11am. Delegate Smigiel’s Chief of Staff, Andi Moroney, has offered to make the copies and submit the testimony on your behalf if you email it to her.

HB 119 Department of State Police – Firearm Applications – Authority of Secretary – Oppose as written
Would allow for dealers to submit firearms applications via means other than certified mail for fax. This bill does not specify what the “other” means would be. The language of the bill needs to be much more specific.

Hearing Date February 2, 2010 1:00PM

HB157 Criminal Law – Use of Firearm in the Commission of a Crime of Violence or a Felony – Oppose
Prohibiting the use of specified firearms in the commission of crimes of violence or felonies; and defining “firearm”.

Crimes of violence are already illegal. There is nothing in this bill that will change that. Making something “more illegal” will do nothing to deter violent people from committing acts of violence.

.

Senate Bill Summary, Status and hearing dates: No hearing date set

SB 22 Criminal Law – Prohibitions on Wearing, Carrying, or Transporting Firearms – Exceptions – Support
Establishing an exception to the prohibition against wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun or other regulated firearm for a person who is carrying a specified court order requiring the surrender of the handgun or other regulated firearm and who is in the immediate process of surrendering the handgun or other regulated firearm to law enforcement; etc.

This bill is a result of the domestic violence/firearms seizure laws enacted after the 2009 session and are being introduced due to Maryland firearms owners trying to comply with the law, being stopped for traffic infractions and subsequently being charged with violation of the firearms transport laws. The General Assembly crammed these bills down our throats last year so the best we can do with them at this point is to ensure that a firearm owner can’t be doubly victimized if they are simply trying to comply with a court order.

SB44 Criminal Law – Use of Firearm in the Commission of a Crime of Violence or a Felony – Oppose
This is the companion cross-filed bill to HB157 and we oppose it for the same reasons.

SB167 Regulated Firearms – Application for Dealer’s License – Record-Keeping and Reporting Requirements – Strongly Oppose
Requiring the Secretary of State Police or the Secretary’s designee to disapprove an application for a State-regulated firearms dealer’s license if the Secretary or designee determines that the applicant intends a specified person to participate or hold a specified interest in the management or operation of the business for which the license is sought; requiring licensed dealers to keep records of specified information; etc.

This bill will effectively make all firearms in the state of Maryland subject to a recordation of sale and thus creating a database of these firearms that is available to the State Police. Currently, non-regulated firearms are not subject to recordation of sale in the manner that handguns or regulated long guns are. This is a huge leap in the intrusion of the state into affairs where they have previously been unable to go. Given the recent anecdotal reports of the Maryland State Police using the recordation of sales of handguns to cross reference ammunition purchases and then paying midnight visits to gunowners’ homes, we are leery of granting any further powers to the state.

Further, this broad power grab would grant the state the ability to look at the federally mandated bound book of non-regulated purchases and access records of any purchases of non-regulated firearms that you have made.

Additionally, the onerous requirements of this bill would require a licensed dealer to report a firearm as lost or stolen within 48 hours of the discovery of a theft of a firearm. We defeated this sort of nonsense when it was applied to individual gun owners previously. While it sounds like a “reasonable” measure, who wants to entrust their business and their freedom to the hope that the state will believe a dealer’s assessment of when the theft was discovered?

It also allows the State Police to inspect the inventory and records of a dealer at any time.

The sponsors of this bill, Senators Lenett, Frosh, Madaleno and Raskin need to be told in no uncertain terms that the state cannot be entrusted with more power in this area. Further, we need to contact the members of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee and put this abomination down.

What we need you to do:

• Use the Activist’s Tools below to contact the members of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee and tell them that you strongly oppose SB167.
• Contact your State Senator and tell them that you strongly oppose SB167
• Contact Senators Lenett, Frosh, Madaleno and Raskin’s offices and express your outrage at this power grab.

•SB191 – Weapon-Free Higher Education Zones – Oppose
This a repeat of last year’s SB551/HB353 that was given an unfavorable report by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee as well as the House Judiciary Committee. It would appear that the anti-gun faithful of the Senate are determined to throw anything they can out there to see if it will stick. The sponsors of this bill are a who’s who of anti-gun legislators. We oppose the bill for the same reasons that we did last year. There is nothing in this bill that is not already covered in Maryland law. Furthermore, it leaves unsuspecting citizens vulnerable to exposure of arrest even if they are otherwise in compliance with all of Maryland’s onerous laws. Given that university boundaries are not absolute and are often times not clearly defined, people could find themselves on a college campus and not even be aware of it.

About:
Maryland Shall Issue is an all volunteer, non-partisan effort dedicated to the preservation and advancement of all gunowners’ rights in Maryland, with a primary goal of CCW reform to allow all law-abiding citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon; and to the education of the community to the awareness that ’shall issue’ laws have, in all cases, resulted in decreased rates of violent crime.”

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

2010 Maryland Gun Bills & Where We Stand – Maryland Shall Issue

Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Coming up in our lives is perhaps the most critical Supreme Court decision in a century.

Sometime towards summer of this year the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is going to decide on the case McDonald vs. The City of Chicago.

Oral arguments begin March 2nd. The implications are immense.

A favorable ruling for McDonald would overthrow the Chicago ban on handgun ownership and would open the floodgates for an immense wave of (likely successful) pro-gun lawsuits against American cities, counties, and States.

Second Amendment advocates felt that a win in the Heller decision was vitally important for gun owners (JPFO filed a “friend of the court” brief in Heller). Well, McDonald is Heller on steroids.

McDonald is Heller on steroids.
A victory for gun owners could profoundly change the face of our nation. State by State by State, gun prohibitionists could finally be rousted out and smashed into impotence. Remember that Heller only dealt with guns in the District of Columbia. Let us remind ourselves: D.C. is not a State.

JPFO has also filed a “friend of the court” brief on McDonald.  The ramifications of this ruling could either impact the Second Amendment for the better … or for the absolute worst.

What McDonald does is attempt to persuade the Supreme Court to bring the Second Amendment under the “protection” of the 14th Amendment. This is called “incorporation” in legalese.

Here is the immediately relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SCOTUS has opined, over decades of decisions, that, because of the 14th Amendment, the States must obey the First Amendment. The high court has also found the same for the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as other specific sections of the Bill of Rights.

… the States must obey the First Amendment.
However, until the Heller case, SCOTUS, since 1939, had literally kept 2A off the table, an untouchable “States Rights” issue. But Heller forced 2A right up to the front burner. The Supreme Court rather obviously had to pay attention to Heller, as D.C. is its immediate jurisdiction. So many pro-gun strategists see Heller as the “wedge” needed to open to door to McDonald.

But, as with all things legal, there are some unsettling ramifications. McDonald would undeniably give added power to the Federal government. No increase in federal power has ever benefited gun ownership. One need look no further than the “Gun Control Act of 1968” and the BATFE, with its draconian registration and “tracing” schemes, to understand this reality.

No increase in federal power has ever benefited gun ownership.
But in McDonald, it would seem, this added federal power, because it would add support to the individual right to gun ownership, would most likely be a positive thing. After all, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in all the States have actually been nurtured (or at least certainly not hindered) by “incorporation” under the 14th Amendment.

It seems a relatively safe bet that States with existing pro-gun stances would not be restricted by a positive McDonald decision. Or so we assume.

What is obvious is that the gun prohibitionists do not like what they see coming down the pike with McDonald. Are they hoping for a miracle?

Are they hoping for a miracle?
What could happen between now and the end of March to toss McDonald into disarray? Several events come to mind:

1. What if a horrific “lone gunman” massacre takes place?

Remember, both Australia and New Zealand reacted hysterically against gun ownership under such circumstances. And don’t ever forget that Patrick Purdy’s schoolyard slaughter in Stockton, CA was the emotional fuel that launched the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban”.

Could such another appalling event result in the inclusion of “weasel clauses” in the language of a McDonald verdict, or even a complete victory for gun prohibitionists?

Look to the pitifully anti-gun Anti Defamation League for an indication of how such a horrific (yet convenient) tragedy might be scripted.

The ADL is shrill in its concern about “white supremacists”. Therefore look for a “lone gunman” to be white. For the “shock and awe” psychological effect to be truly wrenching, the unarmed victims will have to be either blacks … or Jews. The ADL and its ilk desperately need to be able to wring their hands in perversely satisfied anguish and scream out: “We told you so! We told you so!” or…

2. What if one of the Justices who voted in favor of Heller (and can therefore be assumed to vote favorably in McDonald) was to die between now and March?

Heller was a five to four win. What if a “pro-gun” Supreme Court justice was to die, or be killed, before McDonald is decided? What if Barack Obama is then able to bring forth a rabidly anti-gun candidate as a replacement before McDonald is decided? Are there enough votes in the Senate to deny such an appointment? Don’t bet on it.

What if a “pro-gun” Supreme Court justice was to die, or be killed, before McDonald is decided?

3. What if a prominent politician, bureaucrat, spokesperson, or worshipped celebrity is reportedly killed by a “lone nut case”?

4. What if another terrorist attack occurs? Mass casualties would create the perfect excuse for martial law, and an end run around the Constitution, making any decisions by the Supreme Court irrelevant.

Anybody familiar with the American history of clandestine government and elite class (establishment) activities since WWII should not be shocked if any of the above mentioned scenarios occur.

Yes, friends of freedom, crucial times are upon us. Pay very close attention, and redouble your effort to save the Second Amendment. JPFO has plenty of “intellectual ammunition” on our site waiting for you to use, such as its ground breaking award winning films “2A Today for The USA” and “No Guns for Negroes“.

About:
Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership Mission is to destroy “gun control” and to encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for everyone. Those are the twin goals of Wisconsin-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). Founded by Jews and initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed, JPFO has always welcomed persons of all religious beliefs who share a common goal of opposing and reversing victim disarmament policies while advancing liberty for all.

JPFO is a non-profit tax-exempt educational civil rights organization, not a lobby. JPFO’s products and programs reach out to as many segments of the American people as possible, using bold tactics without compromise on fundamental principles. Visit www.JPFO.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Will Your Gun Rights Live or Die?

Second Amendment March

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- As you know, the April 19 date for the D.C. march is fast approaching.

There are many things that need to be accomplished before and during the event. We need your help! Below are a few of the volunteer opportunities we have identified so far.

If you can help with any of these, please send an email to Terri Stocke at Terri.Stocke@SecondAmendmentMarch.com.

We will add you to a specific volunteer list and will start organizing each group of volunteers as the march date draws near.

Emergency Medical Technicians
We are looking for volunteer EMT’s who will be at the march in D.C. We are required to have a certain number of licensed EMT’s working the event (based on size of the crowd). If you would like to volunteer for this, please let us know.
Petition Table

We need 6-8 people to man a petition table (petition is available on our website) to gather signatures at the D.C. March. This can be divided into shifts if we have enough volunteers.
Hosts

Volunteers needed to direct people to the rally location (Washington Monument) from various points within the city. During the rally, circulate amongst the crowd to answer questions and provide assistance as needed.

Second Amendment March
The mission of the Second Amendment March is to galvanize the courage and resolve of Americans; to petition our elected officials against establishing anti-gun legislation; and to remind America that the Second Amendment is necessary to maintain our right to self defense.

It is the one right that protects all others.

We will accomplish our mission by a peaceful march in Washington DC, the United States Capital, supported by satellite marches to State Capitols and smaller cities all across America.

The march in D.C. will take place on Monday, April 19, 2010 on the grounds of the Washington Monument.

About:
The mission of the Second Amendment March is to galvanize the courage and resolve of Americans; to petition our elected officials against establishing anti-gun legislation; and to remind America that the Second Amendment is necessary to maintain our right to self defense. Visit: www.secondamendmentmarch.com

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Second Amendment March Needs Volunteer Help

Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore

Marriottsville, MD - -(AmmoLand.com)- We invite you to join us and our guest speaker, Former Delegate Al Redmer for an informative seminar: “The Political Process & Guns.”

Learn how and why Maryland’s gun laws became what they are, and what you can do to help restore the “Free State” to a “Free State.”

The Political Process & Guns
Learn about the Political Process & How Things REALLY Work

Topics include:

• Political reality of politics and guns!
• How Government Impacts the Sale and Distribution of Firearms (law vs regulation)
• The Legislative Process ( how an “idea” becomes a law )
• Overview of Legislative Committees ( who matters most)
• How legislators make decisions
• Our Objective ( in dealing with legislators)
• What’s the Message??
• Tools at your disposal
• Who influences a legislator…..and how ??
• A step-by-step process for lobbying a legislator….effectively!!!!

Seminar Schedule & Time
Date & Time: Thursday, February 4, 2010 – 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM

Location: Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore – Barnes Range House
11518 Marriottsville Road
Marriottsville, MD 21104
(enter off Wards Chapel Road)

Light refreshments will be available before and after the seminar.

Seating is limited! RSVP no later than Sunday, January 31, 2010

Click here to RSVP and reserve your seat!

About our Guest Speaker
Al Redmer, Jr. is a lifetime Maryland resident with a strong background in business, government and community service. Redmer will use his vast experience of government and politics to instruct us on how to effectively lobby our position to government officials.

Redmer is a partner and President of Landmark Insurance & Financial Group, a full service- diversified organization serving individuals and businesses throughout the mid-Atlantic region.

Prior to joining Landmark, Redmer served as Chief Executive Officer for Coventry Health Care of Delaware, Inc. (CHCD), a managed care organization serving members in Delaware, Maryland, southeastern Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey.

Previous to Coventry, Redmer served as the Maryland Insurance Commissioner. Appointed by Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., in June, 2003, Redmer oversaw an annual budget of $21 million and worked to foster a balanced marketplace that allowed for vigorous consumer protection while promoting healthy competition among insurance carriers.

Prior to receiving the appointment, Redmer served as the House Minority Leader in the Maryland General Assembly. First elected in 1990, he represented the Eighth Legislative District in Baltimore County. While a legislator, Redmer served on the House Environmental Matters Committee (1991-2002), which was responsible for all natural resources legislation. He also served on the House Health and Government Operations Committee in 2003.

An avid sportsman, Redmer is a long-time member of the Baltimore County Fish & Game Association and Maryland Saltwater Sports-fishing Association.

AGC Note: Al Redmer is re-entering the political arena in the 2010 election as a candidate for the Senate seat in Maryland’s 7th District.

About:
Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc. (AGC), located in Marriottsville, Maryland. The Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc. was formed on July 1, 1944 when a number of World War II veterans in the Baltimore, Maryland area began looking for a place for recreational and competitive shooting. They organized with several other Baltimore area shooting clubs to form the “AGC” Visit: www.associatedgunclubs.org

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Gun Rights Seminar “The Political Process & Guns”

U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance

Mississippi - -(Ammoland.com)-Legislation introduced in Mississippi would create onerous shooting distance restrictions on hunters and other sportsmen. It could in some instances prevent sportsmen from hunting on their own property.

Senate Bill 2190, recently introduced by Senator Lee Yancey (R- Brandon), would make it illegal for a person to hunt with a firearm within two hundred yards of a dwelling without the permission of the owner or lessee. The restriction could easily prevent sportsmen from hunting on their own property if another dwelling is close to their property line.

“If passed, SB 2190 could close a large portion of land in the state to hunting,” said Rob Sexton, USSA vice president of government affairs. “In some cases, it would require sportsmen to get permission from their neighbors before hunting on their own property. This is obviously a poorly conceived piece of legislation.”

Take Action! Mississippi sportsmen should contact their state senators and urge them to oppose SB 2190. Tell them that hunting is a safe and enjoyable pastime thanks to current measures created by sportsmen and state agency personnel. Tell them that the restrictions created by this bill are unwarranted, will reduce hunting opportunities, and will violate citizen’s property rights.

To contact your state legislator use the USSA Legislative Action Center.

About:
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organizations that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussportsmen.org.

Brought to you by - AMMO LAND.COM - Firearms & Shooting Sports News Ammo Land.comSubmit Gun, Ammo and Shooting Related News at Ammo Land.com

Proposed Mississippi Legislation Adds New Hunting Restrictions