Bloomberg Groups Intensifies Attack On Tiahrt Amendment: Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York and other members of the national coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns unveiled a 30-second television advertisement intended to pressure Congress to rescind the so-called Tiahrt amendment, a measure attached to spending bills each year since 2003 that bans the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from releasing gun-trace data, except to police officials and prosecutors working on a particular crime. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/us/19brfs-MAYORSSHOWGU_BRF.html --- Virginia Tech Case Proves Bloomberg Is Lying: It took less than 24 hours for authorities to trace two handguns used by Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui, proving that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is lying when he claims that legitimate law enforcement access to trace data is being blocked by federal law, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today. http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-18-2007/0004568484&EDATE= --- Florida House Committee Rejects Parking-Lot-Storage Bill: In a major blow to the National Rifle Association, a measure that would have prohibited business owners from banning guns on company property was soundly defeated in a House committee Wednesday morning, killing the legislation for the year. The issue brought two of the most powerful lobbies in Tallahassee - the NRA and the Florida Chamber of Commerce - head to head over whether the private property rights of business owners superseded an individual's right to store guns in their locked vehicles at work. http://www.miamiherald.com/416/story/78302.html --- "Gun Control" Returns As Campaign Issue: Article reviews the dilemma that Democrats face if they attempt to resurrect one of their traditional (for the last few decades) campaign planks and how Republicans are using the shootings at Virginia Tech to try to cement their RKBA credentials. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/18/ap/politics/main2699042.shtml Related Article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266746,00.html --- Rangel - Shooting Won't Change Gun Laws: Rep. Charles Rangel, a top House Democrat from Harlem, said Tuesday the shooting carnage at Virginia Tech won't change the nation's gun control laws. He told an audience at the National Press Club that he didn't think the Second Amendment should be repealed and added that fellow Democrats told him the fatal shootings of 33 people Monday would not change votes in Congress on gun issues. http://www.amny.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-bc-ny--rangel-guns0417apr17%2C0%2C419824.story?coll=am-topheadlines --- People With Guns Stop Killers: New York's Daily News, of all papers, offers a law professor from Tennessee the opportunity to argue that college campuses are safer if students who have qualified for concealed-weapon permits are allowed to carry their firearms. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/04/18/2007-04-18_people_dont_stop_killers_people_with_gun.html --- A Culture Of Passivity: Mark Steyn weighs in on the failure of students at Virginia Tech to fight back. "...I have always believed America is different. Certainly on September 11th we understood. The only good news of the day came from the passengers who didn't meekly follow the obsolescent 1970s hijack procedures but who used their wits and acted as free-born individuals..." http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzEzYzQ0Y2MyZjNlNjY1ZTEzMTA0MGRmM2EyMTQ0NjY --- Let's Make America A "Sad-Free Zone": Pull-no-punches columnist Ann Coulter takes on the concept of gun-free zones and its contribution to a host of shooting incidents at schools (including some by adults with no prior connection to the school). http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55277 --- How Well Would A Gun Ban Work?: To take the principle of gun-control measures to the ultimate level, let's say America decided in the coming weeks that it no longer could tolerate the heinous acts of a lone gunman, whether in Blacksburg, Va., or in an Amish schoolhouse in Paradise, Pa. ...What would be the outcome? Would America suddenly become a gun-free safe zone? ...Our so-called war on illegal drugs has not exactly been a whopping success. You can go to all parts of our city and find whatever you need to help you get through the day... http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20070418-104850-4951r.htm --- The Fight To Bar Arms: With the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech in which 32 people were slain on campus by a lone gunman who turned his weapon on himself, no doubt the clamor to ban personal ownership of guns will be raised again. Yet amidst the grief and anguish over this terrible incident it should be noted that the campus itself had gained a well-known reputation as a "gun free zone.".. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/the_fight_to_bar_arms.html --- Why "Ismail Ax"?: Jerry Bowyer turns to the Old Testament to decipher the meaning of "Ismail Ax," the name Cho Sueng Hui had written on his arm. While Bowyer doesn't use the term, his account suggests that the carnage at Virginia Tech may be related to the "sudden jihad" syndrome. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JerryBowyer/2007/04/18/ismail_ax_the_shooter_was_another_son_of_sacrifice --- Cho Seung Hui Had Involuntary Mental-Health Commitment: ...Gun control advocates seized upon the revelations about Mr. Cho's psychiatric history to call for more complete background checks on gun buyers, particularly expanding the number of situations in which someone may be disqualified from buying a gun because of mental health issues... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/us/19weapons.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin --- California Columnist Urges "Bullet Control": "...It's true, guns don't kill people. Bullets do. Deny ammunition to a handgun, and it becomes about as lethal as a tack hammer...So De Leon, at the urging of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Police Chief William J. Bratton and county Sheriff Lee Baca, has introduced legislation that would make California the first state to seriously regulate handgun ammunition." http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap19apr19,1,382737.column?coll=la-headlines-california --- SAF Marks Anniversary Of Lexington, Concord Battles: Thursday, April 19 marks the 232nd anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord that started the American Revolution with the "Shot Heard Round the World," and the Second Amendment Foundation notes that the aftermath of this week's events in Virginia clearly show that European animosity toward our right to keep and bear arms still exists. http://www.pr-inside.com/saf-observes-232nd-anniversary-of-lexington-r98078.htm --- From Alan Korwin: 4- Insider Details on NRA "Plan" to Overturn Parker Case The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Parker v. D.C. was a milestone in Second Amendment decisions -- the court declared in no uncertain terms that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Gun lovers popped champagne and gun haters popped an artery. But talk on the street says the NRA didn't want this case to be heard, doesn't want this case appealed to the Supreme Court (which may very well occur), and wants it vacated and moot by repealing the D.C. gun ban in the first place. That would erase the gains made by the brilliant decision. A good deal of evidence implies a degree of truth to the rumor. What's up? The NRA is indeed promoting the "D.C. Personal Protection Act," which if enacted would repeal the 31-year-old D.C. total gun ban. If that bill succeeds it will make the Parker case moot. Parker is a superb gun case -- the plaintiffs include a black woman in a dangerous neighborhood threatened by vicious thugs, an officer who can carry on the job but not in his own apartment, a member of the Cato Institute... not the usual bottom-feeding criminals trying to squirm out of felony criminal charges by challenging the constitutionality of a law. Why would the NRA try to derail that? I asked around at the NRA convention in St. Louis last weekend (4/12-4/15), and there were plenty of answers. Some you may like and some you may reject. [Comments from the chief sponsor of the case, attorney Robert Levy, appear in brackets. Levy is a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, but is acting independent of the Institute.] If you get a sense that there are personality conflicts or some bad blood underlying parts of this, you wouldn't be completely wrong. You get the NRA and this many powerful attorneys buzzing around a crucial case and you're going to have some friction and disagreement -- and I'm being nice about it. Now, don't get angry at me -- I'm not necessarily agreeing with any of this -- I'm just the messenger, so you can know what's floating around: - In all seriousness NRA Exec. VP Wayne LaPierre announced publicly at the Grassroots seminar, "Parker is going to go up and we have a damn good chance of winning it!" - In contrast, NRA president Sandy Froman accurately said during her formal remarks at the Member's Meeting, "Although we know what the outcome (of Parker) should be, there's no guarantee that it will be what it should be." - Froman did the math and said two votes are sure, and two more are likely. "Two and two makes four. But four Justices out of nine is not a majority." Just that suggestion is chilling, implying we have a Court of people not laws. But we do, and both sides know it. The details of the case are less of an issue than the people on the bench. - Strategy-wise, this is "a dual-track plan," one wonk notes. "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst," another says cautiously. Parker would make good law, but it's not guaranteed to succeed. If it fails, you want a backup strategy. [Levy notes: Why have a backup more than a year before the Supreme Court could possibly decide Parker? If a backup is necessary, there's plenty of time without risking that the DC Personal Protection Act will be added as a rider to some legislation that has bi-partisan support (that almost happened a couple of weeks ago).] - Congress has numerous new players with no grade on gun issues. The push to repeal the gun ban has the side benefit of getting both chambers on the record -- do you support a particularly bad gun ban or not? Congress members recognize this. [Levy notes: Ditto, previous comment. Why run the risk now? There's plenty of time to score members of Congress. If the DC Personal Protection Act is such a rush issue, where has it been for the past 31 years?] - Legislators who commit to repeal the ban by co-sponsoring the bill earn an "A" as far as it goes, and we'll see what the future brings. - Three tries to repeal the ban didn't pass when Republicans controlled Congress so it has a low chance of passage now. Unlikely for Waxman to allow it heard in committee, or a unanimous consent resolution to take it to the floor. Its chances of making Parker moot are thus slim, and no effort will go into forcing that prematurely. This is no secret to Congress watchers. [Levy notes: If the DC Voting Rights bill hadn't been pulled from the floor, it might well have passed with a rider that mooted the Parker litigation. Those kinds of things happen in Congress, all the time ... and they're not entirely predictable. ] [Korwin points out: If it isn't obvious by now it should be -- the NRA is less than pleased that it isn't running this show, and the various players are not tightly aligned on strategy. Well-meaning individuals can have legitimate differences of opinion. You're getting to see the fly-on-the-wall perspective that is so often hidden from view.] - 41 Senators are on the bill at introduction, which is itself a good thing. Those commitments have value later (69 are on the House bill). - The Cato Institute (presumed by many to be the force behind the case, though it is actually a private effort that includes some Cato members), according to random scuttlebutt: understands the law well but doesn't understand the politics at all; doesn't care; doesn't "get" it; can just walk away later; won't have to pick up the pieces like the NRA will if the case fails, is rolling the dice with your kid's tuition on the line. [Levy notes: Let me say this in plain terms: the Cato Institute did not start this case, has nothing to do with the litigation, hasn't even filed an amicus brief, and won't be involved in any legal tactics or strategy at any point. At most, Cato will help generate media support, and file a brief with the Supremes. So to suggest that Cato "can just walk away later" is irrelevant and absurd. Cato can't walk away from something it never has been associated with. As for the "private effort that includes some Cato members" -- i.e., me -- I have years of work and plenty of bucks invested in constitutional issues like this one. I'll match my commitment of time and resources against anyone at the NRA or elsewhere. It's frankly offensive for someone to suggest that I "don't understand," "don't care," "don't get it," or that I'm "rolling the dice." That applies doubly with respect to both of my co-counsel.] [Korwin points out: People were willing to speak to me, an arms-length third party, in realistic and candid terms they would likely not use face-to-face, which is why I have identified none by name. Some remarks were made in personal confidence and do not appear here at all. I told everyone I spoke with that I don't know what to say when people ask me why NRA objects to the Parker case, or seems to be trying to scuttle it, and openly sought help in understanding so I could explain it (I have not even begun to explore the Seegars debacle). It is clearly instructive to hear what's going on, though it's perhaps less than satisfying, or painful, to hear what people really think about you when you're not in the room, whether they're right, wrong, or nuts.] - Everyone expects a conservative outcome. So where was that on the Kelo case (eminent domain)? On McCain Feingold campaign finance reform (suppression of speech before an election)? On the EPA case (global warming pollution from CO2)? The results are far from guaranteed. - "Show me five votes! Show me five! You can only show me four." - This case was filed when O'Conner was on the bench -- it was terrible timing, even though the timing now is better, and might get even better if there's another vacancy soon. [Levy notes: When this case was filed (Feb. 2003), it was virtually certain that the Court would look better by the time Parker went up. That's what we told the NRA when its representatives cautioned against filing the case. Our prediction turned out to be 100% correct. The Court now looks better than anytime in recent memory, and better than it's going to look longer-term.] - Just because a vacancy may come up doesn't mean Bush can get a good appointee through the Democrat controlled Senate and committees. - Just because there's a vacancy doesn't mean Bush won't fold with a squishy candidate, or a candidate who changes stripes once appointed. - NRA filed a powerful and significant amicus brief, documenting state-level Second Amendment actions that invalidated unconstitutional gun bans. - NRA also supported a Congress of Racial Equality amicus brief. - The Parker decision still blatantly denies rights to residents that a ban repeal would fix -- it only allows possession by registration and permit, at government discretion, only at home, with no way to get a gun to the home, and no way to purchase across state lines. What good is a registered permitted gun that you can't obtain? A ban repeal addresses that (somewhat). [Levy notes: Anything that Parker doesn't address can certainly be addressed by suitable legislation -- but NOT a bill with a provision that would moot Parker. By all means, let the NRA introduce legislation that will accomplish all of its many goals. In fact, my co-counsel and I have already drafted legislation (sent to selected senators) that does everything the NRA-sponsored bill does, without putting Parker at risk. And of course, it's too obvious to point out that the DC Personal Protection Act addresses only DC; a Supreme Court pronouncement applies everywhere.] - You're talking about arguing the most crucial issue at the highest court in the land, with an attorney some observers at the NRA do not hold in high esteem. One person questioned whether any attorney at the NRA itself was of sufficient mettle to tackle the case, and suggested you want someone of at least the stature and competence of Ted Olson, or perhaps Lawrence Tribe, on something this big. [Levy notes: Well, let's see: Which lawyers sued the Justice Department in Seegars, only to have the DOJ attorneys prevail on a standing argument that DC lawyers never thought of? Which lawyers neglected to have one of the Seegars plaintiffs apply for registration to ensure there would be legal standing? Which lawyers asserted every cause of action imaginable in Seegars, giving the court a non-Second-Amendment path to resolving the case? Then again, which attorneys won in Parker?] [Korwin points out: And just for the record, lead attorney Alan Gura, a graduate of Cornell (1992) and Georgetown Law (1995), does have an impressive list of accomplishments, including the stunning win in the Parker case.] - The devastation of a loss is so great that of course you have to be reluctant to jump into the fray. (I've been saying this for years -- that both sides are terrified to bring a case, and rightly so.) A lack of reluctance to proceed is viewed by some as reckless. [Levy notes: There are more than enough reasons to go for the Supremes NOW. But if only one reason were needed, here it is: Virtually every wrongly-decided 2d Amendment case has been US v. Someone -- in other words, a criminal case -- brought by an accused felon-in-possession or some bank robber or crackhead seeking to reverse a sentencing enhancement. Sooner or later, when four liberal justices sense that the time is right, the Court is going to reach down and grab one of those cases. We warned the NRA about that four years ago. And we still haven't heard a game plan to avoid the problem. In short, if a good case doesn't go up, a bad one will.] - A cogent case can be made for a collective rights view (Militia as response to Founders' fear of standing army, recent-history court activity, foreign precedents, etc.) which although bogus, can be used by ideologues on the Court to justify a decision that is results driven, instead of law, fact or precedent driven. If some Justices are seeking a means to an end, do you give them the opportunity? [Levy says: That's an argument for never doing anything. There's always a risk in going to the Supremes. But this time we have a good Court, a great case, the perfect venue, a sympathetic Justice Department, no incorporation issue, outstanding plaintiffs, 47 states to win, only 3 to lose, and a terrific appellate opinion. In the unlikely event that 5 of the current justices decide to read the 2d Amendment out of the Constitution by upholding a total ban on handguns, that would be the time for Congress to act. Furthermore, a ruling that the 2d Amendment is effectively meaningless seems unlikely during the heat of the '08 election, when it would be a rallying cry for the pro-gun community. Finally, if the Court is so inclined, it has ways to reverse Parker without reaching the merits (e.g., standing). Wayne is supposed to have some insight on these matters. Let's take him at his word: "Parker is going to go up and we have a damn good chance of winning it!"] So there it is. The NRA is not ipso facto fighting Parker. They are addressing a complex issue in a complex way. And Levy, leading the charge for the best case to come along in decades has all the compelling points you would want a good lawyer to have. Whether you think it's time to make the play or not, the game is on. ========== Thanks for reading! Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm --- From AzCDL: SB 1258, which prohibits the Governor or the Adjutant General from confiscating lawfully held firearms during a state of emergency, was signed by the Governor on April 18, 2007. Information on this and other bills can be found at the AzCDL website: http://www.azcdl.org/html/legislation.html These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization. Join today! AzCDL - Protecting Your Freedom http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html Copyright © 2007 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights reserved. -- Stephen P. Wenger Firearm safety - It's a matter for education, not legislation. http://www.spw-duf.info .