• H.R. 822 recognizes the significant impact of the landmark cases, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which found that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms and that the protections of the Second Amendment extend to infringements under state law.

• Today, 48 states have laws permitting concealed carry, in some circumstances. Forty states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have right-to-carry laws. Thirty-six of those have “shall issue” permit laws (including Alaska and Arizona, which also allow carrying without a permit), two have fairly administered “discretionary issue” permit laws, and Vermont (along with Alaska and Arizona) allows carrying without a permit. (Eight states have restrictive discretionary issue laws.)

• Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other right-to-carry states that keep such statistics. Right-to-carry is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.

• States with right-to-carry laws have lower violent crime rates. On average, right-to-carry states have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, compared to the rest of the country. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are right-to-carry states. (Data: FBI.)

• Crime declines in states with right-to-carry laws. Since adopting right-to-carry in 1987, Florida’s total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32 percent and 58 percent, respectively. Texas’ violent crime and murder rates have dropped 20 percent and 31 percent, respectively, since enactment of its 1996 right-to-carry law. (Data: FBI.)

• The right of self-defense is fundamental, and has been recognized in law for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that “life” is among the unalienable rights of all people. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for “security.”

• The laws of all states and the constitutions of most states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has stated that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and is “entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.” (Beard v. United States (1895))

• Congress affirmed the right to own guns for “protective purposes” in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as “a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms.”

CÓNSUL GENERAL SALVADOR DE LARA
Consulado General de México en Atlanta
1700 Chantilly Dr. NE
Atlanta Georgia 30324

Your Excellency,

I have been asked by someone who knows you well to brief you in writing about what I know about the scandal known as “Project Gunwalker” which resulted in the death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on 14 December and especially on the deliberate, calculated and premeditated violation of Mexican sovereignty that this incident entailed.

By now I understand that you have been made aware of the questionable circumstances surrounding the death of BPA Terry — how the ATF allowed over 2,000 semi-automatic rifles to be purchased by informants and “straw purchasers” and smuggled south of the international border in an ill-conceived attempt by the ATF to boost the agency’s case for more funding in the much criticized “Project Gunrunner.” In this operation, American gun stores were encouraged to allow questionable sales to go through, even when they called ATF to ask if they wished the transactions to be declined at the point of sale. (See the case of Carter’s County gun stores in the Houston area.)

Here is what attorney Dick Deguerin was quoted as saying about this case, just a day before the murder of BPA Terry:

“Let me tell you something about Carter’s Country. They have been co-operating with ATF from the get go,” says attorney Dick Deguerin who represents Carter’s Country owner, Bill Carter.

Deguerin says the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms asked Carter’s Country to complete transactions, even when sales people strongly suspected the weapons were headed to Mexican drug gangs.

“They were told to go through with what they considered to be questionable sales. They were told to go through with sales of three or more assault rifles at the same time or five or more 9 millimeter guns at the same time or a young Hispanic male paying in cash. It’s all profiling, but they went through with it,” said Deguerin.

It was inevitable that one or more of the weapons allowed to go south without notifying the appropriate authorities of your government would end up in the hands of criminals. Brian Terry is dead from a bullet fired from one of these. Statistical probability and plain logic indicates that far more than one of your own citizens have already been killed by them since this operation began.

You should know that one ATF employee, Darren Gil, the ATF attache in Mexico City, tried to do the right thing. Though he was kept out of the “intelligence loop” by Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix, Arizona office, William D. “Bill” Newell, my understanding from other ATF agents who have now been contacted by Senator Grassley’s office, is that Mr. Gil, when he learned by informal communication channels that this was happening, clashed with SAC Newell over whether your government should be notified. Newell insisted that there would be no notification of the appropriate Mexican authorities.

Mr. Gil, I am told, did not take the word of a mere SAC when such an action involved possible violations of treaty and formal understandings between our two governments, contacted his superiors in Washington, D.C. In a meeting that I am told included the Deputy Attorney General, Deputy Director Melson of ATF and various subordinates, it was decided to keep the government of Mexico in the dark. Mr. Gil, in return for his honest attempt to prevent an effusion of blood as well as an international incident, was forced into retirement and did so on 31 December of last year. Here, in words of an experienced ATF street agent, is what I was told on 17 December 2010:

“Darren Gil, former attache to Mexico is an honest and honorable guy. He was forcefully removed from Mexico without warning in November in large part because he wouldn’t sit silent on these matters. He will tell the truth if asked by competent authority. He retired Dec 31 because of all this.”

I understand that representations have been made to your government informally that this was an isolated incident. Yet, if that were the case, then why did our Attorney General Eric Holder select SAC Newell to replace Darren Gil earlier this week? He is to go to Mexico City and take over the attache position by 8 May according to ATF orders.

This again is a studied and deliberate insult to the government and sovereignty of the Republic of Mexico. To select the man who insisted that your government be lied to, either by omission or commission, cannot be otherwise interpreted

I urge you to press this question with the U.S. State Department at the earliest opportunity. At the least, the government of the United States owes the Mexican government an abject apology for allowing this scandal to threaten the lives of Mexican citizens and the safety of your streets. Whether such an outrage demands monetary damages is, of course, a matter of consideration for your government. I would say, however, after many years of studying the ATF from near and far, that talk is cheap, promises forgotten and apologies insincere. Money damages, on the other hand, is a coin of the realm they well understand.

If I can be of further service, do not hesititate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126

MISSOULA, MONT. – Plaintiffs in litigation to validate the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA) have appealed an expected but adverse federal district court decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs in MSSA v. Holder include the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and MSSA President Gary Marbut of Missoula.

The MFFA is designed to test the power of Congress to regulate everything without limits under the narrow power given to Congress in the Constitution to “regulate commerce … among the states.” The MFFA declares that any firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority under the Commerce Clause. Congress must find some authority among the Constitution’s “enumerated powers” for every action it takes.

Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit MSSA v. Holder on the day the MFFA became effective in Montana, October 1, 2009. Since the MFFA enactment in Montana, the MFFA has been cloned and enacted in seven other states, and FFA bills have been introduced in the legislatures of 20 more states.

In a judgment entered on October 19, 2010, the district court granted the U.S. Motion to Dismiss. It is this judgment that is now appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

MSSA President and plaintiff Gary Marbut commented, “We’ve known all along that the district court will not provide what we seek, the reversal of a half-century of bad Commerce Clause precedent. We need to get to the U.S. Supreme Court for that. This notice of appeal puts us at the 50-yard line in our quest to get to the Supreme Court – it is a big step in the direction we need to go.”

Not only has the FFA concept attracted the interest and support of many other states frustrated with an overbearing federal government, but the MSSA v. Holder lawsuit has attracted an unusual, perhaps record, number of amici (amicus curiae, friends of the court). Some qualified observers say they’ve never seen a case that has attracted as much amici support at the district court level as this case has. Amici include the State of Utah (also representing several other states), Gun Owners Foundation (Gun Owners of America), the Goldwater Institute of Arizona, the Paragon Foundation of New Mexico, the Weapons Collectors Society of Montana, an amicus group of Montana legislators who supported the MFFA, and another amicus group of non-Montana legislators who sponsored or co-sponsored FFA bills in other states. The State of Montana has also intervened in support of the MFFA. Other amici are expected to enter in support of the MFFA when the lawsuit is argued before Ninth Circuit.

“It is totally obvious from the positions of federal participants, both lawyers and judges for the U.S.,” Marbut commented, “that the federal establishment definitely, almost desperately, wishes to prevent this issue from having a trial on merit.”

The likely options for the Ninth Circuit are to uphold the judgment of the district court or to overrule the district court and remand the case back to the district court for trial. Regardless of what action is taken by the Ninth Circuit, MSSA v. Holder is certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court only reviews the district court dismissal on appeal to it, the Supreme Court can still rule on the merits of the case since part of the grounds for dismissal is based on merit.

If you haven’t guessed if you buy a handgun, rifle, or shotgun you’ll be able to skip the state’s 6% sales tax and any local county tax. But all gun accessories and ammunition won’t be subject to the discount.

If you need to know any of the nitty gritty check out this FAQ from the South Carolina Department of Revenue.

Like I was sayin’, the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence ain’t saying. The only clue comes in their Statement of Principles. [Click here to download.] And that’s just as vague as the press release. Point three gives us an inkling:

Elected officials must commit to closing gaps in the current regulatory system, including those that enable felons, minors, persons with mental illness, and other prohibited persons to access firearms, and those that allow the trafficking of illegal guns.

What about the gaps between words? (Justification’s like that.) I wasn’t aware of any gaps in the current regulatory system that enable felons, minors, persons with mental illness, and other prohibited persons to gain access to firearms, or the trafficking of illegal guns. As far as I know, it’s already illegal to provide any of these groups with firearms. Perhaps we should focus on enforcement of existing laws.

That said, the statement’s meaning depends on how you define “access.” If you limit the meaning to “purchase or possession,” it’s all bad. But a wider interpretation of this seemingly innocuous “principle” could also green light attempts to legislate against the so-called “gun show loophole” and the equally phantasmagorical “terrorist loophole.” What’s the bet that that’s exactly what this new meta-group’s gunning for?

Needless to say, there’s no website for The National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, or a contact number at the bottom of the press release.

The biggest indication that I’m not wearing a tinfoil hat: the new org’s Statement of Principles is hosted on the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) website, along with their contact person (left message). The IACP was solidly behind H.R. 2159, the now stillborn Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. The bottom line: the IACP never met a gun reg “loophole” they didn’t want to close, regardless of its effect on Americans’ gun rights.

While we attempt to chase this down, I would once again caution those who seeks to defend and extend the Second Amendment: the law enforcement community is not your friend.