Bloomberg Groups Intensifies Attack On Tiahrt Amendment: Mayor Michael
R. Bloomberg of New York and other members of the national coalition
Mayors Against Illegal Guns unveiled a 30-second television
advertisement intended to pressure Congress to rescind the so-called
Tiahrt amendment, a measure attached to spending bills each year since
2003 that bans the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
from releasing gun-trace data, except to police officials and
prosecutors working on a particular crime.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/us/19brfs-MAYORSSHOWGU_BRF.html
---
Virginia Tech Case Proves Bloomberg Is Lying: It took less than 24 hours
for authorities to trace two handguns used by Virginia Tech gunman Cho
Seung-Hui, proving that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is lying when
he claims that legitimate law enforcement access to trace data is being
blocked by federal law, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and
Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-18-2007/0004568484&EDATE=
---
Florida House Committee Rejects Parking-Lot-Storage Bill: In a major
blow to the National Rifle Association, a measure that would have
prohibited business owners from banning guns on company property was
soundly defeated in a House committee Wednesday morning, killing the
legislation for the year. The issue brought two of the most powerful
lobbies in Tallahassee - the NRA and the Florida Chamber of Commerce -
head to head over whether the private property rights of business owners
superseded an individual's right to store guns in their locked vehicles
at work.
http://www.miamiherald.com/416/story/78302.html
---
"Gun Control" Returns As Campaign Issue: Article reviews the dilemma
that Democrats face if they attempt to resurrect one of their
traditional (for the last few decades) campaign planks and how
Republicans are using the shootings at Virginia Tech to try to cement
their RKBA credentials.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/18/ap/politics/main2699042.shtml
Related Article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266746,00.html
---
Rangel - Shooting Won't Change Gun Laws: Rep. Charles Rangel, a top
House Democrat from Harlem, said Tuesday the shooting carnage at
Virginia Tech won't change the nation's gun control laws. He told an
audience at the National Press Club that he didn't think the Second
Amendment should be repealed and added that fellow Democrats told him
the fatal shootings of 33 people Monday would not change votes in
Congress on gun issues.
http://www.amny.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-bc-ny--rangel-guns0417apr17%2C0%2C419824.story?coll=am-topheadlines
---
People With Guns Stop Killers: New York's Daily News, of all papers,
offers a law professor from Tennessee the opportunity to argue that
college campuses are safer if students who have qualified for
concealed-weapon permits are allowed to carry their firearms.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/04/18/2007-04-18_people_dont_stop_killers_people_with_gun.html
---
A Culture Of Passivity: Mark Steyn weighs in on the failure of students
at Virginia Tech to fight back. "...I have always believed America is
different. Certainly on September 11th we understood. The only good news
of the day came from the passengers who didn't meekly follow the
obsolescent 1970s hijack procedures but who used their wits and acted as
free-born individuals..."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzEzYzQ0Y2MyZjNlNjY1ZTEzMTA0MGRmM2EyMTQ0NjY
---
Let's Make America A "Sad-Free Zone": Pull-no-punches columnist Ann
Coulter takes on the concept of gun-free zones and its contribution to a
host of shooting incidents at schools (including some by adults with no
prior connection to the school).
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55277
---
How Well Would A Gun Ban Work?: To take the principle of gun-control
measures to the ultimate level, let's say America decided in the coming
weeks that it no longer could tolerate the heinous acts of a lone
gunman, whether in Blacksburg, Va., or in an Amish schoolhouse in
Paradise, Pa. ...What would be the outcome? Would America suddenly
become a gun-free safe zone? ...Our so-called war on illegal drugs has
not exactly been a whopping success. You can go to all parts of our city
and find whatever you need to help you get through the day...
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20070418-104850-4951r.htm
---
The Fight To Bar Arms: With the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech in which
32 people were slain on campus by a lone gunman who turned his weapon on
himself, no doubt the clamor to ban personal ownership of guns will be
raised again. Yet amidst the grief and anguish over this terrible
incident it should be noted that the campus itself had gained a
well-known reputation as a "gun free zone."..
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/the_fight_to_bar_arms.html
---
Why "Ismail Ax"?: Jerry Bowyer turns to the Old Testament to decipher
the meaning of "Ismail Ax," the name Cho Sueng Hui had written on his
arm. While Bowyer doesn't use the term, his account suggests that the
carnage at Virginia Tech may be related to the "sudden jihad" syndrome.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JerryBowyer/2007/04/18/ismail_ax_the_shooter_was_another_son_of_sacrifice
---
Cho Seung Hui Had Involuntary Mental-Health Commitment: ...Gun control
advocates seized upon the revelations about Mr. Cho's psychiatric
history to call for more complete background checks on gun buyers,
particularly expanding the number of situations in which someone may be
disqualified from buying a gun because of mental health issues...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/us/19weapons.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
---
California Columnist Urges "Bullet Control": "...It's true, guns don't
kill people. Bullets do. Deny ammunition to a handgun, and it becomes
about as lethal as a tack hammer...So De Leon, at the urging of Mayor
Antonio Villaraigosa, Police Chief William J. Bratton and county Sheriff
Lee Baca, has introduced legislation that would make California the
first state to seriously regulate handgun ammunition."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap19apr19,1,382737.column?coll=la-headlines-california
---
SAF Marks Anniversary Of Lexington, Concord Battles: Thursday, April 19
marks the 232nd anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord that
started the American Revolution with the "Shot Heard Round the World,"
and the Second Amendment Foundation notes that the aftermath of this
week's events in Virginia clearly show that European animosity toward
our right to keep and bear arms still exists.
http://www.pr-inside.com/saf-observes-232nd-anniversary-of-lexington-r98078.htm
---
From Alan Korwin:
4- Insider Details on NRA "Plan" to Overturn Parker Case
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Parker v. D.C. was a
milestone in Second Amendment decisions -- the court declared in no
uncertain terms that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual
right. Gun lovers popped champagne and gun haters popped an artery.
But talk on the street says the NRA didn't want this case to be heard,
doesn't want this case appealed to the Supreme Court (which may very
well occur), and wants it vacated and moot by repealing the D.C. gun ban
in the first place. That would erase the gains made by the brilliant
decision. A good deal of evidence implies a degree of truth to the
rumor. What's up?
The NRA is indeed promoting the "D.C. Personal Protection Act," which if
enacted would repeal the 31-year-old D.C. total gun ban. If that bill
succeeds it will make the Parker case moot. Parker is a superb gun case
-- the plaintiffs include a black woman in a dangerous neighborhood
threatened by vicious thugs, an officer who can carry on the job but not
in his own apartment, a member of the Cato Institute... not the usual
bottom-feeding criminals trying to squirm out of felony criminal charges
by challenging the constitutionality of a law. Why would the NRA try to
derail that?
I asked around at the NRA convention in St. Louis last weekend
(4/12-4/15), and there were plenty of answers. Some you may like and
some you may reject.
[Comments from the chief sponsor of the case, attorney Robert Levy,
appear in brackets. Levy is a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at
the Cato Institute, but is acting independent of the Institute.]
If you get a sense that there are personality conflicts or some bad
blood underlying parts of this, you wouldn't be completely wrong. You
get the NRA and this many powerful attorneys buzzing around a crucial
case and you're going to have some friction and disagreement -- and I'm
being nice about it.
Now, don't get angry at me -- I'm not necessarily agreeing with any of
this -- I'm just the messenger, so you can know what's floating around:
- In all seriousness NRA Exec. VP Wayne LaPierre announced publicly at
the Grassroots seminar, "Parker is going to go up and we have a damn
good chance of winning it!"
- In contrast, NRA president Sandy Froman accurately said during her
formal remarks at the Member's Meeting, "Although we know what the
outcome (of Parker) should be, there's no guarantee that it will be what
it should be."
- Froman did the math and said two votes are sure, and two more are
likely. "Two and two makes four. But four Justices out of nine is not a
majority." Just that suggestion is chilling, implying we have a Court of
people not laws. But we do, and both sides know it. The details of the
case are less of an issue than the people on the bench.
- Strategy-wise, this is "a dual-track plan," one wonk notes. "Hope for
the best, prepare for the worst," another says cautiously. Parker would
make good law, but it's not guaranteed to succeed. If it fails, you want
a backup strategy.
[Levy notes: Why have a backup more than a year before the Supreme Court
could possibly decide Parker? If a backup is necessary, there's plenty
of time without risking that the DC Personal Protection Act will be
added as a rider to some legislation that has bi-partisan support (that
almost happened a couple of weeks ago).]
- Congress has numerous new players with no grade on gun issues. The
push to repeal the gun ban has the side benefit of getting both chambers
on the record -- do you support a particularly bad gun ban or not?
Congress members recognize this.
[Levy notes: Ditto, previous comment. Why run the risk now? There's
plenty of time to score members of Congress. If the DC Personal
Protection Act is such a rush issue, where has it been for the past 31
years?]
- Legislators who commit to repeal the ban by co-sponsoring the bill
earn an "A" as far as it goes, and we'll see what the future brings.
- Three tries to repeal the ban didn't pass when Republicans controlled
Congress so it has a low chance of passage now. Unlikely for Waxman to
allow it heard in committee, or a unanimous consent resolution to take
it to the floor. Its chances of making Parker moot are thus slim, and no
effort will go into forcing that prematurely. This is no secret to
Congress watchers.
[Levy notes: If the DC Voting Rights bill hadn't been pulled from the
floor, it might well have passed with a rider that mooted the Parker
litigation. Those kinds of things happen in Congress, all the time ...
and they're not entirely predictable. ]
[Korwin points out: If it isn't obvious by now it should be -- the NRA
is less than pleased that it isn't running this show, and the various
players are not tightly aligned on strategy. Well-meaning individuals
can have legitimate differences of opinion. You're getting to see the
fly-on-the-wall perspective that is so often hidden from view.]
- 41 Senators are on the bill at introduction, which is itself a good
thing. Those commitments have value later (69 are on the House bill).
- The Cato Institute (presumed by many to be the force behind the case,
though it is actually a private effort that includes some Cato members),
according to random scuttlebutt: understands the law well but doesn't
understand the politics at all; doesn't care; doesn't "get" it; can just
walk away later; won't have to pick up the pieces like the NRA will if
the case fails, is rolling the dice with your kid's tuition on the line.
[Levy notes: Let me say this in plain terms: the Cato Institute did not
start this case, has nothing to do with the litigation, hasn't even
filed an amicus brief, and won't be involved in any legal tactics or
strategy at any point. At most, Cato will help generate media support,
and file a brief with the Supremes. So to suggest that Cato "can just
walk away later" is irrelevant and absurd. Cato can't walk away from
something it never has been associated with. As for the "private effort
that includes some Cato members" -- i.e., me -- I have years of work and
plenty of bucks invested in constitutional issues like this one. I'll
match my commitment of time and resources against anyone at the NRA or
elsewhere. It's frankly offensive for someone to suggest that I "don't
understand," "don't care," "don't get it," or that I'm "rolling the
dice." That applies doubly with respect to both of my co-counsel.]
[Korwin points out: People were willing to speak to me, an arms-length
third party, in realistic and candid terms they would likely not use
face-to-face, which is why I have identified none by name. Some remarks
were made in personal confidence and do not appear here at all. I told
everyone I spoke with that I don't know what to say when people ask me
why NRA objects to the Parker case, or seems to be trying to scuttle it,
and openly sought help in understanding so I could explain it (I have
not even begun to explore the Seegars debacle). It is clearly
instructive to hear what's going on, though it's perhaps less than
satisfying, or painful, to hear what people really think about you when
you're not in the room, whether they're right, wrong, or nuts.]
- Everyone expects a conservative outcome. So where was that on the Kelo
case (eminent domain)? On McCain Feingold campaign finance reform
(suppression of speech before an election)? On the EPA case (global
warming pollution from CO2)? The results are far from guaranteed.
- "Show me five votes! Show me five! You can only show me four."
- This case was filed when O'Conner was on the bench -- it was terrible
timing, even though the timing now is better, and might get even better
if there's another vacancy soon.
[Levy notes: When this case was filed (Feb. 2003), it was virtually
certain that the Court would look better by the time Parker went up.
That's what we told the NRA when its representatives cautioned against
filing the case. Our prediction turned out to be 100% correct. The Court
now looks better than anytime in recent memory, and better than it's
going to look longer-term.]
- Just because a vacancy may come up doesn't mean Bush can get a good
appointee through the Democrat controlled Senate and committees.
- Just because there's a vacancy doesn't mean Bush won't fold with a
squishy candidate, or a candidate who changes stripes once appointed.
- NRA filed a powerful and significant amicus brief, documenting
state-level Second Amendment actions that invalidated unconstitutional
gun bans.
- NRA also supported a Congress of Racial Equality amicus brief.
- The Parker decision still blatantly denies rights to residents that a
ban repeal would fix -- it only allows possession by registration and
permit, at government discretion, only at home, with no way to get a gun
to the home, and no way to purchase across state lines. What good is a
registered permitted gun that you can't obtain? A ban repeal addresses
that (somewhat).
[Levy notes: Anything that Parker doesn't address can certainly be
addressed by suitable legislation -- but NOT a bill with a provision
that would moot Parker. By all means, let the NRA introduce legislation
that will accomplish all of its many goals. In fact, my co-counsel and I
have already drafted legislation (sent to selected senators) that does
everything the NRA-sponsored bill does, without putting Parker at risk.
And of course, it's too obvious to point out that the DC Personal
Protection Act addresses only DC; a Supreme Court pronouncement applies
everywhere.]
- You're talking about arguing the most crucial issue at the highest
court in the land, with an attorney some observers at the NRA do not
hold in high esteem. One person questioned whether any attorney at the
NRA itself was of sufficient mettle to tackle the case, and suggested
you want someone of at least the stature and competence of Ted Olson, or
perhaps Lawrence Tribe, on something this big.
[Levy notes: Well, let's see: Which lawyers sued the Justice Department
in Seegars, only to have the DOJ attorneys prevail on a standing
argument that DC lawyers never thought of? Which lawyers neglected to
have one of the Seegars plaintiffs apply for registration to ensure
there would be legal standing? Which lawyers asserted every cause of
action imaginable in Seegars, giving the court a non-Second-Amendment
path to resolving the case? Then again, which attorneys won in Parker?]
[Korwin points out: And just for the record, lead attorney Alan Gura, a
graduate of Cornell (1992) and Georgetown Law (1995), does have an
impressive list of accomplishments, including the stunning win in the
Parker case.]
- The devastation of a loss is so great that of course you have to be
reluctant to jump into the fray. (I've been saying this for years --
that both sides are terrified to bring a case, and rightly so.) A lack
of reluctance to proceed is viewed by some as reckless.
[Levy notes: There are more than enough reasons to go for the Supremes
NOW. But if only one reason were needed, here it is: Virtually every
wrongly-decided 2d Amendment case has been US v. Someone -- in other
words, a criminal case -- brought by an accused felon-in-possession or
some bank robber or crackhead seeking to reverse a sentencing
enhancement. Sooner or later, when four liberal justices sense that the
time is right, the Court is going to reach down and grab one of those
cases. We warned the NRA about that four years ago. And we still haven't
heard a game plan to avoid the problem. In short, if a good case doesn't
go up, a bad one will.]
- A cogent case can be made for a collective rights view (Militia as
response to Founders' fear of standing army, recent-history court
activity, foreign precedents, etc.) which although bogus, can be used by
ideologues on the Court to justify a decision that is results driven,
instead of law, fact or precedent driven. If some Justices are seeking a
means to an end, do you give them the opportunity?
[Levy says: That's an argument for never doing anything. There's always
a risk in going to the Supremes. But this time we have a good Court, a
great case, the perfect venue, a sympathetic Justice Department, no
incorporation issue, outstanding plaintiffs, 47 states to win, only 3 to
lose, and a terrific appellate opinion. In the unlikely event that 5 of
the current justices decide to read the 2d Amendment out of the
Constitution by upholding a total ban on handguns, that would be the
time for Congress to act. Furthermore, a ruling that the 2d Amendment is
effectively meaningless seems unlikely during the heat of the '08
election, when it would be a rallying cry for the pro-gun community.
Finally, if the Court is so inclined, it has ways to reverse Parker
without reaching the merits (e.g., standing). Wayne is supposed to have
some insight on these matters. Let's take him at his word: "Parker is
going to go up and we have a damn good chance of winning it!"]
So there it is. The NRA is not ipso facto fighting Parker. They are
addressing a complex issue in a complex way. And Levy, leading the
charge for the best case to come along in decades has all the compelling
points you would want a good lawyer to have. Whether you think it's time
to make the play or not, the game is on.
==========
Thanks for reading!
Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm
---
From AzCDL:
SB 1258, which prohibits the Governor or the Adjutant General from confiscating lawfully held firearms during a state of emergency, was signed by the Governor on April 18, 2007.
Information on this and other bills can be found at the AzCDL website:
http://www.azcdl.org/html/legislation.html
These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization. Join today!
AzCDL - Protecting Your Freedom
http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html
Copyright � 2007 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights reserved.
--
Stephen P. Wenger
Firearm safety - It's a matter
for education, not legislation.
http://www.spw-duf.info
