Firearms Owners Against
Crime
"A general dissolution of principles and manners will
more surely overthrow the liberties of
E-Newsletter & FOAC
Meeting Notice
June 8, 2008
Meeting Agenda Issues:
None
9.0 NEW BUSINESS
9.1
Candidate
interactions, developments and grassroots efforts (i.e. Door to Door, etc.)
9.2
Political
Events Review and Summary and Candidate Positions and Statements
9.3
Important
Federal Races (President & Congress)
9.4
Important
State Races (State Senate, State House—Open Races!!)
9.5
2008
Fall Breakfast Updates
9.6
Membership
committee developments
9.7
Legislative
Developments
Federal issues:
9.8
USSC:
Court to hear 2nd case on gun rights-Heller v. D.C. Court Case
Pending Decision
Events:
**ACSL Monthly Meeting: June 12th
**PA Gun Collectors Gun Show: June 21st & 22nd (Westmoreland Mall Annex)
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
***General Election – Nov. 4
Supremes Agree To Review Second Gun Case Appeal
by Joseph P.
Tartaro, Executive Editor
A few weeks after hearing oral
arguments in the historic
The court's ruling on the Heller case is expected to be issued by the end of June.
The new case is not so much a Second Amendment case as it is a test of the parameters for enforcement of the Lautenberg amendment barring arms for people convicted or pleading guilty to misdemeanor domestic abuse charges.
It is the case of a Marion County, WV, man, Randy Hayes of Mannington, a contractor convicted of a felony gun possession charge under Lautenberg.
According to The Charleston Daily Mail, Hayes' case goes back to 1994, when he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor battery offense after a dispute with his wife. Ten years later, an argument over their son occurred over the phone between the now-divorced parents and she asked police to go to his home.
When they searched Hayes home, an
old
Attorney Tony Giatras was hired two days before Hayes was expected to plead guilty in federal court.
"We halted the entire process in March 2005," Giatras said. "Because he only pleaded guilty in 1994 to battery, not domestic battery but the federal court interpreted it as domestic battery because it was against a family member."
"In 1994 and in 1995, he was legally able to have a gun," Giatras said. "The 1996 law was applied to him retroactively, but he didn't even know it."
The case went to the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2006 and the court reversed the earlier decision, and the Justice Department appealed.
Giatras said the case is important because it will further define the right to own a gun and also addresses the issue of laws affecting citizens retroactively. In the end, it could provide justice not just for Randy Hayes, but others who have been caught this way, Giatras said. The New GUN WEEK, June 15, 2008
by Dave Workman, Senior Editor
Open carry activists across the
country, and especially in
A few days later, about 30 of them
descended on the
However, Dickson Police Chief William Stadnitski told Gun Week that his officers erred on the side of caution when responding to what apparently was the agency's first-ever 911 call about "people brandishing guns" at an Olde Country Buffet at the height of the dinner hour.
"There was no ill will on our part," the chief said. "I'd rather err on the side of caution here."
The incident involved Rich Banks, founder of Pennsylvania Open Carry, an off-shoot of OpenCarry.org, an activist nationwide gun rights forum and loosely-knit organization that promotes legal open carry of defensive sidearms. Banks was at the family eatery with about two dozen friends and their families—including at least a dozen adults who were armed—when the Dickson police received at least four telephone complaints about "armed men."
At one point, Banks found himself
in handcuffs in the back seat of a patrol car, one of his two guns was
confiscated, and in the aftermath, he was talking to attorneys about filing a
lawsuit. The gun was seized apparently in a misunderstanding about state law
and because the serial number did not show up in some sort of registry, but
Banks said there is no requirement that a handgun be formally registered in the
Registration 'myth'
Mike Stollenwerk, one of the nation's leading open carry advocates, said that this incident underscores the need to "bust this registration myth."
"There is a myth among police
officers that there is gun registration in
The incident began unfolding at about 6:30 p.m. Banks and Stadnitski agree on that point. Initially, two Dickson officers responded, and soon they were asking everyone for identification. Banks said he advised both officers that carry permits are not required for open carry, and also that there is no requirement in the state law to provide a driver's license as identification in a non-driving related situation.
Banks said the officers began lecturing the group about open carry, even after acknowledging that the practice is legal.
Stadnitski told Gun Week that in his 37 years in law enforcement, the last 32 as police chief, he has never seen a private citizen openly carrying a handgun outside of a hunting situation.
Tensions rose more when Banks' wife began trying to video the events, and was threatened by a female police officer with arrest if she did not turn off the camera. This was after Banks, who is neither an attorney nor judge, insisted to the officer that it is not against the law to video record an event that happens in public, even if it involves a police officer.
Stadnitski
contended that Banks gave the officers "a hard time." Banks insisted
he was merely trying to explain the law to the police. It was not until after
he had been placed under arrest that he told the officers he had a second gun,
the Taurus, and a concealed carry permit. He said that while he was detained in
the patrol car, at least eight officers arrived from the area, including
When the police refused to return his revolver after they released him from custody, he demanded a receipt. It was written on a piece of blank paper and signed by the female officer. Stadnitski said that is standard and that the department keeps "formal" receipt forms at the police station.
Gunowner
backlash
In the wake of the incident, Stadnitski said his department was flooded with angry e-mails and telephone calls.
"I believe in the Second Amendment," he insisted.
That declaration may not be enough Stadnitski, who has headed the Dickson department since 1976, is perhaps the latest and certainly not the last police administrator to become aware of the growing open carry movement across the country. He runs a department with 22 commissioned officers, perhaps typical of suburban police agencies, and even some county sheriff's departments. They are learning that while the practice of open carry may be anachronistic, it is not illegal in many, if not most, states.
Stollenwerk has taken something of
a hard line attitude about the reaction by police who, for many years, have
grown accustomed to being the only people in public to openly carry sidearms. In some instances, there have been philosophical
clashes between police and armed citizens. In
Open carry has been upheld by the
state appeals courts in
"You don't detain people and threaten to arrest them simply because they are openly carrying," he said.
Stollenwerk and his partner at OpenCarry.org
have called upon the Lackawanna County, PA, district attorney to order police
to return Banks' revolver without requiring him to provide proof of ownership.
They also want the two officers who initially responded to the call to be
suspended and prosecuted "for violations of civil rights under federal
and
PA Lawmaker Backs Open Carry
While
According to The Scranton Times Tribune, state Rep. Ed Staback (DOlyphant) told the newspaper that while he can understand how some people may be concerned about open carry, he supports the practice and notes that the law allows it.
"It's the law today. ... And it's been that way forever in the state and has not been a problem to date," the newspaper quoted Staback. "But I think if it was me personally, and I needed to carry a gun, I think I would apply for a concealed- weapon permit."
Gun Week has seen the officer's report on the incident.
Staback told The Times Tribune that he did not blame other customers for calling police when they saw several openly armed private citizens dining in the Olde Country Buffet restaurant May 9.
A Dickson officer wrote in that report that she contacted one of the women who made a 911 call to police about the open carry group. According to that report, the caller said that "she and her mother were eating dinner when they observed two males with guns on their sides.
"She stated," the report said, "that she was 'offended' by this that
'one male was at the buffet table with just a nylon strap over his gun and
there were kids running around and some of them pointed at it'. She felt as
though it was strange and thought about all the 'crazy' people in the news
lately. She also stated that her mother's glances were noticed by one male who
stated to her 'don't worry honey you are in the safest place in
Staback, who chairs the House Game and Fisheries Committee, has a pro-gun record that includes being named Legislator of the Year by the National Association of Firearms Retailers. He does not support any proposal to change the current state law.
"They have every right to carry a weapon, a handgun," he told the newspaper, "and I will defend that right to do that. And I think the support wouldn't be in General Assembly, where that change would need to be made. ... I think it would be extremely, extremely difficult."
However, Staback did say that he does not care for the notion that some open carry advocates might stage such incidents as dining at family restaurants while openly armed, to "raise public awareness about gun rights," the newspaper reported.
"Sometimes, it's better you let a sleeping dog lie," he told the newspaper. "I don't know what point you prove by conducting such meetings, and you could end up putting a focus on an issue that isn't being focused on." The New GUN WEEK, June 15, 2008
English (UK) Anti-Gun Leader Stabbed to Death
The
grandson of prominent anti-gun campaigner Pat Regan has been arrested on
suspicion of stabbing her to death.
Mrs Regan, 53, was
discovered at the property on Marlborough Grange in the Hyde Park area of
The
mother-of-six started campaigning against gun crime when her son Danny was shot
dead in 2002.
The
20-year-old man was being held on suspicion of murder, police said. It is
thought he had been arrested earlier in the day over another stabbing.
A
45-year-old railway worker was treated in hospital for a stab wound to his arm
after challenging a man for trespassing at
Mrs Regan set up a
Leeds branch of Mothers Against Guns after her son
Danny, 25, was shot at his home in Haydock, near
She had
met government officials to discuss how to tackle the problems of guns and
gang-related crime.
Dee
Edwards, co-founder of campaign group Mothers Against
Murder and Manslaughter, said Mrs Regan would visit
schools and give talks about the dangers and consequences of getting involved
in crime.
She said:
"She made such a big difference to so many people's lives. This is an
absolute tragedy for so many people."
Mrs Edwards said
she had known Mrs Regan for about six years and
described her as the "most incredible woman".
"It's
just the most dreadful news for everyone. She's just an amazing woman,"
she added.
'No
grudges'
Mrs Regan's friend
Sylvester Johnson, 74, said: "She didn't want any young people to get
caught up in the trouble that her son got caught up in.
"She
was very brave and I don't know of anyone who would have a grudge against
her."
In
February, Mrs Regan was involved with the launch of a
DVD warning about the dangers of gun and knife gang culture.
Speaking
at the time, she said: "Things are reaching a critical point. Kids are
dying before us, but we shouldn't have to bury our own children."
In the
same month, Mrs Regan was at the then Prime Minister
Tony Blair's side at a
Her
campaigning work was also praised by Princess Anne during a visit to the city
earlier this year.
Labour minister
Hilary Benn, who is the MP for Leeds Central and knew Pat Regan, said he was
upset by the news of her death.
"I'm
shocked, and greatly saddened to hear of Pat's death," he said.
"She
made a huge impression on me and on many people that she met. She was
determined to do all that she could so that other mothers didn't go through the
experience that she went through when her son, Danny, was killed." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/7430668.stm
Interior Sets June 30 Deadline For Nat'l Park CCW
Comment
by Dave Workman,
Senior Editor
Through the end of this month, legally-armed private citizens have the chance to influence a change in Department of Interior regulations aimed at allowing them to carry concealed firearms for personal protection in national parks and national wildlife refuges.
A public comment period ends June 30 on a proposal that would, if enacted, dramatically change the way firearms have been regulated on those park and refuge lands for at least the past 25 years.
Gun Week readers can offer comments by logging onto the federal rulemaking portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Comments mail also be mailed to:
Public Comments Processing, Attn: 1024-AD70; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Those living in the
Interior Department spokesperson Chris Paolino said that all public comments will be considered and a final decision "hopefully" might come by the end of this year, but that depends upon the volume of comments, pro and con, that are offered.
Anti-gun organizations have joined forces with some national park groups to oppose the change, while the National Rifle Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) and local grassroots organizations including the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) are supporting the change.
Under the proposed rule change, parks and wildlife refuges would regulate firearms with respect to-state authority, just as the US Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management are now regulating firearms on national forest and BLM lands. For example, it is now legal to carry a concealed handgun according to state statute on national forest lands.
In announcing the proposed change, the Interior Department stressed that this is an update to reflect changes in concealed carry laws that have occurred in the states since 1981 and 1983, when the current federal rules were adopted.
"Since the Federal regulations have remained unchanged during this time," the Interior Department explained, "the provisions fail to distinguish between firearms used by the general public for recreational purposes and the concealed and loaded weapons a limited number of citizens may now carry pursuant to state authorities."
Millions carry guns
By some estimates, as many as four to five million Americans now possess licenses to carry concealed handguns, not only in their home states, but in other states that recognize their permits. A number of those citizens are also licensed to carry in states under permits issued by those states to non-residents.
The current park regulation banning firearms "restricts fundamental freedoms without yielding the benefits the regulations were promulgated to achieve," the Interior Department explained.
NRA has been working on this quietly for several years, and their effort was more far reaching than that mounted by the VCDL. While VCDL focused on national park carry, the NRA's effort also included the change in national wildlife refuges, and that could be a significant difference, because if this proposal is approved following the public comment period, it will open up far more federal land to concealed carry.
"It's a good first half-step," said VCDL's Philip Van Cleave. "We would like to see it improved to a whole step by simply letting state law determine if, and how (open/ concealed/both), a person can carry."
The NRA insisted that this proposal has nothing to do with hunting or opening up the parks to recreational shooting, although critics of the proposal have been portraying the issue that way.
The anti-gun National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been highly vocal in its opposition, claiming that the rule change will increase poaching, and also threaten the safety of park visitors. Joe Waldron, CCRKBA special projects director, called such arguments bogus.
"Criminals have always ignored the law and carried firearms wherever it pleased them," Waldron told Gun Week. "It's about time the NPS leveled the playing field and allowed law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. Forty- eight states allow licensed individuals to carry concealed firearms for self- protection. That right should not stop at a National Park boundary"
The NPCA argues on its website that "The idea that people need guns in the parks for their safety doesn't make sense. Units of the National Park System are some of the safest places in the world. According to the National Park Service, the probability of becoming a victim of a violent crime in a national park is 1 in 708,333, which is less likely than being struck by lightening during one's lifetime. The existing firearms safety and anti-poaching regulation helps ensure that parks remain safe destinations for families."
However, supporters of the rule change argue that this crime ratio does not tell the whole story about national park crime. According to park service data, in the years between 2002 and 2007, there were 63 homicides in national parks, 240 rapes or attempted rapes, 309 robberies, 37 kidnappings and 1,277 aggravated assaults. Proponents of the change say these figures may seem insignificant compared to the number of people visiting the parks annually, but they are definitely significant to the individual victims of those crimes.
Gunowners speak
While the public will be commenting on the proposal officially through the end of June, gun rights activists have already expressed strong support for the plan to Gun Week.
"This would be a significant
step forward if we can accomplish it," said
"The proposal recognizes the
need for self defense and the validity of state CCW licenses," stated
Christopher Meissen from
Larry Towers of
From Redmond, WA—a state with three
popular national parks—James Watkins told Gun Week, "In Alaska, where I
lived for years, I regularly carried firearms for wildlife protection...The one
time I encountered an aggressive brown bear, I was more interested in vacating
the area than shooting the bear, but I did have a self-defense option if plan A
failed. Here in
"Dangerous humans can be a
bigger safety issue," Watkins added. "Our national parks attract meth
cookers, pot farmers, bootleggers, smugglers, crackpot militia wannabes, and
outright wackos...I've been accosted in a wilderness
area, have discovered marijuana plots, etc. A close friend of mine actually
used a pistol to defend himself against a hatchet wielding maniac in bush
"National parks and wildlife
refuges, along with every other area of society, should not be able to restrict
my rights to self-defense," contended Michael Gilmet
of
George Rimmel
of
Brady Campaign Wants To Stop Pro-Second Amendment
Judges
A campaign to prevent confirmation
of federal judicial nominees based solely on their interpretation of the Second
Amendment has been launched by the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence, and one of its funding sources, CREDO
In a fund raising e-mail, the Brady
Campaign and CREDO argue that conservative judicial nominees with pro- Second
Amendment philosophies should be rejected by anti-gun Sen. Patrick Leahy's
(D-VT) Senate Judiciary Committee. They use the case of
"The Heller case is a reminder of the importance of an impartial federal judiciary to preserve hard-fought legislative victories on gun control," a CREDO advisory stated. "In the waning days of the Bush presidency, we must be vigilant to stop the confirmation of judges who will enforce an extremist reading of the Second Amendment and jeopardize the safety of our communities."
The campaign drew a blistering response from Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).
"If there were ever any question that the zealots at the Brady Campaign are determined to crush individual freedom and liberty in this nation," he said, "this new fund raising effort should put that question to rest. This is yet another outrageous example of the extreme ends to which they will go in order to stack our federal courts with far left activist judges whom they hope will trample the rights of law-abiding citizens."
Gottlieb told Gun Week that the Brady Campaign effort is "dripping with irony."
"Apparently," he said, "they only have a problem with conservative activism. They don't oppose liberal activist judges."
Gottlieb suggested that CREDO and the Brady Campaign want to stack the federal courts with judges who are "hostile to the individual right to keep and bear arms." He also said that the groups want to use Leahy as "a willing pawn in this insidious campaign."
A plea from CREDO ends by urging people to "please send Senator Leahy a message today: block the appointment of federal judges who are hostile to reasonable gun control laws."
Gottlieb said this campaign demonstrates "the depths to which anti-gun rights fanatics will sink in their political jihad against a cornerstone of our Bill of Rights."
"What this campaign has done is focus public attention on Sen. Leahy and how he handles judicial nominations," Gottlieb observed. "We will be watching to see whether the Senate gives honest consideration to all nominees, or whether Leahy and his colleagues will allow anti-gun extremism to prevail.
"It is time for the public to
remind the Brady Campaign and its comrades that this is still the
New CARE Report Adds Fuel To
CCW Change On Refuges
by Dave Workman, Senior Editor
A new report on the declining safety and funding at national wildlife refuges should add momentum to the effort to change rules on those refuges, and in national parks, that will allow visitors to legally carry concealed handguns for their personal protection.
A report from the cooperative alliance for refuge enhancement (care) that went to congress last month said the nation's wildlife refuges are underfunded and have become magnets for all kinds of illegal activities that include methamphetamine lab operations in Nevada and marijuana growers in Washington, illegal immigrant camps, prostitution and more.
According to the report, the refuge system has cut 300 staff positions and one in three refuges are operating without a single staffer on site. The report also asserts that the national wildlife refuge system needs at least 845 full-time law enforcement officers, but currently only has 180.
"This is just more evidence
that Americans need to keep their state gun carry rights as they move about
their state even if they happen to enter federal lands," said mike
Stollenwerk with the
The proposed rule change submitted by interior secretary dirk Kempthorne also included federal refuges.
Evan Hirsche, president of the national wildlife refuge association and care chairman, complained that hundreds of thousands of Americans visiting local wildlife refuges face the prospect of finding the area closed, open without staff or a visitor's center, or with decaying facilities. His organization believes that congress should increase refuge system funding to $514 million in fiscal year 2009, and steadily increase that to $765 million by 2013.
Meanwhile, the public is on its own in many areas, and that is what the proposed rule change on concealed carry ostensibly is designed to address.
The national wildlife refuge system is 105 years old this year, and they have some 40 million visitors annually.
Refuges provide hunting and fishing opportunities as well as non-consumptive uses, but in recent years they have also increasingly become the backdrop for all kinds of criminal activity. Combined with declining funding—despite generating an estimated $1.7 billion in annual sales and some 27,000 jobs to local economies—and reductions in personnel including law enforcement, these public lands may not be as safe as they were a generation ago, leaving activists like Stollenwerk pressing for rules changes that will allow private citizens to carry firearms for personal protection.
The proposal has drawn fire from antigun environmental groups. The public has through the end of this month to submit comments pro or con regarding Kemthorne's proposed changes. The New Gun Week, June 15, 2008
Police Fatalities Up In 2007--Majority In Traffic Accidents
Law enforcement deaths rose in 2007, but the majority of those fatalities were the result of accidents, according to preliminary data from the FBI.
Last year saw 140 police officers die on the job, including 57 who were killed in line-of-duty shootings, and 83 who died in accidents including car crashes or being struck by a vehicle. The figures are up from 2006, when the death toll was 114 police officers, including 48 who were stabbed, shot or physically injured in altercations, and 66 who died in accidents.
However, in 2005, there were 122 police who died on the job, including 67 who were killed in accidents and 55 who died "feloniously" in the line of duty.
According to The Washington Times, the 2007 police fatalities included 16 who were ambushed and 16 more who were killed "during arrest situations." Eleven others were killed during traffic pursuits or stops.
The South seems to be tough on
police, with 31 officers killed in that region, while in the West there were
nine fatalities, another nine in the
Of those who were shot, two were killed with their own weapons and four had their guns stolen.
Thirty-eight police officers were killed with handguns, nine with shotguns and eight with rifles.
Meanwhile, according to The Press
Association in
Microstamping Issue Heats Up, Pros Eye Research
by Dave Workman, Senior Editor
Microstamping is not the panacea
that gun control advocates have been suggesting it is, and while state
lawmakers around the country are heating up the rhetoric, especially in
At least, that's the perspective of gun rights activists and even the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is getting into the fray.
In the midst of the controversy, the University of California at Davis has re- released a study on microstamping that has now been peer-reviewed, and an assemblywoman in New York conducted a demonstration of microstamping at a gun range, but firearms industry representatives were barred from the event, according to the NSSF.
Gun Week obtained a copy of the
The
At the
Following the demonstration, pro-gun Assemblyman Greg Ball, a Carmel Republican, and Jake McGuigan, NSSF director of governmental relations, complained that the firearm industry has not been allowed to test the technology or even witness the event, the Legislative Gazette reported.
There is considerable disagreement over how much the technology will cost. Todd Lizotte, who holds the microstamping patent, said the new technology would cost less than $3 per firearm, while NSSF says it will drive up the cost as much as $200 per gun.
The New York District Attorneys Association has unanimously endorsed Schimel's legislation mandating microstamping, according to a report in The Schenectady Daily Gazette. The Albany Times-Bulletin noted that the legislation had stalled in the state Senate.,
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, federal microstamping legislation has been introduced by perennial anti-gun Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA). What impact his recent diagnosis of an inoperable brain tumor may have on how that legislation progresses remains to be seen. That legislation is opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights organizations.
Gun microstamping is just one aspect of this campaign. Another is the push to require that ammunition be coded.
Colorado Sheriff's Commentary Defends Individual Gun
Rights