Volume 7, No. 10                   www.foac-pac.org                   October 13, 2007

 

Firearms Owners Against Crime

 

"As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature; it is what neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortunate that awaits our State constitution, as well as all others." -- Alexander Hamilton (speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June 1788)

 

 

E-Newsletter & FOAC Meeting Notice

October 14, 2007

 

Meeting Agenda-

 

Invited Guest Speakers:

·        Vince Gastgeb (County Council-District 5)

·        Jan Rea (County Council-District 2)

·        Sue Caldwell (County Council-District 7)

7.0     Treasurers Report

7.1     Presentation of the past month’s report

8.0     Old Business

8.1              None

9.0 NEW BUSINESS

9.1              Voter’s Guide Approval

9.2              Harrisburg developments and legislative review

9.3              Judiciary Committee Hearings (Past, Present and Future)

9.3.1        Fall Anti-Gun Offensive Plans

9.3.2        Lobbying & Education Day – October 23rd

9.4              Pro-Gun Agenda Developments

9.5              Political Events Review and Summary

9.6              Membership committee developments

Federal issues:

9.7              HR 2640 & Public Debate / Issues

 

**Upcoming Gun Show:  October 27th & 28th (York PA/Appalachian Promotions)

 

For more information on FOAC efforts to ‘Protect YOUR Rights’, THE MOST CURRENT VOTER’S GUIDES, donating to or becoming a member of FOAC please click on this link: http://www.foac-pac.org/

 

FOAC - 2007 Meeting Schedule

Jan 14, 2nd Sunday, Feb 11, 2nd Sunday, Mar 11, 2nd Sunday, Apr 15, 3rd Sunday, May 6, 1st Sunday, Jun 10, 2nd Sunday, Jul 8, 2nd Sunday, Aug 12, 2nd Sunday, Sep 9, 2nd Sunday, Oct 14, 2nd Sunday, Nov 4, 1st Sunday, Dec 9, 2nd Sunday

**Time of Meeting:  10:00 AM

**Location: Whitehall Borough Bldg (off Rt.51 – ask for directions)

****Coffee and Donuts will be provided

***Primary Election -- May 15 (Results Finalized)

***General Election -- Nov. 6

 

 

PA Legislative Battles Over Gun Control Continue

Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League—Legislative Committee

Pennsylvania and our freedoms are yet again at a crossroads where our legislators are being faced with an onslaught of anti-gun legislation in this fall session.  The furor in the early part of this year and our subsequent news conference put them on notice that we held our freedoms in the highest regard.  Since then groups from the District Attorneys Association, the Governors office, the PA State Police, local Mayors from urban centers and selected urban police spokespersons have been lobbying for legislation that will create minefields for gun owners.  Anti-gun legislation such as HB 1536 (mandatory training before YOU can buy a gun) and HB 1744 (numerous gun related issues) and others have been quietly receiving attention in committees due to this pressure while at the same time pushing pro-gun legislation aside that we worked so hard to get introduced.

Therefore we are planning on taking another trip to Harrisburg on Tuesday Oct 23, 2007 to reinforce in legislators minds the premise that we EXPECT action on ‘our’ legislation and that we are closely watching the legislative process and every action taken on the anti-gun bills.

This will be a day devoted strictly to Legislator Interaction and Lobbying/Education that will run from 9am to 3 pm in the Capitol building and associated offices in Harrisburg.

Why is it SO important for the average gun owner to take part in this???

Certain Philadelphia legislators have even stooped to using tax money to pay for a poll that ‘supposedly’ demonstrates that even ‘gun owners’ want more gun control to include One Gun a Month, Mandatory Training, Assault Weapon Bans and other gun control concepts.       Have YOU or ANYONE you know been surveyed OR does this belief have ANY support in YOUR club?  NO!!  Well we DIDN’T think so!!

This particular individual lobbying event will be focused on dispelling these notions.  It is important to remember that there are dozens of anti-gun bills that are either pending or that have been held up in the Judiciary Committee so far.  Combining that with the fact that over 25% of the PA House is comprised of new representatives in this session with a large portion of them not having committed to a decision (much less a vote yet) on all of these Anti and PRO gun bills pending.  We feel it is imperative that we take the initiative to educate these new Reps and other incumbent Reps as to why they should support and oppose other proposed legislation. We must educate them with facts, figures, and real world realities about crime and criminal problems and how these laws could help and hurt the people of Pennsylvania. If we fail you can expect to have some of these anti-gun, anti-constitution, anti-freedom bills become laws that will negatively affect all Pennsylvanians for decades.

DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN!!!!

You personally can make a huge difference by attending and participating in this event to help educate our legislators with your fellow gun owners as to the reason why firearm ownership is so important to you.  YOUR voice could make the all the difference at this Legislator “Lobbying and Education” day in the state capital.

Please make EVERY EFFORT to join us on this most important opportunity, to protect your constitutional rights to keep and bear arms and help pass PRO-gun bills that will make PA a safer place to live for everyone except the criminals.

We PROMISE another spirited day!!

 

Brady Campaign Data Fudged To Exploit Miami Cop Shootings

by Dave Workman Senior Editor

The shooting death of a Miami-Dade police sergeant and the wounding of three others by a gunman who was subsequently killed by other officers is reason enough to renew a ban on so-called "assault weap­ons," according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

In a press release Sept. 18, the Brady Campaign focused on the gun used in the crime, identified as an AK-47, noting that Sgt. Jose Somohano's death occurred "three years to the day after the Federal Assault Weapons ban expired."

However, in claiming that "More offic­ers are killed with firearms than through any other single cause," the Brady Campaign's own data-taken from the National Law Enforcement Officers Me­morial Fund (NLEOMF)--does not support that assertion. Gun Week checked the fig­ures after doing some quick math using the Brady press release which stated, "Accord­ing to the National Law Enforcement Me­morial (sic), there have been 132 officer fa­talities in the US so far this year, with 54 killed by a firearm of any type, not just military style firearms. In all of last year, 145 officers died in the line of duty, 52 due to firearms. In 2005, 50 officers were killed with firearms."

Those figures suggested that less than half of the police officers who died on the job during those two years were the vic­tims of gunshot wounds. There was no supporting data on the number of offic­ers actually killed with so-called "assault weapons." Gun Week also found that Brady erred on the number of police ac­tually shot in 2005. Fifty-nine, not 50 of­ficers died, but even that figure is less than half of the 162 police officers who died on the job.

In 2004, according to NLEOMF fig­ures, 162 officers died on the job, 59 of those from gunshot wounds. In 2000, 50 of the 147 cop deaths were from shootings, and in 2002, 60 of the 157 of­ficers who died were shot. In 2001, there were 72 shooting deaths out of 239 of­ficer fatalities (the same number that died in the 9/11 terrorist attack). In 2000, 53 of the 161 officers killed on the job died from gunshot wounds. Over the past 10 years, 582 of the 1,649 lawmen and women who died on the job were shot. Do the math. Less than half and closer to a third of the officers who have died on the job in the last decade were shot.

Over the past 10 years, NLEOMF data revealed, 582 police officers were gunshot victims. That is from a total of 1,649 po­lice officers killed on the job in the years from 1997 through 2006.

By contrast, 707 officers died in traffic accidents, including 78 who were killed in motorcycle accidents and another 151 who were struck by vehicles. Another 478 died in auto crashes.

Add to that figure the 25 who drowned, another 15 who were fatally stabbed, the 73 who died in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack and 133 who died from "job-related illness," and the number of police officers who have died during the past 10 years numbers far less than half of the total. The figure is actually closer to a third of all law enforcement on-the-job fatalities.

According to the July 17 issue of USA Today, there has been a spike in fatal po­lice shootings for the first six months of the year. The number of officers gunned down during the first half of 2007 was 39, which is up from the 27 who were shot to death during the first six months of 2006.

Traffic-related deaths rose 36% for the same period, the newspaper revealed. The overall total of line-of-duty fatali­ties for the first six months of this year came to 101, according to USA Today.

In another gaffe, the Brady Campaign asserted that "Through Sept. 14th of this year police officer deaths exceed the total number of officers killed in the line of duty by a firearm in any of the last six years." That allegation is accurate only if the data were to include all of the officer deaths from every cause, not just gunshot wounds. The wording of the Brady claim, however, might lead one to believe that more offic­ers have died in shootings this year than during the past six years. But the Brady Campaign's own figures do not square with that claim.

As of Sept. 14, when the Brady group said 54 cops have been gunned down this year, that figure is eclipsed by the num­ber of officers killed by gunshot wounds in 2005, 2004, 2002 and 2001.

It should be noted that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, law enforcement is a less risky occupation than logging, com­mercial fishing, construction, truck driving, roofing and piloting an aircraft.

However, The Christian Science Moni­tor recently reported that there has been "a spike in the number of police officers who died in the line of duty" that has not been seen since 1978. That newspaper said there has been a 59% increase in the num­ber of police shootings over the same pe­riod in 2006, and it has raised alarms in law enforcement.

Miami-Dade cop killer Shawn Sherwin LaBeet was no stranger to law enforce­ment in south Florida, according to vari­ous news agencies. At the time of the shoot­ing, he was reportedly the subject of two other pending cases of alleged aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in North Lauderdale. It also appeared for a time that he had been using a stolen identity. The New GUN WEEK, October 15, 2007

 

Guns Don't Kill Kids, Irresponsible Adults With Guns Do

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

By John Lott, Jr.

 

Should your doctor ask your child if you own a gun?

Guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatric say "yes."

They warn that "Children are curious even if they've had some sort of firearm training. That's why parents taking responsibility for safe gun storage is so essential."

Doctors across the United States are being advised to interrogate children about mom and dad's "bad" behavior.

It sounds simple enough, but the problem is that the advice ignores the benefits and exaggerates the costs of gun ownership.

Take a recent example from Massachusetts that was discussed in the Boston

Herald:

"Debbie is a mom from Uxbridge who was in the examination room when the pediatrician asked her 5-year-old, 'Does Daddy own a gun?'

"When the little girl said yes, the doctor began grilling her and her mom about the number and type of guns, how they are stored, etc.

"If the incident had ended there, it would have merely been annoying.

"But when a friend in law enforcement let Debbie know that her doctor had filed a report with the police about her family's (entirely legal) gun ownership, she got mad."

Perhaps it was only a matter of time. Accidental gun deaths involving children get national coverage. News programs stage experiments with 5 and 6-year-olds in a room filled with toys and a gun. Shocking pictures show the children picking up the gun and playing with it like a toy. For years, the Clinton administration would show public service ads with the voices or pictures of young children between the ages of 3 and 7 implying an epidemic of accidental gun deaths involving children.

With all this attention, the fear is understandable, but it is still irresponsible. Convincing patients not to own guns or to at least lock them up will cost more lives than it will save. It also gives a misleading impression of what poses the greatest dangers to children.

Accidental gun deaths among children are fortunately much rarer than most people believe. Consider the following numbers.

In 2003, for the United States, the Centers for Disease Control reports that

28 children under age 10 died from accidental shots. With some 90 million gun owners and about 40 million children under 10, it is hard to find any item as commonly owned in American homes, as potentially as lethal, that has as low of an accidental death rate.

These deaths also have little to do with "naturally curious" children shooting other children. >From 1995 to 2001 only about nine of these accidental gun deaths each year involve a child under 10 shooting another child or themselves. Overwhelmingly, the shooters are adult males with long histories of alcoholism, arrests for violent crimes, automobile crashes, and suspended or revoked driver's licenses.

Even if gun locks can stop the few children who abuse a gun from doing so, gun locks cannot stop adults from firing their own gun. It makes a lot more sense for doctors to ask if "daddy" has a violent criminal record or a history of substance abuse, rather than ask if they own a gun.

Fear about guns also seems greatest among those who know the least about them.

For example, those unfamiliar with guns don't realize that most young children simply couldn't fire your typical semi-automatic pistol. Even the few who posses the strength to pull back the slide on the gun are unlikely to know that they must do that to put the bullet in the chamber or that they need to switch off the safety.

With so many greater dangers facing children everyday from common household items, it is not obvious why guns have been singled out. Here are some of the other ways that children under 10 died in 2004.

Over 1,400 children were killed by cars, almost 260 of those deaths were young pedestrians. Bicycle and space heater accidents take many times more children's lives than guns. Over 90 drowned in bathtubs. The most recent yearly data available indicates that over 30 children under age 5 drowned in five-gallon plastic water buckets.

Yet, the real problem with this gun phobia is that without guns, victims are much more vulnerable to criminal attack. Guns are used defensively some 2 million times each year. Even though the police are extremely important in reducing crime, they simply can't be there all the time and virtually always arrive after the crime has been committed. Having a gun is by far the safest course of action when one is confronted by a criminal.

The cases where young children use guns to save their family's lives rarely makes the news. Recent examples where children's lives were clearly lost because guns were locked and inaccessible are ignored.

Recent research that I did examining juvenile accidental gun deaths for all U.S. states from 1977 to 1998, found that sixteen states mandating that guns be locked up had no impact. What did happen, however, was that criminals were emboldened to attack people in their homes and crimes were more successful; 300 more murders and 4,000 more rapes occurred each year in these states. Burglaries also rose dramatically. The evidence also indicates that states with the biggest increases in gun ownership have had the biggest drops in violent crime.

Asking patients about guns not only strains doctor patient relationships, it exaggerates the dangers and risks lives. Yet, in the end, possibly some good can come out of all this gun phobia. If your doctors ask you whether you own a gun, rather than sarcastically asking them if they own a space heater, why not offer to go out to a shooting range together and teach them about guns?

John Lott, Jr., is the author of Freedomnomics and a Senior Research Scholar at the University of Maryland.

 

Washington Gun Ban Under Fire

By STEPHEN MANNING, Associated Press Writer Thu Oct 4, 2:27 PM ET

Deep inside Washington's police headquarters is a library like few others, with floor-to-ceiling racks displaying 1,700 guns, from a World War II-era rifle with bayonet to rows of pocket-size revolvers, automatic pistols and big six-shooters that look straight out of the Wild West.

Most of the guns, used now for forensic research, were seized during crimes under a 31-year-old law in the nation's capital that bars handgun ownership for nearly everyone except law enforcement — a measure police have praised as a valuable tool against violence.

But that ban is now in jeopardy. The law was struck down by a federal appeals court this year, and now the District of Columbia is asking the Supreme Court to weigh in. Both sides of the gun debate are apprehensive.

The case represents the first time a federal appeals court struck down a gun-control law on the grounds that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own guns. Up to now, courts have generally interpreted the amendment to protect only the collective right of states to maintain militias.

If it takes the case, the high court could issue its first direct ruling on the Second Amendment in 70 years, solidifying some of the nation's toughest gun laws or exposing them to a torrent of new challenges.

"It will be the biggest ruling on the Second Amendment ever," Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "You get nervous when you see something with far-reaching implications."

Even the National Rifle Association, which believes it might have an advantage with a conservative-leaning high court, is uneasy.

"I'd rather be on our side than on their side, given the chances, but there is always a `but,'" said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president.

Lawyers for the city and the plaintiffs, who are backed by the libertarian Cato Institute, say they believe the court will break its long silence on gun rights. D.C. officials say they expect to learn by early November whether the Supreme Court will take the case.

Passed in 1976, Washington's gun law is one of the nation's toughest firearms regulations. In addition to barring private handgun ownership, it requires D.C. residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.

Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from outside D.C. or through illegal means are still readily available.

Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since its peak in the early 1990s, it still ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.

Last year, the Washington Metropolitan Police Department seized 2,656 guns, up 13 percent from 2005. Many of the guns flowed in from surrounding states such as Maryland and Virginia.

Linda Singer, the district's attorney general, said public safety is the main reason the city decided to take the case to the Supreme Court. Without the law, the city's homicide rate would probably be higher, she said.

"More guns leads to more gun violence," she said.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In March, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the city's gun law in a 2-1 decision, saying it violated residents' Second Amendment rights. Washington appealed to the Supreme Court in September.

Some cities and states with tough gun laws are getting nervous about D.C.'s appeal. During the lower court proceedings, Washington had the backing of several jurisdictions, including Massachusetts, Maryland and Chicago. But fearing they could lose — and lose big — at the Supreme Court, few have publicly backed the city or filed briefs in support of its appeal.

Chicago, which has a handgun ban similar to Washington's, could be affected the most. Benna Ruth Solomon, Chicago's deputy corporation counsel, declined to comment on Washington's decision but said if the court takes the case, Chicago will "be a strong supporter of the district" and will "absolutely participate."

Helmke, of the Brady Campaign, said the group suggested to Washington that it rework its gun laws rather than press on with an appeal. A broad Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment could jeopardize a variety of laws, including waiting periods for handgun sales and California's machine gun ban, he said.

Not everyone shares the gloomy outlook. New York's criminal justice coordinator, John Feinblatt, said a Supreme Court decision would not affect the city's laws since the state does not have an outright handgun ban like Washington. And CeaseFire Maryland, which advocates tough gun laws, said the state's gun regulations could pass muster even if the high court agreed Washington's law is unconstitutional.

Kenneth Barnes Sr., an anti-violence activist whose son was shot in the face and killed during a 2001 robbery in Washington, said a Supreme Court decision against the city would have large symbolic meaning.

"This is the capital of the United States of America," Barnes said. "What kind of message are we sending when you say we want more guns?"

 

OR Teacher Sues for Gun Rights; Senator Vows Campus Ban Guns

by Dave Workman Senior Editor

An Oregon public school teacher was due to be in Jackson County court Oct. 11 in her lawsuit against the Medford school district, seeking the ability to bring her handgun to work for protection against her reportedly violent ex-husband, against whom she has a restraining order.

The lawsuit is being funded by the Or­egon Firearms Educational Foundation. The case has taken on national implica­tions, and the woman's attorney, James Leuenberger of Lake Oswego, told Gun Week that depending upon the outcome of the Oct. 11 hearing, there could be an appeal. That prospect seems likely as the school district has dug in, and an anti-gun Oregon state senator from Portland has vowed to intro­duce legislation that would exempt public schools from the state's pre-emption law.

Sen. Ginny Burdick, who traveled to Washington State earlier this year in sup­port of anti-gun show legislation, has al­ready caught heat from the Citizens Com­mittee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms over her announcement. CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb accused the lib­eral Democrat of "world-class hypocrisy" for supporting legislation to protect nurs­ing mothers, and another bill to prevent discrimination against domestic partners.

"Yet, she obviously thinks single moms don't need protection from abusive ex­-spouses, nor is she the least bit concerned about discriminating against law-abiding Oregon female gunowners who happen to be teachers," Gottlieb said.

He characterized the legislation as a bill "designed to "make female teachers more vulnerable to abusive ex-spouses by spe­cifically stripping away their right of self-defense on school campuses.

"Sen. Burdick is a text book example of the socially-prejudiced liberal," Gottlieb observed, "She would stand up for a woman's right to choose on every issue except when it comes to the choice of per­sonal protection. In this case, she obviously feels women like the teacher in Medford should simply submit to fear and perhaps being victimized in the workplace. What a horrible, demeaning double standard."

He was joined in his criticism by CCRKBA Executive Director Mark A. Taff, who noted that there has never been a case where a legally-armed teacher ever harmed a student on a public school cam­pus. He reminded Gun Week about Pearl, MS, high school assistant principal Joel Myrick who raced to his car and retrieved a handgun when shooting broke out at the school in 1997, and subsequently appre­hended student Luke Woodham. Myrick held Woodham for the police, and appar­ently prevented him from going to a nearby junior high school to continue his shoot­ing spree.

Leuenberger admitted to Gun Week that he had not anticipated this case would become something of a cause celeb in the gun rights community. But in the days fol­lowing his filing of the lawsuit against Medford schools on his client's behalf, he found himself being interviewed by Fox News and CNN.

The teacher has maintained a low pro­file throughout the ordeal, and Leuenberger told Gun Week that she has been "very stressed." He said the judge "may or may not" announce a decision right away, but no matter how he rules, it is likely there will be an appeal.

The teacher did author an Op-Ed opinion piece in the Sept. 16 edition of The Portland Oregonian, in which she said her ex-husband had threatened to kill her. The ex-husband is apparently approved as a substitute teacher in the Medford school district. The New GUN WEEK, October 15, 2007

 

IACP Summit, “Report” Funded By Anti Gun Group

The so-called "Great Lakes Summit on Gun Violence" held in Chicago earlier this year by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), and the report is­sued by that organization in September were largely financed by the anti-gun Joyce Foundation.

This revelation prompted Alan Gottlieb, founder of the, Second Amendment Foun­dation, to question whether the IACP re­port deserved any credibility in its find­ings and recommendations. In a stinging opinion piece, co-written by Gun Week Se­nior Editor Dave Workman, Gottlieb said the IACP is "revealing itself to be the best group of police officials money can buy."

The Gottlieb-Workman piece was not the only criticism leveled at the summit or the report, "Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities." National Rifle Association radio host Cam Edwards, and veteran gun rights activist David Hardy also took swipes at the IACP and Joyce Foundation.

Wrote Edwards on his blog: "This is an anti-gun report bought and paid for by an anti-gun foundation, assembled by anti­gunners from the Joyce Foundation, Harvard, and the Violence Policy Center. I've seen more serious studies written by Carrot Top and Larry the Cable Guy."

Gun Week obtained data listing Joyce Foundation grants of $375,000 and $174,788 for the IACP's summit, along with another $99,935 "to develop and execute the release of a report on the Great Lakes States Summit on Firearm Violence."

Among the IACP's recommendations were that all gun sales be done only through licensed firearms retailers, with mandatory background checks. IACP also recommends banning so-called "assault weapons" and ".50-caliber sniper rifles." They want Con­gress to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, a federal law that protects sensitive federal gun trace data from general access.

The summit was attended by represen­tatives of various law enforcement agen­cies and several prominent regional and national anti-gun rights organizations, in­cluding the Violence Policy Center's Kristen Rand and Tom Diaz, who contrib­uted to the report.

Also receiving criticism was the press for virtually overlooking the links between the Joyce Foundation and the IACP, despite the fact that the foundation trumpeted its in­volvement in the summit and production of the report on its own website. According to the Joyce website, the foundation "has funded IACP to work collaboratively with law en­forcement officials, public and medical health professionals, researchers and policy-makers to address gun violence reduction through a coordinated, regional approach." The New GUN WEEK, October 15, 2007

 

Senators Grill ATF Nominee

US Attorney Michael Sullivan fielded some tough questions about gun laws while winning praise Sept. 26 at a Sen­ate confirmation hearing to become di­rector of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), accord­ing to Associated Press.

Sullivan, a former Republican state legislator and district attorney in Massachusetts, was nominated by President Bush for the job in March. He has been acting director of the agency for more than a year.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), who chaired the Senate Judiciary Com­mittee hearing, lauded Sullivan's "dis­tinguished career in public service."

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) intro­duced Sullivan at the hearing, praising both his professional abili­ties and his character.

"It is a job that he's proven more than qualified and capable of perform­ing," Kerry said.

Sullivan also faced some grilling from Kennedy and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) about whether the ATF would be willing to release more gun tracing data, a move the senators said could help state and local law agencies fight gun crime.

Sullivan said there has been confu­sion about what data ATF could share, but he said he hopes ATF will provide more data.

Sullivan has repeatedly stressed his agency's support for the Tiahrt amend­ment which restricts release of such information to local law enforcement engaged in criminal investigations. The New GUN WEEK, October 15, 2007

 

KY Collegians Slate Protest of Campus Gun Ban

Students at Western Kentucky Univer­sity reportedly plan a protest at the school during the week of Oct. 22, and here's the surprise: They are up in arms, figuratively anyway, about a campus policy that bans firearms.

The university, in Bowling Green, will be the scene of what one student calls the "empty holster protest," according to As­sociated Press and The Bowling Green Daily News. The protest promises to be creative and somewhat attention-grabbing because those involved will simply go about their business on campus while wearing empty holsters.

The newspaper quoted Caott. Mike Dowell with the Western University Po­lice Department, who said, "It's not the smartest idea to walk around with an empty holster, but there's nothing illegal about it."

Organizers of the event might concur with Dowell's assessment to a point. It is their opinion that there ought to be some­thing in the holster, and that's why they are planning this protest. Their aim is to get the university to reconsider its prohi­bition, so that students who are legally li­censed to carry handguns can do so on the campus.

University officials do not appear ready to budge.

The week-long protest is being organized by the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. This organization was founded in reaction to the April massacre at Vir­ginia Tech, and there are chapters on sev­eral college campuses. The New GUN WEEK, October 15, 2007

 

NEWS RELEASES

ALBANY MACHINE GUN SCANDAL:

BLOOMBERG LOOKING IN WRONG PLACE, SAYS SAF

BELLEVUE, WA – The renewed scandal involving alleged missing machine guns that had been secretly and illicitly purchased by officers with the Albany, NY Police Department several years ago suggests that if New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to go after illegal guns, he need only drive up the Hudson River with his rogue investi