Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog A blog for and by Guns and Ammo Enthusiast's

On this the Eighth anniversary off the attacks on the world trade centers and pentagon (9/11) just some thoughts

No matter how you feel about the government, current and past president’s, or the war in total, there are a few things you MUST do. Always respect and show reference for the USA troops who are overseas in the war zone. We have an ALL volunteer military. Those men and women are doing what they are ordered to do. (Trust me my brother is in the Army. For I know where I speak.)

We should also remember those who lost their lives in New York, Washington DC, Pennsylvania. Including the pilots, crew, and all of those poor people in the plains. This is a day of remembrance. Please keep all those mentioned above and everyone who has lost their lives fighting on OUR behalf in the middle east, in your thoughts and prayers on this day.

As California goes so goes the country as far as guns and ammo laws all Illegal!

Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed Assembly Bill 962 out of committee. The bill will now move to the Senate floor for a vote very soon. No action has been taken on Senate Bill 585, which is still pending a vote by the full Assembly.

Sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require that purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be kept in dealers’ records and subject to inspection by the Department of Justice. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

SB585, introduced by State Senator Mark Leno (D-3), would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition on the property or inside the buildings that comprise the Cow Palace. In short, SB585 is a stepping-stone to banning gun shows on all publicly-owned property in California.

Some “gun rights” groups join forces to sue feds to protect Montana gun law

There is ONLY 1 type of firearm rights group that we would support and not mock. One that is fighting and suing to return the firearm law’s to pre 1934. Which is the only way the constitution provides for. Well enough of our ranting and raving here is the story. (If a group like this exists please let us know)

That the guns and ammo not be used outside Montana is important, Gottlieb said. So far, the federal government has justified federal control over guns by citing the “interstate commerce clause,” which states that the federal government can regulate commerce between the states.

But if a gun will not be leaving Montana, there is no “interstate commerce” and the federal government has no standing to enforce its laws, Gottlieb said.

Marbut said he’ll planning to file suit in Montana federal court the day the law goes into effect. He said he’s received letters from Montanans interested in making their own guns, but who aren’t sure the new law will protect them from federal prison time.
This makes perfect sense to anyone that hasn’t read the Federal case law that came out of the 1930s (and since). But after hearing about the case law in which a farmer growing wheat on his own land for his own use was found to be engaging in Interstate commerce you realize we have a much higher hurdle to clear with this sort of lawsuit. That one case was just the beginning. There have been thousands of cases and laws built upon that one finding. How can a gun rights case find a niche in that “wall”?

Everyone I have talked to about this thinks the Firearms Freedom Acts (Montana and Tennessee so far) are only good for entertainment value. But SAF throwing it’s weight behind this causes me some doubt. Sure, it makes great copy for fundraising. But so would a lot of other gun lawsuits that are lost causes. I’ve had a lot of “behind the scenes” conversations with the SAF people over the years and while I acknowledge fundraising is one of their objectives I know they are smart enough to not back a completely lost cause. Winning lawsuits is far better for fundraising than losing a case no matter how noble a cause.

Louisiana residents save your money. On Sept. 4-6 there will be tax breaks for firearms, ammunition. Be sure to buy during the Sept. 4-6 tax break period.

Consumer purchases of firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies will be exempt from state and local sales taxes in Louisiana Sept. 4-6, according to the Louisiana Department of Revenue
Act 453 of the 2009 legislative session provides a three-day exemption from those taxes on consumer purchases of firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies. The tax break is scheduled to occur each year.

The exemption from state and local sales tax and use tax applies to an individual’s purchase of firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies. The exemption is not available for business purchases. Consumer purchases do not include the purchase of animals for hunting.

The Department of Revenus has published a rule that details which purchases are eligible.
The rule (LAC 61:I.4425 ) is available on the Louisiana Administrative Code: Emergency Rules page at www.revenue.louisiana.gov.

A purchase will be eligible under any of the following conditions:

1. Title to or possession of firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies is transferred from a selling dealer to a purchaser.

2. A customer selects an eligible item from the selling dealer’s inventory for layaway that is physically set aside in the selling dealer’s inventory for future delivery to that customer.

3. The customer makes final payment and withdraws an item from layaway that might have been placed on layaway prior to the tax holiday.

4. The customer orders and pays for an eligible item and the selling dealer accepts the order for immediate shipment, even if delivery is made after the time period provided for in LAC 61:I4425.A, provided that the customer has not requested delayed shipment.

Congressman Rodney Alexander of Louisiana says he opposes the idea of tax hikes for guns and ammo, and has introduced legislation which aims to block any such proposals!

Great Job Congressman Rodney Alexander. Pass this bill then pass it on to the remaining 49 states.

There is growing fear among some firearms advocates that anti-gun rights forces are going to push tax hikes on guns and ammunition.

Republican Congressman Rodney Alexander says he opposes the idea and has introduced legislation which aims to block any such proposals.

The Louisiana lawmaker says there is a quiet movement to slap large tax increases on weapons and bullets as an attempt at backdoor gun control.

Such concerns have already led to dramatic increases in ammo sales and concealed weapons permits in Louisiana.

Looks like Florida is attempting to join the states telling the feds to shove their illegal gun laws where the sun doesn’t shine.

Below is the report. We will inform you of any news on this issue.
Florida’s states’ rights advocates have opened a new front in their effort to roll back Washington’s influence and control.

State Rep. Marlene O’Toole has introduced a bill that would preclude the federal government from regulating guns, ammunition and related accessories that are manufactured and kept in Florida.

The bill is modeled on legislation that Montana and Tennessee adopted this year. With the bill’s introduction, Florida has become one of a handful of states considering such a measure, according to O’Toole’s staff.

More are expected to follow.

The bill, its proponents claim, is not necessarily about guns. Moreover, it does not amend or hinder any regulations for firearms subject to interstate-commerce laws.

Rather, they say, it is about the right of Floridians under the Ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution to be free of Washington’s control on a matter that should matter only to state residents.

To be free of federal oversight, according to the bill, a firearm would have to be for personal use, manufactured commercially or privately within the state and without “significant parts” that are imported from another state, have “Made in Florida” stamped on a central metallic part and remain within state lines.

“We see more federal intervention every day. If we can reduce that, we think it’s good for the people of Florida,” said O’Toole, R-Lady Lake, who represents a portion of southern Marion County near The Villages.

O’Toole said she proposed her bill, the Florida Firearms Freedom Act (HB 21), after reading about the Montana and Tennessee versions. She filed it July 6 and six House members, all Republicans, have signed on as co-sponsors.

Donny Barber, executive director of the Sovereignty Action Committee, an Ocala-based group supporting the expansion of Florida’s home-rule powers vis-a-vis the federal government, said O’Toole’s proposal could help bring jobs to the state and the area.

The Obama administration is trending toward greater regulation of ammunition rather than weapons, Barber said.

HB 21, if adopted, would make Florida a haven for ammunition and firearms manufacturers seeking to escape that oversight for its customers here.

“Furthermore,” he added, “all this regulation is flat-out unconstitutional.”

Despite the passage of similar laws elsewhere, the federal government has already signaled that they could be moot.

On July 16, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives published an open letter to all holders of federal firearms licenses in Montana and Tennessee telling them that Washington still calls the shots for gun dealers.

“Federal law supercedes” the Montana and Tennessee statutes, and thus “all provisions of the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply,” wrote Carson Carroll, the bureau’s assistant director of enforcement programs and services.

Carroll outlined requirements of other federal gun regulations, then in closing noted, “These, as well as other Federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines.”

O’Toole, who is a co-sponsor of a separate special resolution that asserts Florida’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to reject federal encroachment, relies on a different standard.

The proposed measure says freeing intrastate commerce from Washington’s oversight was a constitutional guarantee under the Bill of Rights and a “matter of contract” that was “agreed upon” when Florida became a state in 1845.

Since that time, in accordance with the Constitution, Congress has not “expressly preempted” regulation of gun or ammunition makers by state officials within their own borders, the bill says.

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Florida had 10 licensed pistol makers and 25 makers of rifles and shotguns in 2007, the most recent year for which federal data was available.

A handful of those manufacturers produced both pistols and rifles.

The list included individuals who made as few as one firearm that year as well as major companies, such as Kel-Tec CNC Industries in Cocoa, which in 2007 produced almost 104,000 semi-automatic pistols and is the fourth-leading pistol maker in the country.

A spokesman for Kel-Tec declined to comment on O’Toole’s bill, saying he was unfamiliar with its provisions.

obama administration is fighting back in a fight over states’ rights and firearm owner’s right’s as well!

The Obama administration is raising the stakes in a fight over states’ rights and firearm ownership by arguing that new pro-gun laws in Montana and Tennessee are invalid.

In the last few months, a grass-roots, federalist revolt against Washington, D.C. has begun to spread through states that are home to politically active gun owners. Montana and Tennessee have enacted state laws saying that federal rules do not apply to firearms manufactured entirely within the state, and similar bills are pending in Texas, Alaska, Minnesota, and South Carolina.

Yet the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Explosives now claims that that not only is such a state law invalid, but “because the act conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supersedes the act.”

EVER HEARD OF THE 10th TENTH AMENDMENT

Tennessee’s law already has taken effect. The BATF’s letter on July 16 to firearms manufacturers and dealers in the state says “federal law requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain within the same state.”

A similar letter was sent to manufacturers and dealers in Montana, where the made-in-the-state law takes effect on October 1, 2009. Neither law permits certain large caliber weapons or machine guns, and both would bypass federal regulations including background checks for buyers and record-keeping requirements for sellers.

While this federalism-inspired revolt has coalesced around gun rights, the broader goal is to dust off a section of the Bill of Rights that most Americans probably have paid scant attention to: the Tenth Amendment. It says that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Read literally, the Tenth Amendment seems to suggest that the federal government’s powers are limited only to what it has been “delegated,” and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1918 confirmed that the amendment “carefully reserved” some authority “to the states.” That view is echoed by statements made at the time the Constitution was adopted; New Hampshire explicitly said that states kept “all powers not expressly and particularly delegated” to the federal government.

More recently, federal courts have interpreted the Tenth Amendment narrowly, in a way that justifies almost any law on grounds that it intends to regulate interstate commerce. In the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that a person growing marijuana for her own medicinal use could have a “substantial effect on interstate commerce.”

(In an impassioned dissent at the time, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything — and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”) That is exactly what is happening now!

Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, said in an interview on Monday that he expects to be facing off against the Obama administration in court soon. “We will find the right test cases to get us in court,” he said.

Marbut believes that the letters weren’t that meaningful because they were addressed to gun manufacturers and dealers who already are licensed by the federal government. “Those people already are under the thumb of the Feds,” he said. “We’ve assumed they wouldn’t want to put their circumstances at risk in dabbling in the state-made guns business. The people who the letters are addressed to are pretty irrelevant to the whole discussion.”

Translation: If you’re a gunsmith talented enough to build a made-in-Montana gun under the state’s forthcoming law, give Marbut a ring. Just don’t be surprised if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Explosives is not entirely pleased.

Florida joins the ranks of states telling the federal government to stick their ILLEGAL gun law’s where the sun doesn’t shine.

WAY TO GO FLORIDA

Introduced in the Florida House on July 6, 2009, the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB-21) seeks to provide “that specified firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition for personal use manufactured in state are not subject to federal law or regulation” in the State of Florida.

The bill is sponsored by Florida State Reps O’Toole and Plakon. They follow in the path of Montana, and Tennessee who have already passed such legislation. And they join with Utah, Texas, South Carolina and others who are considering it in an effort to limit federal regulation of guns, and specifically invoke the 9th and 10th Amendments as restrictions on federal power:

“the regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the ninth and tenth amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition”

Read the full text of the legislation below:

A bill to be entitled An act relating to regulation of firearms; creating s. 790.34, F.S.; creating the Florida Firearms Freedom Act; providing a short title; providing legislative findings; providing definitions; providing that specified firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition for personal use manufactured in the state are not subject to federal law or regulation; providing that the importation into the state of specified parts and the incorporation of such parts into a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in the state does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation; providing that certain basic materials are not subject to federal regulation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition under interstate commerce; providing that specified firearm accessories imported into the state from another state do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce; providing legislative findings with respect thereto; providing exceptions; providing applicability; requiring that firearms manufactured and sold in the state must bear an indicia of manufacture by a specified date; providing an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Section 1. Section 790.34, Florida Statutes, is created to read:

790.34 Florida Firearms Freedom Act.–
(1) SHORT TITLE.–This section may be cited as the “Florida Firearms Freedom Act.”

(2) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS.–

(a) The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to the states and their citizens all powers not granted to the Federal Government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the State of Florida and its citizens certain powers as they were understood at the time that Florida was admitted to statehood in 1845. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the State of Florida and the citizens thereof and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Florida and the United States in 1845.

(b) The regulation of intrastate commerce by the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the State of Florida and its citizens certain rights as they were understood at the time that Florida was admitted to statehood in 1845. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the State of Florida and the citizens thereof and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Florida and the United States in 1845. 52

(c) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the intrastate manufacture of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.

(d) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Florida was admitted to statehood in 1845. The guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the State of Florida and its citizens and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Florida and the United States in 1845.

(e) Section 8, Article I of the Florida Constitution clearly secures to the citizens of Florida, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Florida citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection remains unchanged from the original Florida Constitution, which was approved by Congress and the people of Florida, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Florida and the United States in 1845.

(3) DEFINITIONS.–As used in this section:

(a) “Basic materials” means raw materials, including, but not limited to, unmachined steel and unshaped wood, used in the creation and manufacture of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that have manufacturing or consumer product applications other than applications in the manufacture of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.

(b) “Borders of Florida” means the boundaries of Florida as described in s. 1, Art. II of the Florida Constitution.

(c) “Firearm accessories” means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted on a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including, but not limited to, telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speed-loaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

(d) “Generic and insignificant parts” includes, but is not limited to, springs, screws, nuts, and pins that may be used in the manufacture of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition but that have manufacturing or consumer product applications other than applications in the manufacture of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.

(e) “Manufactured” means the creation of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from basic materials for functional usefulness, including, but not limited to, forging, casting, machining, or any other processes used to form materials used in the creation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.

(4) FIREARMS, FIREARM ACCESSORIES, AND AMMUNITION FOR PERSONAL USE MANUFACTURED AND REMAINING IN FLORIDA NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LAW OR REGULATION; LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS.

(a)1. It is the finding of the Legislature that a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition for personal use that is manufactured commercially or privately in Florida from basic materials without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state and that remains within the borders of Florida is not considered to have traveled in interstate commerce.

2. A firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that:
a. Is for personal use;
b. Is manufactured commercially or privately in Florida from basic materials without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state;
c. With respect to a firearm, has the words “Made in Florida” clearly stamped on a central metallic part of the firearm, such as the receiver or frame; and
d. Remains within the borders of Florida is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

(b)1. It is the finding of the Legislature that generic and insignificant parts that may be used in the manufacture of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition but that have manufacturing or consumer product applications other than applications in the manufacture of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition are not considered to be firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.

2. The importation into the state of generic and insignificant parts that may be used in the manufacture of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition but that have manufacturing or consumer product applications other than applications in the manufacture of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition, and the incorporation of such parts into a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in the state, does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation.

(c)1. It is the finding of the Legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, that may be used in the manufacture of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition but that have manufacturing or consumer product applications other than applications in the manufacture of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition are not considered to be firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.

2. Basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, that may be used in the manufacture of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition but that have manufacturing or consumer product applications other than applications in the manufacture of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition under interstate commerce as if such basic materials were actually firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.

3. The authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include the authority to regulate firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the state from basic materials and that remain within the state.

(d) Firearm accessories that are imported into the state from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce by virtue of being attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Florida.

(5) EXCEPTIONS.–This section does not apply to:

(a) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person.
(b) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, rather than black powder, as a propellant.
(c) Ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm.
(d) A firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

(6) APPLICABILITY.–This section applies to firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition described in subparagraph

(4)(a)2. that are manufactured in Florida after October 1, 2010, and remain within the state.

(7) FIREARMS MANUFACTURED IN FLORIDA; INDICIA OF MANUFACTURE REQUIRED.–Effective October 1, 2010, a firearm manufactured and sold in this state must have the indicia “Made in Florida” clearly stamped on a central metallic part of the firearm, such as the receiver or frame.

Section 2. This act shall take effect October 1, 2010.

Guns and ammo industries maintains that Ban on Traditional Lead Ammunition is Wrong policy following CA. Condor report

A report issued yesterday by the California Fish & Game Commission on blood lead levels in California condors is inconclusive and supports the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s contention that there is no scientific basis for the state’s ban on hunters using traditional ammunition in condor regions.

“The problem all along with linking the use of traditional ammunition and the health of the California condor has been lack of conclusive scientific evidence that justifies banning ammunition containing lead components,” said Steve Sanetti, president and CEO of NSSF, trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry. “This report only serves to support industry’s position that the ban is unwarranted.”

“The report’s data certainly does not justify the commission’s intent to increase the scope of the ban to include upland and small game in the condor region,” added Sanetti. “Expanding the ban will only create another barrier to hunting, reducing funds derived from license fees and tags that support wildlife conservation in the Golden State.”

The firearms and ammunition industry vigorously opposed the effort to ban use of traditional ammunition in condor regions, citing lack of conclusive evidence to support claims that some condors had higher elevated blood lead levels from ingesting ammunition fragments while scavenging entrails from hunter-harvested big game. Nevertheless, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the ban into law, which went into effect July 1, 2008.

Then last month the F&G Commission announced its intention to consider expanding the ban to cover small and upland game hunting, a move the F&G Department did not support since condors do not feed on small game and hunters retrieve upland birds from the field. The fact that no scientific evidence exists for condors feeding on small game supports the department’s position.

The report, which the commission approved by unanimous vote, covers the first sampling of blood lead levels in free-flying California condors since the ban went into effect. In its summary, the F&G Department and F&G Commission caution that the data was not “systematically collected” and “thus, the information should not be considered conclusive of any ’cause and effect’ relationship between the prohibition of lead projectiles in condor range and blood lead levels detected in condor.”

The department and commission note that the “sources of lead in sampled condors are unknown, relationship of sampled condors to hunting activity are unknown, and . . . the condor feeding habits for this period . . . are unknown.”

Said Sanetti, “Given all of these caveats, no one should rush to give credence to this report as evidence supporting the state’s ban on traditional ammunition.”

NSSF questions the report’s use of standards for humans as the basis for measuring blood lead levels in condors. The standard “background” blood lead level of 10 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dL) for condors is the same threshold for concern established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for a human child.

“To our knowledge, there is no baseline blood lead level established for condors, or any other species of animal, and it strikes us as arbitrary to use a human threshold for a bird species,” said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for NSSF.

Data in the report was derived from blood lead levels sampled during calendar year 2008 and was provided to the F&G Department by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Samples were taken from 72 free-flying condors in California in 2008. During the January to June period, 59 percent of condors sampled had blood lead levels considered above background levels (greater than 10 ug/dL), and 45 percent of condors had levels above background during July to December of 2008.

The data, said the F&G Department and Commission, is considered inadequate for “any in-depth or meaningful comparative analyses regarding the possible consequences of the ‘2008 lead ammo ban’ in condor range. However, the department and commission conclude that the data provides a basis for future comparison. Beginning in fall 2009, a more comprehensive data collection plan is expected to be in place.

The commission’s intent to expand the ban is in response to a lawsuit settlement between the state and plaintiffs the Natural Resources Defense Council and Center for Biological Diversity that stipulates the commission will consider amending regulations requiring alternative ammunition for taking small and upland game within the condor range.

For more information about traditional ammunition and how it relates to the California condor, see http://www.nssf.org/media/FactSheets/Lead_Ammunition.cfm.

About:
NSSF, founded in 1961, is the trade association for the firearms, ammunition and recreational shooting sports industry. It promotes the safe ownership and responsible use of products its members make and sell. For more information, visit www.nssf.org

Arizona state senate gives the thumb’s up for guns and ammo on school campus’

PHOENIX — Saying it will make people safer, state senators voted Friday to let people with concealed weapons permits carry them onto college and university campuses where they are now forbidden.

The 15-6 vote on the provision in HB 2439 came after backers said they believe that having people who are licensed by the state to have weapons should cut down on the number of massacres that occur on campuses. And Sen. John Huppenthal, R-Chandler, said that has happened in Arizona.

He did not refer by name to the 2002 incident at the University of Arizona where three instructors at the College of Nursing were slain by student Robert S. Flores Jr. who then turned the gun on himself.

But Huppenthal said the evidence shows that it makes sense, from a safety standpoint, to let people carry guns.

“The states that have concealed carry (laws) have statistically significant smaller mass shootings,’’ he said.

Huppenthal said he would not support guns on public school campuses, saying Arizona has no history of massacres on those campuses.

“The situation is different in our universities,’’ he said.

“We’ve had a mass shooting in our universities,’’ Huppenthal continued. “We sort of have a track record of not being safe in our universities.’’

And he said that, based on the research, allowing those who have concealed weapons permits to bring them onto campuses would mean “our universities would be safer.’’

University of Arizona lobbyist Greg Fahey said his school opposes allowing anyone to have guns on campus. And Fahey said he’s not convinced that rule should be waived for those with permits to carry concealed weapons even though they have undergone background checks, training in state laws and been shown to be proficient in the use of the gun.

“Our chief of police and the police of all three universities have consistently said that their experience is that having people with guns is just more of an invitation to have accidents, to have problems,’’ Fahey said. “And they don’t want anyone who’s not a sworn officer being armed on campus.’’

But Huppenthal said he’s not convinced that students and faculty are safer with gun-free campuses.

The senator said his requests for information from universities shows “they haven’t done any careful analysis’’ of the crimes. And what they have done, he said, only involves those crimes on campus.

“But the truth is, there’s a large number of rapes of coeds as they leave campus and they go to their home,’’ Huppenthal said. He said these women are forced to leave any guns at home — and leave themselves vulnerable while walking to class — because current rules prohibit weapons on campus.