Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog » Federal Firearm legislation

The UN anti gun treaty started being discussed on July 12 to end July 23. News from SAF

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:25:52 +0000

The Arms Trade Treaty Prep Committee began on July 12, 2010 and will conclude on July 23, 2010. Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan of Argentina is the Chair. On Friday, July 19, Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) representatives were told that the majority of the meetings would be closed to them. The critical discussions on the scope of the treaty will have no input from any non-governmental entity. Scope is critical in the Arms Trade Treaty process. In North America, some Pan Asian Countries and in some other parts of the world, the arms that we expect to have covered in this treaty are nuclear weapons. In much of Europe and most all of Africa, the delegates anticipate that the ATT will cover rifles, shotguns, handguns and ammunition as well.

There appears little doubt that some sort of treaty will be adopted by 2014, if not by 2012. It is anticipated that the final treaty will attempt to register all firearms, require micro-stamping, destruction of surplus ammunition on a very set schedule, registration of all firearms and restriction on any transfer of arms including between private individuals and many other restrictions. If the United States is a signatory and this is ratified by the U.S. Senate, this UN treaty would be the law. On October 30, 2009, UN members voted in favor of an ATT. The United States voted in favor of an ATT.

The UN has an aggressive schedule of meetings planned to push for these restrictions and we will be there representing you in every way we can. We will be at the CTOP/COP meeting in Vienna the week of October 18 and a General Assembly meeting at the end of October. In January, the five permanent members of the Security Council will meet and this is on the agenda. There will be another ATT Preparatory meeting at the end of February in New York. The regional UNIDIR meeting sponsored by the EU will start in March. We will come full circle with the Programme of Action Experts Meeting in May 2011 and the July 17-21 ATT Preparatory meeting that is expected to offer the final draft to the treaty.

We win you loose dems Supreme Court rules in favor of citizens and gun owners in McDonald vrs. Chicago

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:11:57 +0000

We would like to thank the SAF for bringing this suit to the high court. Note it was not the NRA that did it.

Today’s Supreme Court ruling in the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge of the Chicago handgun ban is “our call to action,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

“This morning’s high court ruling clearly shows that the right of the individual citizen to have a gun is constitutionally protected in every corner of the United States,” Gottlieb stated. “We are already preparing to challenge other highly-restrictive anti-gun laws across the country. Our objective is to win back our firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

In striking down Chicago’s handgun ban, and incorporating the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms so that it applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government, the high court affirmed that a constitutionally-protected civil right cannot be arbitrarily regulated as though it were a privilege, he added.

Gottlieb announced that in recognition of SAF’s victory, the organization will host the 2011 Gun Rights Policy Conference in the Chicago area. The event will serve as SAF’s official celebration of today’s Supreme Court ruling.

“By that time,” he said, “we should have some exciting news about other actions we are currently planning.”

The ruling marks another important Second Amendment victory for attorney Alan Gura, who also successfully argued the Heller case in 2008. This time around, Mr. Gura represented SAF, the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) and four Chicago residents. The case was McDonald v. City of Chicago, named for plaintiff Otis McDonald.

“I’m glad the Supreme Court has ended the years of oppression of law-abiding gun owners by the City of Chicago,” added ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson.

“Thanks to the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb observed, “average Chicago residents like Mr. McDonald will now enjoy the same right of self-defense as a squad of bodyguards provides to Mayor Richard Daley. Now we can work to lower the deplorable violent crime rate in Chicago, something that the anti-gun mayor’s policies have been unable to accomplish.

“The Second Amendment Foundation is delighted to have worked with Alan Gura, who brought together the individual plaintiffs and organized this landmark case for us and our colleagues at ISRA,” Gottlieb concluded. “Today, it feels great to be the most effective community organizer Chicago has ever had.”

The NRA should be ashamed of itself

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:41:54 +0000

Maybe it’s petty jealously or pure greed, but we do not see another option with the NRA supporting H.R. 5175. It is very apparent that the NRA is trying to put all other gun rights groups out of business. A monopoly case could be made. However the government will not bring a case against themselves for a monopoly they create. This bill H.R. 5175 could shut down all other groups like GOA, SAF, and others. Is the NRA upset that not only lawsuits got filed but got to the supreme court by another organization specifically the SAF? (Second Amendment Foundation). All members of the nra need to contact the nra and tell them it is absolutely not a good idea to sell out all the other firearm and second amendment groups. This verges on the side of criminal. It is at the VERY LEAST unethical. If the nra gets in then ALL OTHER groups need to be in as well. All or nothing you petty nra. Deal with the fact that others are doing the same job or get out of the business all together.

Big mother government grabbing more power over the second amendment, business, and firearm rights

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:27:02 +0000

In a recent ruling regarding the “transfer” of firearms, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATFE) has reversed policies that have been in place for more than 40 years.

In the ruling, BATFE declared that a temporary shipment of a firearm by a federal firearms licensee to a non-employee for business reasons (such as a manufacturer’s shipment to a gun writer or engineering consultant for a technical evaluation), will now be considered a “transfer” and require completion of a Form 4473 and background check.

This reverses a ruling issued in 1969, right after the passage of the Gun Control Act, although BATFE provided no explanation of the need for the change. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, BATFE hasn’t been able to name a single case in which a gun temporarily shipped under the old rule has been used in crime.

The short-term impact may be limited, because many major manufacturers already require firearms sent to non-employees to go through the transfer process. But manufacturers who didn’t follow that practice will now have to ship guns to licensed dealers to complete these “transfers.”

Furthermore, the ruling only applies to temporary shipments by federal firearms licensees to carry out those licensees’ business operations. Given that limitation, the new ruling won’t affect private individuals who ship guns to themselves when traveling to shoot or hunt, or who ship firearms to a manufacturer or gunsmith for repair or customization.

However, this new ruling may have broader implications for future issues. For example, some have suggested that although the ruling doesn’t relate directly to rental of guns for use on commercial shooting ranges, its reasoning might require rentals to be treated as “transfers” subject to recordkeeping and background check requirements.

“National Security” will stop Firearm sales, see the news and the bill here

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog — Thu, 06 May 2010 15:21:51 +0000

A little publicized hearing for 5/5/10:

In February 2004, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Policy (OLP) to form a working group to review federal firearms and explosives laws*particularly in regard to NICS background checks*to determine whether additional authority should be sought from Congress to prevent firearms and explosives transfers to known and suspected terrorists. In the 111th Congress, Senator Frank Lautenberg and Representative Peter King have reintroduced a bill (S. 1317/H.R. 2159) that would authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected terrorists. This bill reportedly reflects a legislative proposal developed by DOJ.

In general, this bill would amend the Gun Control Act (GCA) to grant the Attorney General the discretionary authority to deny a firearm transfer or state-issued firearms permit to any prospective transferee or permittee through Brady background checks, if the Attorney General determines that the prospective transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or to have been engaged in conduct constituting, preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism, and has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use the firearm in connection with terrorism (proposed 18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B). The bill would make similar amendments to the provisions of the GCA governing the processes by which federal firearms dealer licenses are issued and revoked (18 U.S.C. §§ 923(d) and (e)).

The bill would also amend the GCA provision (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) that enumerates several classes of persons who are prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition, so that it would include persons who were the subject of terrorism-related determinations (described above). The bill would amend the GCA provision (18 U.S.C. § 922(d)) that prohibits any person from transferring a firearm to any prohibited person to include any person who was the subject of a terrorism-related determination as well. In addition, the bill would amend the NICS background check provisions (18 U.S.C. § 922(t)) to reflect that the Attorney General would have this new discretionary authority under the proposed 18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B.

With regard to NICS denials of firearms transfers or state-issued firearms permits based upon terrorist watch list hits and subsequent determinations by the Attorney General, the bill would amend the Brady Act (P.L. 103-159) to allow a denied prospective transferee to request from the Attorney General the reasons for the denial, but it would also give the Attorney General the authority to withhold those reasons if he determines that such a disclosure would compromise national security. The bill would make a similar amendment to the Brady Act in regard to correction of erroneous information.

Furthermore, the bill would amend the GCA provision that addresses erroneous denials (18 U.S.C. § 925A), to allow any person denied a firearms-related transfer or permit to challenge that determination in U.S. court within 60 days of that determination. This proposed amendment would require the court to sustain the Attorney General’s determination upon a showing by the U.S. Government a preponderance of evidence standard that the determination satisfied the proposed provisions described above (18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B). The proposed amendment would also allow the court to rely upon summaries or redacted versions of documents underlying those determinations, if those documents contained information that could compromise national security, but it would also allow a court to review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera at the court’s option or on the motion of the petitioner (denied person). The proposed amendment would also allow the court to determine whether the summaries or redacted versions of the documents were fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents; however, it would not allow the court to overturn the Attorney General’s determination based on the full and un-redacted documents.

FEDS RESPOND TO FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT LAWSUIT MOTION TO DISMISS “EXPECTED”

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:41:14 +0000

MISSOULA – The United States has made its first response to a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Missoula to test the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), passed by the 2009 Legislature and signed into law by Governor Schweitzer.

The MFFA declares that any firearms, ammunition or firearms accessories made and retained in Montana are not subject to federal regulation under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate commerce “among the several states.” The MFFA is a states’ rights challenge on Tenth Amendment grounds, with firearms serving as the vehicle for the challenge.

This lawsuit to validate the MFFA was brought by the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The suit names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as defendant, and is referred to as MSSA v. Holder.

The first response to the lawsuit by the United States is a Motion to Dismiss, submitted January 19th and considered to be a standard procedural maneuver in lawsuits against the U.S government . This motion seeks to avoid the legal merits by asserting that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that a justiciable controversy does not exist, and that prevailing case law is against Plaintiffs.

MSSA President Gary Marbut, also a Plaintiff in the lawsuit explained, “The first import of this response is that the legal game is now on. There was some concern that the defendants would forfeit the game with no response in an effort to prevent this important issue from being adjudicated properly. We are now beyond that hurdle.” However, the Motion to Dismiss by Washington also seeks to sidestep proper adjudication.

The NRA (National Riffle Association) is supporting a law that is NOT only unconstitutional in a major way, but completely discriminatory

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:22:39 +0000

OK Here we go again. The NRA (National Riffle Association) is supporting a law that is NOT only unconstitutional in a major way, but completely discriminatory. The basic run down of NRA supported H.R.3752 is this: It will allow for ALL former and active duty Police (including “current and retired law enforcement officers of the Amtrak Police Department, the Federal Reserve System, the executive branch, and the Armed Forces”)
Here is my first problem. It makes all of the rest of us second class citizens. That’s right I said SECOND CLASS CITIZENS. And of course we have NEVER heard of police going bad, have we? (L.A. Rampart division). Also when said officers are off duty, they are that OFF DUITY. Meaning they are now citizens, not police officers. However that doesn’t seem to mater. That is a bunch of junk. Also when a police officer retires, they are no longer part of the police department. Why are they special? I know for a fact there are a lot of cops out there that can not shoot as well as I can. So it can not be because they are “trained” to shoot. This is the major part of the discrimination charge put forth earlier.
There is another issue with this. The same damn issue I had with the thune amendment. It’s called state’s rights and that pesky 10th amendment of the constitution. “The 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.” Oops canceled carry is not directly mention in the constitution. That “bill of negative rights” as obama called it. That alone stops all this crap.
Another issue, the military factor. Ever hear of The Posse Comitatus Act? If not then this is generally what it’s all about. “The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act during peacetime.” Basically the military is not allowed to act as law enforcement here in The USA. Unless the president waves The Posse Comitatus Act short term.”
By now you are probably asking what the hell is he talking about. Well here is the bill: To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes. Introduced Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2009 – Amends the federal criminal code to:
(1) expand the definition of “law enforcement officers,” for purposes of provisions authorizing such officers to carry concealed weapons, to include current and retired law enforcement officers of the Amtrak Police Department, the Federal Reserve System, the executive branch, and the Armed Forces;
(2) allow law enforcement officers who are retired or who separated in good standing after at least ten years of service to carry a concealed weapon; and
(3) expand the categories of law enforcement officers authorized to possess a fireman in a school zone to include retired law enforcement officers.”
There you go the holy crap act of 2009-2010. Basically if you are not one of the above you and your second amendment rights do not matter. Call me paranoid, but, I can see this act passing and it being used as sledge hammer to take away our rights to keep and bare arms. Am I anti military. HELL no. My brother is active duty Army. And I am very pro military. Tell your elected official to vote against the BS bill.

The Supreme Court finally rules on the side of the constitution and common sense

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:45:14 +0000

This should be a no brainier. Apparently a lot of people have no brains. I guess you go after the big pockets.

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case Against Gun Maker

NEWTOWN, Conn. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed Beretta U.S.A. and the firearms industry another victory by rejecting the Brady Center’s appeal of Adames v. Beretta U.S.A. Corporation challenging the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The PLCAA is the 2005 federal law passed by Congress in response to the flood of reckless lawsuits brought by the Brady Center on behalf of anti-gun mayors seeking to hold members of the firearms industry liable for the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products.

This is now the third time this year the Supreme Court has denied a challenge to the PLCAA backed by the Brady Center. In March 2009, the Brady Center was also involved in the appeals of Lawson v. Beretta and City of New York v. Beretta, both of which the Supreme Court refused to hear. Monday’s Supreme Court decision in the Adames case is another stinging setback to the Brady Center’s failed anti-gun political agenda to destroy the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms — a right the Supreme Court declared last year in Heller was protected by the Second Amendment.

The Adames lawsuit was filed by the Brady Center on behalf of a family seeking to hold Beretta responsible for the tragic shooting death of their son, caused solely by the criminal acts of a teenage boy who gained unauthorized access to his father’s unsecured service pistol. The case was originally dismissed by a Chicago trial court, subsequently reinstated in part by the Illinois Court of Appeals, and then ultimately found to be barred under the PLCAA by the Illinois Supreme Court. By its decision yesterday, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to consider the Illinois Supreme Court’s well-reasoned decision that held the PLCAA was both constitutional and clearly applicable to this lawsuit.

Representing Beretta in the case was Craig Livingston of the Livingston Law Firm, who after being notified of the Supreme Court’s rejection of the appeal remarked, “And so ends a long legal battle — from the trial court in Chicago, through the Illinois appellate courts, and all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court — which served only to confirm what has been known since May 5, 2001, namely that this tragic shooting death was caused not by any defect in a Cook County Corrections Officer’s Beretta pistol, but rather by its reckless misuse on that fateful day by his teenage son.”

Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms industry, applauded yesterday’s Supreme Court rejection of the Brady Center’s appeal, stating, “Frivolous and unsupported lawsuits such as Adames that attempt to force manufacturers of firearms to pay for the crimes of others over whom they have no control are precisely what the PLCAA is designed to stop.”

PLEASE excuse the foul language in this Post. Swiss GUN laws should be America’s Law’s!

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:33:28 +0000

WARNING: If foul language offends you PLEASE leave an come back later for our next post! If not then scroll down to read.

All of you anti gun Nazi’s and panic creating firearm haters need to SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!

Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in ALL of Europe. Why? Every single swiss citizen is required BY LAW to keep their government supplied firearm and ammunition. News to you? Well it sure was to me. The reasoning? One of them is so the Swiss government can provide a military to support and protect it’s citizens and homeland. By the way in 24-48 hours the Swiss can have a standing army that will rival any in the whole of Europe.

The below video proves all this out. I am so sick of the whinny week kneed pussies who are saying guns cauise crime or whatever BOLD FACE LIE they come up with. We got the proof. So tell the anti gunners to go shove it up their ASS.

Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Illegal Unconstitutional Gun Control In Response to Ft. Hood Terror Attack

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:45:13 +0000

This is the shit we have been warning you about. None of this plan is legal or constitutional. And this is something the NRA should be railing about. However seeing as this came out on the 18th they seem to be OK with it.

WASHINGTON — Before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 18, Attorney General Eric Holder revealed a stunningly broad and aggressive anti-gun agenda, according to a release from the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (www.LEAA.org).

“The President of the United States asked that politicians not use the Ft. Hood attack to engage in ‘political theater.’ It appears those committed to attacking gun owners and the Second Amendment simply can’t help themselves and are engaged in blaming guns and gun owners on the heels of this terrorist attack. Sadly it looks like ‘politics as usual,’” said LEAA’s spokesperson, Ted Deeds.

After explaining and defending his decision to give enemy combatants constitutional protections and the right to public trial in civilian courts, Attorney General Holder revealed his support for a national gun owner registration scheme and authorizing the government to ban firearm possession for any person by merely adding that person’s name to the terror watch list.

The LEAA said that Holder wants new federal authority to prohibit any person on the federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns and supports confiscating guns from those on the list who possess them.

LEAA’s Executive Director Jim Fotis said, “Those behind the badge don’t believe more restrictions on honest gun owners is a reasonable, practical or constitutional response to acts of terrorism. As a retired officer, I know that America’s men and women in blue want to fight terrorism, to stop terrorists; not waste time keeping records on innocent gun owners.”

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog » Federal Firearm legislation

The UN anti gun treaty started being discussed on July 12 to end July 23. News from SAF

Related posts

We win you loose dems Supreme Court rules in favor of citizens and gun owners in McDonald vrs. Chicago

Related posts

The NRA should be ashamed of itself

Related posts

Big mother government grabbing more power over the second amendment, business, and firearm rights

Related posts

“National Security” will stop Firearm sales, see the news and the bill here

Related posts

FEDS RESPOND TO FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT LAWSUIT MOTION TO DISMISS “EXPECTED”

Related posts

The NRA (National Riffle Association) is supporting a law that is NOT only unconstitutional in a major way, but completely discriminatory

Related posts

The Supreme Court finally rules on the side of the constitution and common sense

Related posts

PLEASE excuse the foul language in this Post. Swiss GUN laws should be America’s Law’s!

Related posts

Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Illegal Unconstitutional Gun Control In Response to Ft. Hood Terror Attack

Related posts