ThinkingAfield.org

NRA-ILA has recently received several calls from NRA members in border states who have been visited or called by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In some cases, agents have asked to enter these people’s homes, and requested serial numbers of all firearms the members possess.

In each case, the agents were making inquiries based on the number of firearms these NRA members had recently bought, and in some cases the agents said they were asking because the members had bought types of guns that are frequently recovered in Mexico.

This kind of questioning may or may not be part of a legitimate criminal investigation. For example, when BATFE traces a gun seized after use in a crime, manufacturers’ and dealers’ records will normally lead to the first retail buyer of that gun, and investigators will have to interview the buyer to find out how the gun ended up in criminal hands. But in other cases, the questioning may simply be based on information in dealers’ records, with agents trying to “profile” potentially suspicious purchases.

On the other hand, some of the agents have used heavy-handed tactics. One reportedly demanded that a gun owner return home early from a business trip, while another threatened to “report” an NRA member as “refusing to cooperate.” That kind of behavior is outrageous and unprofessional.

Whether agents act appropriately or not, concerned gun owners should remember that all constitutional protections apply. Answering questions in this type of investigation is generally an individual choice. Most importantly, there are only a few relatively rare exceptions to the general Fourth Amendment requirement that law enforcement officials need a warrant to enter a home without the residents’ consent. There is nothing wrong with politely, but firmly, asserting your rights.

If BATFE contacts you and you have any question about how to respond, you may want to consult a local attorney. NRA members may also call NRA-ILA’s Office of Legislative Counsel at (703) 267-1161 for further information. Whether contacting a local attorney or NRA, be sure to provide as many details as possible, including the date, time, and location, agent’s name, and specific questions asked.

BELLEVUE, WA – Firearms regulations in Washington, D.C. are being amended today by emergency order in response to a federal lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation that challenged the arbitrary nature of previous regulations enforced in the District of Columbia.

The District had adopted new handgun registration regulations following last year’s landmark Second Amendment ruling that struck down the city’s decades-old handgun ban as unconstitutional. Under the new regulations, which take effect immediately, the city essentially acknowledges the State of California’s roster of approved handguns –upon which the District’s own regulations were based – is inadequate.

Citizens who had been previously denied an opportunity to register their handguns will be invited to re-apply under the new guidelines, which now include information from so-called “safe gun rosters” maintained by Maryland and Massachusetts.

“This is a genuine victory,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “because the city is admitting that its existing roster of handguns approved for registration in the District was arbitrary. The city has recognized that handguns had been removed from the California roster for administrative reasons having nothing to do with the safety of a specific handgun model.

“Until today,” he added, “the city had been disqualifying certain handguns based on such factors as color, even though they functioned identically to approved models. This ends that nonsense.”

Attorney Alan Gura, representing SAF in the lawsuit, noted that under the new regulations, approved guns no longer expire from the list, and are no longer banned “because they are the wrong color.”

“It’s impossible to list every single gun protected by the Second Amendment,” Gura stated. “We won’t stop until this list is scrapped.”

Fairfax, Va. – Today, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with yesterday’s decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments.

“The Seventh Circuit got it wrong. As the Supreme Court said in last year’s landmark Heller decision, the Second Amendment is an individual right that ‘belongs to all Americans’. Therefore, we are taking our case to the highest court in the land,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “The Seventh Circuit claimed it was bound by precedent from previous decisions. However, it should have followed the lead of the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don’t prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

This Seventh Circuit opinion upholds current bans on the possession of handguns in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois.

“It is wrong that the residents of Chicago and Oak Park continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied,” Cox concluded. “It’s time for the fundamental right of self-defense to be respected by every jurisdiction throughout our country.”

From the NRA-ILA

In the last few weeks, NRA-ILA has received hundreds of e-mails warning us about “SB-2099,” a bill that would supposedly require you to report all your guns on your income tax return every April 15.

Like many rumors, there’s just a grain of truth to this one. Someone’s recycling an old alert, which wasn’t even very accurate when it was new.

There actually was a U.S. Senate bill with that number that would have taxed handguns—nine years ago. It was introduced by anti-gun Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), and it would have included handguns under the National Firearms Act’s tax and registration scheme. This has nothing to do with anyone’s Form 1040, of course.

Fortunately, S. 2099 disappeared without any action by the Senate, back when Bill Clinton was still in the White House. We reported about it back then, just as we report about new anti-gun bills every week. Now, it’s time for gun owners to drop this old distraction and focus on the real threats at hand.

By Glen Wunderlich
Outdoor Columnist
Member Professional Outdoor Media Association

Since the legalization of raised platforms for firearms deer hunting, one sees them strategically placed along woodlot edges overlooking deer travel routes, while driving most anywhere. More pointedly, the popularity of customized “shacks” has grown significantly, as dedicated hunters personalize them beyond belief. They may contain modern amenities not thought of in hunting terms years ago, while at the same time are designed to be aesthetically pleasing in their natural surroundings. Now comes Joel Sheltrown with House Bill 4897 and he wants to tell such craftsman how their hunting blinds must look.

As I perused the bill, it seemed innocuous enough: Hunter orange is defined; hunters don’t have to wear it when using a crossbow during archery season nor does a person engaged in the sport of falconry; while stationary, hunters don’t need it when hunting coyote, bobcat, or fox. Fine.

Subsection (3) is where my mind’s internal anti-locks involuntarily engaged: A person shall not use a blind to take deer with a firearm unless 144 square inches of hunter orange is visible on the exterior surface of the blind from all sides. A blind means an enclosure used to help conceal or disguise the occupant for the purposes of taking game. The failure of a person to comply with this section is not evidence of contributory negligence in a civil action for injury to the person or for the person’s wrongful death.

The obvious intent of this legislation is to protect hunters but what deer hunter wants orange targets pasted on his blind? If this is such a good idea, why aren’t blinds – portable or otherwise – already made to these specs? Simple: Nobody would buy them! If hunters like the concept, let them add as much orange material as they desire to their hideout on a voluntary basis.

However, by the language defining blind in the legislation, concealment and disguise are elements of a blind. Adding blaze orange anywhere, let alone a minimum of 4 square feet to its exterior, makes it contradictory in nature, so to speak.

Nannyist leaders have allowed no exclusions for those on private property, or for those in elevated blinds. What deer hunter in an elevated blind must be protected from stray fire? Although deer can be hard to find at times, I’ve yet to see one climb a tree, which would require bullets to be shot skyward! If anything, raised-platform blinds offer an inherent protection to occupants far better than any orange mandate.

If protection of hunters is the goal, maybe the legislation doesn’t go far enough. Nannyists could do a much better job of keeping hunters safe if each hunter would be required by law to stick his blaze orange head out the window of his blind, and scream every 10 minutes, “Don’t shoot me Bro!” while flailing his orange gloves in the air and tooting an air horn. Strobe lights can be programmed above all blinds to coincide with the touching of triggers to make sure hunters in the area have a chance to take cover. Glow-in-the-dark, bullet resistant vests could also be required gear.

There’s simply no limit to how safe we could all become, if we just continue to permit our legislators to decide what’s good for us!

BELLEVUE, WA – The nomination of Second Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court is a slap at gun rights and the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Judge Sotomayor, a New York native, ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“While Democrats in Congress have been making great strides in the gun rights arena, refusing to consider a renewal of the Clinton gun ban, and offering overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation allowing citizens to carry firearms in national parks, President Obama just demonstrated that he prefers judges who oppose Second Amendment rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb.

Incorporation may be taken up by the high court during its next session beginning in October, because attorneys in the Maloney case plan to appeal in late June.

“If the Maloney appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb wondered, “would Justice Sotomayor – provided she is confirmed – recuse herself from deliberations?”

Judge Sotomayor has written an opinion that declined to order the release of certain information under the Freedom of Information Act. In one case, according to SCOTUSblog, she wrote that the “unwarranted invasion of privacy” for individuals whose names would be release under an FOIA request outweighed the public interest.

“Would a Justice Sotomayor be just as protective of the privacy rights of concealed carry permit holders if a newspaper wanted to publish that information,” Gottlieb asked. “We hope that during Senate confirmation hearings, someone asks about her positions on incorporation and the privacy rights of gun owners. The Second Amendmen t needs to be expanded, not eviscerated.”

SIG SAUER, Inc. announces that is has secured a multi-year contract to provide pistols to the U.S. Army’s Materiel Command with a potential value for all quantities and related customer support to be $306 million.

Exeter, NH, April 30, 2009 –(PR.com)– SIG SAUER, Inc. announced today that it has secured a multi-year contract to provide pistols to the U.S. Army’s Materiel Command. The potential value for all quantities and the related customer support package is $306 million. The initial order of 55,890 units is to be released as the standard sidearm for the entire Colombian National Police force. Shipments are to begin immediately with a second release of 42,000 pistols to follow.

Ron Cohen, President and CEO, stated that he is proud that SIG SAUER’s long standing reputation for superior reliability and quality has been recognized with this exceptional contract. Moreover, it provides an opportunity for SIG SAUER to continue to expand its manufacturing facilities and create U.S. jobs at a time when other companies are downsizing and exporting jobs overseas. Mr. Cohen further stated that the breadth of SIG customers is evidence of the worldwide acceptance and demand for SIG SAUER products. These customers include numerous elite law enforcement, military, and government agencies (e.g. the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, Navy Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS), U.S. Navy SEALs, U.S. Air Force OSI, British SAS, French National Police, and the Colombian National Police).

Employing over 350 skilled workers at its Exeter, NH facility, the company has been on a continuous program of expansion and growth. State-of-the-art automated machines now populate the majority of the facility, the result of over $30 million dollars invested over the past four years.

BELLEVUE, WA – Monday’s ruling by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that dismisses a lawsuit against Glock by the victims of a deranged gunman in Grenada Hills, CA was a proper decision under existing statute, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

In a 2-1 decision, a three- judge panel upheld a lower court’s ruling that the case, Ileto v. Glock, was nullified under the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). That federal statute was passed to prevent junk lawsuits against gun makers, and this specific case was cited during Congressional debate as precisely the kind of lawsuit the law would prohibit.

“We are delighted that the Ninth Circuit panel not only affirmed the lower court ruling,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “but also that the court upheld the constitutionality of the federal law prohibiting this kind of lawsuit. While we sympathize with the victims, it would be an egregious miscarriage of justice to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the acts of criminals over whom they have no control.”

In August 1999, a deranged man named Buford Furrow opened fire at a Jewish Community Center summer camp in Granada Hills. The Glock pistol he used had once been owned by a police department in Washington State, but had been sold as surplus and passed through several hands before Furrow got it. Furrow wounded three children, a teenager and adult at the Jewish Center and later murdered a postal carrier, Joseph Ileto. Families of the victims, and Ileto’s widow, sued Glock and others in 2001, claiming that gun companies “intentionally produce, market, distribute, and sell more firearms than the legitimate market demands.”

Judge Susan Graber wrote the majority opinion, stating that “The PLCAA affects future and pending lawsuits, and courts are required to ‘immediately dismiss’ any pending lawsuits preempted by the PLCAA.”

“Holding gunmakers responsible for crime is a false panacea,” Gottlieb said. “Congress saw this when it passed the PLCAA, and now the court has aff irmed that logic.”

By Glen Wunderlich
Outdoor Columnist
Member Professional Outdoor Media Association

Giving up turkey hunting’s opening day this early season to call for a good friend was followed up with another calling session for another relative newcomer opening weekend. This time, however, I made the trek to the hideout on my own; with the final week of the season dawning, I was the gunner – and, caller.

I expected to be rewarded with yet another unique adventure afield, because that’s how it always has been and always will be; knowing the details, however, that’s another matter, but that’s the beauty of any outdoor experience.

This hunt began to get interesting shortly after setting my lone hen decoy in front of my blind some 24 yards out front. Two birds appeared at the edge of their destination field and began a double-time approach, as they spotted my tricky, inanimate accomplice. A closer look revealed a scrawny 6-inch beard on one. An even closer look told me it was a hen. Yep, a bearded hen.

I knew such a phenomenon occurred in nature but I didn’t know much else about the legal bird. It was an easy call to hold off, because odd as it may have been, it just didn’t seem to be much of a trophy. The body was typical hen sized: small. And, what if I was killing a potential brood raiser? (Research indicates about 10 percent of adult hens sport beards, some have spurs, and generally produce normal broods). I did good.

As the morning progressed, circus girl and her friend were quite content with their surroundings – enough so to set up camp about 10 feet in front of me. Nothing’s better than live decoys; but, nothing’s worse than having them close enough to spot any potential movement. Yet, I didn’t want to scare them off.

Then things got weirder, as 3 crows descended into the legume plot. Intent on a hearty breakfast of worms, they kept their distance from the odd couple near my blind. I knew I was totally boxed in and would never be able to move a muscle, as the three amigos proceeded to within 12 yards paralleling my set up.

It seemed like an hour before the coast had cleared, and try as I might to coax in a lone gobbler, he never showed. By 11 am the temperature was approaching 80 degrees, I was out of drink, and had had enough.

My next opportunity would be Friday, May 1st. This time, my friend, Doug Schaberg attended the morning serenade of songbirds along the brisk march to the blind for what I hoped would be thrill enough to hook Doug into the pursuit of ol’ Tom. You see, Doug tried turkey hunting a couple of times and never caught the disease. All of that was about to change forever!

Atop a distant hill two hens paraded away from us; as is often the case, 2 adult toms followed from a distance. I worked the magic wand of my H.S. Strut slate call and actually got the bachelors to change plans and turn around. They stretched their necks like accordions and gobbled for effect, but were not in position to locate my decoy. Eventually, the pair lost interest and departed.

Less than a hour later, an unmistakable gobble seemed to be sent directly to me so I sounded the love response. As I strained to get a view, the twin longbeards materialized about 125 yards away directly in line with my plastic partner. A stout load of 6 shot powered by Winchester, dropped the 10.25-inch-bearded tom at 35 yards. Doing so signaled the end of my season, but Doug’s turkey hunting career may well have just begun in earnest.

The state of Montana has drawn a line in the sand, challenging the federal government to decide whether to follow the U.S. Constitution with a new gun law that exempts from federal regulations any gun, gun accessory or ammunition made in the state and intended for use there.

The legislative plan, signed recently by Gov. Brian Scheitzer, a Democrat, is called, “An Act exempting from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Montana.”

Click on the title for the full account.