Montana gun industry thriving despite poor economy

From Big Sky country:

Brian Sipe recalls when the noted rifle barrel maker Les Bauska told him: “If you want to starve to death, become a gunsmith.” So, naturally, Sipe became a gunsmith.

Then in 1990, he parlayed his skills into the rifle barrel business, starting Montana Rifleman with “about $200” to his name. But one by one, the rifle barrels began pouring out of his shop and that $200 grew some fat. Nearly 20 years later, Sipe’s barrels can be found across the world, on rifles with household names like Remington and Bushmaster.

And this year, prompted by concern over how the Obama administration will affect federal gun laws, business has gone through the roof. People are stocking up on firearms, Sipe said. Montana Rifleman, located on Montana Highway 35 outside of Kalispell, has already churned out more than 100,000 rifle barrels this year. In past years, the total was closer to 70,000-80,000, Sipe said.

“We’re not a hobby barrel maker anymore,” Sipe said.

...

In both its regulatory environment and its culture, Montana is a welcoming place for firearms manufacturers. Lone Wolf Riflestocks was originally based out of California, but Culbertson said he “kind of got pushed out of the state” because of costly inspections and regulations. In general, Montana is small-business-friendly, he said. Culbertson moved his business to Columbia Falls in 1996.

Dan Wynne, general manager at McGowen Precision Barrels in Kalispell, said barrel makers don’t have to have a federal firearms license, though manufacturers that make complete guns do. And while there are different federal licenses required depending on the type of business, Wynne said Montana doesn’t heavily regulate what kind of firearms are made in state.

“I can make silencers here,” Wynne said. “You couldn’t do that in California without almost an act of God.” ...

Read the rest here. Note the story of Lone Wolf Riflestocks, which relocated from California to Montana due to California's onerous regulatory climate. Lots of small businesses, not just in the gun industry, have moved to greener pastures out of California, due to high taxes and economically stifling laws, taxes, and regulations.

As an aside, the Montana's Flathead Valley region, where some of the businesses highlighted in the article are located, is a beautiful part of the country.

Montana gun group, SAF, sue Feds over Made-In-Montana gun law

From Big Sky Country:

HELENA - If Montana has its way in a lawsuit filed Thursday, there will be far less federal gun control in the state.

The state's libertarian streak - which has spawned efforts to buck the federal Real ID Act and sparked widespread contempt for the Patriot Act - is now triggering a fight over whether Montana should have sovereignty over made-in-Montana guns and equipment.

If gun advocates win, the state could decide which rules, if any, would control the manufacturer, sale and purchase of guns and paraphernalia. And Montana would be exempt from rules on federal gun registration, background checks and dealer-licensing.

"For guns, it means we can make our own in Montana and sell them in Montana as long as they are stamped 'Made in Montana' and don't leave the state," said Gary Marbut, who runs the Montana Shooting Sports Association and is leading the lawsuit. "We will be able to do that without federal regulation, or having the ATF breath down your neck."

The association, joined by the Second Amendment Foundation in the lawsuit, hopes to ultimately win a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits the application and reach of federal rules over state business. The suit is challenging the right of the federal government to oversee gun sales under the guise of interstate commerce regulation.

The filing in U.S. District Court in Missoula comes a day after the U.S. Supreme Court said it would consider a challenge to Chicago's handgun ban and adds to a growing list of federal lawsuits filed by gun-rights proponents that challenge local or federal gun control laws. ...

Article here. As I've noted before, it will likely be an uphill battle for the states rights argument, due to existing Supreme Court precedents. But as the article notes, the ultimate goal will be to challenge those precedents at the Supreme Court. Good luck to Montana, and God speed.

Montana group to challenge feds over gun law

From Big Sky country:

A prominent Missoula-based gun rights group has partnered with a national organization to test federal authority over a new class of firearms: guns manufactured and used solely in the state of Montana.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association, headquartered in Missoula, and the Second Amendment Foundation, of Bellevue, Wash., announced Monday they intend to file suit on Oct. 1 to prevent federal gun control laws from being enforced in Montana for guns made and used within the state's boundaries.

"If a gun is made in Montana and stays in Montana, it isn't engaging in interstate commerce," said Alan Gottlieb, of the Second Amendment Foundation. "The federal government really should bug out."

At issue is the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which passed the 2009 Legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Brian Schweitzer. That law states that guns, ammunition and certain gun parts manufactured and used in Montana are not subject to federal gun laws.

The law goes into effect Oct. 1. Several other states are considering identical legislation, although so far only Tennessee has passed a similar measure. ...

Article here. Unfortunately, current Supreme Court case law on the scope of the Commerce Clause will likely prove a tough obstacle to overcome. Those precedents actually date back to Depression era cases such as Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), and helped enable the vast body of overreaching federal laws we have today. I suspect that this issue will end up before the Supreme Court if the plaintiffs prevail in the lower courts, but a win in the lower courts will likely require an appeals court willing to buck Supreme Court precedent.

Montana suit to challenge federal gun laws

From Big Sky Country, on the potential for a lawsuit to test Montana Fireams Freedom Act:

The man who helped write the bill that exempts federal regulation of Montana made firearms says that the idea is gaining support around the country.

The state legislature passed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act during its last session and now the Montana Shooting Sports Association plans to file a lawsuit on October 1st.

The suit will challenge the authority of Congress to regulate Montana manufactured guns, accessories and ammunition that stay within the state, according to Montana Shooting Sports Association President Gary Marbut. ...

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

[Montana] On guns in national parks bill:

... I view the passage of HR 627, a credit card reform bill with the highly publicized national park gun amendment attached, as valuable testimony for my past claims that the war to preserve the sanctity of the Second Amendment has been won. Clearly, most politicians are so gunshy about any recordable vote casting them as anti-gun and lowering their NRA grade – and therefore making them vulnerable to defeat in the next election – they go to untold lengths to avoid it.

Gun rights advocates must – and surely will – remain vigilant, but the victory in the Battle of the National Parks should give them confidence tthat hey have the political force with them. ...

[Florida] Concealed carry permits on the rise:

TAMPA - About a month ago, Audry Sauceda was carjacked and fought back.

He stuck a gun in my side and told me to get out of the car," Sauceda said while sharing her story with FOX 13 on May 15. "And I pulled out my gun and stuck it in his face, and told him, he needed to get out. He screamed and jumped out of the car."
...
It's been almost a year now since the June 26, 2008 landmark ruling in which the Supreme Court overturned the strictest gun-control law in the country, a ban on handguns.

And since then, Florida has been dealing with a rush of requests for concealed weapons permits.

Back at the Shooting Sports Gun Range on Dale Mabry in Tampa, Range Officer Fritz Caspers has seen the number of people signing up for his concealed weapons class double. ...

[Tennessee] Beale Street bans guns:

MEMPHIS, Tenn. - When Performa Entertainment Real Estate and the Beale Street Merchants Association failed to convince state lawmakers Beale Street should be exempt as a historical district, they came up with another plan in order to keep guns far away from its restaurants and bars.

"Our paramount concern is to provide for the safety and enjoyment of our guests and we're going to take any and all measures necessary to do that," said Onzie Horne Jr., Executive Director of the Beale Street Merchants Association.

Now weapons are banned on Beale starting the first weekend after a new state law allowing guns in bars takes effect.

"While we are certainly for second amendment rights and the rights that go with them we thought it was a bad bill," said John Elkington with CEO of Performa.

Beginning July 17th visitors to Beale Street can expect to be screened with metal detector wands at all entry points. Those enforcing the new ban liken it to the kind of security you experience at the airport.

Merchants say it shouldn't take long to get into the party area and once inside signs will remind everyone, "no guns allowed." ...

[Tennessee] Permit privacy bill fails in Senate:

NASHVILLE — The bill to close public access to records identifying Tennessee’s 220,000-plus handgun-carry permit holders fell three votes short of winning approval in the state Senate on Wednesday night.

It was a reversal for the gun lobby, which has been successful this year in winning approval of several bills to expand the places where permit holders are legally allowed to carry their sidearms, including parks and places where alcohol is served. The bill had passed the House 83-12 in May. ...

[D.C.] Smile, you're on gun cam - bill would put cameras on cop guns:

A D.C. Council member has reintroduced legislation to equip guns used by the District's police forces with cameras after a man was fatally shot by police in Northeast.

Council member Harry Thomas Jr. on Tuesday introduced a bill requiring Mayor Adrian M. Fenty to come up with a "plan for the installation of video and audio recording devices on service firearms of all police and special police officers."

Similar legislation died in the council's public safety committee last year after opposition from police, who say the cameras are bulky and fail to capture crucial evidence because they only begin recording once the officer draws the weapon. ...

[Pennsylvania] Appeals court invalidates Philadelphia "assault weapon" ban and straw purchase ordinances:

Two key provisions of Philadelphia's latest attempt to impose local gun controls - banning assault weapons and "straw purchases" of handguns - were invalidated yesterday by a state appeals court.

Following judicial precedent that doomed previous Philadelphia gun-control laws, Commonwealth Court held that the state Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that only the legislature has the authority to enact gun laws. Counties and municipal governments are out of luck.

But the 6-1 majority in Commonwealth Court affirmed part of the 2008 decision of then-Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan and allowed three other provisions. They require reporting lost or stolen handguns, allow temporary seizure of guns by police after probable cause is demonstrated, and bar gun ownership by people subject to protection-from-abuse orders.

Greenspan, now on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, had ruled that the National Rifle Association and other challengers were not affected seriously enough to have legal standing to sue over those provisions.

The reporting provision is in effect, but the other two have not yet been implemented because they are legally complex and require the city to draft and adopt regulations, said Richard Feder, chief of appeals in the city Law Department

Feder said his office was "seriously considering" appealing the assault-weapon and straw-purchase provisions to the state Supreme Court. ...

[Louisiana] Gun dealers can't keep ammo in stock:

HOUMA — In 15 years of selling guns and ammunition, he’s never seen anything like it.

Shotgun shells, rifle cartridges and pistol rounds have been flying off the shelves with such speed at Houma Auto Parts, Calvin Prevost’s gun store on Honduras Street, that the owner has taken to hiding what ammunition he can in the back so customers who buy a gun can leave at least with a single box of rounds. Wednesday afternoon, there were wide gaps between the boxes of ammunition for sale at the shop, formerly an auto-parts and gun store but now strictly a firearms business.

“That shelf is usually packed,” Prevost said. “If we don’t hide ammo, they’ll buy it all.” ...

[Tennessee] Guns in parks debate moves to cities, counties:

FRANKLIN — State lawmakers have put local officials on the hot seat with the recent passage of a law allowing guns to be carried in public parks.

The legislation, which was signed into law last week by the governor, immediately opens state-owned parks to people who have handgun carry permits. Municipalities have until Sept. 1 to opt out of the new provision and ban guns from their own parks. ...

[D.C.] City expands approved gun roster in response to lawsuit:

The D.C. government released emergency regulations yesterday that greatly expand the models of handguns that District residents can own, a shift designed to stave off another lawsuit over its compliance with the Second Amendment.

The new regulations, which come as the District continues to grapple with last year's Supreme Court decision that threw out the city's gun ban, will allow residents to legally obtain at least 1,000 additional types and models of handguns.

City leaders sought to play down the effects of the new regulations, but gun rights advocates said they were another boost to their efforts to undo the District's long-held restrictions on personal possession of weapons. ...

Western states reassert states' rights

From the Los Angeles Times:

Frustrated by the expanded power of Washington, a growing number of state lawmakers are defying the federal government and passing legislation aimed at rolling back the reach of Congress and President Obama.

While many measures are symbolic ones declaring the sovereignty of states, some Westerners are taking more dramatic steps. One Utah lawmaker wants to limit federal law enforcement in his state. In Montana, legislators enacted a bill that flagrantly ignores federal firearm restrictions, hoping to force a constitutional showdown.

Supporters of the bill want the Supreme Court to eliminate gun controls and, eventually, curtail Washington's ability to set policy on a wide range of issues, including education, civil rights, law enforcement and land use.

"It's about states' rights," said state Rep. Joel Boniek, an independent-turned-Republican from nearby Livingston, who introduced the bill. "Guns are just the vehicle."

The Montana Firearms Freedom Act seeks to exempt from federal regulation any firearm, gun component or ammunition made and kept within the state's borders. The legislation, signed by Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, becomes law Oct. 1, though federal officials will likely act quickly to keep the measure from taking effect.

Legal experts are skeptical Montana will prevail in court, and even some proponents express their doubts. But supporters say the fight is a necessary step to change Washington's attitude. Similar bills have been introduced in nearly a half dozen states, and lawmakers in about a dozen more have expressed interest.

"We need 15, 25, 30 states to pass these types of legislation, so that we send a clear message to the country and to the national government," said Utah Rep. Carl Wimmer, a Republican from suburban Salt Lake City.

In addition to supporting a version of Montana's gun law, Wimmer is drafting legislation that would forbid local authorities to help enforce federal statutes inside Utah -- another bill that, if passed, would surely trigger a court fight. ...

Article here. As Utah Rep. Wimmer notes, we need more states to pass legislation reasserting their powers over areas not explicitly delegated in the U.S. Constitution to the federal government. A legal showdown is both necessary, and inevitable. The more states that have these types of laws, the more pressure the Supreme Court will feel to limit the scope of federal overreaching. Note, however, that should the Court disregard the clear intent of the Tenth Amendment, states may need to be ready to openly defy the feds and the Supremes.

Gun rights groups plan state-by-state revolt

From CBS News, on the recent states' rights movement:

Gary Marbut isn't aiming to eliminate federal gun laws. He just wants to make them much less relevant.

Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, is one of the leaders of a new grassroots movement that's seeking to invoke the principle of states' rights -- including states' own authority to regulate firearms -- to thwart what he and his allies view as an increasingly overreaching federal government.

Politicians in Washington have "assumed power that many of us believe was not authorized under the limits of the Constitution," Marbut said in an interview with CBSNews.com last week.

This modern-day federalist revolt began with a Montana state law recently signed by Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer. It says that firearms, ammunition, and accessories manufactured entirely inside Montana are not subject to federal regulation, including background checks for buyers and record-keeping requirements for sellers. They would remain subject to state regulation. ...

Article here. The article alludes to the fact that the Supreme Court will likely need to modify their existing precedents on the Constitution's interstate Commerce Clause, which have done considerable damage to the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the states, in order for these state laws to prevail.

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

[Arkansas] Attorney General joins 21 other state AGs to oppose any new federal "assault weapon" ban:

Attorney General Dustin McDaniel joined 21 other state attorneys general Thursday in writing U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to oppose any proposed effort to reinstate the federal assault-weapons ban, which was passed in 1994 but expired in 2004. ...

[Wisconsin] Op-ed takes aim at Milwaukee police chief's comments:

In Milwaukee, the police chief Ed Flynn says, “My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it.”

Since when does a police chief decide who has what rights? Our rights are God-given and are protected by our Constitution. Government documents do not grant us rights, those documents limit the power of government to infringe upon our rights.

Self-defense is a primary human right that must never be stripped away.

The silence surrounding this comment was deafening. There was no uproar about this power-hungry militant’s efforts to impose his will upon the people living in “his” community. The local newspapers hardly gave the comment a second look. They were more concerned with the memo issued by Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen that affirmed the legality of open carry in Wisconsin. What followed that memo were dark predictions of confused police officers and a Wild West mentality sweeping the state.

But I’m looking at this from the other side.

What would have happened on the editorial pages in Wisconsin if Flynn had come out and said, “If we see any negative press we will handcuff the reporters and editors, shut down that newspaper and decide if they have the right to publish that stuff.”

Can you imagine the uproar from the media? ...

Report: Glock may introduce guns with adjustable sizes of backstraps:

... At this time, there are no photos of the new Glock models, and I was unable to reach any Glock officials to confirm this information, as I received this after their offices closed.

Glock led the polymer handgun revolution, but has been criticized by some for not remaining innovative with new designs. The Smith and Wesson M&P has gained back some of the ground it lost to Glock years ago with police departments because of features like interchangeable back straps that allow the user to better fit the gun to his or her hand. ...

Comment: This would seem like a long-overdue no-brainer, as much of Glock's competition in the LE space now have adjustable size grips. It would be especially useful for their large framed pistols, such as the Glock 20 (10mm) or 21 (.45ACP).


[Montana] New gun law challenges federal powers:

A new Montana gun law puts the state at the forefront of a national bid to restore states' rights by attacking up to a century of federal court decisions on Washington's power.

Two other states - Alaska and Texas - have had favorable votes on laws similar to Montana's, declaring that guns that stay within the state are none of the feds' business. More than a dozen others are considering such laws, and more-general declarations of state sovereignty have been introduced this year in more than 30 legislatures.

The federal courts may not respond well to these laws in the short term, but backers who acknowledge this say that regardless, they intend for the laws to change the political landscape in the long term. They hope these state laws will undercut the legitimacy of contrary federal law - as has happened with medicinal marijuana - and even push federal courts to bend with the popular wind.

"What's going on is that people all over the country have decided, 'Enough is enough,' " said Kevin Gutzman, a professor at Western Connecticut State University and the author of "Who Killed the Constitution?" "This is supposed to be a federal system, but instead Congress seems to think it can legislate anything it wants." ...

[D.C.] Op-ed: Politicizing tragedy:

... A few facts are useful to dispel some gun-control myths. The District already bans civilians from carrying guns in public places. Wednesday's shooter, James W. von Brunn, is a convicted felon who spent more than five years in prison for, among other charges, attempted armed kidnapping of federal officials. Because he was a felon, it would be illegal for him to own a gun even if ordinary law-abiding citizens could. Mr. von Brunn broke numerous laws in the course of his rampage. Current gun regulations didn't stop the attack, and neither would new ones.

The legacy of strict gun control is increased violence. Violent crime rose after the District's gun ban was imposed. ...

Mike Stollenwerk dissects Bill Moyers' anti-gun editorial:

... Moyers mounts the tragedy as if it were a literary tree stand to blast pretty much every group or politician who is not taking action to curtail gun rights. Moyer's double barreled shotgun blasts reached far and wide, attacking President Obama, the Congress, and even Virginia's Democratic nominee for Governor Creigh Deeds because deeds is "a man who supports allowing concealed weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol and opposes limiting handgun purchases to one a month."

Let me digress on Moyers' effort to wing Mr. Deeds. First of all, as of today's repeal of Tennessee's ban on carrying guns in alcohol serving restaurants, only 9 states ban the carry of concealed handguns in alcohol serving restaurants. Second, only 2 other states besides Virginia (California and Maryland) ration handgun purchases at all, let alone to only one per month. And third, Mr. Deeds would seem an odd target for Mr. Moyers to take pot shots at - after all, gun owners in Virginia are upset at Mr. Deeds for selling them out last year and backing a ban on private gun sale rights at gun shows, a restriction largely unknown in America. ...

Commentary from the UK: Guns are in, in the age of Obama:

These are baffling times on the front lines of America's great culture wars. Half a dozen states have now approved gay marriage, the very mention of which is anathema to social conservatives. In contrast, another great cause of conservatives – to make abortion illegal – seems to be making headway. In May, Gallup found that more Americans considered themselves pro-life than pro-choice, the first time this has happened since the polling organisation began asking the question in 1995. But on the third major battlefield, there is no doubt. More than ever, guns are in. ...

Border Patrol: AK-47 smuggled into U.S. from Mexico:

While President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continuously blame America for the weapons in the hands of Mexican criminals -- guns they claim are smuggled from the US into Mexico, the US Border Patrol sent a report to the National Association of Chiefs of Police that paints a different picture:
Wednesday morning, US Border Patrol agents arrested a suspected robber on Otay Mountain, California. The suspect allegedly used an assault rifle to rob a group of illegal aliens.

At around 4 AM (pt), Border Patrol agents observed a group of suspected illegal aliens about four miles east of the Otay Mesa port of entry and nearly 100 yards north of the International border. Agents encountered five Mexican nationals and discovered an AK-47 assault rifle with two full magazines lying nearby.

Border Patrol agents were able to establish that the weapon belonged to a 17-year-old Mexican national who had just robbed the other members. Agents also determined that the bandit had an accomplice who ran back into Mexico armed with a handgun. ...

Comment: Hey, didn't our mainstream media say the guns are supposed to go into Mexico, not out of it? I guess those Mexican illegals didn't get the memo.


[Pennsylvania] Running low on ammo:

Marty Korecky likes to target shoot fairly regularly, but lately he's been cutting back.

A Shillington resident, Korecky is worried that if he uses up his ammunition, he'll have a really hard time getting more.

And he has reason to be concerned.

Demand for ammo — particularly for handguns and rifles — is so strong that retailers can barely keep it in stock, and some are even resorting to rationing. Prices are skyrocketing, too.

The start of the shortage can be traced back a few years, when military demand for ammunition was very high because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the election of President Barack Obama has apparently worsened the situation, with fear spreading among firearms owners that his administration will pursue gun control measures, including a new ban on assault rifles. Post-election gun sales also are booming for that reason. ...

[Illinois] Peoria wants to be test city for concealed carry:

... Derek Howald of Chillicothe has had his Utah permit for four years. It's reciprocal (that means it's a valid permit) in 29 other states.

In Illinois, it's worthless.

"It's sad," Howald said. "I think with the rich heritage of hunting and fishing, especially when you get to central and downstate ... you have very pro-Second Amendment people here."

The divisive statewide issue of concealed carry has gained a lot of attention in the Peoria area in recent weeks after Mayor Jim Ardis said he wants to see Peoria serve as a pilot city for some sort of responsible state law.

Ardis' comments came after a rash of shootings in Peoria, including one at an East Bluff gas station in which an attendant was shot and killed.

Ardis said he might approach state lawmakers in the near future to talk about possible sponsorship of state legislation that would allow Peoria to become a test city for concealed carry. He wants to gauge the public support for the idea to see if it's worth pursuing.

"I am hopeful but acknowledge that it will be a very difficult task," Ardis said. "Endorsements from local law enforcement and strong community support should provide additional weight to the Legislature."

Peoria serving as a test city for an Illinois concealed carry gun law is a unique idea and could potentially add another twist in the ongoing Chicago versus downstate debate on gun rights. ...

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

[D.C.] Op-ed by the NRA's Wayne LaPierre on the coming storm:

Barely 100 days into the new Obama-Biden administration, ominous storm clouds are already gathering over your most fundamental right as a free citizen: Your right to own a gun to protect yourself, your family and your freedom.

Betraying all their campaign promises to protect your right to keep and bear arms or your freedom to hunt, the Obama administration has put its chess pieces in place and set in motion its strategy to do just the opposite.

Throughout the West Wing, they’ve appointed a cabinet composed of some of the most experienced and politically effective gun grabbers Washington, D.C. has ever seen.

Meanwhile, powerful members of the U.S. Senate and House have admitted that gun bans remain a top objective, but only “when the time is right.” Which really means “when some awful tragedy conveniently captures national attention.”

Yes, Barack Obama had an extensive and extreme anti-gun voting record as an Illinois senator. Yes, he called for gun bans during the Democratic presidential primaries. But once he won his party’s nomination, Obama reversed that spin and spent millions showering key states with flyers promising voters that he would never try to take their guns. But after winning the presidency, those pro-freedom showers dried up overnight. ...

Howard Nemerov asks: Does the Violence Policy Center represent the people?:

In order to justify their political agenda, gun control organizations often claim that “most Americans” support various restrictive laws. For example, Mayors Against Illegal Guns published a report last year stating:

Nearly 60 percent of Americans favor stricter gun laws. A majority of Americans, 59 percent, believe that the laws covering the sale of guns should be made more strict than they are currently. This is very similar to the 56 percent of Americans who said so in a January 2007 poll conducted for Mayors Against Illegal Guns. A third of the public, 33 percent, think that gun laws should be kept the same, and only 7 percent believe that they should actually be made less strict.

With such polling numbers, it seems reasonable that gun control organizations should have large, active membership, just like the National Rifle Association with its “nearly four million members.”
...
The question is: Does Violence Policy Center actually represent the public’s views?

One way to determine if an organization has true public support is to see if they garner a certain amount of membership dues. For example, if an organization’s total annual revenues is $1 million and $750,000 of that came from membership dues, then one can reasonably conclude that since dues represent 75% of revenue, the organization represents part of the public. Further, if annual dues are $25, then the organization has about 30,000 members. ...
...
In the beginning of this section, the concept of public support was in part defined by evidence of membership dues being paid to an organization that claims to promote beneficial public policies. Violence Policy Center’s tax returns included a section entitled “Schedule A, Part IV-A: Support Schedule.” It includes a line item for membership fees.

For the years 2000 through 2006, the total membership fees received was $0. ...

Congressman Tom Tancredo pens an op-ed on the U.S.'s "iron river of guns" to Mexico:

The Mexican Ambassador to the United States, Auturo Sarukhan, appeared on a CBS news program recently and repeated a lie we have heard for many months about the violence in Mexico. The ambassador says Americans are to blame for the violence wrecked on his country by the Mexican drug cartels because “most of the guns confiscated by Mexican police can be traced back to the United States.” That is not true, but the way that claim has been accepted by American politicians and the mainstream media raises suspicions about a hidden agenda.
...
We can easily understand Mexico's reasons for preferring the 90% number to the more accurate 17%. Mexico does not want to openly discuss the many other sources of advanced weapons being used by the drug cartels. Thousands of advanced weapons and tons of military equipment are stolen from its own military and state police. Weapons are smuggled across its southern borders from Guatemala and by boats landing on its 8,000 miles of coastline, weapons that often originate in Venezuela, Colombia, and Nicaragua, or from purchases in Eastern Europe. But it is easier for a Mexican politician to blame the U.S. than to explain his own government’s failure to police its borders, its ports of entry and its military installations.

Did the Mexican ambassador mention that over 100,000 soldiers have deserted the Mexican army in the past seven years and that many of them took their weapons with them and joined the cartels? ...

NRA exposes anti-gunners' misleading on gun shows:

Last week, in a typically misleading move designed to bolster their political agenda rather than reduce violent crime, the Brady Campaign released a report calling for background checks on "all gun sales in America, including at gun shows." The Brady report was intentionally designed to correspond with, and bolster, a "gun show loophole" bill (S. 843) introduced this week by fanatical anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). In fact, the Brady report was released at the press conference Lautenberg held earlier this week.
...
The bill is not about gun shows. Rather, S. 843 is a solution in search of a problem; numerous government studies have determined that gun shows are an insignificant or miniscule source of firearms misused in crime. For instance, a 2000 Bureau of Justice Statistics study, "Federal Firearms Offenders, 1992-98," found only 1.7% of federal prison inmates obtained their gun from a gun show. Similarly, a 1997 National Institute of Justice study reported less than 2% of criminals' guns come from gun shows. ...

[D.C.] Bill would mandate sale to public of fired military brass:

For four days in March, gun owners across the country were up in arms about a Department of Defense decision to not resell its spent brass casings.
The DOD sells more than 100 million used casings a year -- in .223 and .308 variants -- to businesses such as Georgia Arms, near Atlanta, which in turn reloads the cartridges and sells them to the public.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz says the decision not to resell was made intentionally by the Obama administration, and he plans to introduce legislation to ensure it doesn't happen again.

It was "a concerted effort by this administration to short the supply" of ammunition, said the 3rd District Republican who views it as back-door gun control.

Georgia Arms co-owner Larry Haynie agrees. He said he was told by government officials that it was a clerical error.

"Hell no," he said when asked if he believed that. "That's just the government catch-all right there." ...

Dave Workman praises Montana governor's signing of "Stand Your Ground" law:

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer this week signed into law a new self-defense statute that will “steal the thunder” from gun prohibitionists who invariably whine that armed citizens might “take the law into their own hands.”

The new statute squarely puts the law in the hands of the citizens, by plainly stating they have no duty to retreat if attacked in a place where they have a right to be. The law also allows armed citizens to use force or threaten the use of force when he or she reasonably believes an attack is about to occur, or to stop an attack already in progress.

There is also a section on citizen’s arrest, and one that codifies the legality of open carry.

It is a gun prohibitionist’s nightmare, but for the armed Montana citizen – or anybody visiting the Big Sky Country – it may just be the best news they’ve had this year. ...

[California] SAF and others sue state over "approved gun" roster:

The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and four California residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a California state law and regulatory scheme that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “certified” handguns approved by the State. This case parallels a similar case filed in Washington, DC, Hanson v. District of Columbia.

California uses this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense, and a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. The California scheme will eventually ban the purchase of almost all new handguns.
...
“The Glock-21 is the handgun I would choose for home defense, but California has decided the version I need is unacceptable. I was born without a right arm below my elbow and therefore the new ambidextrous version of the Glock-21 is the safest one for me. The identical model designed for right hand use is available in California, but I can’t use it,” said plaintiff Roy Vargas.

Added SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “The Supreme Court’s decision is crystal clear: Handguns that are used by people for self-defense and other lawful purposes cannot be banned, whether the State likes it or not. California needs to accept the Second Amendment reality.”

Co-counsel Jason Davis remarked, “The California Handgun Roster has always been about making the possession of handguns for self defense more difficult by imposing arbitrary and unconstitutional restrictions that limit choice and increase the cost of exercising a fundamental right.”

Joining plaintiffs Peña and Vargas are Doña Croston and Brett Thomas. Doña Croston’s handgun would be allowed if it were black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly ‘unsafe’ merely based on color. “I didn’t realize that my constitutional rights depended on color. What is it about two colors that makes the gun I want to purchase ‘unsafe’?”

Brett Thomas seeks to own the same model of handgun that the Supreme Court ordered District of Columbia officials to register for Dick Heller. However, that particular model is no longer manufactured, and its maker is no longer available to process the handgun’s certification through the bureaucracy.

“There is only one model of handgun that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled is protected by the Second Amendment and yet California will not allow me to purchase that gun,” said Mr. Thomas. ...

[Idaho] Boise Rescue Mission raffles Evil Black Rifle to raise funds:

When Nampa gun store owner Roberta Regnier offered a chance to win an AR-15 rifle for anyone who brought in two cans of food, she got 7,000 entries and collected 10 tons of food for the Boise Rescue Mission.

The winning ticket was drawn on April 15.

The raffle piqued so much interest that Regnier's Alpha Omega Services is doing another one - the shop's third - this time for a new, 1927-style Tommy gun.

Other businesses are catching on.

Sheepdog Ammo in New Plymouth donated 1,000 rounds of ammunition to Regnier's raffle. ...

Winchester earns record amount due to ammo sales boom:

CLAYTON, Mo. - A run on ammunition helped trigger record quarterly earnings for its Winchester Division in East Alton, Olin Corp. said Tuesday.

Olin's overall first-quarter 2009 net income was $46.7 million, or 60 cents per share, which compares to $37.3 million, or 50 cents per share, in the first quarter of 2008. Sales in the first quarter of 2009 were $400.6 million, compared to $399.1 million in the first quarter of 2008.

Winchester first-quarter 2009 sales were $132.9 million, compared to $110.8 million in the first quarter of 2008.

"Winchester achieved the highest level of quarterly earnings in its history, reflecting the continuation of the stronger-than-normal demand that began in the fourth quarter of 2008," Joseph D. Rupp, chairman, president and chief executive officer, said in a conference call with investors. ...

Montana fires warning shot for states rights across the FedGov's bow, Texas may follow

From CNS News, on the recently enacted Montana law that exempts firearms made and kept within that state's borders from federal gun control laws:

Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control - and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government.

In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.

That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.

The immediate effect of the law could be limited, since Montana is home to just a few specialty gun makers, known for high-end hunting rifles and replicas of Old West weapons, and because their out-of-state sales would automatically trigger federal control.

Still, much bigger prey lies in Montana's sights: a legal showdown over how far the federal government's regulatory authority extends.

"It's a gun bill, but it's another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana," said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the bill. [emphasis added] ...

Gotta love Montana. This is an in-your-face assertion of states rights that challenges the feds to a legal fight.

And from the great state of Texas, we learn that a similar bill is being debated in that state's legislature:

A bill by state Rep. Leo Berman exempting Texas-made firearms, gun accessories and ammunition sold within the state from federal regulation and law -- including registration -- was heard in a House committee on Monday.

The bill also provides for the Texas Attorney General's office to defend Texans who run afoul of the federal government because of this law. [emphasis added]

Berman, a Tyler Republican who has pushed several "states' rights" measures this legislative session, said his bill would affect more than 300 manufacturers in the state.

"Under the 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, states have responsibility for regulating intrastate commerce," Berman said. "The federal government has no role."

Worse, he said, the federal government would like to increase regulations.

"With the appointment of Eric Holder as U.S. attorney general, we have the most anti-Second Amendment attorney general in the history of the nation," Berman said. "What we're saying with this is there are some guns not subject to federal regulation. We have guns and gun accessories and ammunition here that are not subject to their regulation." ...

Note that a bill in Alaska is also modeled on the Montana 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. ...

Let's hope this catches on and passes in other freedom-minded states.

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.

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

U.S., Mexico aim to crack down on gunrunners:

CUERNAVACA, Mexico - As Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder visited Mexico on Thursday to discuss disarming Mexico's drug cartels, experts from both sides of the gun-control debate said the measures are missing the mark.

"It's hard for me to take all this stuff seriously, considering how incredibly sporadic Mexico is about its own enforcement of its own border," said David Kopel, research director for the Independence Institute, a Colorado think tank that advocates for gun rights.

The United States should pressure Mexico to stop complaining about border fences; crack down on corrupt Mexican cops who sell their weapons; and stop tolerating migrant smugglers, Kopel and other gun-rights advocates say. ...

CNS News: U.S. gov't doesn't know how many guns confiscated from Mexican cartels:

While it is frequently reported that 90 percent of the guns used in drug-cartel violence in Mexico come from the United States, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told CNSNews.com that the number is defined in a very strict way, referring only to gun information relayed by Mexican authorities to the ATF.

An ATF spokesperson explained to CNSNews.com that the bureau does not actually count, acquire, inspect, or warehouse the weapons confiscated in Mexico; and it does not know for sure how many guns in total have been confiscated by Mexican authorities, or how many confiscated guns may not have serial numbers. [emphasis added]

Also, the ATF spokesperson said there are warehouses in Mexico full of confiscated guns, the serial numbers for which may or may not have been sent to the bureau.

“There are guns sitting in warehouses down there,” the ATF spokesperson told CNSNews.com. “We would not know that [overall number] because we are only limited to the weapons that they send to be traced.”

Hence, the estimate about the number of guns from the United States that end up being used in drug cartel violence is based solely on the weapons’ information sent by Mexican authorities to the ATF, said the spokesperson. These data include the serial number, manufacturer, and the make and model. [emphasis added]

Despite numerous queries by CNSNews.com, the ATF was unable to provide data on the total number of guns confiscated in drug-related violence and how many of those weapons are untraceable, because it bases its calculations on what the Mexican authorities communicate.
...
In other words, about 7,500 guns in 2008 and 3,300 guns in 2007, which totals 10,080 for that two-year period. That total, the number of guns traced back to the United States, does not equal 90 percent of 35,021 firearms – it equals 35 percent.

But even that number is suspect because the ATF does not necessarily know how many guns have been confiscated by Mexican authorities or how many do not have serial numbers. The ATF also told CNSNews.com that out of the 90 percent figure, it did not know how many of those weapons were fully or semi-automatic. [emphasis added]

“No, I don’t know that,” the spokesperson told CNSNews.com. ...

Comment: And the reason we should trust anything the corrupt Mexican government tells is what, exactly? Yet another reason to question the numbers.


[Texas] Campus carry bill still being debated:

Holders of concealed handgun licenses could bring their weapons to college campuses if Rio Grande Valley lawmakers have their way.

A proposal working its way through the state Legislature would lift a ban on handguns on campuses of both private and public institutions.

Proponents of the bill view it as a way to preserve gun owners' rights while promoting safety on campus, arguing that if students or staff on campus had weapons, they would have a better chance defending themselves against a Virginia Tech-style shooting. ...

Courtesy of Obama, gun dealers' business booming:

... At Jay's Sporting Goods in Clare, salesman Tim McCall said the store had been largely cleaned out of 9mm pistol ammunition and was experiencing massive sales of .40 and .45 caliber ammo.

"Anything for personal protection is selling like crazy," he said. "They're also buying a lot of .223 and 7.6x39 Russian."

The latter are common calibers among the so-called "black guns," semiautomatic versions of U.S. and Russian military guns that have a Rambo look but in truth are no more deadly than traditional semiautomatic hunting rifles.

At Cabela's in Dundee, operations manager John Woniewski said ammunition "is selling like wildfire. Anything that's a center fire round is selling."

And while some stores have raised prices on ammunition, Woniewski said, "Our prices haven't really changed much this year. The only question is whether this demand will keep up."

I first saw the ammunition sales phenomenon in Florida about a month ago when I stopped at an outdoors store to price a handgun. The display case had only a few .22 caliber revolvers left, and the store had a backorder of at least two months on new shipments.

Standing at the cash register was a man with enough ammunition in his arms to overthrow the government of a small country. It was for 9mm and .45 caliber handguns and a .223 rifle.

When I asked why he developed a sudden urge to buy a few thousand rounds, he looked at me like I came from Mars. ...

[New Hampshire] Ammo sales booming:

MANCHESTER – Panic buying of ammunition has created shortages for bullets and is slowly pushing up wholesale prices for ammo, according to New Hampshire gun dealers.

Some of the shortages have been so severe that it's been tough for dealers to secure certain types of ammunition. The dealers report that ammunition makers are producing as many bullets as they can -- but that hasn't yet translated to having plenty of stock in stores.

It's also caused wholesale prices to go up a bit, even though the cost of the raw materials going into the bullets has dropped sharply over the past few months.

The root cause of the problem is based on the same panic buying that has sent firearms sales skyrocketing over the past few months. When it comes to ammunition sales, the gun dealers describe a situation that could come straight out an economics textbook.
...
How much demand has there been for ammunition? Consider what happened at Al Reedy's store recently.

Reedy, the owner of Sportsman's Trading Co. in Amherst, recalled that on one recent day, his store got in a shipment of seven pallets of ammunition. In total, the shipment was for several hundred cases of ammunition, at 1,000 rounds per case.

"We opened up the store at ten o'clock, and by 1:30 it was done," Reedy recalled. "We had people from all over."

"It's creating a lot of confusion," Reedy said of the supply situation. "Distributors are going nuts. You'll call your big distributors who have huge warehouses, and they have nothing."

"Right now, the big run is on four particular items: 9mm handgun ammunition, .380-caliber handgun ammunition, .45-caliber handgun ammunition and .223-caliber ammunuition," said Yule, of Wildlife Taxidermy. ...

Attorney Don Kates opines that Obama and Congress will avoid CCW ban:

... Now we are told, on what basis I know not, that Obama is planning a federal ban on concealed carry. It is certainly true that Obama is deeply anti-gun despite his mendacious pretenses to the contrary. And it is true that he is from one of the few states that has no exception allowing issuance of concealed-carry permits.

But it is hard to overstate how preposterously paranoid it sounds to suggest that Obama is planning to try to cancel out the NRA's CCW revolution.

Let's begin by understanding the legal basis for concealed-carry laws. Every state except Vermont and possibly Alaska bans concealed carry as a matter of state law. Provisions for a permit (shall-issue or discretionary-issue) are exceptions to that law. The federal government has no constitutional power to alter or abolish state laws.

There are only two ways the federal government could reverse the concealed-carry tide. Congress--not Obama--could enact a federal law conditioning receipt of some kind of federal funds on every state having a concealed-carry ban with no permit exception.
...
The other way to reverse gains in concealed carry would be for Congress--not Obama--to enact a federal ban.

Obama cannot do either except by an act of Congress. And Congress is very unlikely to do either. Congress has more than 190 Republicans, most of whom would vote against either, plus well over 100 Democrats who are at least nominally pro-gun.

And every member of Congress remembers how Congress went Republican in 1994 for the first time in almost 50 years--by passing an "assault weapon" ban.
...
My predictions are that Obama would never propose such legislation, and, if he did, it would never even get a committee hearing, much less pass out of committee.

In addition, both instances in which the federal government could overturn state concealed-carry laws raise grave constitutional questions.

Yes, Congress could enact a federal law conditioning receipt of federal funds on every state having a concealed-carry ban with no permit provision. Again, this is how Congress enacted the national 55 mph limit, which it later aborted.

But there is no constitutional right to drive whereas there is a constitutional right to arms. And there is the 10th Amendment, which guarantees states' rights, including the right to legislate their own laws.

Now I am not saying the Supreme Court definitely would overturn such a law. What I am saying is that it raises grave constitutional questions, and I can't see Congress passing it.
...
But I don't think Congress would ever pass such a ban. Having come back into power finally--courtesy of a president who, however mendaciously, avows support for the right to arms--Democrats are liable to avoid the gun issue like the plague.

They learned in 1994 that attacking guns was unendurably costly. Finally back in power, they have a vast agenda of items they believe are really important.

That agenda does not include guns and they will probably not imperil it by attacking guns.

Comment: I do not share Mr. Kates' sanguine view that the Dems and Obama won't try to get more gun control passed. My view is that they are simply waiting for the right crisis to do so. And obviously, lots of Americans are voting with their wallets at gun stores throughout the country that they think more infringements are on the way.


[Illinois] Two more counties add concealed carry referendums to ballots:

Two more Southern Illinois counties have included concealed carry advisory referendums on their ballots this Tuesday that proponents say will help convince state lawmakers that laws need to be passed to allow for it.

The effectiveness of those referendums being included on Illinois voting ballots has yet to be seen, says an anti-handgun lobbyist.

Tom Menard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said this particular election day that focuses mostly on municipal, township and school board races traditionally shows a low turnout, about 20 percent, and is not an accurate snapshot of populace attitudes and thinking.

Two Southern Illinois counties - Johnson and Pope - have included the yes-no question on their ballots which asks voters if the state Legislature should enact legislation enabling trained and licensed citizens to carry firearms for self-defense and other lawful uses.

Four Southern Illinois counties - Crawford, Franklin, Saline and Union - included the question on their ballots in November and joined six other counties in seeing the referendum approved. Six jurisdictions said no.

"There's no doubt they (Johnson and Pope counties) will pass this. We're trying to get as many counties on board as possible. This is not a Democrat-Republican issue. This should have been done much earlier," said state Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, who represents those counties. ...

[Wisconsin] State Supreme Court candidates clash on gun rights:

Waukesha - The state Supreme Court campaign is ending with a fight over a new issue: Who is the better friend of Wisconsin gun owners?

Challenger Randy Koschnick, a Jefferson County circuit judge, told Carroll University Republicans last week that a 2003 dissenting opinion written by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson showed a "hostility to gun owners" and their constitutional rights.

Responding later, Abrahamson said: "Nothing in my record is hostile to gun owners. Nothing in my record is hostile to any group, any individual, any entity.

"Judge Koschnick is doing anything at all to mislead the voters and distort the record."

Abrahamson and Koschnick compete in Tuesday's nonpartisan election for a 10-year term. She was appointed in 1976 and has been chief justice since 1996. He has been a circuit judge for 10 years.

The latest dispute centers on a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon that the Supreme Court overturned.

The charge was filed after Milwaukee police found Munir A. Hamdan, the owner of a grocery and liquor store who had been robbed several times, carrying a handgun in the store in 1999.

Koschnick said he was glad that a Supreme Court majority ignored Abrahamson and overturned Hamdan's conviction. He said voters approved a constitutional amendment that "enshrines" the rights of Wisconsin residents to have guns to protect themselves, to hunt and to use for any other legal purpose.

For gun owners such as Hamdan, the constitutional guarantee "supersedes" Wisconsin's law against carrying concealed weapons, Koschnick said.

The case involved "a guy with a gun, in his own store, who is protecting himself and his own family," he said. ...

[Montana] Bill on governor's desk would buck federal gun laws:

HELENA - Montana-made guns could spark a court showdown over states' rights if the governor signs a bill to release some firearms from federal regulation.

House Bill 246, sponsored by Republican Rep. Joel Boniek of Livingston, seeks to exempt guns made and kept in Montana from federal background checks and dealership licensing. It also applies to ammunition and weapons components. [emphasis added]

The measure passed the Legislature easily, and now awaits action by Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer. The governor has not taken a position on the bill, which its supporters hope will trigger a legal battle to affirm states' rights. They say it is less about firearms, than testing the Constitutional basis for federal control over the states.

Comment: If the governor signs the bill into law, this might make an interesting test case, assuming the feds bite and challenge the law in court.


[Montana] Consensus on gun rights bill reached, passage expected:

HELENA - By agreeing that concealed weapons can still be allowed in hospitals, lawmakers were able to find consensus on a sweeping gun-reform bill Tuesday morning.

House Bill 228, sponsored by Rep. Krayton Kerns, R-Laurel, began the session amidst vociferous debate between gun-rights advocates who said the bill brought needed freedoms to Montana and a law enforcement community that said the bill would make their jobs more dangerous and more difficult.

However, representatives for law enforcement, county attorneys and the attorney general dropped their opposition to the bill after the Senate passed a slate of amendments that took out the most controversial aspects of the bill. That included removing language that would have allowed people to carry concealed weapons inside Montana cities and towns without a permit.

The House agreed to most of the amendments, but rejected language inserted by the Senate to make it illegal to carry concealed weapons in health care facilities.

Kerns said banning concealed weapons inside hospitals would be a step backward for gun rights.
...
As it is now written, the bill:

• Allows anyone who feels physically threatened to use deadly force, rather than flee or call the police, providing that the person is where he is legally.

• Allows most people to openly carry a firearm and brandish it if they are threatened with bodily harm. This section of the bill states specifically that it does not affect the ability of the Board of Regents to regulate weapons on Montana campuses.

• Allows people to shoot home intruders if they “reasonably” believe it is necessary to prevent being harmed, or to prevent a felony from being committed.

• Prohibits law enforcement from destroying firearms.

• Prohibits landlords and hotels from preventing their tenants or guests from having a gun.

• Stipulates that if a person claims self defense in a criminal trial, the state has the burden to prove otherwise. ...

Comment: Overall, looks like a win for gun rights. Seems like the only major provision dropped was the "Alaska style" carry provision (no permit for concealed carry necessary, but permits available for those who want them for reciprocity / recognition purposes for travel in other states). Maybe next year.

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

[D.C.] Secretary Clinton's gun ban idea shot down (for now):

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now the second member of President Obama's cabinet to get shot down by the White House over the politically sensitive issue of assault weapons. After meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderón, Clinton said that reinstating the U.S. ban on assault weapons—which was passed in 1994 and expired in 2004—is one step this country could take to curb the flow of guns to Mexico's drug cartels. "These military-style weapons don't belong on anybody's street," Clinton told NBC. Within hours, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that he was unaware of "any plans" to push for such a ban—even though Obama had backed one during last year's campaign. ...

[Texas] El Paso Times opines against gun control:

... While it's good to have more agents trying to interdict the southward flow of weapons into Mexico, the knee-jerk response of tightening gun control must be avoided.

Instituting more inspections on the U.S. side of vehicles going into Mexico is a good idea. Catch the guns and money before they get south of the border and into the hands of drug cartels.

What must not happen is having the violence in Mexico dictate the imposition of draconian gun-control measures in the United States. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, an avowed foe of gun ownership, has suggested resurrecting a ban on certain semiautomatic weapons. The 1994 ban was over in 10 years.

And Obama has indicated some interest in ratcheting up restrictions on guns.

Fortunately, Holder and his ilk can't seem to arouse much interest in Congress in dredging up another gun ban.

That's good, because legitimate gun owners shouldn't be penalized for Mexico's inability to control its own affairs or the U.S. federal government's inability to stem north-to-south smuggling of weapons. ...

[D.C.] NRA has clout with pro-gun Dems:

When Democrats acted last month to give the District of Columbia long-denied voting rights in Congress, the powerful gun lobby saw a target too good not to take a shot at.

The National Rifle Association's lobbyists made it clear to lawmakers that they believed the bill should include a measure to overturn the capital's gun control laws. Left mostly unsaid, but well understood by all 535 members of the House and Senate, was that failure to do so would unleash a barrage of political pain on resisters.

The result showed the strong sway the NRA has even over a Congress dominated by liberal Democrats who mostly disagree with the organization's positions. The Senate voted overwhelmingly to add the gun-rights proposal. House Democratic leaders, fearing a tough vote on the issue, swiftly scrapped plans to consider the D.C. voting legislation.

The bill hasn't resurfaced because Democrats cannot figure out how to keep it from splitting their ranks. Moderates and conservatives don't want to buck the NRA. Liberals are reluctant to be blackmailed into loosening gun laws. ...

[Montana] Pro-gun Democrats at forefront in fight against gun control:

Two Montana Democrats are leading the charge against gun control — even helping force the military to continue selling surplus brass to gun aficionados who want cheaper ammunition.

U.S. Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester are not simply placating gun advocates with a vague promise to vote against gun control in Congress. They are forcing former political foes to recognize that Democrats could be their strongest allies while the party controls Washington D.C.

It’s creating uncertain bedfellows on an issue that wins or loses races in places like Montana.

The pair have been taking the lead on issues that only the most ardent gun rights advocates were talking about. Just last week they joined Republican U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg of Montana to pressure the Defense Department in a move that is credited with overturning a short-lived brass ban. ...

[Wyoming] Fear of more gun control driving gun, ammo sales:

... In Wyoming, the run on bullets and reloading components reached such a frenzy that Cheyenne retailer Frontier Arms recently began rationing sales, said Becky Holtz, co-owner of the shop. Holtz said she's also been selling semiautomatic rifles as fast as she can put them on the shelves.

"You know there's something wrong when I've got little old ladies coming in buying 5,000 rounds of .22 shells," Holtz said. [emphasis added]...

[Alabama] Guns is parking lots bill under consideration:

Alabama employers could one day find that their employees are bringing more than lunch and briefcases to work each day.

They could be bringing a gun, and under a bill moving through the Alabama Legislature there might be very little an employer can do to stop them.

Democratic lawmakers in the House and the Senate are sponsoring bills that would prohibit employers from establishing policies or rules that stop gun permit holders from keeping a gun locked in their car while they're at work.

Backed by the National Rifle Association, the bills would make it a Class A misdemeanor if an employer establishes, maintains or enforces such a policy. The NRA has been successful in getting similar legislation passed in nearly 10 states. Both the House and Senate versions have cleared committees in each chamber and await full debate. ...

[Washington] Seattle open carriers meet to discuss crime problems in community:

A gathering of residents in the Willow Lake Apartments of SeaTac, the south King County community where some citizens have evidently “had enough” of criminal activity is nothing to be alarmed about.

They met for an informal gathering on March 28 to discuss crime problems in their neighborhood.

Most of the people who attended this event were openly carrying sidearms. That’s legal, it is protected by the state constitution and a couple of state appeals court rulings, State v. Spencer and State v. Gregory Casad.

Organized by James Beal, a member of the internet forum OpenCarry.org, the event attracted the attention of KING5 News and KIRO Eyewitness News.

Washington is an “open carry” state, meaning that it is legal to carry a sidearm openly on one’s belt, in public. While the overwhelming majority of legally-armed citizens pack their hardware concealed — perhaps the prudent thing to do considering the prevailing weather in these parts — a growing number of open carry activists are appearing across Washington and several other states. ...

[New York] Burress might get plea deal on gun carry charge:

A plea deal is being seriously considered in the gun possession case against Plaxico Burress, the New York Giants’ wide receiver, and it appears likely that any agreement would require him to serve at least some time behind bars, a law enforcement official said on Sunday.
...
Mr. Burress, 31, who caught the winning touchdown in the Giants’ Super Bowl victory in February 2008, turned himself in to the police on Dec. 1, nearly three days after he accidentally shot himself in the leg with an unlicensed handgun at a nightclub in Manhattan. Mr. Burress was charged with two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, which carry a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 ½ years in prison if convicted.

Prosecutors commonly offer reduced charges in gun possession cases, taking into consideration things like a defendant’s criminal history, the reason for carrying the gun and the circumstances surrounding an arrest.
...
Last year, 986 cases in New York involving the same charges as Mr. Burress faces were resolved, and 90 percent of them resulted in convictions for less serious crimes, half of them misdemeanors or violations, said John M. Caher, a spokesman for the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services.

The reduced charges in such cases include crimes like third-degree gun possession or attempted possession. Convictions on those charges allow for sentences of two years or less. ...

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

NRA's Wayne LaPierre takes on the liars, er, politicians on the guns into Mexico issue:

Here's a summary for the time- or attention-challenged: Never surrender freedom for laws that can't affect criminals; they disobey laws for a living.

Nobody is surprised that Attorney General Eric Holder wants to make good on his promise to ban guns. We just didn't know whose tragedy he'd seize to advance his agenda.

Now we do. It's the drug-driven death and violence in Mexico at the hands of ruthless criminal cartels.

Barely a month on the job, Holder cited the Mexican cartel killings as the excuse to resurrect the Clinton gun ban.

Though a new face to some, Holder is a rabid Second Amendment foe from the Clinton administration who helped orchestrate the 1994 Clinton gun ban.

America has made this mistake already. So let's learn the lies that led to their gun ban.
...
Nobody can substantiate claims that U.S. guns cross the border "by the thousands" or "account for 95% of weapons used by Mexican drug gangs." Because it's not true.

Replying to Feinstein in subcommittee hearings last week, William Hoover, assistant director of field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said, "The investigations we have, that we see, for firearms flowing across the border don't show us individuals taking thousands of guns a day or at a time flowing into Mexico."

Yet reporter after politician after news anchor parrot the lie as readily as high schoolers gossip, and with equal disregard for truth.

That's how gun abolitionists claim Mexican gun laws are so strict that our "weak laws" (read: freedoms) are to blame for "fueling the violence" in Mexico.

Well, to believe that:

• You have to believe these butchers and beheaders break every Mexican law they want except Mexican gun laws, which they honor -- while they break America gun laws.

• You have to believe that Mexico's drug cartels, which possess the wealth and armies of nations, prefer American semiauto target and hunting rifles over fully automatic machine guns and any other military arms they want to crush opposition.

• You have to believe Mexican drug lords -- who make Forbes magazine's list of billionaires -- don't get large lots of weaponry on the transnational black market but instead choose to trifle with paperwork at U.S. gun stores.

• You have to believe that narco-terrorists who buy fragmentation grenades, grenade launchers, explosives, body armor, biometric security equipment, infrared surveillance technology and intelligence-grade reconnaissance gear will salute and obey a new American gun law -- if only we'd pass one.

Michael Gaddy, writing at LewRockwell.com, gives us his take on the Mexican violence:

The state, Mexican authorities and their US propaganda arm, known in most circles as the Mainstream Media, have recently embarked on a huge disinformation campaign to demonize the American gun owner as the supplier of weapons to the Mexican drug cartels. Everyone in the media, with the possible exception of Lou Dobbs, has joined in the campaign of lies.

Shown here, on a CBS special, is video proof of the lies and disinformation by CBS, US and Mexican authorities. Anderson Cooper and Janet Napolitano are either ignorant or complicit in the myth that M-203s, RPGs and hand grenades are readily available to the American gun consumer. Most intelligent folks, and those without a state sponsored agenda, realize these weapons are usually only available to the military.

This week, Secretary of Homeland Defense, Janet Napolitano, announced a new plan to curb the alleged flow of weapons from the US into Mexico. This program, which will cost the overwhelmed US Taxpayer another 700 million dollars plus, includes machines that employ what is referred to as "virtual strip search." This plan will supposedly slow down the number of guns traveling south from the US to the drug cartels in Mexico. If this program has the same success rate as the government’s efforts at stopping the flow of contraband north into the US, the Mexican drug cartels will have nuclear weapons by the end of April! ...

Newsweek repeats the familiar 90% lie, laments lack of new AWB push (for now, anyway):

After fierce resistance from the gun lobby and its allies in Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder has dialed back talk about reimposing a federal assault weapons ban to help curb the spiraling violence in Mexico.

As much as 90 percent of the assault weapons and other guns used by Mexican drug cartels are coming from the United States, fueling drug-related violence that is believed to have killed more than 7,000 people since January 2008, according to estimates by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement officials. But the political obstacles to addressing the U.S.-to-Mexico weapons flow are dramatically underscored by Holder's experience in just the last few weeks.
...
When Holder was asked about the assault weapons issue again at another press conference on March 25, he steered away from even mentioning a new weapons ban. "Well, I mean, I think what we're going to do is try to, obviously, enforce the laws that we have on the books," Holder said, adding that he planned to discuss the flow of illegal arms with "our Mexican counterparts" during an upcoming trip to Mexico.

Holder's about-face was no accident. White House officials instructed the attorney general to tone down any further talk about assault weapons in order not to complicate the president's legislative agenda on Capitol Hill, according to administration and congressional sources who, like others quoted in this story, asked not to be named talking about internal deliberations. (An assault weapons ban was also conspicuously off the table when the Obama administraton unveiled new proposals to combat Mexican cartel violence.) "We've been told to lay low," a Democratic congressional aide said he was told when he raised the issue of a new assault weapons ban with a Justice Department official. [emphasis in original] ...

[Illinois] House votes down effort to close private sale "loophole":

SPRINGFIELD — For the second time in a year, an attempt to toughen state gun laws fell short of passage in the Illinois House.

The proposal, which failed on a 55-60 vote Wednesday, aims to close the so-called private-sale loophole.

Under state law, people buying firearms from private sellers at gun shows must undergo a background check.

But, other private handgun sales are not subject to background checks. Supporters say current law allows guns to get into the hands of criminals who would otherwise not be able to buy firearms.

[Arkansas] ARCCA says Gov. Beebe against privacy for permit holders:

HB1623 The Concealed Carry Privacy bill had a partial hearing today. If you followed us on Twitter you know that the hearing abruptly ended because the full Senate was about to convene. The bill will be reconsidered Tuesday the 31st.

We feel good about the bill in the committee but David Bailey, Managing Editor of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette and member of the Arkansas Press Association (APA) wasted no time in hyping the supposed "dangers" of the bill. I guess he doesn't consider violating the privacy of an undercover police officer "dangerous."He mostly brought up issues centered around people who applied for CHL's in our state and been denied a permit. Which actually makes our case for us that, the system works.

They claim that they should have access to the information as a matter of a check against the government. But then we distributed the original blog post that Max wrote which contained the permit list and it pretty much dashed the idea that it was done in an ethical, journalistic manner. When committee members saw the blog posting, their reaction seemed to be one of amazement.

The latest development is that Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe finally picked a side, I am sad to say that it was not the side of law abiding gun owners.

This from Today's THV, "Gov. Mike Beebe says he prefers to keep the list of Arkansans licensed to carry concealed handguns public, but he stopped short of saying he'd veto a bill to make that information secret.

Speaking to reporters Thursday, Beebe said that he prefers to keep the list open under the state's Freedom of Information Act. Beebe would not say he would reject a bill by Rep. Randy Stewart, a Democrat from Kirby, to seal that information from public scrutiny.

The Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee heard some testimony Thursday on Stewart's proposal, but did not take any action. The committee plans to continue a hearing on the bill next week. The bill has already passed the House."

If you remember this bill overwhelmingly passed the House by a vote of 98 to 1. The bill clearly has a mandate from the citizens of this state. ...

[South Dakota] Governor signs bill eliminating handgun purchase waiting period:

Gov. Mike Rounds has signed a bill that eliminates South Dakota's post-purchase 48-hour waiting period to buy a handgun.

The House passed the bill 67-1 on Tuesday. The Senate had passed it unanimously in January.
...
Currently, only those with a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon in South Dakota are exempt from the waiting period. The new law will mean that anyone who wants to buy a handgun and passes the federal check can walk out of a licensed dealer's shop with the weapon. ...

David Codrea interviews pro-gun Pastor Kenn Blanchard:

"Law enforcement trainer, author, and grassroots activist of color" (and not to forget, a pastor), Kenn Blanchard has been a voice of reason in the Second Amendment movement since the early Nineties.

His book, "Black Man with a Gun," was written "to provide people in the African American Diaspora a resource to learn about gun safety and personal responsibility from one of their own."

A founder of the Tenth Cavalry Gun Club, "derived from the famous 9th and 10th Army Horse Cavalry's, better known for their Native American given name 'Buffalo Soldiers,'" Blanchard has also started The Urban Shooter Association to promote and support his weekly podcast.
...
DC: Why are so many African American political and religious leaders dead set against keeping and bearing arms? How does that tie in with other parts of their message?

KB: It is easy. There are few topics that are as “evergreen” as gun control. Leaders and clergy that adopt the anti-gun stance have an easier role. The path of least resistance is favored over a deeper dive into the truth. Do you tell the children that there is no Santa Claus coming down the chimney or do you keep up the illusion till they figure it out?

Secondly, if they ride the anti-gun fence long enough they will up their status and be afforded personal protection, bodyguards and a lifestyle where they won’t need to protect themselves. They become pastors with entourages. Politicians get police protection. Celebrities with bodyguards don’t need to carry a firearm for their home. They have gated communities and things we can’t afford.

And lastly, some are in the habit of influencing people so much that they believe we are incapable of controlling our impulses -- that we are not thinking humans but lesser animals that need to be controlled. It’s a superiority piece; that is just plain wrong. ...

[Virginia] Gov. Kane vetoes pro-gun rights bills:

... The governor also rejected bills that would have loosened the state's gun regulations. Among them:

Senate Bill 1035 would have allowed people to carry concealed weapons into restaurants or clubs that serve alcoholic beverages. Guns are allowed into restaurants as long as they are displayed openly, under current state law.

"Allowing concealed weapons into restaurants and bars that serve alcohol puts the public, the employees and our public safety officers at risk," Mr. Kaine said. "I take seriously the objections of law enforcement to this measure."

House Bill 2528 would have prohibited local law enforcement agencies from choosing to conduct voluntary gun buyback programs and then destroying the weapons.

Senate Bill 1528 would have allowed the firearms training required to receive a concealed weapons permit to be completed online.

"Allowing the testing to be done online would weaken the ability of the commonwealth to determine who is actually taking the test and open up opportunities for individuals to receive a permit under fraudulent circumstances with no guarantee that they can use a weapon safely," Mr. Kaine said.

House Bill 1851 would have created a new exemption to Virginias one-handgun-a-month law that would include active-duty service members whether Virginia residents or not. ...

Dave Workman asks whether anti-gunners coordinating with Obama administration:

Just as anti-gunners accused the Bush administration of working with the gun rights organizations, is the Obama administration coordinating with the gun prohibition lobby in an effort to boost public pressure to revive the ban on so-called “assault weapons?”

There is growing suspicion in the firearms community that it is no coincidence the administration is ramping up the rhetoric about this country’s “shared responsibility” for the bloody drug war raging in northern Mexico, while “Obama-friendly” news organizations lend emphasis to renewing the semi-auto ban. At the same time, the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has just released a report called Exporting Violence: How Our Weak Gun Laws Arm Criminals in Mexico and America.
...
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was busy in Mexico acknowledging that demand for drugs in this country was part of the problem, and she is right. Too many Americans use illegal drugs. However, she also quickly complained about our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals

But when she was quizzed by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on the drug war, Mitchell seemed rather preoccupied with renewal of the gun ban in this country, a ban which has had questionable results, as I reported here. Other news agencies have editorialized for renewal of the ban.

If Mitchell wants to lobby for a gun law, she needs to drop the pretense of being a reporter, and sign up as a lobbyist. ...

Mainstream media blaming U.S. for Mexican drug violence, U.S. gun owners not buying it:

All you have to do is take one look at the recent headlines and you'd think the U.S. has been tried, convicted, and sentenced for causing drug war violence in Mexico.

All this is intended to raise public support for bringing back the expired "assault weapons ban." The thing is, the public isn't buying what they're selling.

A recent Zogby poll and O'Leary Report show that only 13.5% of those surveyed think the United States is to blame. It is pretty easy to come to that conclusion since the war south of the border is being fought with machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, and other similar weapons that just aren't available at gun shows. Why would a drug cartel buy a semi-automatic rifle (the kind the legislation Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wants would ban) when they can just as easily get fully automatic weapons illegally on the black market? It just doesn't add up, and the American public isn't as stupid as they're being taken for.

"Blame America" seems to be the motto of the current administration. Keep it up and they just might chant themselves out of office just like the majority of people who signed the original AWB did back in 1994. But it must be our fault, right? Why else would Clinton pledge $80 million to buy Black Hawk helicopters to give to the Mexican government? Better to spend the money there than to fix a bridge, right? We have to atone for our mistakes, don't we? Right. ...

Oliver North says Obama team eyeing new AWB:

... In addition to committing additional law-enforcement assets to the border, the U.S. is also providing Mexican authorities with intelligence, high-tech detection gear, sophisticated sensors and night-vision equipment for combating cartel “foot soldiers” armed with automatic weapons, hand grenades, heavy machine guns and soviet-era rocket propelled grenade launchers. This help is certainly warranted. It is in our national interest that the Calderon campaign against the cartels succeeds.

Unfortunately, the O-Team and their “progressive” allies in Congress aren’t satisfied with the progress that is being made thus far. They apparently intend to use the “Cartel Crisis,” as Mr. Emanuel has advocated, “to do things you couldn’t do before.”

On February 25, Attorney General Eric Holder urged the U.S. “to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” The following day, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said, “I am prepared to wage the assault weapons battle again and intend to do so.” And on March 17, during a Senate subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) claimed that an “iron river of guns from the United States arms Mexican drug cartels to the teeth.”

Reality check: resurrecting the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban” that expired in 2004 isn’t going to do anything to help the Mexican government deal with drug cartels or any other criminal organizations. Nor was the O-Team’s decision to stop the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) from allowing surplus military brass cartridges to be re-loaded going to stop a single bullet from reaching criminals. Thankfully, that inane rule has been reversed, saving law-abiding gun owners -- and our heavily indebted government -- money.

The Mexican drug cartels aren’t being armed by law-abiding Americans. Rather than trying to re-enact meaningless legislation based on the appearance of a firearm or the shape of a magazine, the O-Team and their congressional allies need to focus on securing our borders and providing the resources to enforce the laws we already have on the books. Infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights of U.S. citizens won’t make Mexicans, or any of us, any safer or more secure -- no matter how severe the crisis.

[California] ABC News says new "assault weapons" ban being pushed by California officials in wake of Oakland cop killings:

One week after four Oakland police officers were gunned down by a semi-automatic weapon, there's a new plan asking the federal government to ban assault weapons. State and local officials are pushing for a crackdown on these weapons.

An AK-47 assault rifle was used to kill the four Oakland police officers last Saturday. California has the toughest ban on assault weapons in the nation. But it doesn't stop people from buying in other states.

"We're calling on the Congress to remake gun control a top priority now, and to reauthorize the assault weapons ban right away," said L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

During his presidential campaign, President Barack Obama supported reinstating the federal ban that expired in 2004. In Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported a renewal of the ban. ...

[California] San Francisco Chronicle says cop killings unlikely to "ease way" for new "assault weapons" ban:

In 1994, Sen. Dianne Feinstein used the tragedy of San Francisco's 101 California massacre to push a decadelong ban on assault weapons through Congress. But even the horror of Saturday's slayings of four Oakland police officers is unlikely to break through the bipartisan opposition that blocked the renewal of that ban in 2004.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and dozens of House Democrats have said they oppose efforts to bring back the national ban, either because the timing is wrong or because they oppose gun control.

Pelosi said she hasn't even discussed the possibility of a renewal with President Obama and his staff, who face urgent issues from fixes to the nation's economy to health care reform.
...
"I am prepared to wage the assault weapons battle again and I intend to do so," Feinstein said in a speech to the Senate last month. "I have been quiet about this because there are many other pressing needs of this nation. But with the help of the president, the administration and the people of this great country, we do need to fight back."
...
Feinstein has support in high places. During last fall's campaign, Obama said he wanted to reinstate the ban, and last month Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged that it remains part of the administration's agenda.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum," Holder said in a Feb. 25 news conference in Phoenix. ...

[Montana] Lawmakers working on compromise to get gun bills through:

HELENA – A compromise on a bill aimed at expanding gun rights and getting rid of the need for concealed weapons permits is advancing in the state Senate.

House Bill 228 has been the subject of a tough fight between police groups and gun groups such as the National Rifle Association. But the interest groups sat down again with lawmakers Friday morning to hammer out some details the legislation.

The compromise still allows people to use a gun in self-defense without first fleeing. Sen. Dan McGee, the Billings Republican leading a legislative subcommittee making the changes, said that is means people can more easily use deadly force on home intruders.
...
The Senate compromise version would still exempt people from the requirement of a permit for carrying a concealed weapon in town — although it now clarifies that felons could not do so. It would also keep the current permitting system in place for those who voluntarily want one in order to carry a gun in other states that recognize Montana's permits.

A provision that would allow people to brandish a gun if they feel threatened is being modified at the request of police, who say it would be dangerous to have citizens try to defuse conflicts by pointing guns at each other. ...

[Colorado] Bill seeks to waive gun show checks for CCW permit holders:

After Columbine, Colorado voters approved a measure requiring background checks on all gun-show sales.

But as the 10th anniversary of the high school massacre approaches, lawmakers are considering a bill that would waive the checks for anyone holding a concealed-carry permit.

Police chiefs and sheriffs are among those who testified against the measure, which is scheduled to be heard by the full Senate next week.

Among law enforcement concerns: Colorado does not have a standard concealed-carry permit or a centralized database with information on whether a permit is still valid. ...

[Ohio] Buckeye Firearms Association reports that Cleveland's anti-gun sheriff has resigned:

The Cleveland Plain Dealer is reporting that Cuyahoga County Sheriff Gerald McFaul, a long-time opponent to gun rights in Ohio, has tendered his resignation after months of allegations about his misconduct in office.

McFaul has been under fire since the beginning of the year over questions of improper fund-raising activities, including having deputies sell tickets for his fund-raisers while on county time, for doing special favors for friends and relatives, and most recently for not reporting gifts he is reported to have accepted from employees.

The anti-gun Sheriff has long-been an anathema to Ohio gun owners. In 2004, McFaul had to be sued by Buckeye Firearms Association Chairman Jim Irvine before he would do his job and begin issuing Ohio concealed handgun licenses. He eventually settled the suit, and paid all court costs and attorney's fees (with taxpayer funds, of course). ...