FLE

Far-reaching Gun Ban Would Cripple The Second Amendment Right now, we need your help in beating back a reintroduction of the so-called "assault weapons ban," the infamous bill that outlawed many types of firearms based primarily on cosmetics, misinformation and scare tactics. The bill is HR 1022, and last month it was introduced by the Queen of Gun Control, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). McCarthy entitled her bill the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007, knowing these firearms aren't "assault weapons" and knowing the bill she is reintroducing does nothing to prevent violent crime -- since the guns in question have seldom been used in crime. McCarthy's bill would reinstate all of the now defunct provisions related to semi-automatic firearms and large capacity magazines. The manufacture and/or importation of many firearms would be prohibited. This would be paired with a strong ban on the possession or transfer of detachable magazines having moderate or larger capacities. Truth be told, HR 1022 is the old ban on steroids. Fourteen more guns are listed by name than in the '94 ban, and only one "dangerous" feature, such as a pistol grip, is needed to make a "nice" gun into a "bad" gun. The old ban required two "dangerous" features, such as a pistol grip and a folding stock. This distinction effectively expands the scope of the bill to ban a far broader variety of firearms. Since the U.S. Department of Justice has already documented that the previous "assault weapons" ban did absolutely nothing to stop violent crime, it is clear that HR 1022 is simply a direct attack on the 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners....
The Witch Hunt Against Gun Owners Two weeks ago, the Roanoke (Va.) Times published an online database of registered concealed handgun permit holders in the paper's community under the sanctimonious guise of "Sunshine Week." The database included both the names and street addresses of some 135,000 Virginians with permits to carry concealed weapons. Columnist Christian Trejbal patted himself on the back for making it easy to snoop on the neighbors: "I can hear the shocked indignation of gun-toters already: It's nobody's business but mine if I want to pack heat. Au contraire. Because the government handles the permitting, it is everyone's business." Trejbal denied that compiling the concealed carry permit holders list was "about being for or against guns." But he exposed his true agenda when he compared law-abiding gun owners to . . . sex offenders: "A state that eagerly puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not." The Roanoke Times showed reckless disregard for the safety of the license holders and reckless disregard for accuracy. In his column, Trejbal admitted that he knew some of the information he had obtained was inaccurate -- but published it anyway: "As a Sunshine Week gift, The Roanoke Times has placed the entire database, mistakes and all [emphasis added], online at http://www.roanoke.com/gunpermits. You can search to find out if neighbors, carpool partners, elected officials or anyone else has permission to carry a gun." After an uproar among gun-owners, including domestic violence victims licensed to carry, the Times finally decided to yank the database. Trejbal seems not to feel much remorse: "Did we make it easier [to obtain the information]? Yes. But it's still a public record." Let's review: He published a list he knew contained inaccuracies. His paper admits the decision endangered gun owners. He compiled a convenient shopping list for criminals -- and smacked law-abiding gun owners in the face with his comparison of their choice to exercise their rights with sex offenders....
Community Suggests Gun Possession Is Illegal For Residents Some people in a Nashville neighborhood are furious over a new rule that makes it illegal to own a gun. Residents in Nashboro Village said it's unconstitutional and leaves them defenseless. Two weeks ago, residents received a letter from their homeowners' association indicating that guns are not allowed on the property. Two weeks ago, the property management company at Nashboro Village told its residents no more guns on the property. Officials with Ghertner and Company, the property manager at Nashboro Village, would not make an on-camera comment about the gun policy but said they plan on changing the rule soon to allow firearms on the property. However, they would make it illegal to fire those guns, which residents say is still unconstitutional....
SAF supports Adventure Outdoors battle against Bloomberg The Second Amendment Foundation today confirmed that it is providing financial support to Adventure Outdoors of Smyrna, Georgia in a lawsuit against New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other New York defendants for attempting to ensnare and defame the store in Bloomberg’s infamous 2006 gun shop “sting.” SAF’s support was requested by attorney and former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, now working at the Jasper, Georgia law offices of Edwin Marger, which represents Adventure Outdoors. SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb said the foundation has sent a check to Marger, and promised to help bring public attention to the case. The Justice Department has declined to file criminal charges against any of the gun dealers targeted by Bloomberg, and has advised Bloomberg’s office that it could face “potential legal liabilities” if such sting operations continue. Earlier this year, W. Larry Ford, Assistant ATF Director for Public and Governmental Affairs, confirmed to SAF that the agency “is investigating the matter [Bloomberg’s stings] in order to determine if violations of federal firearms laws occurred.”....
Let's Ditch The Second Amendment But there's a big problem with blasting Silberman for entertaining the notion that the people's right to "keep and bear arms" may actually include an individual right to, well, keep or bear a gun in the District of Columbia: None of these words actually come from his opinion. All, in fact, were written by esteemed liberal law professors. The first is from Laurence Tribe's famed treatise on the Constitution, the latest version of which Tribe altered in recognition of the growing power of the individual-rights view of the amendment--a view he had long rejected. The second is by Sanford Levinson, who--before he stopped believing in the Constitution altogether--wrote an illuminating law review article called "the embarrassing second amendment." The final quotation is from Akhil Reed Amar's ambitious history, The Bill of Rights. One can still muster strong arguments in favor of a collective-rights conception of the Second Amendment, the view that has prevailed in most other circuits; and the individual-rights view does not necessarily doom all gun control (though it probably does doom the most sweeping bans). But the simple truth is that the individual-rights view is in intellectual ascendancy, and not just among gun-loving wing nuts. If Silberman is a radical with blithe disregard for public safety, he is in exceptionally strong company. It's time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the amendment actually means something in contemporary society. For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let's repeal the damned thing....
Signs of Life in the Second Amendment For nearly 70 years, the Second Amendment has been the Jimmy Hoffa of constitutional provisions -- missing, its whereabouts unknown, and presumed dead. The right to keep and bear arms, though treasured by many Americans, was a complete stranger to the Supreme Court. But recently, a federal appeals court did something no federal court had ever done before: It struck down a gun control law as a violation of the Second Amendment. The District of Columbia statute in question is one of the most stringent in the country. It bans the ownership of handguns except those registered before 1976, and it requires rifles or shotguns to be not only registered but kept unloaded and equipped with a trigger lock. Such tight restrictions, the appeals court said, can't be reconciled with the Bill of Rights. The decision does not prove that the Second Amendment is alive and well. But it does mean that, finally, we are likely to get an answer from the Supreme Court on a question that has generated endless debate: Is the Second Amendment a meaningless anachronism, or a live guarantee? The court will be confronting the issue at a time when legal scholarship is increasingly inclined to say there is indeed a right to keep and bear arms....
Use of deadly force likely to be expanded in Texas Texas legislators have sent to Gov. Rick Perry's desk a bill that allows people to use deadly force against attackers outside their homes under a much broader range of circumstances than current law allows, including in defense of their cars or businesses. There is little doubt Mr. Perry will sign the bill, which broadens the scope of self-defense claims in homicide cases, because it passed unanimously (30-0) in the Texas Senate last week and by a 133-13 margin with no debate in the House on Tuesday. And he publicly has praised the Legislature for passing it. The self-defense legislation, proponents claim, strengthens a resident's right to defend his home and harkens back to the state law before it was changed 33 years ago. The bill has been called the "Castle Doctrine," from the age-old feeling that a man's home is his castle and that he has a total right to defend it. Opponents, including some prosecutors, claim the new legislation, which for the first time includes the right to protect oneself in a vehicle and the workplace, fosters a "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality....
Lawsuit Focuses on Whether Mexico Influenced Arrest of Border Agents A government watchdog group wants to know whether the Mexican government influenced the decision by federal prosecutors to go after two ex-border agents who shot a Mexican suspected of smuggling drugs into the country. Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on March 16 in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., asking the court to force the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and the State Department to release information related to the case of former U.S. Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, now serving prison sentences of 11 and 12 years respectively for the shooting incident. "We are interested in learning about any deals brokered between the U.S. and Mexico following the shooting in 2005," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. "Given the public and congressional controversy surrounding the case, the more the American people know about what happened, the better." The group brought the suit because the federal agencies did not yet respond to a Freedom of Information Act request filed on Jan. 24....