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.

Legislative Update

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited May 2002 in General Discussion
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

Comments

  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    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
  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Outdoors Beat: Sporting-gun enthusiasts are battling tax proposal
    By Gary Voet -- Bee Staff Writer
    Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Wednesday, May 22, 2002
    Nice thought, wrong approach.

    State Sen. Don Perata (D-Alameda) has introduced Senate Constitution Amendment (SCA) 12, which would impose a sales tax of an additional 5 cents on every piece of ammunition sold in California after Jan. 1, 2003, to finance a Trauma Center Fund.

    The Trauma Center is a good thing. Victims of gunshot wounds, mostly received through illegal activity (i.e. robbery, drugs, etc.) need a place to be treated. But why should the majority of the law-abiding gun-shooting sport enthusiasts foot the bill for a minority of those who abuse gun sports?



    A 25-shell box of light-load shotgun shells, used by many to shoot sporting clays, traps for example, costs about $5. The new tax would increase it to $6.25. And most sporting-gun enthusiasts don't buy one box, rather a case. Waterfowl hunters often buy more than one case, and those loads often cost $8-$12 a box.

    The California Waterfowl Association has taken a firm stance against the proposed amendment, which was introduced April 9 and will face its first test June 5 when it appears before the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.

    "We support the intent of the bill, but we have concerns on how the bill is funded," said Bill Gaines, director of government affairs for the CWA. "(Sportsmen) are more than happy to pay our fair share, but this bill asks sportsmen to pay the lion's load.

    "Sportsmen and -women have a long history of policing themselves, (from) introducing and lobbying for hunter-safety courses to regulations and requirements to protect the wildlife and those in the field. We do a fine job of keeping our own house in fine order.

    "The proof is in the stats. When you consider the number of days in the field versus the number of firearm accidents, the accidents are very, very low. Asking people like that, who probably make up the group that carries 90-95 percent of the firearms, to carry 90-95 percent of the funding for a Trauma Center, just isn't right."

    Gaines said he thinks the bill will split down party lines -- Republicans against it, Democrats for it.

    This isn't the first time Perata has introduced a controversial bill on firearms. And it isn't the first time Gaines and other groups opposed to such taxes on sportsmen have fought such battles.

    "There was one bill that wanted to put a tax of a buck a shell," said Gaines. "Over the last 10 years, there have been three or four bills that we have successfully killed. Because this is a constitutional amendment that requires two-thirds approval versus the normal 50 percent plus one for regular bills, there is a better chance it won't pass.

    "Still, it's something sportsmen need to be aware of."

    Free Marsh Field day -- The CWA and the Department of Fish and Game are sponsoring the 20th annual Suisun Marsh Field Day, June 1 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Grizzly Island Wildlife Area. Admission is free.

    The day will feature dog trainers, breeders, decoy carvers, waterfowling supplies, duck callers, wildlife art displays, manufacturers' representatives, hunting boats and more.

    Children can participate in the BB gun range, hunter-safety information, art contest (materials provided), beanbag throw, junior duck-calling contest and trapshooting. http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/2840722p-3632250c.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
  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Wednesday, May 22, 2002
















    Shurtleff calls for a 'fix' in gun law
    By Bob Bernick Jr. and Amy Joi Bryson
    Deseret News staff writers

    Trying to avoid a court battle, or even a constitutional separation of powers impasse, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff on Wednesday asked Gov. Mike Leavitt to allow legislators to "fix" language in a gun law that has angered state judges.
    The state Board of District Court Judges says it won't comply with a new state law that requires gun storage lockers be installed at state courthouses, contending that it is the judicial branch's responsibility, not the legislative branch's, to control court environs.
    Shurtleff, who has made a name for himself since taking office by instructing state agencies on what he considers the Legislature's strict right to control all guns in Utah, met with Leavitt administrative officials to ask that a Wednesday night special legislative session consider a compromise that would give judges more say on gun lockers in courthouses.
    Leavitt alone calls lawmakers into special session, and he also sets the agenda. Wednesday's session was to deal primarily with the current budget deficit.
    "I think we can fix this," Shurtleff said after leaving Leavitt's office.
    But the fix may not ultimately please some judges, Shurtleff said, for it appears that a few of them don't want any gun storage lockers outside their courtrooms or court buildings, no matter what.
    "I imagine one way or another we'll be back before the 2003 Legislature revisiting this," the attorney general said, adding that if lawmakers can act Wednesday maybe he can keep the state out of an inter-branch legal fight over the issue.
    But Richard Schwermer, assistant state court administrator, said the issue of gun lockers and courtrooms isn't as "big as everyone thinks it is."
    No one, he added, is out of compliance with the current law.
    Before next week's meeting of the Judicial Council, which will take up the issue again, Shurtleff said lawmakers can take some action to correct the language in HB82, Rep. John Swallow's attempt to clarify what he considers the confusing situation in some court buildings.
    Since territorial times, says Shurtleff, judges have had exclusive control over their courtrooms. And many banned all guns using their contempt of court powers to fine or jail someone who came to court armed.
    When legislators in 1996 broadened citizens' right to easily obtain a concealed weapons permit, things changed. Lawmakers defined "secure" areas where no guns, even those carried by law-abiding concealed carry permitholders, would be allowed.
    Courtrooms were placed in that secure area definition, and those caught with a gun in a secure area face a third-degree felony.
    Swallow, R-Sandy, who is now running for the 2nd Congressional District, was concerned about concealed carry individuals who had no place to put their guns or knives when visiting a courthouse, sometimes visiting non-court areas of rural buildings that housed other government operations.
    In addition to the inconvenience, it could pose greater safety hazard if people left their guns in cars or hid them under bushes outside courthouses when no other place was available.
    Those arguments apparently persuaded lawmakers to pass HB82 in the 2002 Legislature, requiring judges and the courts to provide lockers outside their courtrooms.
    But when the law was to take effect this month, judges in the 6th District, which takes in south-central Utah, and then the whole Board of District Court Judges - the presiding judges from each district - protested, saying the law was flawed, and in any case, the judicial branch of government, not the legislative, would deal with court security issues.
    "We don't want to go to court," said Shurtleff, who realizes that it would be judges deciding his case. So he is seeking a compromise.
    The law could be changed to allow a judge to decide whether his courtroom or courthouse was defined as a "secure" area in relationship to the concealed weapons law. A judge could decide not to have his courtroom so defined, and so no lockers would be provided.
    "But carrying a weapon into the court wouldn't be a felony; it would be dealt with as a contempt" charge as it was for 100 years in Utah, Shurtleff said. "I don't know if the judges would like that."
    Or a secure area would become the whole building the court was located in, and weapon storage lockers would have to be provided outside the building, thus getting away from the problem of having storage lockers sitting right outside of a courtroom door in a building that may have dozens of other non-court government functions, Shurtleff explained.
    "It's clear no matter what we do we can't appease some of these judges," Shurtleff said. "In Richfield, the courthouse is a separate building, the lockers were installed outside of a public area, and still the judge ordered them removed."
    Schwermer called Shurtleff's proposed compromise "interesting" but wouldn't comment further until he saw the fix to the law's language.
    "That's why I am up here today at the Capitol," Schwermer added, saying he was trying to meet with people to address the issue.
    But judges are not above the law, and if a reasonable compromise can be found Wednesday night, legislators should take it so come July 1 - when funding for the lockers kicks in - citizens legally armed can have a place to store their weapons if they have to go to court, Shurtleff added.

    http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,400010032,00.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
  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    county repeals gun law

    County commissioners voted Tuesday to repeal a law that fines gun owners who have not secured their firearms from children.

    The measure passed 4-to-3, with Commissioners Burt Aaronson, Addie Green and Carol Roberts dissenting.

    Commissioners Karen Marcus, Tony Masilotti, Mary McCarty and Warren Newell said they didn't want to vote for the repeal but were compelled because of a March appellate court ruling that made it illegal for the city of South Miami to require trigger locks.

    Palm Beach County's ordinance mirrored South Miami's, which fined violating gun owners up to $500.

    Boynton Beach

    Police investigate

    death of 4-month-old

    Detectives are investigating the death of a 4-month-old who died early Tuesday.

    Police said the Medical Examiner's Office has ruled the baby died of mechanical asphyxiation, meaning the child was deprived of breathing by some force or object.

    Spokeswoman Lt. Wendy Danysh said police were called to the home of Barbara Scott on Northwest 13th Avenue about 3 a.m. after Scott woke up and found her baby wasn't breathing.

    Scott, 28, initially ran to a neighbor's for help, and police then began performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Danysh said. The baby was pronounced dead at Bethesda Memorial Hospital.

    There were no signs of trauma or physical abuse to the baby, Danysh said.

    South Florida

    Heavy military traffic

    on roads this week

    South Florida motorists will notice a heavy military presence on local highways this week but need not worry. The tactical vehicles are on their way to a routine training exercise in Georgia, according to an official release dispatched on Tuesday.

    Starting today and continuing through Saturday, more than 5,000 members of the Florida National Guard's 53rd Infantry Brigade will travel north in convoys of 25 vehicles or fewer on Interstates 95, 4, 75, 295 and 10, and U.S. Highway 301 and Florida's Turnpike on their way to Fort Stewart, Ga.

    Units from the Miami, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Orlando, Pensacola and Jacksonville areas will move moving almost 1,000 humvees, buses, 21/2-ton trucks, 5-ton trucks and other vehicles to their annual training exercise. The same units will return using the same routes June 6-8.

    Because the maximum speed for military convoys is 55 mph, they are expected to slow traffic in the right-hand lanes and on exit ramps.

    I-95 update

    The Florida Department of Transportation reports the following on Interstate 95 today:

    The inside lanes in both directions will be closed from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. between Linton Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue.

    Be prepared for two lanes to be closed in each direction between Linton and north of Atlantic at some time. Transportation officials did not know Tuesday when closures might occur.

    The southbound entrance ramp from Boynton Beach Boulevard is closed.

    The inside lane in each direction will be closed from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. between Golf Road and Gateway Boulevard.

    The southbound entrance ramp from Belvedere will be closed from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m.

    Two southbound lanes will be closed from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. between Southern Boulevard and Okeechobee Road.

    The opening of the northbound ramp from Belvedere has been postponed until the beginning of June. Call 561-802-4409 weekdays during business hours.

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-p3bdig22may22.story


    "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
  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Legislators take aim at Reilly's gun regulations

    Wednesday, May 22, 2002

    By Shaun Sutner
    Telegram & Gazette Staff


    BOSTON-- Gun rights advocates are trying to take gun ownership rules out of the hands of Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, whom they accuse of improperly using his regulatory authority to restrict handguns.
    State Rep. George N. Peterson Jr., R-Grafton, and Sen. Guy W. Glodis, D-Auburn, have co-sponsored a bill that would give the Legislature the power to review consumer protection regulations proposed by the attorney general's office.
    Under the guise of protecting consumers, Mr. Reilly has, since 2000, imposed cumbersome restrictions on gun manufacturers that have inhibited them from selling many high-end firearms in Massachusetts, Mr. Peterson charges.
    "If you had a case of poorly constructed firearms, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but he's using the regulatory process to take firearms away from the law-abiding public," said the Grafton lawmaker, one of the Legislature's most active supporters of gun owners' rights. "Clearly he's overstepped his authority."
    Mr. Peterson also criticized the attorney general for not extending the rules to police departments and for failing to publish a list of gun models that comply with the rules.
    Gun control activists defend Mr. Reilly's role in upholding what are viewed as some of the nation's strongest gun control laws and regulations. Because federal law exempts gun manufacturers from consumer protection laws, states must step in, they say.
    Mr. Reilly maintains that he is simply trying to enforce safety standards such as trigger locks, magazine disconnects and hidden serial numbers that protect against theft.
    Police have testing facilities to ensure their weapons are safe, and there is no need for an approved gun list because some manufacturers already comply and dealers know what they are allowed to sell, according to the attorney general's office.
    "We're not trying to ban guns," the attorney general said at a hearing last week on the Peterson-Glodis bill held by the Committee on Commerce and Labor. "We're making sure they are safe and out of the reach of kids, and if it drops, it doesn't discharge."
    A prominent gun control advocate, Sen. Cheryl A. Jacques, D-Needham, maintained that deaths from guns that go off accidentally -- including two such incidents in Massachusetts in the 1990s -- prove that gun safety is a consumer issue.
    "They're not just rewriting the law for guns, but for all products, and they want to hinder the attorney general with bureaucracy," Ms. Jacques said of the gun groups. "It strikes me as beyond belief that the gun lobby would oppose something that protects the public and gun owners and their children."
    Gun groups have been focused on the issue since former attorney general Scott Harshbarger first developed the regulations in 1997. They accuse Mr. Harshbarger of pushing for the rules on his own without requests from the public.
    Now, giving the Legislature an oversight role would allow gun owners to promote their position.
    Under the legislation proposed by Mr. Peterson and Mr. Glodis, lawmakers would be able to hold hearings and propose changes to the rules. If the changes were not adopted, the attorney general would have to explain why.
    "You need to have some kind of forum so the representatives of the people will have the right to look at this," said James L. Wallace, legislative agent for the Northboro-based Gun Owners Action League. "Right now the public doesn't have any input."
    While the bill does not apply specifically to the gun industry, Mr. Peterson said he hopes that if it is adopted, lawmakers could go back and re-review the rules.
    So far, however, legislative leaders have not pushed for review authority over rule-making except in the area of insurance regulations.
    Meanwhile, Mr. Peterson is also pursuing another gun owners' rights battle.
    He is campaigning for a separate bill that would relax the state gun law by removing local police chiefs' discretion over the granting of gun permits. The bill would also delete several automatic disqualifiers that now bar people convicted of some misdemeanors from owning a handgun.
    During the recent House budget debate, Mr. Peterson withdrew a budget amendment based on the bill after House leaders said they would let it come to the floor before the July 31 end of the legislative session.
    Mr. Peterson said he is convinced that in the current political climate, arguments for gun ownership have a receptive audience.
    "As we keep hearing of more and more terrorist threats, I bet more and more people are going to want to protect themselves, because you can't have a cop on every corner," he said.

    http://www.telegram.com/news/inside/guns.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
  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Gun lockers meet opposition

    2nd District Court officials bracing for a showdown

    Wed, May 22, 2002

    By TIM GURRISTER
    Standard-Examiner staff

    OGDEN -- While officials in the 2nd District Courthouse are supportive of a vote of the state Board of District Judges to ignore a new state law ordering gun lockers in courthouses, they"re not manning the barricades yet.

    For now, they"re proceeding as though the gun lockers are inevitable, while at the same time bracing for what may be a showdown with the Legislature over separation of powers.

    Meanwhile, Weber sheriff"s deputies who serve as bailiffs are calling the new law ludicrous, forcing the construction of a $10,000 armored closet and requiring gun owners to unload their guns before putting them in the locker.

    Bailiffs are joking about starting a betting pool on when the first accidental discharge occurs in the Ogden courthouse.

    The 10-member Board of District Judges announced Monday it had voted unanimously against the gun lockers and to keep a ban on the public carrying guns in courthouses.

    "The judiciary"s inherent power includes the right to prohibit weapons in courtrooms and, where the circumstances warrant, the entire courthouse," the board said of its decision.

    In response, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said he may consider a lawsuit to force the judiciary to recognize the new law.

    "I don"t want to go there," W. Brent West, presiding judge in the 2nd District, said of Shurtleff"s remark. "I don"t think we need to elevate the rhetoric."

    Said West, "It doesn"t seem to make a whole lot of sense, when people get bad news in the courtroom, like they sometimes do, to turn around and give them a weapon."

    Fellow 2nd District Judge Stanton Taylor called the situation "making a mountain out of a molehill" since the current policy of telling residents to take their gun back to their car works fine.

    "It ought to be left up to the security experts, the bailiffs," Taylor said.

    The next step is to see what stance the Utah Judicial Council, which includes members of the Utah Supreme Court and is the governing body for state courts, adopts next week, West said.

    "The question is do we file a lawsuit, do we let them file a lawsuit, do we file a restraining order, then against whom? Those are the things being decided now," West said.

    "But we"re not engaging in civil disobedience. I"d be surprised if we can"t sit down and come to some sort of agreement."

    West said the Board of District Judges" vote was actually cast at a state judicial conference in Torry last week and has the support of just about all 70 of the state"s district judges.

    "No one opposes the (board"s) resolution in principle, but they just wonder how to respond to the Legislature."

    Sheriff"s Lt. Art Haney, head of security at the Ogden courthouse, said of the gun law, "it"s one of these non-issues that"s become an issue.

    "The heartburn I have is that if someone gets their kids taken away from them by a judge, he comes out of court all upset, and I have to hand him a key to get his gun."

    Haney has been researching the cost of the new law, which 2nd District officials have decided in the Ogden courthouse will require an armored weapons supply room by the single public entrance to the building.

    That"s to house the lockers and to give people a place to go to unload the weapon, which is required before it"s placed in a locker.

    "That heightens the concern for an accidental shooting or alarming the general public with someone pulling a gun out," Haney said.

    The cost could be in the thousands, he said, since a 4-foot by 8-foot sheet of ballistic fiberglass -- the cheapest armor available -- is $390, and goes up to $2,000 for the most expensive materials.

    "We don"t know if we need six lockers or 12," West said. "We have no idea how many people will start bringing guns to court because for 150 years it"s been "No guns allowed in courts." "


    http://www.standard.net/standard/news/news_story.html?sid=00020521231142703377




    "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
  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Gary isn't done fighting gun makers

    City seeks resuscitation of its '99 lawsuit despite other communities' lack of success in court.



    By Mike Ellis

    mike.ellis@indystar.com

    May 22, 2002


    The city of Gary today will ask the Indiana Court of Appeals to revive its lawsuit against gun makers.

    Gary -- one of 32 cities, counties and states nationally to sue gun makers -- is accusing the industry of lax distribution methods that make it easy for criminals to obtain guns.






    But Gary's lawsuit has made little progress since it was filed in 1999. A Lake County judge dismissed the suit as unconstitutional last year, leading the city to seek a hearing before the Court of Appeals.

    Gary isn't alone in its frustration. Ten such suits have been dismissed, although four of those, including Gary's, are on appeal. Boston decided in March to drop its lawsuit.

    "The success has been fairly limited so far," said Arlen Langvardt, a professor of business law at Indiana University in Bloomington.

    The lawsuits have been bitterly opposed by the gun industry, which has spent millions of dollars fighting them. The lawsuits don't sit well with many gun owners, either.

    "I find it a form of legalized extortion," said Mike Hilton, owner of Pop's Guns on the Eastside of Indianapolis. "If I lived in that town, I'd be upset as a taxpayer that they're wasting my money on this."

    But proponents say the suits are necessary because the gun industry has failed to take steps to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals. Gary claims that 2,136 guns recovered from criminals in a four-year period that ended in December 2000 came from the manufacturers named in its lawsuit.

    Supporters insist the lawsuits could play a critical role in reducing gun violence.

    "The evidence from a public health standpoint is clear," said Dr. Marilyn Bull, medical director of the Indiana Partnership to Prevent Firearm Violence. "The proliferation of guns enhances the proliferation of crime."

    Many people who have lost loved ones to violence also believe the lawsuits could help prevent criminals and young people from getting guns.

    "It's causing a lot of homicides, especially in the young men," said Mildred Jefferson, whose grandson, Karl Jefferson, was shot to death March 6. "If they didn't have a gun, they would be able to settle arguments in a different way."

    The way to hold gun makers accountable for such suffering, said Brian Siebel, senior attorney for the Washington-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, is to sue them.

    "If any one of these suits were successful, then it would require the industry to take stock and reform the way it does business," said Siebel, a co-counsel in the Gary case.

    The problem with the lawsuits, said IU's Langvardt, is proving that gun makers are directly responsible for crimes committed with guns.

    "There is the potential argument on the part of the gun makers that there's an intervening cause present, that the action of the criminal or some other wrongdoer is the direct cause."

    Because of such concerns, Indianapolis has not filed a similar lawsuit against gun makers. City officials also think tax money is better spent on other crime prevention methods, such as putting more police officers on the street and combating drug use.

    "Those kinds of issues, we've deemed, are far better uses of our resources (and) of our time than engaging in fairly uncertain litigation against the gun manufacturers," said City Attorney Scott Chinn.

    Gun industry officials take a harsher view. They consider the lawsuits an abuse of the legal system -- an attempt to create law through the courts.

    "If there needs to be any changes in the way firearms are distributed, that's an issue for Congress to address," said Lawrence Keane, general counsel of the Connecticut-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. "It's not proper for the courts to be intervening and attempting to micromanage the industry."

    The lawsuits are taking a financial toll on both the cities and the industry.

    Gary has spent about $50,000 on its lawsuit so far, said James B. Meyer, lead attorney for the suit. Gary also has received assistance at no cost from the Brady Center, he said.

    Gary's cost is much smaller than that of other cities, however. Boston was spending $30,000 a month on its suit.

    The industry also is taking a big hit. Keane estimated gun makers have spent nearly $100 million defending the lawsuits.

    That's why many states, including Indiana, have adopted laws shielding gun makers from lawsuits.

    "It's breaking the gun manufacturers," said Rep. Jerry Denbo, D-French Lick, author of Indiana's law, which was passed last year but won't affect Gary's lawsuit because it was passed after the lawsuit was filed. "Thousands of cities and towns could file suits, but it's the gun manufacturers that have to be involved in every single one."

    The National Shooting Sports Foundation also is urging Congress to adopt a law that would give gun makers greater protection on a national level. But gun control advocates say such laws remove any incentive to improve safety.

    "Much more needs to be done," said Bull, of the Indiana Partnership to Prevent Firearm Violence. "That removes responsibility from the manufacturers, and they should have that responsibility."

    http://www.starnews.com/article.php?handguns22.html
    Call Mike Ellis at 1-317-444-6702.

    "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
  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Weapons measure may be revised
    Police could be allowed to use safety class to get concealed gun permit

    By Amy Franklin / Associated Press

    Comment on this story
    Send this story to a friend
    Get Home Delivery

    LANSING -- Michigan's concealed weapons law isn't yet a year old, but state lawmakers are scheduled this week to consider legislation that would revise it.
    The House Civil Law and the Judiciary Committee may vote today on a six-bill package that would permit law enforcement agents to use their gun training toward the requirements for a concealed weapon permit and allow part-time and retired officers to bring their concealed firearms into gun-free zones.
    Now, the law requires retired and full-time police officers to complete an eight-hour gun safety course to receive a concealed weapons permit, although they receive such instruction for their job.
    "This is getting rid of duplicated training," said state Rep. Jim Howell, a St. Charles Republican who sponsored the training revision bill. "It's one step in fine-tuning the law."
    Another bill in the package would allow reserve, retired and part-time officers to bring their concealed weapons into areas now prohibited under the concealed weapons law, such as churches, bars and arenas.
    John Buczek, director of the Michigan Fraternal Order of Police, said it's important to allow retired police officers to carry a concealed firearm into restricted areas.
    "We make a few enemies over the course of our careers and it's in those areas where we need the protection," said Buczek, a retired police officer.
    However, the bill would only allow those part-time officers in such areas with their firearm with the permission of their chief.
    The concealed weapons law took effect July 1, 2001, after the Michigan Supreme Court ruled it couldn't be subject to a statewide vote in the November 2002 election because it contained an appropriations measure.
    Since the law took effect, 43,509 concealed weapons applications have been approved, 639 were denied and 13,928 are pending, according to the Michigan State Police.
    The law allows anyone to receive a permit if they are 21, have taken a gun safety course, do not have a history of mental illness and haven't been convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors.
    Carolynne Jarvis, of the Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, helped the anti-concealed weapons group People Who Care About Kids gather petition signatures to challenge the law in court last year.
    Jarvis said her organization doesn't have a problem with the revisions of the concealed-weapon law being considered this week.
    "It's a little bit redundant to have a person who receives 200 hours of training get eight hours specifically for this purpose," she said.
    She said the group hasn't taken a position on the legislation that would allow reserve, retired and part-time officers to bring their concealed weapons into areas prohibited under the original law.

    http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/0205/22/c07d-495872.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
  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Why the gun owner vote didn't
    do enough for Casey in Pennsylvania

    by Andy Barniskis

    May 23, 2002

    "After years of Pennsylvania's gun owners selling their votes cheaply, a 'pro-gun' candidate thought they could be had for nothing."

    For many gun owners, the 2002 Democratic gubernatorial race in Pennsylvania's primary election appeared to be a pivotal face-off between the forces of good and evil. On one hand was former Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell, a strident supporter of gun control in all its forms, and the author of the strategy intended to bankrupt gun manufacturers by having cities file multiple, frivolous liability suits against them. On the other hand was state Auditor General Robert P. Casey Jr., making comforting promises of "no new gun laws" and "enforcing the laws we already have."

    For the casual observer, the choice appeared clear. However, it was barely an hour after the polls closed that it became obvious that Casey would go down to defeat, and by 11:00 PM of election night the final percentages had stabilized at 56 percent of the vote going to Rendell, and 44 percent to Casey. Casey's big loss came after a massive, last minute effort by the NRA and many of the state's better-organized gun and sportsmen's groups to support him, with mailings to their members and with radio and print ads.

    As I write this, I am expecting soon to hear Rendell's victory crowed about as a "massive defeat for the gun lobby," and superficially that would appear to be true. But is it? I think the answer depends on how you analyze the situation -- not to mention who is defined as "the gun lobby." It is an extremely important analysis for those of us concerned about the future tactics and strategies of the gun rights movement.

    To begin with completely conventional, mainstream political analysis, it is doubtful how many motivated gun rights votes were available, to be mined for a Democratic primary campaign. The keyword is "motivated." Despite Pennsylvania's reputation of being equally a gun-owning and union-joining state, and the fact that there are no doubt many hard core gun rights advocates who are registered Democrats for a variety of pragmatic personal or professional reasons, the vast majority of voters likely to pull a voting lever over gun rights alone have probably been lured to the Republican Party after years of that party's comforting (if mostly empty) pro-gun posturing, played against the Democrats' strident anti-gun rhetoric. Few intra-party Democratic campaigns are likely to find a huge percentage of voters who will provide knee-jerk, pro-gun votes to the exclusion of all other issues, and the Casey campaign failed to inspire gun rights voters registered in other parties, or independent voters, to switch parties just so they could vote for him.

    The Rendell campaign concentrated successfully on turning out the Philadelphia vote, which sometimes, by itself, is sufficient to carry a statewide candidate to victory. One need only envision the image of traditionally political inner city church congregations, whipped into a lather by pulpit-politicians invoking the drug trade and its resulting drive-by shootings, to realize there are few pro-gun votes to be gotten from that Democratic community. Like many other states, Pennsylvania suffers from the phenomenon of its biggest city being the tail that wags the dog of the state.

    Despite these considerations, it is within the realm of gun rights politics that the analysis becomes more interesting. Had only six percent of Democratic voters changed their votes, the outcome would have been different, so any percentage of a pro-gun Democratic vote as was to be had was priceless, and there is little doubt some of that vote was lost. We will never know how much, but we may be sure it was a factor.

    An important question is, what did pro-gun campaigners have available to tell gun owners, that they didn't already know? Almost everyone attuned to gun rights issues had already heard of Ed Rendell's multiple, public attacks on gun ownership and firearms manufacturers, all of which were well documented and publicized in the mainstream media, as well as by NRA publications and other gun rights and sportsmen's information outlets. Broadly speaking, the only information that the rank-and-file could have missed was Bob Casey's somewhat muted and ambiguous assertions that he would support "no new gun laws." On election day that proved insufficient, even after it had been widely trumpeted.

    Why the "no new gun laws" message would fail to resonate with Pennsylvania gun owners may be explainable by recent history. In 1994, the year of the so-called "Republican Revolution," a coalition of county and local gun groups across the state had combined to oppose Republican congressman Tom Ridge's candidacy for governor, because of his anti-gun votes in the U.S. House of Representatives. The coalition was undermined and overpowered by the NRA, who supported Ridge strongly, based only upon promises similar to the now-shopworn "no new gun laws" promise. Ridge was elected governor, and his thanks to the sportsmen was a Republican sponsored "Special Session on Crime" in the state General Assembly. Partly at Ridge's insistence, the mostly anti-civil-liberties package included a comprehensive gun control package, the first to be put forth in Pennsylvania in many years. But, dubbed "The Sportsmen's Omnibus Anti-Crime Bill," and endorsed by both the NRA and HCI, it sailed to passage as the infamous Act 17 of 1995. Attorney General Mike Fisher - who will be the state's Republican gubernatorial candidate this November - also wooed the gun rights vote in 1994, then bitterly opposed even the smallest reforms to the Republican gun control package.

    After eight years of Ridge's Republican administration, "no new gun laws" came to be understood by anyone in Pennsylvania who was paying attention, to mean "gun control laws will be called anti-crime laws." Nevertheless, with Clintonista bogeymen to point to, who were promising worse things yet, Pennsylvania gun rights voters mostly lined up dutifully to deliver wins to Republican candidates who promised little and then delivered less, or worse than less. Gun rights voters came to be recognized for the suckers they were.

    While this started primarily as a Republican phenomenon, the concept of promising nothing and being rewarded for it was readily transferable to Democratic candidates, and anyone truly motivated by firearms issues today recognizes "no new gun laws" and "enforcing existing gun laws" as code for taking the Fifth on which anti-gun laws a candidate is willing to support. Thus, Democrat Casey's statement of those positions when he kicked off his campaign early this year did little to encourage truly dedicated gun rights activists and opinion leaders. His credentials were also regarded as suspect because of his heritage. As governor, his father, the late Robert P. Casey Sr., had advocated strict gun control laws, including one that would have defined a .25 ACP pocket pistol as an "assault weapon." Many wondered how far from the tree an apple could fall.

    Little that Casey did during his campaign helped to assuage suspicions regarding his sincerity about gun rights. From the very first, he demonstrated a desire to stand a bit distant from many gun rights groups, except for those he thought he absolutely had to accommodate, or those that he thought would serve his purposes while asking no hard or non-negotiable questions. This was demonstrated when our county group sent him a letter early in his campaign, stating forthrightly that we had had bad experiences with candidates making vague or ambiguous promises to us in the past, and that we would like to give him an opportunity to clarify his positions on several issues. The letter went unanswered. Later, we learned that Gun Owners of America had sent their candidate's survey to Casey, and that too went unanswered. Credible sources reported efforts in both Republican and Democratic camps to boycott Gun Owners of America, and other groups associated with them, who might be expected to be uncompromising in their pro-gun positions. Organized or not, it was clear the Casey Campaign supported such a boycott.

    Even many gun rights advocates might argue that in the real world of politics, it would make sense for a candidate who supported a controversial position to minimize his public exposure on that issue, and that to do so wouldn't necessarily indicate insincerity. However, in Casey's case it was interesting to observe that he made public commitments to positions that would be unpopular with the voting public, but were supported by organizations that he respected politically. For example, he committed himself to "30 years and out" retirement for teachers, even though Pennsylvanians are presently enraged over soaring school taxes, brought about by legislative mismanagement of the state public employees retirement fund. One would have to conclude that Casey held no personal respect for gun rights advocates as a political force, or he would have promised something publicly and stood by it.

    Casey's standoffishness with gun owners continued until approximately ten days before election day. At that time I received a call from an associate in one of the state's more active gun rights groups, advising me to expect a call from a highly-placed Democratic operative in the Casey camp. My associate briefly described how gun rights groups were being recruited to mount a last-minute campaign for Casey for Governor, and discussed some logistics for how we could accomplish it.

    The power of the "greater bogeyman" threat is not to be underestimated. Despite my own reservations about the sincerity of Casey's friendship, inundation with repeated reminders of Rendell's enmity toward gun owners inspired me to be initially enthusiastic about the idea of an active campaign effort - against Rendell, more than for Casey. But, when I quickly made the few phone calls necessary to seek organizational approval for undertaking such a campaign, I immediately was brought back to earth with reminders of Casey's failure to answer our mail. What message would we be sending about gun owners as voters, if we allowed our questions to be dodged by a candidate, and then enthusiastically jumped on his bandwagon upon mere invitation to do so? When the Democratic operative called, I stated that we had to decline participation in the effort, at which point he practically hung up on me. I had to force him to take ten seconds to hear why we would not participate, but he didn't care - if we weren't immediately useful to the campaign, we didn't exist, and neither did our concerns.

    During the next week, the Casey Campaign's desire to stand at a distance from certain gun rights groups appeared to fade, at least in terms of who they wished to identify as supporting their campaign. A much-forwarded email message went around that included references to an endorsement and A-rating of the Democratic candidate by Gun Owners of America. From the heading on the message it was traceable to a high-level Democratic operative, and while some expressed the opinion it was a "mistake," it nonetheless was a mistake that required clarification in GOA's timely release of their survey results, which included a specific statement that neither Democratic candidate had responded, and therefore they weren't supporting anyone.

    The campaign efforts put out on Casey's behalf by the participating groups were sincere and energetic, but from what samples I saw, uninspired. All seemed to have little to say for Casey, beyond the no-new-laws mantra, and seemed to focus more on how much we should be against Ed Rendell. A good deal of money was wasted on such messages in paid ads in the print media, which many recognize as an inefficient and ineffective campaign medium. Despite their stated support for Casey, it appears the NRA confined itself to radio ads on his behalf. I waited to receive their familiar blaze-orange get-out-the-vote postcard, but none was forthcoming.

    I think the Casey pro-gun campaign could best be summarized as failing to excite anyone except its participants, and that alone could explain its failure. It was too little, and as a result of the candidate's apparent desire to maintain a safe distance from gun groups until the last minute, came much too late. Despite circulated rumors of "promises" of things to come in return for gun owner support, any such promises were treated as deep, dark secrets to be concealed from the public, and not to be used to inspire support from the rank-and-file. The stale "no new laws, enforce existing laws first" message rang hollow. After years of Pennsylvania's gun owners selling their votes cheaply, a 'pro-gun' candidate thought they could be had for nothing. Even many gun rights activists were surprised to learn that isn't always true.

    Andy Barniskis is Legislative Chairman for the Bucks County Sportsmen's Coalition in Southeastern Pennsylvania.

    http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2453


    "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
Sign In or Register to comment.