|
Written by Dave Milthaler
|
|
Friday, 11 January 2008 13:46 |
Until late this week, San Francisco CA had one of the most restrictive
gun bans in the nation. Since 2005, this ban prohibited residents from
selling or distributing firearms and ammunition. In addition, this ban
also barred residents from possessing handguns unless they were
government employees or security guards.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a similar case when attorneys from
Washington will defend their 31-year-old law banning private possession
of handguns.
The following is a release from the National Rifle Association:
*NRA Wins Big in California State Court of Appeals *
Fairfax, VA - The California State Court of Appeals announced today
their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the
country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle
Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco
Board of Supervisors.
"Today's decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win
for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco," declared
Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist.
In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation's most
restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City's mayor and
Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of
penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days
and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes
in their own homes.
"We promised our California NRA members in 2005 that we would fight any
gun ban instituted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and we
haven't given up that fight," continued Cox. "Today we see our second
win for the Second Amendment against the San Francisco gun ban. We beat
them once in court and the City's attorney appealed based on his
personal disagreement with the court's first decision to overturn the
ban. Now we've beaten them again. The California State Court of Appeals
has upheld the state preemption law."
Today's decision came in the form of a 3-0 opinion in favor of the lower
court ruling overturning the gun ban.
"This decision is a thoughtful and well-reasoned legal opinion,"
concluded Cox. "I'd like to thank our approximately 4 million members,
including the hundreds of thousands of members in California, for their
continued commitment to protecting our cherished freedoms."
|
|
Written by Daniel White
|
|
Thursday, 10 January 2008 10:56 |
The Knox Report
From the Firearms Coalition
By Jeff Knox
(January 7, 2008) In the last moments of the 2007 congressional session both the Senate and the House passed a revised version of the NICS Improvement Act H.R.2640 and the President has now signed it into law.
The source of much rancor and gnashing of teeth for the better part of 2007, H.R.2640 was a modified version of a perennial bill from avid anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and was the result of negotiations with NRA. With NRA support it flew through the House on a voice vote and seemed destined to pass through the Senate in similar fashion until Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) halted its momentum. Again NRA went to the bargaining tables to negotiate modifications that would satisfy Coburn without offending bill sponsors like Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY). The end result was the original bill with some extra verbiage to narrow and more precisely define its exact purpose and intent.
Any reasonable analysis of this bill must begin with the recognition that NICS exists and is not going away any time soon. It is supposed to prevent criminals and the mentally defective from acquiring firearms through legal channels. Setting aside debate about the existence of this program it is unconstitutional and should be repealed the issue at hand is whether it is better to leave the system as it is or make some changes to improve it.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Daniel White
|
|
Saturday, 05 January 2008 11:12 |
The Knox Report
From the Firearms Coalition
By Chris Knox
(Phoenix, Arizona) At least twice this December, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents have held press conferences here in Phoenix to announce seizure of a cache or maybe caches of assault-type weapons. According to the latest reports, agents now have one man in custody on felon-in-possession charges. The guns, which have so far only been displayed on tables for television cameras, have not been described in detail, but appear to include AK-47 and AR-15 type rifles, as well as several handguns, ammo for each, and .50 caliber ammunition, although no mention has been made of a corresponding rifle. Numbers of guns involved in the seizure(s) range from 42 to 62, and its so far unclear even whether the most recent stories refer to two separate incidents or the same one. At the time of this writing no agents were available for comment or clarification.
Beyond the most basic facts, the reporting quickly degenerates into press release journalism. In a December 27 Associated Press story, 42 guns were assigned a value of $250,000 yielding an average value of $6,000 apiece. The media have also unquestioningly published ATF agents speculation that the guns are bound for Mexican or Los Angeles gangsters, that the guns were purchased at gun shows or in straw sales, as well as solemn intonations that the guns are weapons of war and the weapon of choice for drug dealers and gangsters.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Mike Kinsey
|
|
Wednesday, 26 December 2007 02:08 |
A few weeks back, OFCC asked its members and supporters to help spread the message that gun rights are worth fighting for. Recently, there has been an onslaught of letters to the editor published throughout Ohio. Keep up the good work in getting our voices heard!
The latest was printed in today's edition of The Dayton Daily News
'Feel-good' laws need to be changed
Recently we saw two very public shootings.
The first, in an Omaha mall, ended as these often do these days after taking a number of lives, the shooter took his own life. The police didn't arrive until six minutes after the first shot was fired.
The mall should have been safe. After all, there were "No Weapons" signs posted. Of course, only law-abiding citizens obey those signs.
The second shooting ended a bit differently. After taking two lives at one location, the shooter moved on to a second location. By all accounts, he was prepared to take many, many lives there. Once inside the church, things changed dramatically from the Omaha scenario. A legally armed citizen (a volunteer security guard) engaged the shooter and saved countless lives.
Sadly, in Ohio, we lean more toward Omaha in our treatment of this topic. Many malls post "No Weapons" signs. Should a CHL holder choose to enter armed anyway, he or she is now the criminal (albeit a misdemeanor). Further, carrying a firearm in a church in Ohio is illegal unless one has specific permission to do so, and it's a felony.
Won't it be a shame when more lives are lost because an armed citizen obeyed the law by disarming? We need to change these "feel-good" laws to something that works.
Kim D. Campbell
Wilmington
Mr. Campbell is coordinator of Ohioans For Concealed Carry.
|
|
|
