In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Anti-gunners in the news
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
FOLLOWUP
Sarah Brady: Illegal Gun Purchase?
Did Sarah Brady, aka "Mrs. Gun Control," violate Delaware state law when she purchased a high-powered rifle for her son? In her new memoir, A Good Fight, Brady reveals that she bought James Brady Jr. a Remington .30-06 for Christmas 2000. "I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little car and drove home," she writes. "It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat."
Strange, yes, since Mrs. Brady has for the past two decades been the most visible leader in the campaign to disarm America. Although we have no laws against hypocrisy, the question has arisen over whether Sarah Brady broke one of the laws she helped foist on her fellow citizens. The New York Daily News first raised this question when it noted that her book account "suggests that she did not have her son checked, as required by Delaware state law." The Daily News reported that Delaware Justice Department spokeswoman Lori Sitler had stated that the purchase could be illegal under state law if Brady did not also say who she was buying the gun for and submit his "name, rank and serial number" for a full check. "You can't purchase a gun for someone else," Sitler was quoted as saying. "That would be a `straw purchase.' You've got a problem right there."
The Daily News later retracted the story, saying "a spokeswoman for the Delaware Department of Justice said it misinterpreted the law and that Brady was not obligated to state that the gun was for her son as long as he was legally qualified to own a firearm." So, is the Delaware DOJ bending the law to allow a politically connected celebrity activist off the hook, or is the law so confusing that the DOJ lawyers can't properly interpret what they expect gun-owning citizens to know and obey? The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has filed complaints with the Delaware attorney general's office and the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms requesting an investigation into whether Brady violated state or federal laws.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/05-20-2002/insider/vo18no10_gun_control.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
Sarah Brady: Illegal Gun Purchase?
Did Sarah Brady, aka "Mrs. Gun Control," violate Delaware state law when she purchased a high-powered rifle for her son? In her new memoir, A Good Fight, Brady reveals that she bought James Brady Jr. a Remington .30-06 for Christmas 2000. "I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little car and drove home," she writes. "It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat."
Strange, yes, since Mrs. Brady has for the past two decades been the most visible leader in the campaign to disarm America. Although we have no laws against hypocrisy, the question has arisen over whether Sarah Brady broke one of the laws she helped foist on her fellow citizens. The New York Daily News first raised this question when it noted that her book account "suggests that she did not have her son checked, as required by Delaware state law." The Daily News reported that Delaware Justice Department spokeswoman Lori Sitler had stated that the purchase could be illegal under state law if Brady did not also say who she was buying the gun for and submit his "name, rank and serial number" for a full check. "You can't purchase a gun for someone else," Sitler was quoted as saying. "That would be a `straw purchase.' You've got a problem right there."
The Daily News later retracted the story, saying "a spokeswoman for the Delaware Department of Justice said it misinterpreted the law and that Brady was not obligated to state that the gun was for her son as long as he was legally qualified to own a firearm." So, is the Delaware DOJ bending the law to allow a politically connected celebrity activist off the hook, or is the law so confusing that the DOJ lawyers can't properly interpret what they expect gun-owning citizens to know and obey? The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has filed complaints with the Delaware attorney general's office and the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms requesting an investigation into whether Brady violated state or federal laws.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/05-20-2002/insider/vo18no10_gun_control.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
Comments
Restraining state attorneys general.
By Michael DeBow
t's time to rein in the power of state attorneys general. For most of American history they did vital, but routine and distinctly unglamorous, legal work for their states. But beginning in the 1980s, some Democratic attorneys general (AG) challenged the Reagan administration's policies in antitrust and environmental law, pursuing their own agendas through litigation. Activist AGs relied on two venerable but largely ignored sources of authority: their common law power and their so-called parens patriae power, recognized in the majority of states, to sue on behalf of state residents.
The most disruptive outbreak of state AG activism has been the anti-tobacco crusade. Beginning in 1994, 40-plus states filed baseless lawsuits asking courts to order cigarette makers to reimburse them for Medicaid expenditures covering smoking-related health problems. As a matter of law, the cases were wholly without merit. Yet the AGs succeeded in extracting a settlement largely because the tobacco companies knew they could pass the costs along to smokers.
That's exactly what happened. Shortly after the "master tobacco settlement" was announced in 1998, the companies hiked their wholesale prices more than enough to finance their multibillion-dollar annual payments to the states. The total payments over the first 25 years were estimated at $206 billion, nearly all of which will come out of smokers' pockets - in effect, an unlegislated tax increase on cigarettes.
Not only was the settlement contemptuous of the doctrine of separation of powers in state governments, but it also directed tobacco companies to pay enormous sums of money to private plaintiffs' lawyers hired by the states. Those lawyers, some of whom bankrolled state political campaigns, will split a $750 million pot every year during the first five years of the settlement, declining to a mere $500 million annually ... forever. Again, the billions of dollars for those payments will come from smokers, with the cigarette companies acting as tax collectors.
And if that were not enough, the market shares of the giant tobacco companies' shares are protected by the settlement agreement, which essentially blocks future entrants into the market. Incredibly, the agreement requires that smaller companies that didn't consent to the settlement - even new companies that didn't exist when the settlement was signed - pay damages into escrow to cover any future liability they might incur for smoking-related illnesses. The intent, of course, was to prevent upstart cigarette makers from cutting prices and taking market share away from the four majors. Naturally, the states had to assure the financial viability of the companies that each year would be fattening state coffers.
In a nutshell, the tobacco litigation meant de facto increases in cigarette taxes, obscene enrichment of politically connected trial lawyers, and states acting as cartel managers for giant cigarette makers.
One might expect voters to demand that state AGs reject that type of litigation. Still, there has been no widespread public outcry - at least, not yet. Meanwhile, state AGs have sued the lead-paint industry in Rhode Island and gun makers in New York, seeking reimbursement for health-care expenditures, like they did in the tobacco litigation. To date, the lead-paint and gun suits have not settled. Indeed, many similar suits filed by city governments against firearms makers have been thrown out of court - a most reassuring development for supporters of the rule of law.
Regardless, any industry whose products allegedly cause harm covered by public-health programs should be concerned about government lawsuits. Automobiles and alcoholic beverages come immediately to mind. Perhaps not so obvious a target is the food industry. But the press, in a barrage of recent stories, has criticized food producers for - you guessed it - ads that lead to increased consumption that causes obesity that results in health problems that require public expenditures.
What can be done to put an end to this kind of state AG activism and backdoor tax increases? Several alternatives are available. Four states have passed statutes greatly restricting their AGs' ability to hire private contingency-fee lawyers. Others are considering legislation that would limit state claims to those that could be asserted by private defendants - that is, states would have no greater legal rights than a private party suing on his own. Those stop-gap measures are no doubt helpful. But the underlying problem requires a more permanent remedy: Serious thought should be given to restricting - or even eliminating - state AGs' common-law and parens patriae authority. Otherwise, the temptation to sue unpopular businesses on trumped up legal theories may well be irresistible.
- Michael DeBow is professor of law at Samford University's Cumberland School of Law. He is the author of Restraining State Attorneys General, Curbing Government Lawsuit Abuse, just released by the Cato Institute.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-debow052102.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
Memo to Ashcroft: Attorney general doesn't make nation's laws.
(Published Tuesday, May, 21, 2002 7:25AM)
An assertion by Attorney General John Ashcroft in a brief filed with the Supreme Court about gun ownership has triggered predictable responses from the National Rifle Association (cheers) and gun-control groups (cries of alarm). Whether either response is justified depends on whether an attorney general with a penchant for pushing executive authority to the limit can persuade the high court and/or Congress to embrace his interpretation of what the Constitution says on the subject.
"The current position of the United States," said a footnote to the brief by Solicitor General Theodore Olson on Ashcroft's behalf, "is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals ... who are not members of any militia ... to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions" against "unfit persons" and types of firearms banned for private use, such as automatic weapons. In effect, the statement reiterated the Bush administration's view -- which is contrary to past court rulings and legislation -- that the Second Amendment is about the rights of militias, not individuals.
Ironically, the argument was made in the context of a brief in which the government was defending the convictions of two men charged with violating gun-control laws. It added that the Justice Department would continue to enforce existing laws, which in some cases it doesn't like. One must hope that's true.
Arguably, Ashcroft's reiteration of his view was meant to reassure his pro-gun constituency that the government's position on the cases before the high court did not suggest any weakening of its broader libertarian position. But gun-control groups worry that his assertion will embolden gun-owners' groups to take their arguments to courts and lawmaking bodies. That's a legitimate concern, but such efforts already are under way and would doubtless continue with or without a boost from the attorney general. Thus this hardly represents a redrawing of battle lines.
In the ongoing debate, those who properly defend reasonable restrictions on gun ownership must remain vigilant, especially in the face of an administration whose objectives are evident. Fortunately, the U.S. constitutional system contains checks and balances that, if vigorously used, can prevent an overzealous attorney general from assuming the role of a Middle Eastern ayatollah issuing a fatwa that the people are helpless to resist.
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/2828980p-3617898c.html
E-mil the Fresono Bee at http://fresnobee.com/about_us/
"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