NSSF Time Capsule Marks 50th Anniversary & State of Hunting and Shooting
The National Shooting Sports Foundation has packed a time capsule with materials that reflect the state of firearms ownership, target shooting and hunting in the year 2011 and that tell the story of how NSSF, the firearms industry’s trade association, has helped promote, preserve and protect those freedoms over the last half century.
The time capsule project is the last major event commemorating NSSF’s 50th Anniversary celebration this year. It was a half century ago this month that NSSF was officially incorporated.
The 1 x 2 x 3-foot composite-material box –stamped “Open in 2061!”– will be on display at NSSF’s headquarters. Read more
NRA Targets San Fran Gun Control Says The Informant
KALW News “The Informant” took aim at the NRA last week, noting:
“San Francisco currently faces two lawsuits by the National Rifle Association attacking its gun control laws. The lawsuits are part of a nationwide campaign targeting local measures that restrict gun ownership.”
The article also notes that the NRA’s efforts including District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. While this is mostly straightforward reporting it fails to note, as our friend John Lott did in a piece for FoxNews, namely that crime is down in Chicago and D.C.
In other words “The Informant” didn’t offer that key bit of information.
Second Amendment Foundation: Glock Makes Significant Donation To Second Amendment Foundation
Second Amendment Foundation:
The Second Amendment Foundation today announced that Glock, Inc. has donated and pledged significant financial support to SAF’s on-going litigation efforts in defense of firearms civil rights.
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb made the announcement, noting that Glock has now become the largest corporate contributor to the foundation, in recognition of the important legal efforts SAF has mounted and will continue to pursue. Read more
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel Joins Mayors Against Illegal Guns
Former Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel, who is now Mayor of Chicago, is the latest to join New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition. Numerous outlets quote Emanuel’s usual nonsense:
“The fact is we are up against a well-paid Washington gun lobby, largely financed by the firearms industry that is more aggressive and irrational than ever. Mayors Against Illegal Guns takes a bipartisan approach that reflects what Americans actually believe about gun issues: we can respect the rights of gun owners while doing much more to keep illegal guns off the streets and away from criminals.”
Typical rhetoric from a would-be gun grabber. Chicago’s streets were filled with illegal guns before McDonald vs. Chicago, proving that laws don’t deter criminals. And of course this mayor blames the gun lobby and the gun industry for the gun crime instead.
We also see absolutely no “respect” from Mayors Against Illegal Guns. They just want to take our guns and say they respect us.
Glock Makes Significant Donation to Second Amendment Foundation
The Second Amendment Foundation today announced that Glock, Inc. has donated and pledged significant financial support to SAF’s on-going litigation efforts in defense of firearms civil rights.
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb made the announcement, noting that Glock has now become the largest corporate contributor to the foundation, in recognition of the important legal efforts SAF has mounted and will continue to pursue. Read more
Delaware Online Writer Knows Law – Misreads History and Facts
In writing for the community view section of Delaware Online, lawyer Michael P. Kelly offers his thoughts on why we should “Control guns for the ‘common good’” but he offers several glaring mistakes.
He states, in reaction to Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. City of City:
“Municipal attempts to curb gun violence by limiting access to guns, successful throughout Western Europe, appear to be over.”
Have these been successful in Europe? Really? Gun crime is on the rise in places such as Manchester, England.
It also seems that Mr. Kelly is trying to confuse law abiding citizens with criminals. He does make an interesting argument that the right to bear arms implied doing so to face state power. But that isn’t totally accurate. The Second Amendment reads, “The right to keep and bear arms,” before noting anything about a militia. Thus private citizens should have the right to protect themselves, not from state power, but from bad guys with guns.
And this is an issue that Mr. Kelly ignores completely. He talks about “constitutional” issues as a big picture. Do criminals bother with the constitution? Most criminals of the street thug variety, those who will buy illegal guns, and commit the acts of violence in Chicago and Washington, probably can’t spell “constitution.” So Mr. Kelly should look past the legal niceties, he’s too much of a lawyer to make his case.
Brady Center Filed Brief Today Supporting Restricted Permitting Process
The California Pistol & Rifle Association and five individuals have sued San Diego County and its sheriff because California law used the wording “may issue” in its concealed carry permitting process. Under this law, law enforcement officers determine who has “good cause” to receive a permit allowing them to carry a concealed handgun in public areas. The Legal Action Project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed an amicus brief today supporting the California law.
Media Ignores Lawsuit Demanding 18 year olds 2nd Amendment Rights
If you are under the age of 21, it is illegal for a gun merchant to sell you a handgun. Why the media paid close attention to the landmark cases D.C. v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, there is little coverage given to D’Cruz v Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. James D’Cruz, aided by the NRA, is seeking relief that would make it legal for citizens between the ages of 18 to 20 to buy handguns. They can currently buy shotguns and rifles. Read more
Bloomberg Story Gives More Details on Chicago Plaintiffs
As we’ve been reporting, this is still just the beginning of law suits that will likely occur following last week’s Supreme Court ruling. Bloomberg news noted at a Chicago Mercantile Exchange trader is one of four plaintiffs who are suing the city over new gun restrictions. The piece was mostly unbiased and straight news, but it is worth noting the city of Chicago’s official response, which came from Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city’s law department:
“We believe that Chicago’s ordinance is a reasonable attempt to balance the right of individuals to possess handguns in the home for self-defense with the substantial risks to public safety that are associated with the proliferation of firearms.”
The issue is still why law-abiding citizens should be made to suffer, or have their rights limited on the number of handguns that they are allowed to possess, especially when it is so clear by the crime wave sweeping the Windy City that criminals simply ignore the law anyway. We’ll be watching this case very closely.
Vanguard Editorial Misunderstands SCOTUS Ruling
Did Mr. Otis McDonald challenge the Chicago ban on handguns because he wanted to carry around a gun? No, he challenged the ban because his home had been invaded previously and he wanted to defend his wife as well as himself in the future. But this point is clearly missed by Natalia Groznia and the staff of The Portland Vanguard. In an editorial that offers the viewpoint that “relaxed gun laws may put people at risk,” Groznia offers this take:
“Why do you need to carry around a pistol? It seems like the only reason people do this in some cities is for one purpose: Because they can.”
As with other anti-gun editorials this one conveniently fails to mention the reason for Otis V. Chicago completely. It goes even further with the final kicker:
“The Supreme Court is wrong for passing a law allowing people to bear arms because it only makes living in the U.S. more dangerous than it already is.”
Again, this isn’t the case for Mr. Otis McDonald. Now he can own a gun and feel a little safer. The streets of Chicago would not have been any safer had the law been upheld. Criminals would still illegally have guns, and Mr. McDonald would just be unarmed.
