Gun Rights News Roundup

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

[West Virginia] Ammo sales booming:

PRINCETON — An increasing demand for ammunition has led to its increasing scarcity on retailers’ shelves in both Virginias and across the nation.

In the past, hunters and other gun owners usually purchased a few boxes of ammunition at a time, but now they buy whole cases at a time when merchandise is available.

Concerns among gun owners that the new president’s administration will alter gun laws or increase taxes on ammunition sales is sending consumers to retailers. Some are looking for a new firearm, too.

“It isn’t necessarily because they (gun owners) are afraid of the government putting taxes on it. It’s because of the president we elected,” said Marlin Douglas of Douglas Sporting Goods in Princeton. “Right now, I can’t buy a small handgun from any of my suppliers because they’re totally out. It’s due to the fact of electing a president who has been a strong advocate to get rid of guns.”

The public has responded by purchasing more firearms; even people who did not own a gun are buying one, Douglas said. Demand for bullets of all calibers and shotgun shells has increased. ...

Karen De Coster says: Women, stop watching Oprah and learn to love guns:

... Women never cease to amaze me. The majority of them are still "afraid" of guns. Afraid, as in "oohhhh, they are so scary." They say things like "I don’t like them around" and "they’re dangerous." I know of women who have defense-minded, pro-gun husbands and they will not let their guy talk about those nasty things in their presence. Shhh, the children will hear, or, they might actually see an evil gun! Keep them locked away. Don’t tell the neighbors you have a gun in our house, or we’ll be outcasts. And in the background you can almost hear another feeble Oprah sermon keeping women stupid, but oh, they feel good about themselves and their newfound self-esteem.

All the time, women are shocked, shocked! to hear that I have a gun, and worse, I have several guns. And then, oh no, I actually carry one with me. That’s so odd, they think. Oh she’s different. Why more than one gun? She must be the aggressive type. After all, the Oprah way is to trust everyone and insist that all people have good intentions always.

Although I tend to think that most women don’t make sense, period, I especially believe this concerning the gun issue. It’s not only difficult to get women to come around to wanting a gun of their own, but they still can’t get to the point where they will understand and accept why others want to own them. ...

[Nebraska] High court says Sheriff wrongly denied man gun permit:

LINCOLN — An Omaha man who once expressed homicidal and suicidal thoughts was wrongly denied a state handgun buyer’s permit by the Douglas County sheriff, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled Friday.

Joseph D. Gallegos had never been "committed" to a mental institution under the definition of the 1968 federal gun law, according to the court’s unanimous opinion.

He should not, therefore, have been denied a handgun permit in 2007, the court said. ...

[Colorado] Op-ed in favor of campus carry:

... Regents, it's time to realize that just because you may doesn't mean you should. Ask yourselves a few questions and open your minds to honest conclusions: Will a person who doesn't respect laws against rape, murder and other violence obey your gun rule?

Will a suicidal maniac with plans for murder, like the Virginia Tech psycho, opt for peace because you say "no guns"?

Gun bans have no effect whatsoever on the behavior of violent criminals. Those who obey them are the kind of people who brought this lawsuit. They are people like plaintiff John Davis, a University of Colorado-Colorado Springs senior who spent 12 years in the military and serves as a sergeant in the Army Reserves. Davis will obey your gun ban each time he steps foot on campus. If he ever hears shots ring out or sees students screaming and running, he won't be able to use his weapon and skills to save lives and bring peace. He will be hobbled by your rule. Davis won't be able to use what Miller said "any right-thinking person" must acknowledge as a legitimate hedge against crime.

Instead, Davis and others licensed to carry guns will run for cover and wait for police. As sirens wail in the background, the killer will kill and kill and kill. You and your policy will be at fault.

The Virginia Tech maniac had two hours to kill on a massive campus. Nobody could stop him because of the gun ban. The ban was more helpful to the lunatic than his own guns.

Protected by the ban, he could have killed at leisure with hammer or a knife. ...

[D.C.] Dept. of Justice report says FBI terror watch list "flawed":

Nearly eight years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI's terrorist watch list is so flawed that at least 10 people who should have been kept out of the United States were allowed to cross its borders, an internal audit released Wednesday shows.

Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn A. Fine concluded that the bureau also was slow to remove names that should not have been on the list, leading to outcries from civil libertarians who have long been critical.

The list also audited more than 65,000 names and concluded that more than one-third were outdated. The whole list includes 1.1 million names, though aliases and variant spellings mean these represent fewer people.

"That the FBI continues to fail to place subjects of terrorism investigations on the watch list is unacceptable," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which has oversight of the FBI.

"Disturbingly, today's report reveals that in 72 percent of the cases, the FBI has also failed to remove subjects from the list in a timely manner. ... Given the very real and negative consequences to which people on the watch list are subjected, this is unacceptable." [emphasis added] ...

Comment: Remember, this is the same list the anti-gunners want to use to deny Americans the right to purchase or possess guns.


Columnist explains why liberals should get guns:

What is a life worth? We often hear about the thousands of people every year who kill themselves with guns, the thousands more who kill others with guns and the hundreds of lethal accidents that happen in a year with a gun. The anti-gun crowd wring their hands over this carnage and begs America to disarm. They believe that if we could get rid of guns, all these deaths could be avoided. This is wishful thinking and bad logic.

Estimates I have found for the worth of a human life range from $1 million to over 7 million, depending on who is doing the figuring. They factor in lost earnings, medical costs, and legal costs. Using punitive and "pain and suffering" awards from juries in civil cases, they try to calculate a cost for the intangibles such as the anguish of the bereaved family. Violent crimes not resulting in death introduce the pain and time of healing and physical therapy, and the permanent damage to the victims spirit and mind. Whatever amount you agree with, in America we value life, and seek to avoid people getting killed needlessly. Getting rid of guns among law abiding citizens will cause more, not less death and violence.

1. Removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens does not remove them from the hands of criminals. As has been abundantly proven with drugs in America, we cannot stop the flow of anything illegal if there is enough demand for it. Criminals prefer guns as the tool of choice for their profession. ...

[Wyoming] State's congressional delegation supports National Parks carry bill:

U.S. Sens. Mike Enzi and John Barrasso, R-Wyo., have added their names as co-sponsors of a bill that would allow individuals to carry concealed weapons into national parks.

The legislation, called the Preservation of the Second Amendment in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges Act, seeks to replace an administrative rule that has been mired in court proceedings since January that would also allow visitors to carry concealed weapons into national parks.

A federal judge in April struck down that administrative rule, which was set in place last December by the outgoing Bush administration, after several conservation and other groups filed a lawsuit.

“While the appeal of the rule to allow guns in national parks is a small setback, the pressure to do what is right and preserve Second Amendment rights in and out of national parks will not stop,” Enzi said in a statement released Thursday. “The Wyoming delegation is turning up the heat.”

The two senators join U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., who is co-sponsoring an identical bill in the House. ...

Comment: Unfortunately, given the anti-gun Democrat control of Congress, don't expect these bills to go very far.


David Codrea takes on latest "iron river of guns" to Mexico lie:

... Come we now to a new investigate report, from the Associated Press of all places. I'm astonished because it is not the usual ignorant propaganda I've come to expect. The headline says it all:

Mexico cartel weapons cache stymies tracing

And then we learn:

Deep inside a heavily guarded military warehouse, the evidence of Mexico's war on drug cartels is stacked two stories high: tens of thousands of seized weapons, from handguns and rifles to AK-47s...

In all, the military has 305,424 confiscated weapons locked in vaults, just a fraction of those used by criminals in Mexico...

A fraction? You mean there are...millions?

That ought to give us quite an inventory to trace, right? It ought to. But then we're told:

The Mexican government has handed over information to U.S. authorities to trace 12,073 weapons seized in 2008 crimes...

Wait a minute--they have the guns all neatly stored in a warehouse, inventoried, cataloged...if this is such a huge problem, we can't just get a printout? Mexican bureaucracy (if you buy into that being the real reason) won't allow it? So the easier solution is to adjust your and my rights accordingly?

But perhaps I'm being unfair. After all, we're told there's a Spanish language barrier that hampers the effort. Lord help us finding anyone in our government who can communicate in that obscure dialect.

And then we have this astounding admission:

About a third of the guns submitted for tracing in 2007 were sold by licensed U.S. dealers.

Really? Not 90% of "Mexican crime guns" (or "95% to 100%" if you shill for the Brady Campaign)?

And remember, that's a third of the relatively insignificant quantity of guns reported, vs. actually warehoused, and that assumes what is in official inventory reflects 100% of what has been seized. Any bets that it's even close? ...

Dave Workman says pundits, politicians, and press out of touch on guns issue:

Recent national polls by CNN, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal have revealed that support for new gun control measures is declining in the United States, despite efforts by the Obama administration and its media cheerleaders to demonize guns by sensationalizing recent shooting incidents, and the bloody drug war in northern Mexico.

In April, CNN polling found that 46 percent of Americans say existing gun laws are adequate, and another 15 percent believe they ought to be relaxed, while only 39 percent of those responding want stricter gun laws.

Also last month, an NBC News/WSJ poll revealed that support for restrictions on so-called “assault weapons” had dropped from 75 percent in 1991 to 53 percent today, which may have something to do with the rush on gun shops over the past six months by people buying those guns and case upon case of ammunition for them. ...

Obama blinks on scrapping Tiahrt Amendment:

... Meanwhile, the administration is steering away from another politically-sensitive fight by proposing only minor changes to a legislative language, known as the Tiahrt Amendments after Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas), which limit the use of gun tracing data maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Obama’s budget would slightly ease restrictions on the use of the data. The changes would allow the tracing data to be shared with state and local officials even outside the context of a investigation of a specific crime. Localities could use the data to identify gun dealers who sell lots of guns traced to crimes, but rules prohibiting the use of such data for civil suits would remain in place. ...

Boo hoo: Brady Campaign's head says he's "profoundly disappointed" with Obama:

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is profoundly disappointed that President Obama has failed to follow through with his promises for 'openness' by reaffirming much of the so-called Tiahrt Amendments.

This means a continuation of the reckless Bush-era policies that endanger public safety and make it easier for criminals to obtain illegal firearms.

President Obama's proposal undermines the landmark Brady Law by continuing the dangerous Bush administration policy requiring the destruction of most Brady background check records in just 24 hours. ...

That was quick: Massachusetts governor files bill to close "loophole" due to state high court ruling, adds more gun controls:

Governor Deval Patrick is filing legislation today to reduce gun violence that includes a provision to restore a crime-fighting tool for prosecutors that was taken away by a court ruling Monday.

The bill would allow suspects to be held without bail pending a dangerousness hearing for charges that involve illegal possession, use, or trafficking of guns, the governor's office said.

The legislation would also create a new felony of using a gun while committing a misdemeanor, limit gun purchases to one per month, and require sales of guns by private parties to be recorded by licensed gun dealers. ...

Comment: See my post here for discussion of the high court ruling at issue. Typical that the Boston Globe would characterize the court's ruling as taking away a "crime-fighting tool" - the court simply ruled that mere unlicensed gun possession (without more) did not fall under the statute that authorized pretrial detention for those accused of certain serious felonies.


[California] Ammo bill shelved:

One of the worst pieces of anti-gun owner legislation in a number of years effectively has been tabled by the California legislature when Los Angeles Democratic Assemblyman Kevin De Leon's AB962 was put in the Suspense File by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday this week.

While the bill can be revived, it is likely dead for this year.

The bill would have stopped the private transfer of more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month between individuals or by stores to individuals. It would have licensed and taxed anyone selling ammunition commercially and forced these stores to get background checks on anyone selling ammunition. It would have required a thumbprint from anyone buying handgun ammunition (and a costly bureaucracy to manage those thumbprints) and it would have banned all mail-order ammunition sales. [emphasis added]

The stated intent of the bill was to stop felons and gang members from getting ammunition. If you can figure out how those provisions would have somehow stopped that, give me a call and explain that to me. ...

[Wisconsin] Open carry bicycler stops robbery with gun in school zone, legal question remains:

RACINE — Four teens knocked a 42-year-old Racine man from his bike Friday night. He thought they were going to rob him.

The man pulled a Smith and Wesson revolver from his side holster, pointed it at the sky and yelled, “Gun!”

The four suspects ran, and the man flagged down a Racine police officer.

The incident will perhaps mark the first time a new opinion allowing open carry of firearms is put to the test here, as it conflicts with another state statute that makes it illegal to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of a school, if not on private property.

The Racine man involved, who asked not to be named and declined to comment on the alleged robbery attempt when contacted by The Journal Times, was assaulted in the 1100 block of Grand Avenue, which is within 1,000 feet of Walden School, 1012 Center St.

Police did not arrest the man. After he was treated for head and wrist injuries at the scene by Racine rescue, officers escorted the man home and returned his gun to him.

But that doesn’t mean charges won’t be filed against the man, and police are questioning how such situations should be handled in the future. ...

[Germany] More gun controls on the way:

BERLIN - THE GERMAN government has agreed to curb gun rights, two months after a 17-year-old killed 15 people with a pistol taken from his father's bedroom, according to press reports on Thursday.

The left-right 'grand coalition' has agreed to present a series of measures to parliament in late May tightening arms control laws, several dailies said.
...
The proposals on the table include banning paintball, a game in which players use air rifles to shoot ammunition filled with paint at opponents.

Lawmakers say the sport 'simulates killing' and should be outlawed.

The draft law would also bar youths under the age of 18 from shooting high-calibre guns at target practice and permit police to conduct checks at the homes of gun owners to ensure their weapons are under lock and key.

An electronic registry of firearms would also be introduced along with, eventually, biometric security systems to help ensure weapons are only used by their rightful owners. ...

Gun Rights News Roundup

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

Sen. Lautenberg wants to close the gun show "loophole":

Exploiting the tenth anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, perennial gun control advocate Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced his latest gun show bill. Lautenberg was joined at the press conference by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jack Reed (D-RI). "The Hill" quotes Lautenberg as saying:

“There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole,” said Lautenberg, the bill’s sponsor. “The reason it’s still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington.”

The bill is S. 843: “A bill to establish background check procedures for gun shows.” What makes it a greater threat than other gun bills in the 111th Congress is the fact that Lautenberg has signed eleven powerful Democrats as cosponsors, including formerly pro-gun Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

Dave Workman says Milwaukee police chief setting stage for confrontation:

Milwaukee, WI Police Chief Ed Flynn is playing with political nitro glycerin, and he doesn’t seem to realize it, or perhaps he simply doesn’t care.

Quoted by the La Crosse Tribune, Chief Flynn says he will ignore a finding by State Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen that peaceable open carry of firearms is legal. Flynn’s directive to officers in his department 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.”

The chief displayed a rather cavalier, if not outright arrogant, attitude when he added, “Maybe I’ll end up with a protest of cowboys. In the meantime, I’ve got serious offenders with access to handguns. It’s irresponsible to send a message to them that if they just carry it openly no one can bother them.”

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.

Perhaps some higher legal authority might explain to the chief that it is also irresponsible to send a message to the public that a police chief can literally tell the state attorney general to pound sand, he’s going to do it “his way,” and too bad if that violates someone’s civil rights. Already, some people have been arrested for carrying openly, according to my colleague Candace Dainty.

Note to Chief Flynn: Wisconsin is still part of the United States, not a police state. This is the kind of attitude that gets people grumbling about “jack-booted thugs.”

Yet “police state” is exactly what critics in the Open Carry movement have suggested Flynn is trying to establish, evidently with the support of anti-gun Gov. Jim Doyle, and State Rep. Leon Young, a Milwaukee Democrat who plans to introduce legislation banning open carry. ...

[Colorado] CCW permit applications soar:

The number of people in Grand County seeking permits to carry a concealed handgun increased by 283 percent from 2007 to 2008.

Statewide, the increase was 212 percent, and the trend shows few signs of abating.

“We just haven’t seen an end to it,” said Grand County Sheriff Rod Johnson.
...
“We believe it started with the presidential election,” the sheriff said of the rapid acceleration in the number of people seeking the permits.

He said permit-seekers often volunteer political views regarding Second Amendment issues and that many of them recently have expressed concerns about the Democrats controlling Congress and the White House.

Democrats traditionally are more inclined than Republicans to favor gun-control legislation.

“I believe that citizens have the right to own and carry” firearms, [Sheriff] Johnson said. “Permit holders have never caused me any problems.” [emphasis added] ...

[Texas] Op-ed: College professors support campus carry bill:

Mass public shootings are a horrific feature of modern life. Many of the bloodiest examples of this scourge have occurred on college campuses. As professors, we are particularly sensitive to this danger.

Despite this – no, because of this – we support a bill currently pending in the Texas Legislature that would permit the concealed carrying of firearms on college and university campuses in the state by holders of concealed-handgun permits.

Any public policy involving matters of life and death should be decided only after weighing carefully the competing risks. Examining the relevant facts and data indicates that permitting Texas permit holders to carry weapons on college campuses would improve safety because:

•The best available empirical evidence shows that concealed-carry laws reduce the incidence of mass public shootings.

•Mass public shootings occur almost exclusively in places – like universities – where concealed carry is proscribed.

•There are numerous examples of firearms owners acting to disarm would-be mass murderers, thereby saving lives.

•Concealed-handgun-permit holders are overwhelmingly law-abiding individuals.

If gun bans truly reduced the risk of mass public shootings, then gun-free zones would be refuges from such havoc. Sadly, the exact opposite is true. All multiple-victim public shootings in the United States with more than three fatalities have occurred where concealed handguns are prohibited. Moreover, the worst primary and secondary school shootings have occurred in Europe, despite its draconian gun laws. ...

NSSF explains why Tiahrt amendment restricting gun-trace data is needed:

There are good reasons for preventing firearm tracing data from becoming public information. Doing so protects the lives of law enforcement officers and also the integrity of undercover operations that may have been in place for weeks or even months. Restricting access also prevents the misuse of the data to bring nuisance lawsuits, as New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg did when he launched his own private sting operation against out-of-state firearms retailers and interfered with up to 18 federal investigations for which he was chastised in a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

For these reasons and others, legislation called the Tiahrt Amendment rightly protects gun ownership information from being released to the public, while at the same time allowing law enforcement to access and share the data for their investigations.

Introduced by Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) in 2003, the legislation has been renewed every year since then and has the support of the Fraternal Order of Police. Even New York's police commissioner, Ray Kelly, opposed the public release of such sensitive information, saying in a 2002 letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft, "The release of trace information . . . seriously jeopardizes not only . . . investigations, but also the lives of law enforcement officers, informants, witnesses, and others." [emphasis added] ...

Gun, ammo sales booming:

Gun sales are soaring in the US amid fears that President Obama is planning a new crackdown on the ownership of weapons.

The country is even facing a shortage of ammunition as gun stores are besieged by customers - even though the President has insisted he is not planning new legislation.

Seven million people have applied for background record checks with the FBI in the last few months so they can obtain a gun licence.

The Guns and Ammo store in Manassas, Virginia, says it has seen a 50% rise in sales since November's election. ...

[Pennsylvania] NRA sues Pittsburgh over city gun ordinances:

The National Rifle Association today sued Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and Pittsburgh City Council in an effort to overturn a law that penalizes gun owners who fail to report lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours.

The 19-page lawsuit was filed in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court on behalf of four Pittsburgh gun owners who say the ordinance — intended to crack down on "straw purchasers" of guns — "severely restricts" their Second Amendment right to keep firearms in their homes.

"The plaintiffs will be prevented from exercising their rights under state law to freely own, possess and transport firearms," according to the lawsuit.
...
The NRA argues the law should be declared invalid because city lawmakers don't have the authority to regulate firearms under the state's Uniform Firearms Act of 1939. It states: "No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession or transportation of firearms." ...

[Wisconsin] Anti-gun Gov. Doyle wants to repeal state preemption law:

Governor Jim Doyle (D) is proposing to repeal the state's preemption statute which prohibits localities from passing gun laws that are more restrictive than the state's. Wisconsin's preemption law was originally passed in 1995 when Doyle was Attorney General. Doyle was vocally opposed to statewide preemption and its passage left a bitter taste of defeat in his mouth that has never gone away. Now, Governor Doyle is using the arrest of law-abiding Wisconsin citizens exercising their constitutional right to openly carry a firearm for self-defense as a platform to call for its repeal.

If Doyle succeeds in repealing preemption, it would bring Wisconsin into the dark days of draconian gun laws. Cities, counties, and municipalities cannot be allowed to pass ordinances, rules, or regulations more stringent than state law. This leads to a patchwork of laws across the state, which can be confusing for residents and non-residents visiting the state. It can also make criminals out of law-abiding citizens who inadvertently run afoul of a local ordinance. Imagine the extremists in Madison determining their own gun laws! Rest assured, they would use Chicago as their model for their gun laws. ...

[Wisconsin] Mike Stollenwerk says Milwaukee police chief using Bull Connor's playbook:

Earlier this week WISN.com TV News caught on video a consensual encounter between West Allis police officers and Brad Krause who happened to be open carrying a holstered handgun in public. Like the old Roman saying, the police officers' action can be described simply as: they came, they saw, they left.

In states where open carry has become popular the police often don't even come anymore unless they see or are told of actual unlawful conduct.

But while Wisconsin gun owners like Mr. Krause prepare to play ball with consensual police inquiries into their orderly open carrying of holstered handguns, Milwaukee police chief Ed Flynn appears to be borrowing a page from Bull Connors' playbook. As the Birmingham, AL Public Safety Commissioner in the 1960s, Bull Connors became a symbol of bigotry by using fire hoses and police attack dogs against protest marchers.

Now comes Milwaukee police chief Ed Flynn - hailing recently from Massachusetts but acting like he's from the old South - telling his officers to "take down anyone with a firearm despite Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's finding that people can carry guns openly if they do it peacefully." Chortled Flynn, "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."

With good reason, Reason Magazine notes "You know you have a problem when the chief refers to peace officers as 'troops.'" ...

[Wisconsin] Gene German muses on lawmaker's proposed ban on open carry:

... The Governors reaction to last Monday’s memo by Attorney General VanHollen was to suggest that the state should return to the days when local jurisdictions could enact their own set of ordinances – implying Milwaukee for example could ban open carry if it wanted to. What the Governor (who is also a former Wisconsin attorney general) seems to have ignored is a local ban on open carry would also be an unconstitutional infringement on a citizens protected right.

Rep Leon Young, a former Milwaukee cop is telling everyone that he is “fast tracking” a new state law to ban open carry statewide. Of course, that law would be unconstitutional also for the same reasons. Fortunately, we already have a pretty good idea what the Wisconsin Supreme Court will say about any such law.

Chief Justice Shirley Abramson said in her dissent in Hamdan;

Article I, Section 25 does not establish an unfettered right to bear arms. Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons. However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25.

So, what we don’t know yet is would the Wisconsin Supreme Court only overturn Rep. Young’s new law banning open carry or would the court overturn both the new law and the old ban on concealed carry too? Why force the court to choose? The court could just overturn them both. The sooner Rep. Young can “fast track” his new law banning open carry to the Governor’s desk for his signature, the sooner we will be able to get the Supreme Courts answer to which law or laws will have to fall.

With the help of Governor Doyle and Rep. Young all Wisconsin citizens may soon be able to carry guns totally unrestricted like they did before 1872 - again. ...

[Alaska] College students rally for campus carry:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Some students at the University of Alaska Anchorage want to be allowed to carry guns on campus.

George Hines, a UAA student, organized a protest Thursday against a UA-system gun ban. About 15 sign-waving students showed up for the protest, held at a street corner near campus. ...

[California] Shooting sports fair closes due to ammo shortage:

The Raahauge's Shooting Sports Fair, a hands-on gun show where you can shoot all the latest firearms on the market, has been cancelled for 2009. The Sports Fair is normally held the first weekend in June each year at Mike Raahauge Shooting Enterprises in Corona. Mike Raahauge said the fair was cancelled because it had become impossible for all the firearm makers to get enough ammunition for this event.

"I just spoke with all of the manufacturers and none of them can get ammo," said Raahauge late last week. "We could hold the fair, but we'd probably be out of ammunition by Friday afternoon."

"Whether the shortage is due to the election of President Barack Obama or the economic downturn or fear of an increase in crime, ammo sales have been like plywood and bottled-water sales before a hurricane in Florida," Raahauge said.

Since President Obama's election, gun and ammunition sales have skyrocketed. Most ammunition manufacturers are operating multiple shifts on their production lines and still can't produce enough ammunition in the major handgun and military-style rifle calibers to meet demand. Besides ammunition, there is also a shortage of semi-automatic handguns, semi-automatic rifles, and reloading components. ...

Well, that didn't take long

From Newsday:

WASHINGTON - Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand made her turnaround on a key gun-control issue official this week: She signed a letter seeking repeal of the NRA-backed Tiahrt Amendments, even though she sought to make them permanent just last June.

The letter, made public yesterday, asks Attorney General Eric Holder for his support for the repeal of Tiahrt, an appropriations bill amendment that since 2003 has restricted use of federal gun-trace data.

The letter was written and circulated by Gillibrand's most outspoken critic: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-Mineola), a gun-control activist whose husband was killed in 1993 by a gunman on the Long Island Rail Road.

Gillibrand acknowledged backing Tiahrt's repeal by signing the letter, an aide said, but denied making a 180-degree turn on the measure. Gillibrand said instead that Tiahrt needs to be "fixed.

Article here. Looks like Ms. Gillibrand is just another spineless politician.

Times targets Tiahrt, Tetons

From the New York Times, whose editorialists apparently have yet to meet a gun control law or proposal they didn't like:

The Obama administration has chosen to defend a bad rule rushed through during former President George W. Bush’s final days in office that allows concealed, loaded firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The rule is a gift to the gun lobby.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has asked for a 90-day internal assessment of the rule’s environmental impacts, offering some hope that the administration might later reverse an unwise policy. But for now, the administration’s operating position is contained in a Justice Department brief filed last Friday. It seeks to block a preliminary injunction of the rule sought by gun control and environmental groups.

Although concealed, loaded weapons obviously have no place in the national parks, the Justice Department brief asserts that the rule “will not have any significant impacts on public health and safety.” We can only hope that the Justice Department’s position does not reflect a broader weakening of President Obama’s stated commitment to sensible gun control policies.

Another early test of that commitment is coming soon. It involves the so-called Tiahrt Amendment, which is strongly supported by the gun lobby. The amendment denies police and local governments access to essential information about guns used to commit crimes. The question is whether Mr. Obama’s forthcoming budget blueprint will include language aiming to repeal it. ...

Article here.

Tiahrt Amendment, explained

Article explaining the Tiahrt Amendment, for those unfamiliar with one of the anti-gunners' favorite targets:

There is a lot of talk about the Tiahrt Amendment and the fact that the gun grabbers want to have the amendment repealed. But what exactly is this amendment?

Last month, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sent their proposals for reducing gun violence to the Obama administration. The number one item on the list was repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which they say...

...severely limits the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") to disclose crime gun trace data to the public under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), bars admissibility of such data in civil suits against the gun industry, and restricts disclosure of the data to law enforcement.

The first two claims are true, the third a flat out lie. This is the relevant text:

That no funds appropriated under this or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, or required to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (7) of such section 923(g), to anyone other than a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution and then only such information as pertains to the geographic jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency requesting the disclosure and not for use in any civil action or proceeding other than an action or proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or a review of such an action or proceeding, to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of such title, and all such data shall be immune from legal process and shall not be subject to subpoena or other discovery, shall be inadmissible in evidence, and shall not be used, relied on, or disclosed in any manner, nor shall testimony or other evidence be permitted based upon such data, in any civil action pending on or filed after the effective date of this Act in any State (including the District of Columbia) or Federal court or in any administrative proceeding other than a proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to enforce the provisions of that chapter, or a review of such an action or proceeding

The data in the Firearms Trace System database is clearly available to law enforcement. In fact, that was what it was created for.

What it is not for is to let anti-gun politicians use this information for their own agendas. The trace data is only useful in direct conjunction with a criminal investigation. Any other use would not yield viable results because of the nature of the data. For example, a trace might be run on a firearm that had nothing to do with a crime, such as to verify a firearm isn't stolen. This would yield a false positive if attempting to use the data out of context on a witch hunt to try to find problems that don't exist.

Hurting the gun grabbers' argument even further is that both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Fraternal Order of Police want the data to remain restricted to law enforcement. Their primary concerns are that it would jeopardize ongoing investigations and put undercover officers at risk.

Article here.

More "common sense" anti-gun rhetoric, post-Heller

Opinion piece in the National Law Journal arguing that while the Supreme Court's Heller decision took gun bans off the gun-grabber menu, that "[l]ittle, if anything else, is."

What we've needed, for a long time, is common-sense steps to prevent the illegal trafficking and diversion of guns to people everybody agrees shouldn't have them. Here's where the fringe gun-grabbing arguments -- on both sides -- have made common sense impossible. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is forbidden by law from computerizing its firearms records, on the argument that they could become a de facto registration system, which could then be used to inform gun confiscation. The famed "gun show loophole" is a myth. The reality is far worse: Federal gun law only applies to "dealers," who become dealers by voluntarily announcing themselves to ATF. Everybody else can legally sell guns without any of the federal requirements, at gun shows or anywhere else. Amendments filed by Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., with NRA backing, forbade ATF from publishing reports on crime-gun traces that indicated local and national patterns of trafficking and diversion, and prevented police departments from sharing this information. Jersey City, N.J., was refused data from crime guns it had submitted itself to ATF for tracing. (No, I'm not making this up.)

It would be very simple to make a huge difference here. Let ATF do its job. Eliminate the unregulated "secondary" market. Mandate that stolen guns be reported to the police. Register handguns, the most important component of gun violence. Mandate criminal background checks for gun-store employees. Reinstitute the national crime-gun tracing program the Bush administration shut down. Make penalties for trafficking guns commensurate with, at least, those for trafficking drugs. These are simple, common-ground steps that would really matter. We've been distracted from such common-sense moves by the far more dramatic culture war over guns. But that, as of last term, is over and done with.

Read the op-ed here. The author mentions the Tiahrt Amendment, and seems to imply that the amendment is a hindrance to legitimate law enforcement activities. Of course, the Tiahrt Amendment is supported by the DOJ and ATF, and by police groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police, and Michael Sullivan, the acting head of the ATF has publicly stated:

Let me be clear: neither the congressional language nor ATF rules prohibit the sharing of trace data with law enforcement conducting criminal investigations, or place any restrictions on the sharing of trace data with other jurisdictions once it is in the hands of state or local law enforcement. In fact, multi-jurisdictional trace data is also utilized by ATF and shared with fellow law-enforcement agencies to identify firearm-trafficking trends and leads. Additionally, nothing prohibits ATF from releasing our own reports that analyze trace-data trends that could be used by law enforcement.

So the amendment doesn't restrict legitimate law enforcement activities, but does restrict the use of trace data for non-law enforcement purposes, such as lawsuits by anti-gun big-city mayors. Also, note that trace data by itself is not necessarily evidence of any crime. For example, a stolen gun might get traced back to the gunstore that originally sold the gun to a legal buyer. The fact that the gun was later stolen from that legal buyer and used in a crime doesn't mean the gunstore did anything wrong.