New Hampshire firearms freedom act introduced

From Kurt Hoffman at examiner.com, comes this news from the Granite State [links omitted]:

We've talked many times before [...] about the growing movement on the part of states to assert their sovereign powers as protected by the Tenth Amendment. In the context of discussions here, this comes down to states proposing (and in the cases of Montana and Tennessee, already passing) laws that would exempt firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories manufactured in-state, and kept in-state, from federal regulation. This, as one might expect, doesn't sit well with the feds, and is being challenged. The BATFE, in the meantime, has already announced its intention of ignoring such laws.

That is not stopping more states from hopping on the state sovereignty bandwagon, with the [latest] to do so being New Hampshire.

Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session in New Hampshire, House Bill 1285 (HB1285) seeks to “exempt firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured in New Hampshire from federal law and regulation.”

Don't call the Live Free or Die state a copycat, though--the New Hampshire bill contains a very interesting provision not (to my knowledge) seen in any of the other states' legislation.

Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony. (emphasis added)

Hmm--I'm guessing that's not going to sit well with the BATFE, or the entire federal government, for that matter. ...

Read it here. See the bill's docket entry here, and text of the bill here. Here's the "penalty" section of the bill:

159-E:4 Penalty.

I. Any public servant of the State of New Hampshire as defined in RSA 640:2 that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

II. Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony.

Kudos to NH Rep Daniel Itse and his co-sponsors. This is precisely the type of "or else" language we need in the laws designed to restrain the government.

Flying with firearms

From LewRockwell.com, on the nitty-gritty of flying on commercial passenger aircraft with firearms:

... In 2007, I began attempting to fly to various destinations while in possession of firearms. I have faired rather better than Mr. Gilmore in terms of my encounters with government functionaries and am pleased to say that while many of our freedoms have suffered unconscionable assaults in recent history, the right to keep and bear arms has proven rather resilient… even when exercised in an environment that most people incorrectly consider to be the pinnacle of a "gun free" zone.

The plain fact is, in the United States of America we have the right not only to possess firearms but also the right to travel with them to any destination we see fit. The Firearm Owner’s Protection Act of 1986 contains the Safe Passage provision, which explicitly elucidates that citizens have the right to journey state to state with firearms as long as they are locked and unloaded. This freedom of travel is unquestionable… even in instances where a party may cross borders and pass through jurisdictions with varied rules and regulations. As many of us who live along or near the Eastern seaboard know, we can drive through a state like New York with firearms even if they are not legal in the state of New York… the jumble of incongruous and sometimes draconian local laws is not a concern for the people who are merely passing by.

Air travel is accorded the same treatment under Federal Law, with the national carriers being treated more or less like interstate highways. No matter where the on-ramps and off-ramps are located, as long as gun owners have their steel locked and unloaded, nothing is off-limits. There are some tips and pointers, however, of which one should be aware in order to make the process and painless and straightforward as possible.

Federal Standards

The Federal Government, primarily in the form of the Transportation Security Administration, sets forth a series of guidelines and policies concerning how passengers my fly with firearms. For the most part, these standards are rather loose. The government leaves it up to the airlines to specify any additional considerations that they see fit. That can sometimes be an issue (that is a topic which we will cover shortly) and while I’m never a champion of government interference with private entities, I wouldn’t be averse to one single "armed passenger’s rights" standard imposed across all airlines. As common carriers, they are subject to some regulation. Keeping all parties in line with the bare minimum of rules as specified by the TSA would be a fine thing, in this author’s opinion.

According to federal policy, passengers may travel with firearms as long as they are unloaded and packed in a fully hard-sided case that is locked and cannot be accessed by anyone except the passenger who is checking said bag. Federal law also allows for eleven pounds of ammunition. The TSA policies do not say much about how your ordinance is to be packed, save for a prohibition of any "exposure" of the rounds. Ammunition is a key sticking point with many of the airlines, however, and we will cover this shortly. ...

Article here. Worth a read, especially if you've never flown with firearms before.

Tennessee lawmakers consider states rights gun law

From the Volunteer State:

Tennessee lawmakers may soon send the federal government a loud message[:] hands off our guns.

A new law is under consideration that would say if firearms are manufactured and sold inside the state of Tennessee, federal gun law would not apply.
...
Harris says gun owners are worried. They believe the Federal government may soon restrict certain weapons.

"But it's our way to make a statement to say this is Tennessee. These our are guns," says Rep. Henry Fincher, (D) Cookeville.

Now, lawmakers have proposed a new bill called the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act.

It basically exempts guns made and sold in Tennessee from federal regulation, because they never cross the state line.

"If these firearms are meant to be used just here in Tennessee, they're not properly regulated by the federal government because they are not in interstate commerce," says Rep. Fincher.

"Your state, and I suspect every state, will be rushing to try to do something to preserve the rights of their people," says Ronnie Barrett with Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.
...
"And this is a great move to say that the state has rights, and the first thing they're going for is to protect their firearms," says Barrett.

Similar legislation is pending in several other states. Montana[']s Governor has even signed a like minded-law. ...

Article here. Alaska's House recently passed a similar bill (see my post here). And Montana's governor has signed that state's bill into law (see here). Hopefully, we'll get more and more states passing similar legislation, to reassert their sovereignty over an increasingly out of control, power hungry federal government.

Alaska House passes states rights gun bill

Hard on the heels of Montana's enactment of its states right law exempting guns made and kept within that state's borders from federal firearms laws, the Alaska House has passed a similar law:

JUNEAU, Alaska — On the same day they rejected an attorney general designee who is a board member of the National Rifle Association, members of the state House on Thursday approved a bill exempting guns and ammunition manufactured and kept within Alaska from federal firearms regulation.

House members voted to reject Gov. Sarah Palin's nominee to head the Department of Law, Wayne Anthony Ross, but voted 32-7 in favor of the Alaska Firearms Freedom Act, which would apply to firearms built, sold and kept in Alaska.

Critics denounced the bill as unconstitutional. They say it's a threat to Alaskans who act on the measure and face federal prosecution.

Prime sponsor Mike Kelly, R-Fairbanks, attracted 10 co-sponsors and said the bill is both a measure to allow manufacture of guns and a statement that Alaska intends to reclaim some of its rights. Alaska has seen rights eroded in the oversight of navigable waters, fish and game, and access to natural resources, Kelly said, but can reclaim rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

"We will handle the regulation of it," he said.

Kelly said the federal government has regulated firearms in part though the oversight of interstate commerce. The bill addresses that by exempting firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories that are manufactured and retained in the state. Guns and ammo that fit that criteria should be exempt from federal regulation, including registration, he said. ...

Article here. More freedom-loving states need to jump on this bandwagon. I'm not quite sure what aspect of the bill the critics are claiming is unconstitutional, and the article doesn't seem to elaborate. If this becomes law (as Montana's has), this will be another open challenge to the federal government and its powers to regulate under the Constitution's interstate Commerce Clause.

Montana governor signs states rights gun bill into law

From Big Sky Country:

HELENA- Gov. Brian Schweitzer has signed into law a bill that aims to exempt Montana-made guns from federal regulation.

House Bill 246 was sponsored by Republican Rep. Joel Boniek of Livingston. It applies only to guns made and kept in Montana. Its supporters hope it triggers a court case to test the legal basis for federal rules governing gun sales.

The measure is one of many introduced this year by state lawmakers across the nation that seek to assert state sovereignty. ...

Article here. This is an important states rights law that basically challenges the federal government to a legal fight.

The law purports to exempt firearms and firearm accessories made (and kept) entirely within Montana:

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.

The law does not appear to apply to full-auto capable weapons (an exception to the type of firearm covered by the law), although it would appear to apply to sound suppressors, as such items are defined as "firearm accessories":

"Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

The full text of the bill can be found here.

Close quarters considerations

From LawOfficer.com, but applicable to anyone who carries a gun:

According to Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted 2007, 55 officers were killed by gunfire last year. 27 of the officers killed were within zero to five feet from their offender and another ten officers were between six and ten feet from their offender. Two of the officers were killed with their own firearm.

So why are agencies still devoting so much of their allotted training time to shooting from the 25-yard line and beyond? Why are agencies still treating firearms and defensive tactics as separate disciplines?

I'm not suggesting that we stop practicing shooting from distances greater than ten feet, but I firmly believe that we need much more comprehensive training in close quarter shooting. When faced with a deadly threat within five feet, we have to be proficient at fighting with our gun.

We may have to use our non-gun hand to strike or to thwart incoming strikes, creating an opportunity to draw our firearm. Additionally, we must be prepared to protect our firearm from this range to avoid being disarmed.

Article here. I am not a fan of the two handed close quarters position mentioned in the article. At contact distances, the less dominant (non-gun) hand is typically better employed blocking and counter-striking the attacker, than providing a two handed hold on the gun.

Ruger LCP Recall Info

For those that have Ruger LCP pistols:

Ruger has recently received a small number of reports from the field indicating that LCP pistols can discharge when dropped onto a hard surface with a round in the chamber. We are firmly committed to safety and would like to retrofit all older LCP Pistols. The retrofit involves installation of an upgraded hammer mechanism at no charge to the customer.

We want to remind gun users that, for maximum safety when carrying any pistol with a loaded magazine in place, the chamber should be empty, and the slide should be closed. Any gun may fire if dropped or struck.

More info at the Ruger website here: http://www.ruger-firearms.com/LCPRecall/index.html

As an aside, it seems silly for Ruger to advocate that you carry the pistol with an empty chamber. This is a dangerous practice if the gun is carried for self-defense, where the gun must be instantly available to fire upon drawing.

Obama and guns, Part 2,979

From NRA-ILA, on Senator Obama's vote to ban "semi-automatic assault weapons" while in the Illinois Senate. The bill, if it had become law, would also have banned many non-semi-autos as well:

Fairfax, Va. - At a rally in Lebanon, Virginia in front of a crowd of rural voters, Barack Obama made another one of his empty election-year promises not to take away shotguns, rifles or handguns if elected President. However, Obama's words on the campaign trail do not match his long record of opposing lawful gun ownership.
...
In 2003 while serving in the Illinois State Legislature, Obama voted in favor of a bill in the Judiciary Committee that would have made it illegal to "knowingly manufacture, deliver or possess" a so-called "semi-automatic assault weapons." Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be banned. According to definitions in the bill, all single-shot and double-barreled shotguns 28-gauge or larger, and many semi-automatic shotguns of the same size, would be banned as "assault weapons." This definition would have banned a large percentage of the shotguns used for hunting, target shooting and self-defense in the United States. The bill also would have banned hundreds of models of rifles and handguns. [emphasis added]

Any Illinois resident who possessed one of these commonly used guns 90 days after the effective date would have had to "destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state." Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence.

Article here, with links to sources.

D.C. firearms dealer to begin accepting transfers

The lone federal firearms license holder in Washington, D.C., willing to process handgun transfers is set to begin accepting business.

WASHINGTON — Residents here who buy a gun to keep legally at home, now that the Supreme Court has overturned the city’s ban on handguns, will find that a bureaucratic maze leads them to an unmarked door on Good Hope Road Southeast where Charles W. Sykes Jr. does business.

Mr. Sykes does not sell guns, but on Tuesday he is expected to become the only federally licensed dealer in Washington to serve as the transfer agent for the carefully controlled transactions that will put guns in the hands of district residents.

There are no gun stores here, and a resident who buys a gun elsewhere must have the weapon shipped to a licensed dealer in the district. Mr. Sykes’s permit will allow him to receive the weapon and, for a transaction fee of $125, he will ensure that the requisite paperwork is prepared for approval by federal and district officials before handing over the weapon to its new owner.

Article here. If I recall correctly, there exist five FFLs in D.C., including (I think) the director of the anti-gun Violence Policy Center. I am curious as to how these other FFLs are allowed to keep their licenses if they are not actually in the business of selling firearms. Isn't that a condition of the license?

Bear Attack

From Oregon. Gentleman out picking morel mushrooms (yum!) gets attacked by 400 pound black bear. Fortunately, he has an anti-bear attack tool:

When the bear just up the hill roared, Joshua McKim's first thought was that he had never heard a bear make a sound like that.

His second thought, almost instantaneous with the first, was that he was awfully glad he had brought his pistol on this mushroom-picking trip.

When he first glimpsed the bear through the thick brush, McKim had cocked the hammer on the .45 caliber semi-automatic Taurus, a copy of the famous 1911-model Colt.

Read the whole story here. Note that Mr. McKim was the only one of his party armed. He also doesn't appear to have had a spare magazine (or two, or three), and exhausted his entire eight round supply of ammo stopping the bear's advance.

Seattle Mayor Seeks Gun Ban on City Property

The mayor of Seattle apparently is looking to ban guns on city property, reportedly to include the Seattle Center, parks, community centers, and city-run buildings. This despite Washington State's firearms preemption law.

"Our parks, our community centers and our public events are safer without guns," Nickels said at a news conference with Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske. "At many properties, including City Hall, you can bring a gun if you have a concealed-weapons permit. Under this order, people with concealed weapons will be asked to give up their weapon or leave."

The city does not have the authority to arrest or fine people for bringing a gun onto city property. Only the state can enact laws governing firearms, and the mayor acknowledged the city could face a legal challenge.

The city can, however, charge violators with trespassing.

Law-enforcement officers would be exempt.

The folks over at Random Nuclear Strikes have more information on what's going on, and are organizing pro-gun folks to turn out to oppose the Mayor's plan

Both Mr. Workman and I are pretty sure that Nickels will hold a “Town Hall” style meeting to attempt and make it look as though “the community” is behind his decision. Mr. Workman is asking for me to get a list together of folks who would be willing to show up when/if they are needed to thwart Nickels’ circus.

If you are in the Seattle area, go here and get involved!

Action Required: Proposed Regulations to Allow Carry in National Parks

Glacier National Park, Montana. Definitely worth a visit! Photo from GC Webshots

The Dept. of the Interior (DOI) has issued a set of proposed regulations to harmonize firearms concealed carry rules for the National Park Service (NPS) and Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) with analogous state laws for firearms carry in state parks.

For anyone who visits, or plans to visit our National Parks, particularly our wonderful Western parks such as Glacier (photo above), Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, etc., this is an important regulation that will harmonize carry rules within the state(s) the park is located in. The rule is not perfect, e.g., the rule only applies to concealed carry, not open carry. Still, the idea that you currently can't legally carry a firearm in the vast backcountry of some of these parks is nonsensical. The proposed rule brings the NPS rules in line with those that apply in analogous state parks in the state(s) the National Park is located.

The proposed amendment to the existing NPS and FWS regulations is as follows:

Title 36--Parks, Forests, and Public Property

CHAPTER I--NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DOI

PART 2--RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION

1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 17j-2, 462.

2. Amend Sec. 2.4 by adding a new paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec. 2.4 Weapons, traps and nets.

* * * * *
(h) A person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded and operable firearms in any state park, or any similar unit of state land, in the state in which the federal park, or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law

Title 50--Wildlife and Fisheries

CHAPTER I--UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DOI

PART 27--PROHIBITED ACTS

1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 2, 33 Stat. 614, as amended (16 U.S.C. 685); Sec. 5, 43 Stat. 651 (16 U.S.C. 725); Sec. 5, Stat. 449 (16 U.S.C. 690d); Sec. 10, 45 Stat. 1224 (16 U.S.C. 715i); Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 402, as amended (16 U.S.C. 664); Sec. 2, 48 Stat. 1270 (43 U.S.C. 315a); 49 Stat. 383 as amended; Sec. 4, 76 Stat. (16 U.S.C. 460k); Sec. 4, 80 Stat. 927 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) (5 U.S.C. 685, 752, 690d); 16 U.S.C. 715s).

Subpart D--Disturbing Violations: With Weapons

2. Amend Sec. 27.42 by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec. 27.42 Firearms.

* * * * *
(e) Persons may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national wildlife refuge in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded and operable firearms in any state wildlife refuge, or any similar unit of state land, in the state in which the national wildlife refuge, or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law.

Dated: April 25, 2008.
Lyle Laverty,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E8-9606 Filed 4-29-08; 8:45 am]

The public comment period on these proposed regulations ends this month. If you have not yet submitted a comment to DOI in support of the proposed rule, please consider doing so before the comment period ends (June 30th).

Comments can be submitted online at the Regulations.gov website (search for docket number 1024-AD70), which will also allow you to view the entire text of the proposed rule. Or you can use this link: Submit Public Comment on NPS/FWS Proposed Rule, which will take you directly to the comment submission page. Note that your comment, along with any personally identifying information such as name, address, or email, etc. may be publicly viewable (that's why they call it a "public comment"!) Thus, be aware of the personal info you submit. Fortunately, all of the personally identifiable information fields are optional, and only the actual comment text is required.

Note that while comments that say "I support the proposed rule" are good, comments that include logical reasons for why the rule should be issued are better. To this end, David Hardy has some thoughts and suggestions for doing just that here.

Story on Open Carry

Story in the L.A. Times on open carry. Fairly balanced, given the source.

Bill White, 24, a graduate student at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wears his Colt pistol when he goes to his local Starbucks in Westminster, Colo.

PROVO, UTAH -- For years, Kevin Jensen carried a pistol everywhere he went, tucked in a shoulder holster beneath his clothes.

In hot weather the holster was almost unbearable. Pressed against Jensen's skin, the firearm was heavy and uncomfortable. Hiding the weapon made him feel like a criminal.

Then one evening he stumbled across a site that urged gun owners to do something revolutionary: Carry your gun openly for the world to see as you go about your business.

In most states there's no law against that.

Jensen thought about it and decided to give it a try. A couple of days later, his gun was visible, hanging from a black holster strapped around his hip as he walked into a Costco. His heart raced as he ordered a Polish dog at the counter. No one called the police. No one stopped him.

Now Jensen carries his Glock 23 openly into his bank, restaurants and shopping centers. He wore the gun to a Ron Paul rally. He and his wife, Clachelle, drop off their 5-year-old daughter at elementary school with pistols hanging from their hip holsters, and have never received a complaint or a wary look.

While folks can argue the tactical merits of open versus concealed carry until the cows come home, the reality is that, like most everything else, there exist pros and cons with each carry mode. The one undeniable aspect of open carry, however, is that it makes a political statement, and helps acclimatize the non-gun carrying public to the sight of their ordinary fellow citizens peacefully exercising their right to keep and bear arms, in a way that concealed carry does not.

My suggestion to those who carry openly (where legal to do so, of course) is to learn and train your weapon retention skills, and to strongly consider carrying in a holster with one or more retention devices, e.g., a thumb strap or other retaining device(s). And to train drawing and re-holstering with that holster, so that you are skilled in disengaging and re-engaging the retention devices under stress. Of course, a good awareness of your surroundings is always important, and no less so when carrying openly. Indeed, good situational awareness is arguably even more important when openly carrying, as the risk of gun grabs is likely higher than with concealed carry.