Firearms Owners Against
Crime
“The
constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the
people; that . . . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. . . .” Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Justice John
Cartwright (June 5, 1824), 16 WRITINGS OF THOMAS
JEFFERSON 45
(A.A. Lipscomb ed., 1907).
E-Newsletter & FOAC
Meeting Notice
April 13, 2008
Meeting Agenda Issues:
None
9.0 New Business
9.1
9.2
Questionnaire Results and Returns
9.3
Candidate support efforts-Mailings and Door to Door
Cappelli-23rd State Senate
McDonald-13th State Senate
9.4
Philadelphia Mayor and Council Plans to Control Guns
9.5
Primary Election Day Efforts
Poll Workers
9.6
Political Events Review and Summary and Candidate Positions and
Statements
9.7
Important State Races (Congress, State Senate, State House—Open
Races!!)
9.8
2008 Spring Banquet Review
9.9
Membership committee developments
9.10
PGOA Communication –
Federal issues:
9.11
Heller v. D.C. Court Case Insight into the Arguments
Events:
**Primary Election: April 22nd
**Door to Door
Campaign: Daryl Metcalfe Race-Today and next weekend-WE NEED VOLUNTEERS
**PA Leadership Conference: April 25th & 26th (Kim Stolfer Featured Panelist on Saturday)
FOAC - 2008
Meeting Schedule
Jan 13, 2nd Sunday, Feb
10, 2nd Sunday, Mar 9, 2nd Sunday, Apr
13, 2nd Sunday, May 4, 1st Sunday, Jun 8, 2nd Sunday, Jul 13, 2nd Sunday, Aug 10, 2nd Sunday, Sep 14,
2nd Sunday, Oct 12, 2nd Sunday, Nov
2, 1st Sunday, Dec 14, 2nd
Sunday
**Time of Meeting: 10:00 AM
**Location:
****Coffee and Donuts will be
provided
***Primary Election – Apr. 22
***General Election – Nov. 4
(April 10th) Just moments ago
at 3PM Philadelphia Mayor Nutter signed into law five ordinances passed by City
Council in ‘violation’ of
1.
limit handgun purchases to one a month
2.
require lost or stolen firearms to be
reported to police within 24 hours
3.
forbid individuals under protection from
abuse orders from possessing guns if ordered by the court
4.
allow removal of firearms from
"persons posing a risk of imminent personal injury" to themselves or
others, as determined by a judge
5. outlaw the possession and sale certain assault weapons.
It is important to note that violations of these are but summary
offenses however the true intent is to try to push the Courts to grant the
power that the Legislature will not—Local Control of Gun Laws.
The real issue here is that, again, the Mayor and City
Council are COMMITTING criminal acts that carry a punishment of Misdemeanor 1
level of punishment. This is a terrible
example to be setting for their constituents and those they want to follow the
law now. Instead of going to court over
this the first action should see them dragged out of city hall in handcuffs!!
Once again it is going to be up to the gun owners of PA to step
forward and fight this evil or it will spread like cancer throughout our
communities.
Gun
Owners March On
On Monday April 7th gun owners
once again rallied in
Leading off the Rally was guest speaker
Alan Keyes with host legislator Rep. Daryl Metcalfe guiding the rally. Other featured speakers at today’s
rally included Larry Pratt, executive director, Gun Owners of America; Alan Gottlieb, chairman, Citizens
Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms;
In attendance were over 500 gun owners from
all points of the state and many grassroots groups including:
Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League, CCRKBA,
GunWeek, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms
Ownership, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Lehigh Valley Firearms
Coalition, Mothers Arms - Safely in Mothers
Arms Inc., National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, PA
Firearms Owners Association, PA Gun Collectors Association, PA Gun Owners
Association, PA Rifle and Pistol Association, PA Sportsmen’s Association, Pink
Pistols, the Second Amendment Sisters and Unified
Sportsmen of PA.
At the end of the Rally a drawing was held for a brand new
handgun as a thank you to all of the gun owners who sacrificed their time to
come to
The grassroots lobbying began after the drawing with gun owners
breaking up into teams and directing their energies to the House and Senate
members on the issue of our Right to Bear Arms.
The legislature passed HB 1845 (without any gun control in it)
unanimously while we were lobbying for our freedoms on this day sending it to
the Senate for consideration.
Smiles after Heller SCOTUS arguments
by Dave Workman & Joe Tartaro
And now, a nation waits.
Call it cautious optimism sprinkled with a dash of pessimism her and there -.among some gun activists, but in the wake of the landmark Supreme Court oral arguments Mar. 18 on the District of Columbia v Heller case, gun rights leaders are anticipating a narrow win, but a win all the same.
Depending upon whom one asks the
question, those who have followed this case are predicting everything from a
5-4 favorable ruling for individual gun rights, to a 7-2 ruling, perhaps with a
couple of those affirmative votes offering concurring opinions, but also
suggesting that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to "reasonable
regulation." For the firearms community, simply erasing the notion that
the Second Amendment only applies to some "collective right" of
states to organize militias would be a significant victory. Striking down the
32-year-old handgun ban in the
The high court is expected to hand down a ruling in June on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right that extends beyond service in a state militia, and whether the District's handgun ban violates that right. (See related comments in Hindsight, Page 15.)
The hearing was off to an energetic start that left no doubt where some of the justices would come down on the question of the Second Amendment's meaning, and whether the handgun ban would stand. Chief Justice John Roberts, responding to a remark by District counsel Walter Dellinger that states have adopted "reasonable standards" for regulation of dangerous weapons, asked, "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?"
Dellinger said it is reasonable if the ban is on one kind of weapon, and Roberts fired back, "So, if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's all right if you allow the possession of newspapers?"
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, expected by most observers to be a "swing" vote, clearly indicated his position in support of a broad individual right when he told Dellinger that the amendment supplements the delegation of authority over militias to Congress.
"And in my view," he said, "it supplemented it by saying there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way."
Later, in an exchange with Solicitor General Paul a Clement regarding the 1939 Miller case that is often used by anti-gunners as "proof" that the amendment only supports the collective right of states to organize militias, Kennedy said the Miller ruling was "insufficient to...describe the interests that must have been foremost in the framers' minds when they were concerned about guns being taken away from the people who needed them for their defense."
Then in a subsequent exchange with attorney Alan Gura, lead counsel representing Dick Anthony Heller, the District resident challenging the ban, Kennedy observed, "I suggest that Miller may be deficient."
An amicus brief filed by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) had specifically suggested that the Miller test be abandoned. It was the only such brief to suggest that course.
It was Kennedy who also suggested that the "operative" clause of the Second Amendment is the second part of the 29-word amendment, the part that says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," and that the "militia" clause is a preamble explaining one of the reasons why that right is so important "to the security of a free state."
Wayne LaPierre,
executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, was in the
audience for the oral arguments, and afterwards, he observed, "I have
every expectation that the court will soon restore the Second Amendment to the
John Snyder, public affairs director for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, told Gun Week, "My own feeling is that our side had the upper hand based on the questions and secondary questions that the justices posed and the way they were answered."
Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), was also confident of a favorable outcome. He told Gun Week, "We anticipate that the court will rule once and for all that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual civil right, and that gun bans, even on specific types of commonly-owned firearms, do not stand up under even modest scrutiny."
On the other side, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sent out an appeal for funds two days after the hearings that suggested they believe the District's ban is in trouble, and that their argument against the existence of an individual right is about to be shot down. The language of the appeal seemed both desperate and at the same time stubborn.
"Even if the District's ordinance is struck down," the appeal stated, "and regardless of how the Justices rule on the individual's 'right' to bear arms, their questioning clearly acknowledged the importance of and the need for reasonable regulations on guns."
The Brady appeal noted, 'We need to be prepared for the outcome, whatever that might be." It also left no question that the gun control lobby will not simply roll over and play dead if the high court strikes down the ban and affirms an individual right.
Nelson Lund, a distinguished law professor at George Mason University who authored the SAF amicus brief, anticipates an affirmative ruling on the Second Amendment as an individual right and striking down the District gun ban by at least 5-4 and possibly 6-3.
Prof. Robert Cottrol,
another distinguished law professor who teaches at
The historic importance of the Heller case was apparent from the crowds who gathered for the oral arguments. Many of the spectators were law students and the section of the Court set aside for attorneys in the Supreme Court bar was packed.
The Supreme Court building is not geared for a large audience and some interested parties began waiting in line two days before the oral arguments were to begin.
What is significant is that much of the media reported that the Court was likely to decide in favor of an individual right interpretation regardless of what else their opinion might say.
David Savage, in The Los Angeles
Times, wrote: "The Supreme Court justices, hearing a historic argument on
the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, signaled they are likely to strike down a
handgun ban in the
"While that conclusion alone could elate many gun-rights supporters," Savage continued, "that may not have been the most difficult question in the case argued today before the court. That question is: If such a constitutional right exists, how may legislatures and city councils limit that right? And the profound disagreements Tuesday among the justices on that question suggest that the answer may come amid some serious shades of grey."
"I just got back from oral arguments, and I'm happy to say that we've almost certainly got the five votes we hoped for, and maybe a sixth ...
"Counsel for the District started out almost immediately-after being attacked by a few justices, including Kennedy, started claiming that the current law didn't ban self-defense. This was already contrary to their earlier claims and wasn't brought up below, and as the argument went on, he backed away more and more from defending the long gun part of the law. By the time it was his turn for rebuttal, he had all but abandoned the long gun part of DC's law and, essentially, asked that the Court uphold the pistol ban part provided that DC clarify its statute to ensure that self- defense is not curtailed by the long gun regulations." The New GUN WEEK, April 15, 2008
ATF takes heat over proposed tool
inscription
by Dave Workman, Senior Editor
Call it either a phenomenally arrogant, and stupid waste of money, or call it a clever way to remind field agents to seize property from criminals so it can be returned to the rightful owners.
Whatever you call it—and gun rights activists have been calling it a lot of things lately on chat lists—the proposal to purchase specially-engraved
Leatherman multi-tools for distribution to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents ignited a firestorm because of the inscription: "Always Think Forfeiture."
However, Gun Week was advised that the purchase may not have taken place, and the bid request that went out last October may have been withdrawn.
According to ATF sources, the reminder to field agents to "always think forfeiture" may have positive results for gunowners and other crime victims, because forfeiture statutes are sometimes overlooked with cases against drug traffickers and other criminals. And until ATF or other agencies can legally take possession of weapons or other property seized during investigations, those items cannot be returned.
There are concerns that asset forfeiture laws have been abused, however, and that often law-abiding citizens, including gun collectors or dealers, have seen their property seized as part of an investigation, and may not get it back if such an investigation does not pan out.
Todd Reichert, a supervisory special agent and public affairs officer with ATF, told Gun Week that it is hardly unusual for ATF agents and other law enforcement officers to "recover firearms from some person who cannot legally own firearms" during an investigation.
"Let's say it's a convicted felon, a prohibited person, and we find four or five handguns in his apartment,"
Reichert explained "We find out if they used a straw purchase to get those guns, or if they are stolen guns...."
Once the origin of those firearms is established, ATF can use the forfeiture law to "transfer ownership of property between two parties," the criminal and the ATF, and this process essentially works the same way for any law enforcement agency involved in such an investigation.
A former Texas lawman, Reichert noted that criminals frequently get firearms as a result of a residential burglary If the serial number of a stolen firearm is entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, when ATF -- or another agency runs a check, that gun will show up as stolen. That is when, Reichert explained, the process begins for return of the firearm to its rightful owner.
And here's where he offered some advice to gunowners: Keep a record of your firearm, a description including make, model and caliber, barrel length and, of course, the serial number.
ATF Special Agent Rich Marianos said that it is better to be able to return a stolen firearm to its owner than possibly have it destroyed by some police agency because the owner cannot be located. The New GUN WEEK, April 15, 2008
New report finds DEA losing more guns,
but fewer laptops
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is losing more guns but fewer laptops than it was about five years ago, the Justice Department's inspector general said on Mar. 28, according to Associated Press (AP).
The latest follow-up report found that some of the same problems cited in a 2002 audit remain: Policies for storing weapons and laptops are not always followed and, when they are lost, officials don't regularly report them.
The report credited the DEA with a 50% reduction in the frequency with which laptops are lost and stolen. But the inspector general said officials often have no idea what information was on the computers when they were stolen.
Officials are required to document whether sensitive material was on a lost or stolen computer. But of the 231 laptops lost in the 51/2 years covered by the report, such documents were filed only five times.
"We asked DEA senior managers what the DEA did to determine the contents of the remaining 226 lost or stolen laptop computers. The DEA was unable to provide information regarding what was on the laptops," the report said, according to AP. "We believe the DEA's inability to determine what was on the many stolen or missing laptops was a significant failure."
Auditors said the DEA lost 22 firearms and had an additional 69 stolen over the 51/2-year period. The stolen weapons included pistols, rifles, shotguns, and a submachinegun.
The majority of stolen guns had been left in an official's car, despite a policy prohibiting leaving a firearm unattended in a vehicle. The report cited examples of guns stolen from cars parked outside restaurants, hotels, schools and gyms. Some agents had their guns taken from their cars while they were shopping or getting coffee. One firearm was stolen while the car was at the body shop.
The DEA, in a written response attached to the report, said it agreed with many of the recommendations and had already taken several steps to improve its reporting process. All laptops containing sensitive information are now encrypted, the agency said, and all lost or stolen firearms are routinely reported.
"The DEA has made significant improvements in its rate of loss for laptops," agency spokesman Garrison Courtney said, according to AP. "In those instances where weapons were lost or stolen, appropriate disciplinary actions were taken by DEA."
A PDF copy of the report can be found at: usdoj.gov/oig/reports/DEA/a0821/final. (Correct
address for this report is: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/DEA/index.htm)
The New GUN WEEK, April 15, 2008
Citizens balk at warrantless gun
searches in
by Dave Workman, Senior Editor
Residents of neighborhoods in
When the program in the
In
According to the Boston Globe, Lisa
Thurau-Gray, managing director of that city's
"What part of 'no' don't they understand," she wondered, the newspaper said.
The
"If District residents allow this to happen," he said, "no home will be safe from warrantless fishing expeditions by police, because that's exactly what this thinly-disguised program is really all about."
He is concerned that this could set a dangerous precedent that other city police departments might try to copy.
But the projects—given laudatory opening announcements by local media--have hit brick walls in both cities, leaving police officials stunned. The Boston Globe said Commissioner Edward F Davis was surprised at the criticism.
Likewise,
Police department spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll told the newspaper that this effort is aimed at getting guns out of the community, not making arrests.
Community leaders in the nation's capitol, according to NBC affiliate WRC in the District, have gone door-to-door in at least one neighborhood to caution residents about allowing police into their homes without warrants to search for firearms.
"I think people should not open your doors under any circumstances," said School Board Member William Lockridge. "Don't even crack your door, unless someone has a warrant for your arrest."
While the program is called Safe Homes, one columnist suggested it should be "dubbed homes outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment."
The
Back in the
That sentiment was reflected in
remarks by Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney for the
ACLU in
"People on the street may say 'This is great. I'm letting them in," she noted, "but those are the people I'm concerned about, because they haven't been educated about the hazards."
Wunsch is worried that public housing residents might lose their homes if police find guns inside and report that to housing authorities. She told Gun Week that many people are not convinced when police insist these are only "consent searches."
"It is coercive," she said, "when three police officers and a clergyman show up on your doorstep."
She reiterated that many people don't know all the pitfalls that could arise if an unlicensed gun is found in their residence. If the housing authority were to find out about that, it could be grounds for eviction, Wunsch indicated.
She did note that some of the police officers involved in the program "are really nice guys and I think they're trying to do a good thing." The New GUN WEEK, April 15, 2008
Important March Supreme Court ruling
clarifies treaty law issue
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) took note of a special benefit of a Mar. 25 Supreme Court decision in an editorial commentary published the following day. While the decision is not clearly linked to the right to keep and bear arms, it should be welcomed by gunowners concerned about the threat of global gun control schemes promulgated by the European Union and United Nations.
"Everyone waxing outraged
about the big
"Though the case became a
global cause célèbre, its sordid origins trace to 1993, when Josê Medellin, a Mexican national, murdered two
"This was a violation of the
1963 Vienna Convention, which holds that diplomats are supposed to be notified
when their nationals are arrested. In response, the
The case also became a referendum
on American commitment to international law and what treaties bind the
"Chief Justice John Roberts,
writing for the 6-3 majority, ruled that the ICJ finding was not binding
because the Vienna Convention is an understanding between governments, a
diplomatic compact, The Journal continued. "It
was never intended to automatically create new individual rights enforceable
domestically by international bodies.
Here's the important part about the
differences in treaties super ceding the
"Treaty obligations, in other words," said The Journal in explaining the decision, "do not necessarily take on the force of law domestically. Rather, Congress must enact legislation for whatever provisions—such as consular notification—that it wants to make the formal law of the land. This distinction matters because it establishes a fire wall between international and domestic law. It also protects the core American constitutional principles of federalism and the separation of powers. As Justice Roberts points out, the courts must leave to the political branches "the primary role in deciding when and how international agreements will be enforced."
Clearly, a president cannot enter into an international treaty—like the Arms Trade Agreement at the UN—without approval of Congress.
"Devotees of using foreign law
to overrule American politicians will squawk," WSJ concluded, "but
the
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion in the 6-3 decision, with Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito signing on, and Stevens concurring but with a separate opinion. Dissenting were Justices Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg. The New GUN WEEK, April 15, 2008
According to The Charlotte
Observer,
Gun enthusiasts such as Rep. Mike
Pitts (R-Laurens), who sponsored the
"Having a concealed weapon means I'm supposed to have it hidden," said Pitts, a retired law enforcement officer who teaches a handgun safety course to legislators and their families. "You're not supposed to know I've got one."
Open-government advocates counter the government should never dole out licenses in secret.
"You need public oversight," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "How else will you know if the state is issuing licenses in a fair way?"
But the legislature in gun-friendly
South Carolina—where one in five legislators holds a concealed firearm permit,
according to a recent review by The State newspaper in
His spokesman, Joel Sawyer, said the GOP governor has not yet reviewed the legislation.
The bill would exempt the identities of permit holders from what's available through the Freedom of Information Act and grant access only to law enforcement or through a court order. The House, which passed the bill unanimously last May, is set to take up Senate changes to the bill on Tuesday. They include requiring the state to publish statistical information yearly on permit holders and applicants, a change Pitts supports.
Pitts said he was incensed by a
column last March in The Roanoke Times that focused on concealed weapon permits
as a way to highlight Sunshine Week, the annual observance of open government
and public records laws. The
Gun activists said the easy access could have alerted criminals about where to find guns because permit holders generally own more than one—or could have given abusive ex- spouses or stalkers the new address of their victims.
More than 61,300
Sex offender killed in home invasion
A Brighton, TN resident fatally shot a home invader who turned out to be a registered sex offender in the process of attacking two women in their own home Feb. 19, according to The Memphis Commercial Appeal.
The dead man was identified as David Fleming, 44. He reportedly broke into the home of his victims at about 3 a.m., tying them up. One of the women escaped and went to the home of neighbor Keith Ingram, who armed himself with a se