Legislative Update

Josey1

Frank Bill on Hold Until After Memorial Day Recess

The House Judiciary Committee postponed a mark up of legislation that would grant relief from deportation for criminal aliens until after Memorial Day recess. The legislation H.R. 1452, introduced by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) would make it easier for foreign nationals to avoid deportation who have been convicted of serious crimes in addition to allowing some convicted and deported felons to return to the U.S. and become permanent residents. Frank is negotiating with House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) on the details of the compromise. However, several members of the committee are ardently opposed to the legislation and have signed a letter opposing the bill. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) said, "It's hard to know where to begin a list of objections" to a bill that would allow immigration judges to "stop the deportation of any criminal and then release them into the community." Representative Bob Barr (R-GA) said, the supporters of the Frank bill "want to open these cases up so they can tug at the heartstrings and go before some judge. . . with all sorts of sob stories." FAIR is working closely with Representative Smith to defeat the bill in committee. Please read FAIR's Press Release. Mexican Lawmakers Ask U.S. To Restart Amnesty Talks

During the annual Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary meeting, which ended Saturday, twenty Mexican lawmakers met with 16 Members of Congress in Mexico to talk about binational issues such as border security and immigration. Before the meeting, Mexican President Vicente Fox challenged the U.S. to grant amnesty to Mexicans to prove its commitment to a closer relationship with Mexico. Fox said, ''There can be no privileged U.S.-Mexico relationship without actual progress on substantive issues in our bilateral agenda. And there will be no substantive progress without comprehensively addressing the issue of migration.''

Mexican legislators said that the U.S. could send a positive sign by approving Section 245(i) legislation as soon as possible. Mexico's Representative Jose Carlos Borunda said that, "It can't wait for the November elections." In response, President Bush's immigration pointman Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) said that it was likely Congress would approve a Section 245(i) bill by year's end and that he also hopes to see progress on the legalization of Mexican farm workers in the United States. However, House Immigration Reform Caucus Chairman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) who also attended the meeting said it was impossible for the United States to issue a broad amnesty for illegal immigrants, especially in the wake of September 11th.

Senate Committee Approves Child Immigration Bill

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved by voice vote a bill, S. 672, introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that would allow the unmarried children of U.S. citizens who apply for a visa before they turn 21 to keep that status all the way through the process, as long as they don't get married. Currently there is no limit on the number of green cards available to children younger than 21-years-old who have parents that are U.S. citizens, but if the visa has not been granted by an applicant's 21st birthday, the applicant is put into a different category that makes it harder to get a green card. http://www.fairus.org/html/update.htm


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Massachusetts Legislative Update

Massachusetts NRA members must act quickly to make sure important gun law reform legislation is addressed in the State Senate before the legislative session ends!

This month, the Massachusetts House of Representatives voted 114-32 to send reform bill HB 5102 to the Senate. While the bill fails to roll back all of the oppressive anti-gun legislation imposed by the legislature in 1998, it includes several important revisions, including provisions standardizing the size of firearms carry licenses and identification cards, and allowing citizens with motor vehicle offenses and non-violent misdemeanors to own guns. Now, Senate President Thomas Birmingham (D-Middlesex, Suffolk, Essex) is blocking HB 5102 from passing out of the Senate Ways and Means Committee. Time is running out for this bill to clear the Senate, so we need you to call Senator Birmingham immediately and urge him to release HB 5102 to the Senate floor for a vote. Senator Birmingham can be reached at (617) 722-1500. Also, please contact your own State Senator and urge him to support this important piece of reform legislation. If you are unsure of how to reach your Senator, please call the Senate information office at (617) 722-1455 and ask for assistance.
http://www.nraila.org/LegislativeUpdate.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=438


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Edited by - Josey1 on 07/30/2002 06:46:57

Josey1

U.S. HOUSE: Rivers gambles on gun debate Detroit race

Her central issue vies with other voter concerns
July 29, 2002
BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER




Lynn Rivers could be doing more than salvaging her own career and ending John Dingell's if she wins next week's primary election matchup of incumbent Democratic U.S. House members.

She may save gun control.

In a year in which Democrats both nationally and in Michigan have soft-pedaled support for new gun restrictions, Rivers has made them a centerpiece of her campaign in the new 15th District that covers Monroe, and parts of Washtenaw and Wayne counties. And as the Aug. 6 election nears, the four-term congresswoman and her gun control allies appear ready to pump up the volume.

Today, the candidate will spend the day campaigning with leading gun control advocate Sarah Brady, wife of the former White House press secretary injured in an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. The Brady Campaign and the Million Moms March recently launched an antigun, anti-Dingell Web site (www.DingellandGuns.com).

Sometime this week, the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, which has had activists working the district for weeks, will commence what a spokesman called a substantial media campaign aimed at Dingell's record on guns and ties to the National Rifle Association. He was a former NRA board member.

If those efforts bear fruit -- putting the longest serving House member and a longtime champion of the Second Amendment into retirement -- the results will be hailed as a watershed event.

"I think if you see a victory by Lynn Rivers you can definitely say it was accounted for by the gun safety vote," said Khalid Pitts, a spokesman for the antigun coalition.

Of course, Rivers and her supporters also could be making a colossal miscalculation.

Nationally, many Democrats have backed away from the gun issue following the 2000 elections in which Al Gore lost some states, including his home state of Tennessee, which he was expected to win but where he was perceived as antigun. In a recent debate of Michigan's three Democratic gubernatorial candidates, all declined to venture down the antigun path.

A Rivers victory, however, might put the issue back on the Democratic political agenda.

Guns are an emotional issue for select voters. And polling from the new district suggests a majority of those who will participate in the Democratic primary support tighter restrictions on the sale and ownership of firearms. But guns rank far below other issues -- such as the economy, health care and education -- on voter priority lists in the 15th District and elsewhere. And a significant number of those for whom the issue is a primary concern view gun safety advocates and Rivers as gun grabbers.

Chris Cox, the NRA chief lobbyist, said Friday that his organization also plans to launch a media campaign this week in the 15th District. Additionally, the NRA will "do everything we can to turn out hunters and sportsman . . . on behalf of John Dingell," Cox said.

A letter sent into the district by Cox last week said Rivers is poised to become a congressional leader in the movement to license and ban guns, and urged NRA members -- Democrat or Republican -- to vote for Dingell in the Democratic primary.

Cox declined to say how many NRA members live in the 15th District, but said the NRA "probably has more members in Michigan" than the assorted gun control groups have "in the whole country."

Lansing-based political analyst Bill Ballenger said last week he's inclined to think the issue will hurt Rivers as much as help.

"Absent a new gun tragedy in the next two weeks, she's not going to pick up that many points," Ballenger said.

"Generally speaking, people don't think John Dingell is a complete wacko."

Voters certainly won't get the impression that Dingell is a gun wacko by viewing his current campaign. Since he and Rivers were thrown into the same district by state Republicans last year, he has seldom raised the subject except to tout in recent months his role in legislation designed to improve background checks for gun buyers.

Including guns, Rivers "has outlined a very narrow agenda" of issues, said Dingell spokeswoman Laura Sheehan.

"Mr. Dingell is focusing on other issues, issues that matter to voters like health care, education and the environment. We're not going to do a campaign on guns," Sheehan said.

Nor has Dingell asked for money from the NRA, or for their endorsement. Sheehan said Dingell's opponents in the gun control movement regard that posture as a sign that he is "running away from his record," said the Brady Campaign's Nancy Hwa.

What the voters in the 15th District think, or whether they realize they are the principal players in a national showdown on gun rights, is unclear and no doubt mixed.

The new district contains population centers in the working class suburbs of Wayne County, Dingell's home territory where voters lean toward gun rights, and in Rivers' hometown of Ann Arbor, where a core of liberal voters is among the most pro-gun control in the state.

It also includes less heavily populated, but staunchly pro-gun, Downriver communities and Monroe County.

Gary Taepke owns a gun store in Brownstown Township where he's put up a Dingell sign and said he believes support for the veteran congressman is strong. Taepke said he's a "little disappointed" Dingell hasn't done more to energize the gun rights base in this election.

"I don't think he'll lose," Taepke said. "But you don't know. In this political climate anything is possible."

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/guns29_20020729.htm


Contact DAWSON BELL at 313-222-6609 or dbell@freepress.com.



"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Patriotism Litmus Test
America vs. the U.N.



f I'm a dues-paying member of the Ku Klux Klan, if I carry a picture of David Duke in my wallet, if I use racial epithets all the time, if I use black lawn jockeys for skeet practice, you might - just might - conclude that I'm a racist. It would certainly be understandable if someone were to ask, "Hey, do you think Jonah's a racist?" If I often dropped everything I was doing to mend the broken wings of little birdies, if I refused to eat or wear anything with meat or animal products in it, if I shrieked in horror whenever someone smacked a bug, you might conclude that I believed in animal rights. If I attended Mass regularly, waxed eloquent on the Holy Trinity, and if I always ate fish on Friday, and so on, you might think I was trying to make my mother-in-law happy. But you might also think that I was Catholic.













What's the point? Simply this: In life we interpret all sorts of physical actions and espoused beliefs as indications of a person's adherence to an abstraction. My friends who keep kosher, attend synagogue regularly, wear yarmulkes, and have great facility at compounding interest rates: I often call these people "more Jewish than me."

Now, religions are funny things, so it's certainly possible that what is in a person's heart is a better indicator of the intensity of his or her Jewishness, Christianity, or Islamic-ness, etc. But not being God ourselves, we can't read people's hearts and so we have to go by what folks do or say. So, the principle still holds: We can reasonably say that someone is more X if he does things reasonable people recognize as very X-like.

I bring this up for two reasons. First, when it comes to patriotism we are expected to suspend this entirely reasonable rule of thumb. I can say someone is very gay, tall, evil, crude, pious, British, greedy, conservative, liberal, reasonable, and so on. Or I can say someone is not very gay, tall, evil, crude, etc. And, a few exceptions notwithstanding, nobody raises an eyebrow.

But patriotism doesn't follow this rule. Sure, it's okay for me to say someone is "very patriotic." But if I say someone is "unpatriotic" or "not very patriotic," all hell breaks loose. Indeed, if I merely "question" someone's patriotism I'm labeled a "McCarthyite" of some kind.

Oh, and the second reason I bring this up is because this is the subject of my latest piece for National Review OnPaper. Unfortunately, Rich Lowry's infinite wisdom cannot encompass the notion of permitting its publication on NRO. He dispenses the magazine's journalistic gold to NRO with an eyedropper. If you subscribed to the magazine - with a little note in the memo line of your check saying "This is for Jonah!" - you'd be able to read the whole thing.

I can't simply crib my entire argument from the mag, but let me give you one last quick example of what got me thinking about this in the first place. I was doing my regular Sunday gig on CNN's Late Edition. One of my co-panelists, Julianne Malveaux, explained early in the program that she won't say the Pledge of Allegiance at all - with or without "under God." Then, later, as the show was wrapping up, Wolf Blitzer asked all the guests what they were doing for the Fourth of July, especially considering all of the terrorist warnings. I said, lamely, "I just moved into a new house, so I'll be unpacking regardless of the bombs blowing up."

And Ms. Malveaux said, "I don't celebrate the Fourth of July. I get up in the morning and read Frederick Douglass's "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro" and then I grouse for the rest of the day... I did that last year. I'll do it this year."

It occurred to me then - though too late to say anything at the time - that if I had said something to the effect of "I guess I can question your patriotism now," I would have been the bad guy.

As I note in the mag piece, in American politics you can flagrantly indict someone's racial tolerance, their love of children, their charity, and so forth - Democrats do it all the time to Republicans - but if you "question" someone's patriotism you're an ogre, a bully, an (always ill-defined) "McCarthyite."

Questioning an opponent's patriotism isn't necessarily nice or appropriate, but I don't know why it's any worse than Jesse Jackson suggesting Republicans are Nazis or Ralph Nader categorically asserting that businessmen are greedy. I conclude from Ms. Malveaux's comments about the Fourth of July and the Pledge of Allegiance, and a number of her statements about America and its history, that she isn't particularly patriotic. That doesn't mean she's a bad person or wrong about any given public-policy issue.

Indeed, questioning someone's patriotism is a lot more innocuous than most people think. An unpatriotic person can be a better person than a patriotic one, obviously. An America-hating citizen can even be a better citizen than one who loves America - in much the same way that someone who hates his job can be a better employee than someone who loves his job.

In short, discerning someone's level of patriotism doesn't tell us much. For example, since love of country implies different things in different countries, a patriot in China can be a son of a * and a patriot in America a defender of liberty.

WHO DRIVES HISTORY
But that doesn't mean patriotism is an irrelevant or illegitimate subject. And the area where its relevance and legitimacy is most obvious is in foreign affairs.

Here is Goldberg's General Rule on Patriotism: The more negative your view of America, the more positive your view of the United Nations. (The only exception I can think of to this rule is a tiny gaggle of "anti-war," anti-state libertarians who seem to hate America and hate the United Nations both. But the general rule still applies.)

And this only makes sense when you think about it. If you consider America to be an imperialistic, plutocratic, racist bully, you probably also think America would be less of these things if it listened to France or the United Nations (there's a slight difference). Or, if you merely think America is fine, but that it isn't special or exceptional in any way, it will be more difficult for me to persuade you that America shouldn't be treated like any other country in the General Assembly. We're no better than Burkina Faso or Belgium, so why should we be exempt from the International Criminal Court or the or some wacky international treaty on women or aardvarks?

But, if you think that America is man's last best hope; if you believe that God or fate arranged for America to be established on this Earth to do two things: chew gum and kick * (by example or by action); if you are grateful that America has its hands on the steering wheel of history then you will be more than a little skeptical about letting a bunch of backseat drivers in Geneva, the Hague, or Paris tell us where to go and how long it will take to get there. Or, if you're less emotional about these things, you might just look at the historical record of the various nations giving us advice and say, "Hmmm, China doesn't have much to teach us about the rule of law," or "Call me crazy, but Russia can keep its economic advice to itself," or "The Sudan can call us racist all they like but, you know, at least we abolished slavery."

I disagree with certain folks on the right when it comes to some arguments about American sovereignty. For example, I'm a free trader and I don't think the WTO is sapping my precious * fluids. But, whether you call yourself an isolationist, a unilateralist, an internationalist, or even, shudder, a multilateralist where you come down on various sovereignty issues is hugely important. America, true patriots recognize, is a nation and a system of laws and institutions designed to ensure individual liberty. The United Nations - a few charitable enterprises notwithstanding - is an expense-account boondoggle largely designed to fill the wallets of kleptocrats and assuage the egos of runner-up nations.

And yet, for reasons that remain mysterious to me, many liberals seem to think that the U.N. is somehow a democratic institution because its members vote. Never mind that many of these votes are cast by people who don't represent their constituents in any democratic sense. The same people who despise the federal and republican aspects of the United States - states' rights, the electoral college, indirect elections, etc. - will swoon over the moral authority of U.N. "votes" criticizing the United States. This is like having a gang of criminals "vote" on which old lady they're going rob and kill and then, looking at the corpse, say, "Well, it was a democratic decision."

But even if all the members of the U.N. were democratic countries, that doesn't mean they wouldn't still vote to rob us, or change us, or constrain us in some way. France is a democracy and they do that sort of thing all the time - because they (sometimes rationally) define their self-interest as inconsistent with our self-interest. I'm not against working with other nations and the "international community" - whatever that is. In fact, I am very much an internationalist. But I also believe in American exceptionalism - a belief fueled, I think, by both sound reasoning and sincere patriotism.

Of course, you can think the U.N. is great for America and still love America deeply. Indeed, I have a simple answer to any American patriot who claims that there is no conflict between his love of country and his desire to hitch our fate to the United Nations: "You're mistaken." And, therefore, I'm thinking of adding this corollary to my General Rule of patriotism: The more intellectually consistent and pro-U.N. you are, the less patriotic you are likely to be. I haven't thought that all the way through, but it seems right to me.

"'My country right or wrong,'" Chesterton observed, "is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" He was right, of course. And, in my view, the only time America should ever hand the car keys of history to the United Nations is if we're too drunk to drive. http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg072602.asp


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Ohio's concealed carry law puts business owners who carry weapons under the gun
Chiree Mccain For Business First

Dennis McNamara decided not to take any chances.




McNamara had just defended a client in a murder case in Steubenville, and the jury had convicted his client on the lesser charge of manslaughter.



Before he left the courthouse, the family of the victim made threats against both client and attorney. So, as the county sheriff escorted McNamara to his car, the attorney asked if he might keep a handgun on the front seat beside him.



Many could see that as a reasonable request and a prudent gesture, but Ohio law sees the situation differently.



That makes it difficult, to say the least, for those who feel they need such protection. These people are, most often, managers and owners at bars, carryouts or similar establishments - business people who carry a gun as they take deposits to the bank at night. Often, they own small businesses and cannot afford an armored car service.



Sign up to receive free daily business updates by email every weekday afternoon.


Use Search Watch to watch for related topics, companies.


Receive free Industry News via email. Choose from 46 different industries.



"They're the ones left fending for themselves when they're getting their revenues to the bank at the end of the day," says Tony Fiore, director of labor and human resources policy at the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.


No controlling legal authority

Under current Ohio law, carrying a concealed weapon is risky.



Technically, Ohioans are prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon or having a concealed weapon "ready at hand." The law allows for an affirmative defense under certain circumstances - including while anyone is going to or from their place of business if they are particularly susceptible to criminal attack at the time - but criminal defense attorneys say that's not good enough. Business owners charged with carrying a concealed weapon are likely to face a trial and would have to prove they had a good reason for carrying.



McNamara, who runs his own law office in downtown Columbus, says he's carried a gun for protection about half a dozen times during his 26 years in criminal defense, while investigating crime scenes or after receiving threats. He also has defended small business people who choose to carry a weapon on a daily basis.



"The problem with the statute is there aren't any clear answers, only questions," says McNamara. "It's awfully gray. If the jury believes he or she was justified in carrying concealed, based on the affirmative defenses in the statute, they'll find not guilty. It's all a matter of what the jury finds reasonable."



And there's no way to get permission ahead of time.



"There is absolutely no way to approach a legal authority in the State of Ohio, as a business owner or not, stating your reasons to carry a firearm, and then being given prior permission or refusal to do so. As a business owner or not, you must make that decision on your own ... and risk being given a decision after you are charged with committing a felony," says Jeff Garvas, founding president and executive director of Ohioans for Concealed Carry, a Cleveland-based nonprofit.



McNamara says an attorney he knows requested a letter from the county sheriff, agreeing that it would be prudent for him to carry a firearm in his circumstances.



"That's probably as close as you can come to having your defense in advance," McNamara says. "Even then, you could be arrested and charged."


Legislation and litigation

In light of recent court cases and proposed legislation, Ohio's concealed carry law could change soon.



The Hamilton County Common Pleas Court struck down the ban on carrying concealed weapons, and the First Ohio District Appeals Court upheld the decision. The Ohio Supreme Court has issued an emergency stay to keep it in effect for now and is considering whether to review the case.



"I suspect it will be changed within a year, if not by the Supreme Court, then by the state legislature," McNamara says.



Some observers expect that in the end, the state will create a permit system for concealed carry. The Ohio House already has passed such a measure - HB 274, which would require training and background checks in order to get a permit. The bill is awaiting approval from the Senate.



The proposed legislation would be an advantage to small business owners who want to carry a concealed weapon.



"They would know whether they're risking prison or not when they went about their business every day," McNamara says.



"Instead of carrying a gun and waiting to be taken to court to determine if your actions were prudent, a business owner will be able to apply for a license in advance," says Garvas.



Don Schmidt, a Columbus-area small business owner who asked that his business not be identified, says he would carry a firearm as a precautionary measure during deposits, if the ban were lifted.



"It would be just like putting a safety belt on in your car. You would feel safer," says Schmidt, who receives well over half his revenue in cash.


Presumed guilty

For now, at least, the choice is more complicated.



"Anyone who considers carrying a firearm should seek qualified legal advice," says Garvas. "I feel anyone carrying in today's environment should have a plan that they can fall back on, should they be arrested. That includes funding for bail, knowing how to conduct yourself if you are arrested, and having a lawyer who knows in advance what you may be calling about at 3:00 in the morning."



Because carrying a loaded, concealed weapon is a felony offense, small business owners risk spending time in jail and losing certain professional licenses if they are convicted.



"Why aren't you presumed innocent?" asks Max Kravitz, a partner at the law firm of Kravitz & Kravitz and a law professor at Capital University. "Instead of presuming citizens innocent, we are presuming them guilty and making them prove their innocence. Even if they're found not guilty, that's no consolation to someone who's been charged with an offense, whose fingerprints have been sent to all the databases, who's had to pay for an attorney."



Schmidt says he makes his deposits during the day and he doesn't feel the need to carry a concealed weapon. But if he felt threatened, the legal risks would not deter him.



"I'm not in a situation where I think I need it," he says. "But if I thought my life was in danger, I would carry, whether it was against the law or not."


More than legal risks

Small business owners should think long and hard about whether a concealed weapon will actually make them safer, says Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, a Toledo-based nonprofit.



"Is somebody going to be able to remove that gun from you and use that gun against you?" she asks.



Hoover says FBI statistics show that there are only about 200 homicides justifiable as self-defense each year.



"The numbers don't point to the fact that people are successfully defending themselves," she says. "We're fooled into believing we'll all be safer if we have a gun."



While lifting the ban on concealed carry would remove the legal pitfalls for business owners who carry, it could create new problems.



"All those business owners are going to have those customers and those employees walking through their door with a concealed weapon. They're not going to be safer; they're actually increasing their risk," Hoover maintains.



Garvas says there was no "mayhem in the streets" during the period between the Hamilton County court's rejection of the concealed carry ban and the Ohio Supreme Court's stay.



"During that two-week period, there were absolutely no problems with individuals carrying concealed, and there was even a mini race riot on a Cincinnati street corner," he says.



Still, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce wants to protect employers' rights to prohibit concealed weapons on their property.



Fiore says employers don't want the added liability - or the potential for higher insurance rates - that might come with allowing weapons onto the premises. He says the chamber has worked to keep the workplace exemptions in HB 274.



"If you take away that ability to prohibit weapons or handguns in the workplace, you prohibit them from doing what they're trying to do, and that's providing a safe work place for their employees and customers," Fiore says.

http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2002/07/29/smallb1.html
Copyright 2002 American City Business Journals Inc.
Click for permission to reprint (PRC# 1.1635.631816)




"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Airguns Protected from State Regulation!

While signing Blue Book of Airgun copies at the recent NRA convention in Reno, I was visited by Evan Nappen, an attorney from New Jersey. He has defended airgun owners from state prosecution by invoking a FEDERAL law that generally is not well known at this time. The most amazing thing about this law, the key points of which were appended to a law which attempts to force special markings on paintball and imitation firearms is that it PRE-EMPTS all state laws concerning the sale of airguns. (This tailgating clause may be thanks to some legal work by the Daisy company!) This law may be the most important law ever for airgunners and may just amount to giving us more rights than firearm owners who feel that they are protected the Second Amendment! I told Tom Gaylord, editor of the new Airguns Illustrated magazine about it; he became very excited and will give you his views and more details in the Legal Issues section of the second issue of Airguns Illustrated magazine (to which, of course, you surely have already subscribed).

The law is United States Code, Title 15, Section 5001, BB/AIRGUN/PAINTBALL/IMITATION FIREARM PREEMPTION. The sections of interest to us are Sections "g(i) and g(ii)" at the very end. Read their very clear language and leap for joy:

"(g) Preemption of State or local laws or ordinances; exceptions

The provisions of this section shall supersede any provisions of State or local laws or ordinances which provide for markings or identifications inconsistent with provisions of this section provided that no State shall

(i) prohibit the sale or manufacture of any look-alike, non-firing, collector replica of an antique firearms developed prior to 1898, or

(ii) prohibit the sale (other than prohibiting the sale to minors) of traditional B-B, paint ball, or pellet-firing air guns that expel a projectile through the force of air pressure."

Additional information is available at attorney Nappen's website: evannappen.com

We look forward to many favorable developments as a result of this largely overlooked law which became effective 6 months after November 5, 1988. Mr. Nappen already has successfully used it in court cases!

Please click on the routing buttons above to view the labeled information. Click on the blue underlined words to move to additional information on that subject.

Please note: this page is part of the www.Beemans.net website (you may have entered it from another website that you are viewing or it may have been copied). Please enter that web address in your browser's address slot or click on this Table of Contents to bring up our home page: "Airgunology and the Scientist".
http://www.beemans.net/airguns_protected_from_state_reg.htm


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Board to revise 1925 gun statute
Inside Bartonville, the current fine for discharging a firearm is $5

July 29, 2002

By BRAD BURKE
of the Journal Star


BARTONVILLE - Picture this: A young man walks along a street here, points a gun in the air and rattles off a few rounds at nothing in particular.

Given that discharging a firearm within the village limits is illegal for anyone who doesn't wear a police shield, how much would you expect this trigger-happy pedestrian would be fined by Bartonville authorities?

One hundred dollars? Five hundred? A thousand?

"The fine is five bucks," said Bartonville Police Chief Brian Fengel. "We need to revisit that."

That $5 fine may seem laughable now, but it was significant at the time Bartonville's current weapons ordinance was drafted - 1925. The law has remained on the books untouched since then, and now village officials hope to revise it to better reflect the weapons of the 21st century.

The weapons statute, which governs how residents may use them within village limits, is as outdated as the flapper dresses and speak-easies from the 1920s. It specifically prohibits residents from firing any "cannon, revolver or other firearms," and it carries a minimum $5 fine.

Cannons, Fengel joked, don't pose many problems for local police anymore. What's more common today are hoodlums shooting paint balls at cars or kids spraying BBs in a reckless fashion. Neither of those circumstances could have been foreseen by the people who drafted the 1925 ordinance.

"All we wanted to do was update the one we have because we've had instances of kids shooting BB guns and paint ball guns at people or cars," Fengel said.

State law already limits the use of paint ball guns or other toys, and village officials thought it was time to update their own standards to match.

"Most of this is illegal under the state law, but it wasn't covered by the village's ordinances," said village attorney Michael Seghetti. "They're mainly putting themselves in the position where they can better enforce these laws locally."

At the instruction of the Village Board, Seghetti drafted an ordinance that more clearly defines which devices should be classified as weapons. This time, that definition included everything from rifles to paint ball guns to slingshots, and the minimum fine for discharging one in the village was set at $100.

The board was set to vote on the updated ordinance on Thursday, but instead the trustees sent the issue back to committee.

Why? Some board members felt the new law was a tad too specific. Among the items listed as weapons were crossbows, common hunting mechanisms which some residents shoot at targets in their yards.

"If it comes out in the ordinance that we've banned bows and arrows, I think there'll be some problems" with hunters, said board trustee Chuck Betson.

Betson said he hopes the ordinance gives local authorities more control over improper use of weapons, but he assured that the law is not meant to strip young people of their toys.

"I don't think we'll be taking the BB guns out of the kids' hands," Betson said.
http://www.pjstar.com/news/topnews/g100679a.html


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878