Obama Praised for Vintage Gun Ban

If you have been following FirearmsTruth over the last few weeks, you know that the federal government has banned the return of vintage Korean War small arms to this country. The facts of this issue are like drunk drivers, they are all over the place. What is clear is that the president is being praised for stopping the import of M1 Garands and M1 carbines. These firearms are popular with history buffs and collectors. But because of the popularity of recent WWII movies and TV series, these weapons have become expensive to buy.  It seems that anti-gun zealots are ecstatic over the ban.

As Mary Bargeman of World News Heard Now wrote: “The Brady Campaign is aglow with praise for the Obama Administration, because these people would love nothing more than to take away the one Constitutional right which guarantees all others- the right to keep and bear arms.” Read more

EPA Reviewing Petition to Regulate Lead Ammunition

Earlier this week, the EPA agreed to formally review a petition submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).  The petition requests that the EPA ban the use of lead in firearms ammunition by exercising powers granted to the EPA under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). Such a ban would cause the cost of ammunition to skyrocket because the cost of a replacement metal, like copper, is much more expensive. Copper is selling for $3.30 a pound on today’s spot market. Lead is only 91 cents a pound. Read more

Call for Texas Law to Impede Firearms Ownership: Lower the Drawbridge

Paul Kamprath, a writer for the Austin Liberal Examiner (need we say more?) is calling for a Texas law that would require any gun purchaser to prove that he or she passed a firearms safety course. At the beginning of the editorial Kamprath recalls the story of a recent and unfortunate shooting. A business owner shot a formal employee when that employee returned looking for his old job back. The owner shot the man after a verbal confrontation and was later arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Read more

Montana Bear Attack – Would Guns Have Made a Difference?

The debate over guns in national parks continues to rage, but it is worth considering following a recent report of a bear attack in Montana. USA Today notes:

“In a sobering reminder that bears are the bosses of the backcountry, one person was killed and two others injured in a bear attack Wednesday at the heavily occupied Soda Butte campground just outside Yellowstone National Park.”

Would the bears have been able to attack and take a life had anyone in the campground been armed?

Firing Back: Dems Becoming Pro Gun – What’s the Problem?

FoxNews.com offered an interesting take on how “Pro-Gun Dems May Get a Boost,” and it included some interesting commentary and insight. Many liberals, especially liberals in the media, bemoan this fact. It is mentioned, as it is noted even on FoxNews that the National Rifle Association is a powerful pro-gun lobby, and that the group spends massive amounts of money, which includes donations directly to candidates and political action committees. Of course the liberals cry foul on this issue. Read more

Boston Globe Mommy Column Weighs in on Gun Issue

The issue of guns and children comes up a lot, but a letter to the Child Caring column in The Boston Globe clearly had an anti-gun bias. First the letter was written (and/or edited) to make it seem a bit more sensational than it needed to be:

“I have a 9-month-old daughter, and her dad and I have split up.  He has a .45 and he owns rifles that he uses to go hunting.  He keeps the rifles in his gun safe but has his .45 sitting in a drawer right next to the baby’s crib.” Read more

NRA Backs Student

We’re happy to report that the NRA is backing Gary Tudesko, the 16-year old student who has been expelled from Willows High School in California for having a shotgun stored in his truck while parked off student grounds reports KCRA.com.

One part that the media has addressed is this tidbit from the TV station:

“California law defines a school zone to be anywhere within 1,000 feet of the campus. The truck was parked within that zone.”

Would this mean that students, or anyone with a firearm has to avoid driving down the same street of a school? What would happen if Tudesko, or any other student, happened to live on the same street as the school? Would this law still apply? Surely this law must affect some firearms owners!

Student Expelled For Firearms Left in Truck Off School Campus

Will schools soon be expelling students for owning firearms? That’s a question we’d like to hear asked more and more. We bring up this because of a news story that ran in The Modesto Bee – and for the record we had no problem with the story’s writing or tone, just what it reported:

“Gary Tudesko, 16, was expelled from Willows High School in November after a dog detected the guns in his pickup truck on Oct. 26, according to a news release by the National Rifle Association. Tudesko told school officials he’d gone on an early morning duck-hunting trip before school that morning and believed the guns would not be a problem if he parked off campus.”

A hearing is scheduled for this week, and we hope that the school does the right thing. While school shootings aren’t something to be taken lightly, we feel that law-abiding citizens (even those in high school) shouldn’t be punished because of other’s actions.

Oshkosh Paper Late to Story, Twists Facts

Did you hear that gun sales are up and ammo is in short supply? Because Northwestern.com from Oshkosh, Wisconsin is reporting this fact like it is new news as opposed to the old news that it is actually is, and worse this piece shows just enough bias as well.

The story quotes Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, with this passage:

“Vice, who works for a group that works to strengthen gun laws, said the NRA spent substantial resources last year ‘trying to convince the public that President Obama would take their guns away.’”

First, has the NRA really done anything wrong? There is a legitimate concern here, and few in the mainstream media will admit that the NRA’s efforts may have convinced Obama and the liberals in power to keep their hands off our guns. But then the piece adds this passage:

“Vice said no one is arguing that guns should be taken away.”

Then how do you explain that Vice works for a group that would strengthen gun laws? Strengthen them by how exactly? Aren’t these means to “strengthen” the laws eventually going to make it harder for people to buy and sell guns? That seems like the first step to taking them away to us.