« February 2011 | Main | April 2011 »
March 2011
Rep. Don Young speaks his mind
On the occasion of Humane Society of the US offering him an award. Go ahead, Congressman, you're among friends, feel free to tell us what you really feel.
And even more...
From the Mexican magazine Proceso, with apologies for inadequacy of translation from Spanish:
"Fast and Furious: Everybody Knew"
. . . .
"- What exactly was that operation? This Weekly asked Dodson.
"We identified a group of multiple buyers who had the task of acquiring weapons not for themselves but for others." Dodson explained that the original idea was to track all the weapons were bought in order to stop the traffickers and then to the recipients. Even the Mexican drug traffickers.
"We watched these guys when they bought the weapons, acquired 5, 10 or 20 in one visit to the gun shop. On leaving they met with others in public parks or private garages. Weapons were transferred from one vehicle to another and then taken to the recipients. "
- What happened to the weapons once they were transferred to other cars?
"We had been forbidden to detain individuals, we could not confiscate weapons or identify the people involved. Our sole mission was to observe. That's how we lost track of weapons that came to Mexico."
Even the sellers knew
. . . .
Gun shops where they bought guns and rifles also knew of the operation. The ATF asked them to participate in the case.
Dodson's account: "The gun shops were more concerned than the ATF about the multiple sales because they knew that those who were buying weapons did not want them for their personal use. With this approach, the gun shops thought they were doing the right thing, they had no idea that we (the agents) were not intercepting the weapons. "
. . . .
However, agents of the ATF in Phoenix seized only a couple of arms shipments to Mexico. "The other weapons that ended in ATF's possession were seized by other agencies and they informed us," says Dodson."
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (2)
More on guns to Mexico
The Latin American Herald Tribune has a story on Wikileaks' diplomatic cables:
The assertions appear in embassy cables written after three bilateral conferences on arms trafficking that took place between March 2009 and January 2010 in Cuernavaca, Mexico; Phoenix; and Tapachula, Mexico, respectively.The cables’ authors note that Mexican officials and politicians never hesitate to remind U.S. diplomats that Mexico’s drug war – which has claimed 35,000 lives in the last four years – is fueled by Americans’ demand for illegal drugs and by guns bought in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
Yet one of the cables maintains that 90 percent of the heavy armament Mexican security forces seize from cartel gunmen comes from Central America.
The cable, which does not offer any particulars or supporting documentation, does acknowledge that the vast majority of the handguns and many of the assault rifles used by the cartels enter Mexico from the United States.
A message drafted after the October 2009 conference in Tapachula blamed the Mexican government for not doing enough to patrol the southern border with Guatemala.
“While there are 30,000 U.S. CBP (Customs and Border Protection) officers on the 1,926 mile Mexican/U.S. border, only 125 Mexican immigration officials monitor the 577 mile border with Guatemala,” the embassy cable says.
La Jornada’s publication of the cables follows revelations in the United States about a botched sting operation, “Fast and Furious,” that saw members of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allow close to 2,000 weapons to be smuggled from Arizona to Mexico over 15 months.
And Narcosphere has a "we told you so" moment, noting its own coverage, and other cables citing recovery of grenades shipped by the government to El Salvador's military.
Via PJ Tattler and Howard Nemerov.
A warning I can take to heart
Favor for Rep. Harold Volkmer
Harold Volkmer, the very pro-gun former Missouri Congressman, played a key role in the evolution of the gun rights movement. His biggest feat came in pushing the Firearm Owners Protection Act thru the House, at time when the leadership (including Peter Rodino, chairman of House Judiciary Committee, who announced "the bill is dead on arrival in the House") was in solid opposition. He won a discharge petition (almost impossible under the rules at the time), got it to the floor, led the fight that defeated a rival and much weaker bill and essentially led the revolt that beat his own party's leadership.
The Congressman's 80th birthday is April 4. He just survived a serious bout with pneumonia, weeks in the hospital, and will be returning to Missouri tomorrow to finish recuperation. His friends and family want to see that he gets a blizzard of birthday best wishes. His address will be:
Congressman Harold Volkmer
Beth-Haven Nursing Home
2500 Pleasant St.
Hannibal, Missouri 63401
Update -- sure! Repost wherever you want!
We pause now for a bit of gloating
From a 1998 statement by the American Bar Association, to the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution:
"Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:.The American Bar Association appreciates the opportunity to submit its views to you on issues arising under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The ABA serves as the national voice of the legal profession and has over 400,000 members. I am David W. Clark, of Jackson, Mississippi. I currently serve as the Chair of the ABA's Coordinating Committee on Gun Violence. I submit this statement at the request of the President of the ABA, Philip S. Anderson.
There is considerable confusion and misunderstanding about the meaning of the Second Amendment and its relationship to the power of the federal government to enact laws regulating firearms in private hands. In fact, our concern about the widespread misunderstanding of the law in this area caused our House of Delegates, in August 1994, to adopt a resolution calling on the legal profession to "...join and work with our counterparts in the medical, teaching, religious, civic, law enforcement and other professions, to ...educate the public and lawmakers regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to make widely known the fact that the United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently, uniformly held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution right to bear arms is related to a well-regulated militia and that there are no federal constitutional decisions which preclude regulation of firearms in private hands."
Few issues have been more distorted and cluttered by misinformation than this one. We agree with the views of former Solicitor General (and Dean of Harvard Law School) Erwin N. Griswold, expressed in his November 4, 1990, Washington Post column, "Phantom Second Amendment Rights," that the debate then ongoing as to a proposed ban on assault weapons should spend little time on "the unsupportable claim that restrictions would violate the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms."
There is no confusion in the law itself. Federal and state court decisions in this century have been uniform in the view that the Second Amendment permits the exercise of broad power to limit private access to firearms by all levels of government. The strictest gun control laws in the nation have been upheld against Second Amendment challenge, including a ban on handguns imposed locally."
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (13)
"Gun Walker" keeps growing
Now the former ATF attache to Mexico, in charge of agency operations there, is talking to CBS News. He was told that the operation had been approved by the acting ATF director and by higher officials at Justice Department, and that Assistant Attorney General and head of the Criminal Division Larry Breuer knew about it. And apparent it did result in a lot of traces that would illustrate how US guns were ending up in Mexico:
"Gil first found out something was amiss in early 2010 when serial numbers from a flood of guns used in cartel crimes were all tracing back to the same case in Phoenix: "Fast and Furious." But when Gil's analyst checked ATF's computer files to find out more, he hit a brick wall.
"Not only did he not have access, I as the attache, the head agent in Mexico for ATF operations, did not have access," says Gil. He was locked out.
That was a red flag because Gil says as the senior ATF official in Mexico, it was his job to approve any ATF operation involving Mexico; and he didn't approve this one."
UPDATE: in the comments, Dedicated_Dad hits it on the head:
"Please consider:
(1) Have dealers - working as "confidential informants" - sell guns to straw buyers and report details to ATF.
(2) Allow guns to be smuggled into Mexico, without the knowledge of anyone IN Mexico - not the Mexi.gov, not US ATF agents or their boss the "attache", not ANYONE.
(3) ????
(4) Make some big case!
Please tell me what must -- or even theoretically COULD -- happen at step "3" for this to work!"
Exactly. How could anyone imagine (3). If the Mexican authorities don't know, they can't investigate (might not anyway, but if they don't know they surely cannot. ATF can hardly mount an on the ground investigation there, esp. without notifying local law enforcement. All that could ever be ascertained was that guns shipped to cartels wind up at crime scenes, and everyone already knew that. That'd get you nowhere toward making a big case.
Another thought: I'd initially figured knowledge of this operation wouldn't have gone to high levels. The managers who were running it probably would have figured that if they sent the info up the chain of command, somebody might stop it, or have lots of awkward questions, or delay until he got a lot of consensus (as in CYA -- spread the blame around if things go bad). But now it appears knowledge did go high. The guy who is telling the attache that it's gone to the agency head and higher is implicitly telling him: "if you keep arguing about this, you'll eventually have to explain to someone a LOT more powerful than you, and someone's gonna phrase it as "the operation you allowed -- there's some attache guy who thinks only a moron could have allowed it." And now it appears knowledge got as high as an Assistant Attorney General, an appointee. If it got that high, odds are good it would have gotten to the AG. And if it got to him, odds are decent that it got to the White House. I note the official denials are that anyone high up "approved" it. You can of course know of something, decide to let it run its course, and still deny having "approved" it. CYA and all that. "They told me about it, I just assumed they knew what they were doing."
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (13)
Decision upholding former ban on guns in US parks
US v. Masciandaro, decided yesterday by the 4th Circuit. The court first decides that the prosecution survives the change to park regulations, and then considers the Second Amendment, with the judges splitting. The majority opinion, you could call it, just concludes that application of Heller outside the home is unsettled: a "considerable degree of uncertainty remains as to the scope of that right beyond the home and the standards for determining whether and how the right can be burdened by governmental regulation." It applies intermediate scrutiny, and upholds the statute.
Judge Niemeyer separately concludes that the right extends outside the home -- otherwise the Heller opinion wouldn't have had to talk about "sensitive places."
Judges Wilkinson and Duffy write separately, arguing that extending Heller outside the home should be left to the Supreme Court: This is serious business. We do not wish to be even minutely responsible for some unspeakably tragic act of mayhem because in the peace of our judicial chambers we miscalculated as to Second Amendment rights. It is not far-fetched to think the Heller Court wished to leave open the possibility that such a danger would rise exponentially as one moved the right from the home to the public square. If ever there was an occasion for restraint, this would seem to be it."
Josh Blackman, from whom I got the citation, has extensive thoughts on the case, here."First, Wilkinson’s paramount concern is for the role of “popular governance,” or as he put it in his article, the “democratic processes.” The Courts serve as an “impenetrable bulwark” against the elected branches to preserve Constitutional rights from the constraints of majorities. Second, Wilkinson speaks directly to social cost–or as he phrases it, “unspeakably tragic act of mayhem.” Wilkinson only focuses on the cost of one side of the equation, and ignores the cost, and therefore the liberty interests of the accused in this case. This one-sided analysis is a direct result of the weak analysis derived from Heller. Third, I cannot help but think the comment about “danger” in the “public square” was, at least in some respects, animated by the recent Tucson tragedy. Fourth, in conclusion, Wilkinson praises a “course of simple caution.” Caution is always prudent. But unilateral restraint is a far cry from “simple caution.”
Personally, two observations. (1) Judge Wilkinson's values derive from the 1980s, when Reagan conservativism saw "judicial restraint" (never strike a statute down) as a core of conservative thinking. I can't see where this is inherent to any variety (libertarian, social, or Burkean) conservativism; I think that approach is an artifact of those times, when conservatives generally got beat up in court. Their counter was legislation, and the counter to that was judicial challenges that struck down their measures. They came to see legislation as their tool and courts as the tools of their opponents.
(2) While courts are supposed to be impartial (and with judicial restraint should go neutrality, certainly), as Josh points out, there are underlying views here (firearms pose dangers with no offsetting benefits) that creep into the opinion.
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (1)
Predictable spin on "Operation Gunwalker"
"America’s frontline agencies aren’t always coordinated fully and often feel powerless to arrest suspected gun runners in the absence of tougher federal laws. As a result, weapons from an ATF sting in Arizona called “Fast and Furious” unwittingly ended up in the possession of a trafficking ring in a neighboring state while other guns crossed the border and at least one showed up at a murder scene in Mexico."
"James Cavanaugh, a former ATF commander, said stemming the flow of guns to Mexico is a Herculean task given the lack of law-enforcement resources and political will.
“I don’t see how it’s realistically going to slow down if we don’t make changes in resources, laws and policies,” he said. “It’s important because people are being slaughtered.”
Agents and prosecutors have been especially passionate in pleading for Congress to pass a specific law banning gun trafficking, and have repeatedly watched as courts threw out cases against straw buyers who made purchases that were technically legal."
1) ATF is saying that straw purchases are "technically" legal? Interesting news to folks who were prosecuted for them.
2) If they didn't have the resources to investigate, or the laws to enforce, why did they let the sales go through? Is this "we're going to keep on doing it and if you don't give us money it'll happen again." ?
3) Let's see... the 4473 form has a box asking if the buyer is purchasing for himself. Lying on the form is a felony. Transferring a gun with reasonable cause to believe that it will be used to commit a felony is another violation, punished by up to ten years' imprisonment.
And then there's 22 U.S. Code §2778, giving the President broad power to restrict export of "defense articles.' and requiring registration of any exporting the same (violations punishable by up to ten years' imprisonment) and 18 U.S. Code §554:
"Whoever fraudulently or knowingly exports or sends from the United States, or attempts to export or send from the United States, any merchandise, article, or object contrary to any law or regulation of the United States, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of such merchandise, article or object, prior to exportation, knowing the same to be intended for exportation contrary to any law or regulation of the United States, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."
And here's an ATF press release announcing indictments for illegally exporting firearms to Columbia. I bet the defendants would be surprised to hear that ATF says there are no laws against exporting arms!
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (6)
Lively legislative season
in North Dakota, a bill to forbid employers from stopping employees from having firearms in their parked, locked vehicles has passed the House.
In Montana, a Senate committee has approved a bill to allow concealed carry without a permit.
Linn County, Iowa, has voted to allow concealed carry in parks and most other county property.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry sued Youngstown, Ohio over a ban on gun dealerships, and lost, because the city quickly repealed the ban.
UPDATE: and to cap off the day, the Utah governor signed its knife preemption statute, which has Knife Rights rejoicing.
It's quite different from 20-30 years ago, when the legislative action consisted of waiting periods here and AW bans there and California initiatives to ban handguns, etc., etc.
Permalink · State legislation · Comments (2)
DC v. Heller aftermath
Ouch!
In attorneys' fees disputes, it's always amusing to see how often an attorney arguing that the other guy's hourly rates are unreasonable is actually billing at a higher rate himself. These are big firms, probably with staggering hourly rates.
Permalink · Heller aftermath · Comments (3)
Court ruling on "he needed killing" jury instruction
From Carico v. Commonwealth, an 1870 Kentucky ruling on self-defense:
"Speaking of assured and continual danger to life, this court, in the case in 2 Duvall, defined the principle of self-defense as follows: "Like the sword of Damocles, the threatened danger is continually impending every moment and everywhere. The threatened man may be waylaid or otherwise attacked unawares without the possibility of defense or of escape, and may never, day or night, feel safe, or actually be so, while his enemy lives, who whenever he may see him or wherever he may find him may be anxious and able to kill him. And does either human or divine law require such prolonged agony and peril; or can the best and most prudent men suicidably forbear to strike for riddance, if they have the courage to defend themselves, in the only way of secure and lasting escape?"
Now if a man feels sure that his life is in continual danger, and that to take the life of his menacing enemy is his only safe security, does not the rationale of the principle as thus defined allow him to kill that enemy whenever and wherever he gives him a chance and there is no sign of relenting? But before a jury should acquit they should be well satisfied that the killing was not the offspring of bad passion, but solely of a thorough and well-founded belief that it was necessary for security. And here (p.128)lies the danger of misapplication. It is difficult to be assured that the act was thus necessary and done in good faith. Of that, however, the jury and not the court must judge; and in that judgment they can not be too self-poised and careful before they conclude that the peril of the accused was imminent and incessant, and that he, well assured of it, honestly believed that his only safe remedy was to destroy the power to execute the threats. And if he was authorized to believe and did considerately apprehend that his own exile or the death of his persevering enemy, watching to kill him, was, like the tabula in naufragio, the only safe mode of rescue, might he not lawfully choose his remedy and throw his enemy overboard? Why should he be required still to wait an assault and to endure longer haunting and hazard when he might at any moment become the victim of his own forbearance, and when self-defense might be impossible or unavailing? Why let the sword still hang over him? Why not remove it out of sight when he may, and not passively linger until it unexpectedly falls and strikes his heart unresisted? The recognition of the perfect right to do so in such a crisis appears to us consistent with both principle and policy. It seems to us conservative. It might afford more security and prevent more assassinations than the lame law of punishment ever could, and the manly and opportune assertion of this universal birthright may teach the reckless who thus maliciously beset the pathway of the peaceable that they will be likely to bring destruction on their own heads. This preventive principle will go hand in hand with civilization and philosophical jurisprudence as a palladium of personal security and social order and peace. Properly guarded, it may do more good than harm."
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (6)
More on ATF "gun walker"
Here's the CBS coverage. More agencies are reportedly involved, including DHS and at least one Ass't US Attorney.
Rep. Deutch is a little behind the curve...
He writes:
"Along our southwest border, where gun violence related to the Mexican drug war has claimed the lives of more than 30,000 people since 2006, the work of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been undermined by American gun dealers selling high-power semiautomatic rifles in bulk to smugglers with the worst of intentions."
Interesting background to the Framers of the 14th Amendment
From Paul Kirchner, "Dueling with Sword and Pistol":
Prior to the Civil War, Sen. Ben Wade (R-Ohio) said something on the floor which was deemed insulting to Sen. Robert Toombs (D-Ga), and a friend told Toombs, "you must challenge the old wretch!" Toombs replied, "No, I mustn't, for that old wretch is the deadliest shot in the District. Wade and I have been out practicing many times together, and he can hit a ten-cent piece at thirty paces every time, and to tell you the truth, sir, I cannot!"
Permalink · 14th Amendment · Comments (5)
Guns in Mexico
The El Paso Times has a story based on a Wikileaks leaked diplomatic message. It reports that businessmen in Juarez hired eight Zetas for protection, and Zetas got guns from the army in exchange for a truce with the Zetas and promises of assistance against rival cartels:
"According to the contact, (the source)," the cable states, " 'Zetas' paid a visit on local military commanders when they arrived in Juárez in September 2008, and purchased previously-seized weapons from the army garrison the former 'Zetas' pledged not to target the army, and made themselves available to the army for extrajudicial operations."
Permalink · non-US · Comments (4)
25 ATF Agents write letter outlining scandals
The contents of their letter are pretty stunning. A few samples:
"The Bureaus second most powerful manager Deputy Director Edgar Domenech, himself filed a whistleblower complaint and publicly stated that the Bureau of ATF has a propensity for reprisal and he “knew” such actions would result in career suicide."
"A Special Agent attempts to resist an investigation using unlawful wiretaps. The Special Agent openly challenges and reports it to superiors. After 20 + years of exemplary service, the next 1 ½ years results in the Special Agent and his family being transferred 5 times, suspended for 3 days, attempts made to have a psyche evaluation conducted, 2 letters of reprimand, and ultimately a termination."
"Complainants or those who would challenge unethical and/or illegal acts by Special Agents in Charge or senior managers are often threatened with collecting their next pay check in Fargo, North Dakota or Anchorage, Alaska."
"An anonymous letter was sent to the Department of Justice OIG from Las Vegas, Nevada alleging government Fraud waste and abuse. The OIG provided the letter to ATF Internal affairs for follow up investigation into the allegations contained in the anonymous letter. One of the primary objectives by ATF Internal Affairs investigators was to identify the author of the anonymous letter. During theInternal Affairs investigation, ATF identified an Agent who ATF had perceived to have been the whistleblower. This Agent became the recipient of vindictive personnel actions that ranged from a letter of reprimand to a notice of proposed removal from Federal service. Further investigation identified the true author of the letter and he/she admitted to being the author of the letter. ATF management then directed their attack on the actual whistleblower. ATF continued their attack on the perceived whistleblower and terminated him from Federal service. The Agent was later reinstated by ATF after appealing his removal to the MSPB [Merit Systems Protection Board]."
Related: Letter from House Judiciary, asking questions about the agency letting guns pass into Mexico;
Mexican officials quite upset at the news.
Chairman of House Oversight Committee has four investigators working on the matter.
Note: if posting comments, and you have a gmail or yahoo email address, just leave the email blank. I had to block those due to unbelievable waves of spam comments, but set it so you can comment with no email address given.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (12)
GAO report on government duplication and waste
Article here. It brought to mind what a local prosecutor suggested, decades ago. He suggested that was enormous duplication of SWAT teams. FBI has multiple, local based, SWAT teams. BATF has its equivalent, Special Reaction Teams. IRS, I'm told, has them. Agriculture, of all things, has at least one, with helicopter. (I know because a friend was a Justice of the Peace and signed off on some search warrants for food stamp fraud, and was astounded to find these perfectly ordinary warrants were being executed by SWAT teams with the helo hovering overhead. He asked a fellow what was the helo doing, it couldn't land with all the electrical lines around, were the men aboard going to rappel down? The answer was no, after the raid was over it'd go back to the airport. We just brought it along because some Congressional types had pointed out we'd never used it and why did we need it?
My prosecutor friend observed, yes, LE needs a SWAT team trained in its special skills. But why does each agency and local department need a separate one? Maybe IRS agents need to know tax law, and ATF firearms law, and Agriculture how you run the food stamp program, but why not just one SWAT team for all agencies (or one per region), and a single local one for all localities in the area?
Interesting AZ case on self-defense
Pdf of ruling here. Interesting....
Arizona, by statute, provides that for self defense a person is presumed to have acted reasonably if he acts against a person who has unlawfully or forcefully entered his residence. Here, there was essentially a conflict between two people who knew each other, at the doorway, and the one trying to enter was the one charged with aggravated assault.. Each claimed the other had initiated the conflict. The court holds that the jury should not have been instructed on the presumption, since the legislature meant it to protect homeowners who are charged after defensive acts, to benefit the defense in those situations, and not to benefit the prosecution should it instead allege the person entering had unreasonably used force.
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Translation of Mexican TV on ATF guns to mexico
Transcript here.
"Ramos: How many weapons are we talking about here?...that were allowed to pass from the US into Mexico?
Dodson: I can say that only in this specific case, up until the ATF admitted the policy existed, and I think this number is a little low, but if you accept the official numbers, it is around 1,974 firearms.
Ramos: Did you complain to your bosses about this operation?
Dodson: Yes, regularly.
Ramos: What did you tell them?
Dodson: That this strategy would not work, but they continued despite my objections."
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (1)
One shot, two kills
A British sniper in Afghanistan apparently thought "one shot, one kill" wasn't good enough.
Permalink · shooting · Comments (3)
Followup to Obama statement
Several media outlets have picked it up, including WashPo, which noted: "His chosen avenue to highlight the issue, an op-ed in the Sunday edition of a small newspaper instead of a major speech, could suggest a more limited approach." That struck me as a bit strange, too. "Sending up a trial balloon" is a familiar legislative tactic, but the standard approach is to have a subordinate make a clear statement, as AG Holder did earlier with AW bans. Its clarity ensures would get real reactions and can gauge what type of reception the idea will get, and its origin in a subordinate ensures that if the reaction is bad you can disavow it, or just let it die off. A vague hint from the top guy has neither benefit.
In the meantime, Paul Helmke of Brady Campaign calls the hint "the most significant statement any president has made on gun violence in over a decade," with no apparent awareness of just pitiful that sounds.
Obama statement on gun control
Brady Campaign must be dosing up on antidepressants again. His proposals are essentially ... make background checks better and faster. Topped with:
"Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges."
The most comfort they can take is a careful hint at requiring background checks on private sales -- but even there you have to read very, very, carefully to see the hint. Or try this:
"Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns."
I wouldn't take any of this as genuine, but I doubt Brady Campaign had this result in mind when it endorsed the Obama/Biden ticket!
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (6)
Congress blocks military orders that restrict gun rights
This is aimed at base commanders who have ordered that soldiers report and register privately-owned firearms kept at their residences off-based.
The Public Law version is not yet online, but here's a link to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act as introduced, which became Pub. L. 111-383. Section 1062 (on PDF pages 253-54) provides:
"SEC. 1062. PROHIBITION ON INFRINGING ON THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO LAWFULLY ACQUIRE, POSSESS, OWN, CARRY, AND OTHERWISE USE PRIVATELY OWNED FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, AND OTHER WEAPONS.
(a) In General- Except as provided in subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense shall not prohibit, issue any requirement relating to, or collect or record any information relating to the otherwise lawful acquisition, possession, ownership, carrying, or other use of a privately owned firearm, privately owned ammunition, or another privately owned weapon by a member of the Armed Forces or civilian employee of the Department of Defense on property that is not--
(1) a military installation; or
(2) any other property that is owned or operated by the Department of Defense.
(b) Existing Regulations and Records-
(1) REGULATIONS- Any regulation promulgated before the date of enactment of this Act shall have no force or effect to the extent that it requires conduct prohibited by this section.
(2) RECORDS- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall destroy any record containing information described in subsection (a) that was collected before the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Rule of Construction- Subsection (a) shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Defense to--
(1) create or maintain records relating to, or regulate the possession, carrying, or other use of a firearm, ammunition, or other weapon by a member of the Armed Forces or civilian employee of the Department of Defense while--
(A) engaged in official duties on behalf of the Department of Defense; or
(B) wearing the uniform of an Armed Force; or
(2) create or maintain records relating to an investigation, prosecution, or adjudication of an alleged violation of law (including regulations not prohibited under subsection (a)), including matters related to whether a member of the Armed Forces constitutes a threat to the member or others.
(d) Review- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall--
(1) conduct a comprehensive review of the privately owned weapons policy of the Department of Defense, including legal and policy issues regarding the regulation of privately owned firearms off of a military installation, as recommended by the Department of Defense Independent Review Related to Fort Hood; and
(2) submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report regarding the findings of and recommendations relating to the review conducted under paragraph (1), including any recommendations for adjustments to the requirements under this section.
(e) Military Installation Defined- In this section, the term `military installation' has the meaning given that term under section 2687(e)(1) of title 10, United States Code. "
Fearful that homeowner might be armed, burglar calls 911
Story here. It's not clear whether the homeowner did have a gun, but the burglar locked himself in the bathroom and called 911 for rescue. Since the burglar was taking a shower when the homeowner came upon him, it is at least possible that drugs and/or felonious stupidity were involved.
hat tip to Sixgun Sarah...
Permalink · Self defense · Comments (0)
Legal CLE course on firearms
What a great idea! (For nonlawyers, the current fad is for a bar assn to require so many hours of continuing legal education (CLE) per year. In Arizona, it's 15 hours. You pay thru the nose (about $40/hour average) and often are bored to tears. Instead, in South Carolina you can train with a handgun, get your CCW permit, and discuss ballistics, and earn six of those hours.
Mexicans taking self-defense measures
Story here.
"You can have a gun only when it is not classified exclusively for the use of the military and when it is registered," said Gustavo Nevarez, an attorney in Nuevo Casas Grandes. "Nobody registers them, though."
. . . .
It is a reality that Alex LeBaron, a state representative in northwestern Chihuahua, wants the government to confront. Domestic gun laws have remained a taboo subject among Mexican politicians for decades.
LeBaron believes times have changed, and he wants Mexico to revisit gun politics.
"The right to bear arms is an important matter we shouldn't be afraid to discuss," LeBaron said. "People are armed in their homes. This is not a secret."
. . . .
"We should let the criminals know that every citizen has a right to bear arms," he said.
Other signs that show Mexican people are becoming more gun-friendly are web forums on gun rights and shooting clubs.
Web forums such as Armed Mexico advise people who have been victims of recent attacks to purchase guns by joining shooting clubs. Shooting clubs have surged in farming towns in northern Mexico.
Permalink · non-US · Comments (4)
Sending in my NRA ballot
I usual vote, not for the full 25 that you are allowed (that dilutes your ballot), but for the handful that aren't just good (which is everyone listed) but are absolutely vital.
Into that category I'd put William Dailey, Charles Cotton, and Steven Schreiner. Dailey is a pro-gun attorney who serves on the Legislative Policy and Legal Affairs Committees and chairs the Civil Rights Defense Fund. Charles Cotton is a pro-gun attorney and former president of TSRA who serves on Legal Affairs Committee and Civil Rights Defense Fund. Steve Schreiner is president of the Firearms Coalition of Colorado, who was awarded the Silver Star and Bronze Star with V for valor in 'Nam.
ATF PR sends a memo to field agents
And it winds up in the hands of CBS:
"Public Information Officers:
Please make every effort for the next two weeks to maximize coverage of ATF operations/enforcement actions/arrests at the local and regional level. Given the negative coverage by CBS Evening News last week and upcoming events this week, the bureau should look for every opportunity to push coverage of good stories. Fortunately, the CBS story has not sparked any follow up coverage by mainstream media and seems to have fizzled.
It was shoddy reporting , as CBS failed to air on-the-record interviews by former ATF officials and HQ statements for attribution that expressed opposing views and explained the law and difficulties of firearm trafficking investigations. The CBS producer for the story made only a feigned effort at the 11th hour to reach ATF HQ for comment.
This week (To 3/1/2011), Attorney General Holder testifies on the Hill and likely will get questions about the allegations in the story. Also (3/3/2011), Mexico President Calderon will visit the White House and likely will testify on the Hill. He will probably draw attention to the lack of political support for demand letter 3 and Project Gunrunner.
ATF needs to proactively push positive stories this week, in an effort to preempt some negative reporting, or at minimum, lessen the coverage of such stories in the news cycle by replacing them with good stories about ATF. The more time we spend highlighting the great work of the agents through press releases and various media outreaches in the coming days and weeks, the better off we will be.
Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any significant operations that should get national media coverage, please reach out to the Public Affairs Division for support, coordination and clearance.
Thank you,
Scot L. Thomasson
Chief ATF Public Affairs Division"
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (5)
Sudden insight into terrorism
I just realized ... what do almost all terrorists have in common?
2001: Mohamed Atta, a/k/a Muḥammad Muḥammad al-Āmir ‘Awaḍ as-Sayyid leads the 9/11 hijackings and mass murders. His fellow conspirators included Abdulaziz al-Omari , Satam Suqami, Abdulaziz Alomari, Nawaf Alhazmi, and Abdulaziz al-Omari.
2003: Abdullah el-Faisal is convicted in Britain on charges of soliciting the murder of Americans, Jews, and Hindus.
2009: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tries to destroy an aircraft with a bomb in his underwear.
2009: Nidal Malik Hasan murders 13 servicemen at Fort Hood. He previously consulted Anwar al-Awlaki.
2009: Talib Islam attempts to set off a truck bomb in Springfield, Illinois.
2010: Faisal Shahzad tries to set off a car bomb in Times Square.
2010: Roshonara Choudhry is arrested in Britain after stabbing a former cabinet minister.
2011: Arid Uka kills two American servicemen at the Frankfurt airport.
What do they all have in common? It's obvious -- they all have really funny names. Once that is understood, we can see how to focus on the dangerous folks without ethnic profiling. Iqubal Farouki -- enhanced screening. John Smith -- step aboard, sir. Wackford Squeers -- pat down, even tho he is a Dickens character. Sgt. Max Fightmaster ,,, he boards, because we have to exclude really cool funny names.
Brady Campaign must be gobbling antidepressants like jelly beans
President Obama says he believes in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms for self-protection. I doubt he believes a word of it, but it must be pretty discouraging to a group that endorsed him for President:
"Along with Sarah and Jim, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters strongly endorses the Obama-Biden ticket and encourages our supporters to vote for them on November 4, 2008."
Permalink · antigun groups · Comments (2)
CBS News on ATF letting guns go to Mexico
Video here. Complete with an agent, still on the job, who talks about it. (That takes serious cojones -- I mean, he has to go into the office tomorrow, with the same supervisor that he's talking about, who now regard him as a "snitch," to be ruined).
They're talking thousands of guns that only got to Mexico because ATF supervisors said let them go. Superiors telling agents who complained that this is "fun" and they can go out and find a different job if they don't like it.
Permalink · BATFE · Comments (7)
Agents fired beanbags in fatal shootout with border robbers
Further confirmation here. Whoever created that policy should be committed to an institution as a danger to others. The BP agents are being sent out to deal, not with cartel drugrunners, but with robbers who prey upon cartel drugrunners -- hard to envision a more dangerous group of criminals than that. They encounter them at night, I assume at very close range. And engage, under orders to shoot only nonlethal beanbags until the bad guys engage them with real ammunition.
UPDATE: CBS tonight (6:30 EST) will air another segment on ATF-monitored firearms going into Mexico.
Wave of commonsense gun laws
A few months ago, Arizona became the third State to allow concealed carry without a permit. Yesterday, Wyoming became the fourth. And Publicola informs me that a Colorado bill to the same effect is up for a House vote today.
Permalink · CCW licensing · Comments (7)
Jim McClure passes on
Obit here. He served as Senator from 1972 to 1991, and played key roles in starting off the gun rights movement. I can recall his leading the legislative fight to curtail the power of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, somewhere around 1977-78, and the first hearings into ATF abuse in 1979, and his serving as Senate floor manager for the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. He was a lot more than just its floor manager -- when the GOP leadership balked at bringing it up for a vote, he attached it to a key appropriations bill, won by around a 3-1 vote, and then got a deal to bring it up in the next Congress without it being sent back for committee action.