NRA / ILA Firearms Laws for
A synopsis of state laws on purchase,
possession and carrying of firearms.
Compiled by:
NRA-Institute for Legislative Action
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(800) 392-8683
www.nraila.org
CALIFORNIA
(As of February 2007)
QUICK REFERENCE CHART
Rifles and
Shotguns Handguns
Permit to Purchase NO NO*
Registration of Firearms NO YES*
Registration of
“Assault Weapons” YES YES
Licensing of Owner NO NO
Permit to Carry NO YES
(if concealed)
*Police record purchases from dealers (all purchases).
Residents moving into California have 60 days to register
their handguns.)
PURCHASE
All firearms sales, transfers or loans, including private
transactions and sales at gun shows, must go through a
California licensed firearms dealer.
An application for sale or transfer must be made
with a licensed California gun dealer before any firearm
may be sold or transferred. This application contains a
description of the buyer or transferee and of the firearm.
The purchaser must present the dealer with a valid
California Driver’s License or a California Identification
Card and supply their right thumbprint. The purchaser
of a handgun must also provide additional proof of
California residence, other than a document from the
Department of Motor Vehicles. The dealer sends a copy
of the application to the California Department of Justice
and the local police chief or sheriff.
The CA DOJ will conduct a background check on
each buyer and the fee is $25.00. There is a 10-day
waiting period before delivery of any firearm. Dealers
must keep a register of all firearm transfers. If a person
has voluntarily been screened through the Personal
Firearms Eligibility Check, and has been found eligible
to purchase and possess firearms, that person must still
undergo a background check and a 10-day waiting period
when purchasing a handgun.
If a person does not take possession of the firearm
from the dealer within 30 days, the entire purchase process
must be repeated, including the payment of fees.
The waiting period and dealer application do not
apply to transfers to police officers, other gun dealers,
manufacturers, or importers, antique firearms, and rifles
and shotguns which are classified as curios or relics by the
federal government, infrequent gifts or transfers to one’s
“immediate family,” an infrequent temporary loan not to
exceed 30 days to a person who is not prohibited from
possessing a firearm, and a transfer of a rifle or shotgun at
auctions by nonprofit or public benefit corporations.
No person shall make an application to purchase more
than one pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person within a 30-day period and
no delivery shall be made to any person who has made an
application to purchase more than one pistol, revolver, or
other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person
within any 30-day period.
No person shall purchase or transfer a handgun to
someone without a Handgun Safety Certificate (HRC).
To receive a handgun safety certificate, a person must
pass a written test that includes but is not limited to laws
applicable to the ownership, use, handling, and carrying
of firearms, particularly handguns. A CA DOJ certified
instructor must administer the Handgun Safety Certificate
test. The HRC is valid for 5 years.
To receive a handgun from a dealer, a person must
have or buy an approved firearms safety device. A list of
firearms safety devices certified for sale can be found on
the California Department of Justice, Firearms Division
website at www.ag.ca.gov/firearms
No person may receive a firearm from a dealer unless
they demonstrate their ability to handle a handgun safely
and can properly operate all safety features.
A gun dealer must post a sign advising “If you leave
a loaded firearm where a child obtains and improperly
uses it, you may be fined or sent to prison.”
It is unlawful for any person to transfer any firearm
to a person who is forbidden to possess or own a firearm.
A dealer may not transfer a handgun to a person under
21 or other firearm to a person under 18. It is unlawful
to sell or furnish a BB device to any minor without the
permission of their parent or guardian. It is unlawful for
a person to sell ammunition or reloaded ammunition to a
person under 18.
A firearm dealer may only offer for sale handgun
models that have passed firing, safety, and drop tests and
appear on the “Roster of Handguns Certified For Sale.”
Semiautomatic pistols without a chamber load indicator
or a magazine disconnect mechanism that do not pass
the safety testing requirements will not be placed on the
roster. All semiautomatic firearms on the roster must have
both a chamber load indicator and a magazine disconnect
mechanism. Private party transfers, curio/relic handguns,
certain single action revolvers and pawn/consignment
returns are exempt from this requirement. The roster can
be found at the Department of Justice website.
POSSESSION
It is unlawful for anyone convicted of a felony, or
who is a drug addict, present or former mental patient,
ever committed for mental observation, or acquitted by
reason of insanity to own or possess any firearm. People
with certain misdemeanor convictions involving force or
violence may not possess or own any firearm within 10
years of the conviction. A person who has been adjudicated
as a juvenile offender or delinquent for any offense which
would be classified as a felony or misdemeanor involving
force or violence if committed by an adult may not own or
possess any firearm until age 30. A minor may not possess
a handgun except with written permission or under the
supervision of a parent or guardian.
Within 60 days of bringing a pistol, revolver or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person into
this state, the person importing the firearm must complete
and return a Department of Justice registration form or
sell or transfer the firearm to a licensed dealer, or transfer
the gun to a sheriff or police department. Registration of
rifles and shotguns is not required.
If any person seeks to know whether they can possess
or purchase a firearm in California before a transfer is
made, they may request a Personal Firearms Eligibility
Check conducted by office of the Department of Justice.
A minor under 16 may not possess a handgun, unless
they are accompanied by their parent or guardian while
participating in a legal recreation activity involving
firearms or has written permission to participate in
such activities. A minor under 16 may not possess live
ammunition except with the written permission or under
the supervision of a parent or guardian, or while going to
or from an organized lawful recreational or competitive
shooting activity or lawful hunting activity
“ASSAULT WEAPONS”, .50 CALIBER BMG RIFLES
AND MAGAZINES
It is unlawful to offer for sale, give or lend any “assault
weapon” or .50 caliber BMG rifle. It is unlawful to possess
an “assault weapon” or a .50 caliber BMG rifle unless it
is properly registered with the state. The registration
period for “assault weapons” and .50 caliber BMG rifles
has ended. If an individual has an unregistered” assault
weapon” or .50 caliber BMG rifle after the registration
period has ended, they must relinquish the firearm to law
enforcement. Anyone with a registered “assault weapon”
or .50 caliber BMG rifle wishing to legally dispose of the
firearm: can sell it to a dealer with an “assault weapons”
permit (for such firearms) and .50 caliber BMG rifle permit
(for such rifles); or with both type of permits; relinquish it
to local law enforcement (after making an appointment);
remove the “assault weapon” or .50 BMG caliber rifle
from the state or destroy it. Any person inheriting a
registered “assault weapon” or .50 caliber BMG rifle has
90 days to render the weapon permanently inoperable,
sell to an approved firearms dealer, obtain a permit from
the Department of Justice to possess firearms, or move
the gun out of state. Pawning “assault weapons” and .50
caliber BMG rifles is not permitted.
California law defines “assault weapons” in three
ways:
• firearms listed on the original Roberti Roos assault
weapons law.
• any firearm that is in the AK and AR-15 - type
series.
• by the specific generic characteristics.
A further explanation of firearms considered
“assault weapons” can be found on the Department
of Justice website.
A person may lend a registered “assault weapon” or
a .50 caliber BMG caliber rifle to another person who is
18 years of age or over if the person to whom the “assault
weapon” is lent is not prohibited from possessing a firearm
and remains in the presence of the registered possessor,
and the “assault weapon” or .50 caliber BMG rifle is
possessed at a licensed target range, or at the target range
of a public or private club organized for the purpose of
practicing shooting at targets, or at an exhibition, display
or education project sponsored by a law enforcement
agency or a nationally or state recognized firearms entity.
Persons moving into California must comply with the
provisions of the law before moving.
Unless otherwise specified, registered “assault
weapons” may only be possessed:
• at registrant’s residence, place of business, or other
property owned by such registrant, or on property
owned by another with permission.
• at certain recognized target ranges or shooting
clubs.
• at certain recognized exhibitions.
• while on publicly owned land upon which
possession and use of “assault weapons” is
specifically permitted by the managing agency.
• while transporting the assault weapon between
any of the places listed above, or to any licensed
gun dealer.
It is unlawful for any person who manufactures,
imports, or offers for sale, gives, or lends any ammunition
magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds (not
including .22 tube magazines). Exceptions include: a
loan of a lawfully possessed magazine to a person who is
not prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition,
if such loan occurs at a place where possession of the
magazine is not otherwise prohibited and the person who
lends the magazine remains in the accessible vicinity to the
person to whom the magazine is loaned; the importation
of a magazine by a person who lawfully possessed the
magazine in the state prior to January 1, 2000, lawfully
took it out of the state and is returning to the state; the
sale or purchase of a magazine to or by a person licensed
to sell firearms; and the lending or giving of a magazine to
a licensed dealer or gunsmith for repair and its return to
its owner.
CARRYING AND TRANSPORTATION IN
VEHICLES
It is unlawful to carry a loaded rifle, shotgun, or
handgun in any public place or on any public street in
an incorporated area or an area where firing a firearm is
prohibited. In California, a firearm is considered loaded
if unexpended ammunition capable of being used in the
firearm is attached in any manner to the firearm. The
following persons and situations are exceptions:
• persons shooting on target ranges, or while hunting
on the premises of a shooting club.
• a person who reasonably believes that he or his
property is in immediate danger and the weapon
must be carried for “preservation.”1
• a person “engaged in the act of making or
attempting lawful arrest.”
• a person carrying a firearm while at home or at his
place of business, including temporary residences
and campsites.
Carrying a handgun concealed is prohibited without
a license. The law states “Firearms carried openly in belt
holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this
section.”
Carrying a handgun concealed within a vehicle is
prohibited without a license. A handgun carried in a glove
compartment or under the seat of a vehicle is considered
to be concealed. A handgun placed in the trunk of an
automobile, or locked in a container in the vehicle other
than the utility or glove compartment or while in a locked
container carried directly to or from a vehicle is deemed
not to be “concealed.” A locked container means a fully
enclosed secure container locked by a key lock or similar
locking device.
Exceptions to this prohibition are: members of clubs
organized for practice shooting while on any established
target range or going to and from such range; licensed
hunters and fishermen while engaged in hunting or
fishing and while going to or from such hunting or fishing
expeditions and members of an antique or historical
collector’s club while at a show, or while going to and from
a display as long as the weapons are locked in a trunk or
are in a locked container.
ANTIQUES AND REPLICAS
Antique firearm means any firearm not designed or
redesigned for using rimfire or centerfire ammunition and
manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock,
flintlock, percussion cap or similar type of ignition system
or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before
1898) and also any firearm manufactured in or before 1898
using fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured
in the U.S. and is not readily available in the ordinary
channels of commercial trade.
MACHINE GUNS AND OTHER FIREARMS
A machine gun is defined as any firearm, which
shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically, more than
one shot, without manual reloading, by single function of
the trigger. The term also includes any conversion part,
frame or receiver of a machine gun, or any firearm deemed
as such by the federal government. Upon a showing of
good cause, a permit for possession and/or transportation
may be issued by the Department of Justice. It has been
CAUTION: Firearm laws are subject to frequent change and court interpretation. This summary is not intended as legal advice or
restatement of law. This summary does not include federal or local laws, ordinances or regulations. For any particular situation, a
licensed local attorney must be consulted for an accurate interpretation. YOU MUST ABIDE WITH ALL LAWS: STATE, FEDERAL
AND LOCAL.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
reported that the Department of Justice refuses to grant
such permits.
Possession of other firearms and related items is
unlawful and may be punished as either a misdemeanor
or as a felony. This includes, but is not limited to:
• any firearm that is not immediately recognizable
as a firearm.
• any camouflaging firearm container.
• any ammunition that contains any flechette dart.
• any bullet containing or carrying an explosive
agent.
• any multiburst trigger activator.
• any short-barreled shotgun or rifle.
• any zip gun; and
• any unconventional pistol.
The following are some of the exceptions: possession
of short-barreled shotguns and rifles when authorized by
the Department of Justice and not in violation of federal
law; antique firearms, which are defined as: any firearm
not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or centerfire
ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898
(including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap or
similar type of ignition system or replica thereof, whether
actually manufactured before 1898) and also any firearm
manufactured in or before 1898 using fixed ammunition
which is no longer manufactured in the U.S. and is not
readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial
trade; tracer ammunition for use in shotguns; and any
“curio or relic” or “any other weapon” as defined by federal
law possessed by a person who is otherwise permitted
to possess it under federal law and not prohibited from
possessing firearms and ammunition under California
law.
It is unlawful to possess a destructive device, including
tracer or incendiary ammunition or any firearm larger
than .60 caliber which fires fixed ammunition, or any fixed
ammunition for such firearm. Excluded are shotguns and
shotgun ammunition.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
No license or permit shall be required to possess keep,
or carry a handgun openly or concealed in one’s home or
place of business.
The state legislature also has expressed its intention to
occupy the whole field of the regulation and licensing of
firearms, thus precluding cities and other localities from
enacting firearms laws.
It is unlawful to set any spring or “trap” gun.
It is unlawful to change, alter or remove the serial
number, maker’s name or other identifying mark from
any firearm, unless one has secured the written permission
of the Department of Justice. Possession of a firearm with
altered identifying marks creates a legal presumption that
the possessor committed the offense.
It is unlawful to possess a firearm on the grounds or
in the buildings of any school without permission of the
school authorities, or courthouse, State Capitol building
or grounds, any legislative office or the office or residence
of the Governor, constitutional officer or member of the
Legislature.
It is unlawful to possess, transport, or sell ammunition
principally for use in a handgun, which is “designed
primarily to penetrate metal or armor.”
It is unlawful to store a loaded firearm where the
person knows or reasonably should know that a juvenile
under 16 is likely to gain access to the firearm without
the permission of the juvenile’s parent or legal guardian
and the juvenile obtains access to the firearm and causes
death or great bodily harm to self or any other person.
This prohibition shall not apply if: the juvenile obtains
the firearm as a result of an illegal entry to any premises
by any person; the firearm is kept in a locked container or
in a location which a reasonable person would believe to
be secure; the firearm is carried on the person or within
such a close proximity so that the individual can readily
retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person;
the firearm is equipped with a locking device; the person
is a peace officer or member of the U. S. Armed Forces
and the juvenile obtains the firearm during, or incidental
to, the performance of the person’s duties; the juvenile
obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful
act of self-defense or defense of another person; and the
person who keeps a loaded firearm on any premise which
is under person’s custody or control has no reasonable
expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances,
that a juvenile is likely to be present on the premise.
SOURCE: Cal. Penal Code §12020 et. seq.
Friday, February 22, 2008
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
'Any person' has right to gun, state says
Montana claims 2nd Amendment questions already resolved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 20, 2008
4:09 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Montana officials are saying that the United States already has resolved any questions about the 2nd Amendment's application, defining that "any person" has the right to bears arms.
That's the issue at hand in a pending U.S. Supreme Court case originating in the District of Columbia, where authorities have banned handguns under the claim that such a limit is "reasonable" and therefore enforceable even given the rights listed by the 2nd Amendment.
U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has asked President Bush to order the U.S. Justice Department to submit a brief to the high court supporting the rights of individuals under the 2nd Amendment. A similar request already has been submitted by officials for the Gun Owners of America, whose executive director, Larry Pratt, warned:
(Story continues below)
"If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional. ..."
He warned such a precedent to affirm any and all gun restrictions if they are considered by a judge to be "reasonable" would place those rights on the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder.
"In contrast to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, which can only be trumped by 'compelling state interests,' the 2nd Amendment would be relegated to an inferior position at the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder, should the Justice Department prevail," said Pratt.
Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson
But officials in Montana, including dozens of state lawmakers as well as Secretary of State Brad Johnson, have joined together in a statement that the U.S. already has determined the application, and 2nd Amendment rights apply to "any person."
In a joint resolution from the Montana leaders, including Congressman Denny Rehberg, they caution that should the Supreme Court decide to change the U.S. interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and allow those rights to apply only collectively, it would violate the contract under which Montana entered the union as a state.
"The Montana Resolution cautions that a collective rights decision would violate the Montana contract for statehood because when that contract was entered the collective rights interpretation had not yet been invented and the individual rights view was an accepted part of the contract," an announcement from the leaders said.
"A collective rights decision in [the pending court case] Heller would not only violate Montana's contract for statehood, but also Montana's customs, culture and heritage. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize and credit the contract argument, an argument unmentioned in any of the briefs submitted in the Heller case," said Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.
The Montana contract is archived as Article I of the Montana Constitution. At the time the then-territory's "Compact with the United States" was agreed to by Congress, the Montana Constitution included the "right of 'any person' to bear arms," the group said.
"Contracts must be implemented so as to effect the intent of the parties to the contract. A collective rights decision by the court could also call into question the sanctity of contracts, considered to have been a bedrock principle of law for centuries," the group said.
The state was admitted to the union in 1889 under President Benjamin Harrison and he approved the state constitution proposal including the right to bear arms, the officials said.
Any other determination, they said, would "offend" the Compact, officials said.
"[That] language … simply cannot be respun to somehow mean a right of state government," they said.
It could not have referred to the National Guard, which wasn't created until years later, officials said.
"Some speak of a 'living constitution,' the meaning of which may evolve and change over time. However, the concept of a 'living contract,' one to be disregarded or revised at the whim of one party thereto, is unknown. A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora's box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation," the group said.
Goode earlier wrote Bush that under the perspective being promoted in the District of Columbia, a national ban on all firearms, including hunting rifles, could be considered valid.
Paul Clemen
The government's position is available in a document submitted by by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. He said since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," Clement wrote in the brief.
Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the 2nd Amendment includes a right for individuals nationwide to have a gun or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.
The amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
'Any person' has right to gun, state says
Montana claims 2nd Amendment questions already resolved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 20, 2008
4:09 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Montana officials are saying that the United States already has resolved any questions about the 2nd Amendment's application, defining that "any person" has the right to bears arms.
That's the issue at hand in a pending U.S. Supreme Court case originating in the District of Columbia, where authorities have banned handguns under the claim that such a limit is "reasonable" and therefore enforceable even given the rights listed by the 2nd Amendment.
U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has asked President Bush to order the U.S. Justice Department to submit a brief to the high court supporting the rights of individuals under the 2nd Amendment. A similar request already has been submitted by officials for the Gun Owners of America, whose executive director, Larry Pratt, warned:
(Story continues below)
"If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional. ..."
He warned such a precedent to affirm any and all gun restrictions if they are considered by a judge to be "reasonable" would place those rights on the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder.
"In contrast to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, which can only be trumped by 'compelling state interests,' the 2nd Amendment would be relegated to an inferior position at the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder, should the Justice Department prevail," said Pratt.
Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson
But officials in Montana, including dozens of state lawmakers as well as Secretary of State Brad Johnson, have joined together in a statement that the U.S. already has determined the application, and 2nd Amendment rights apply to "any person."
In a joint resolution from the Montana leaders, including Congressman Denny Rehberg, they caution that should the Supreme Court decide to change the U.S. interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and allow those rights to apply only collectively, it would violate the contract under which Montana entered the union as a state.
"The Montana Resolution cautions that a collective rights decision would violate the Montana contract for statehood because when that contract was entered the collective rights interpretation had not yet been invented and the individual rights view was an accepted part of the contract," an announcement from the leaders said.
"A collective rights decision in [the pending court case] Heller would not only violate Montana's contract for statehood, but also Montana's customs, culture and heritage. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize and credit the contract argument, an argument unmentioned in any of the briefs submitted in the Heller case," said Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.
The Montana contract is archived as Article I of the Montana Constitution. At the time the then-territory's "Compact with the United States" was agreed to by Congress, the Montana Constitution included the "right of 'any person' to bear arms," the group said.
"Contracts must be implemented so as to effect the intent of the parties to the contract. A collective rights decision by the court could also call into question the sanctity of contracts, considered to have been a bedrock principle of law for centuries," the group said.
The state was admitted to the union in 1889 under President Benjamin Harrison and he approved the state constitution proposal including the right to bear arms, the officials said.
Any other determination, they said, would "offend" the Compact, officials said.
"[That] language … simply cannot be respun to somehow mean a right of state government," they said.
It could not have referred to the National Guard, which wasn't created until years later, officials said.
"Some speak of a 'living constitution,' the meaning of which may evolve and change over time. However, the concept of a 'living contract,' one to be disregarded or revised at the whim of one party thereto, is unknown. A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora's box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation," the group said.
Goode earlier wrote Bush that under the perspective being promoted in the District of Columbia, a national ban on all firearms, including hunting rifles, could be considered valid.
Paul Clemen
The government's position is available in a document submitted by by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. He said since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," Clement wrote in the brief.
Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the 2nd Amendment includes a right for individuals nationwide to have a gun or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.
The amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It Doesn't Matter What Happens in the Heller D.C. Case
GunNewsDaily.com
It Doesn't Matter What Happens in the Heller D.C. Case
Ralph Weller
January 12, 2008
It's a dramatic headline, but from a legal standpoint it doesn't matter whether the D.C. case is a "win" or a "loss" for Second Amendment rights. Because, regardless of the ruling, the floodgates will open with Second Amendment lawsuits at the state level the likes of which we haven't seen in the history of this country. If you are a Second Amendment advocate, the next few years may be some of the most exciting years of your life from a constitutional rights standpoint.
But, the Heller case is only the beginning. If it's a win for Second Amendment supporters, there may be significant ambiguity in the decision. California, New York, Maryland and Illinois among other state level Second Amendment organizations will file lawsuits to force compliance with the Supreme Court ruling. Liberal states will not willingly comply. Liberals never do unless it's to their advantage. Otherwise, they will simply ignore the ruling.
If it's a loss, and ends up being more of states rights ruling, again, there will be huge efforts in certain states, California included, to obtain gun rights with a state constitutional amendment or via state court rulings. In some cases legal efforts might have to be mounted just to save what little we have. We doubt the Supreme Court will rule that only state militias may be armed, but you never know these days. If the Supreme Court can find that abortions are protected by the Constitution, as crazy as it sounds, they could easily find that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. It's illogical, I know, but it is a possibility.
2008 will most likely be the best opportunity since our founding as a nation to help clarify exactly what constitutional right citizens have when it comes to firearms ownership. But, it is clear in conversations with legal experts, and they all agree, the legal fight will only begin after the Supreme Court issues its ruling.
Don't kid yourself into believing that when the Supreme Court issues its ruling, let's say in favor of an individual right to own a firearm, that California will immediately comply and gut their gun laws that conflict with the ruling. Here are some examples:
If it is ruled a constitutional right, one must then question whether the state can charge a fee every time you purchase a firearm. Government cannot charge money to exercise a constitutional right.
If it is ruled a constitutional right, can California limit purchases to one gun per month?
If it is a constitutional right, can they call a semi-auto rifle an 'assault weapon' because it's black, while not banning other semi-auto rifles?
If it is a constitutional right, can the state ban the sale of certain rifles to the public, while allowing others to continue the right to own those rifles, if they pay a fee?
If it is a constitutional right, can the state say you can no longer sell or transfer your rifle to another person or family member, ever? And, if you die, can the state force your next of kin or executor of your estate to turn them in for destruction?
If it is a constitutional right, does the state have a right to register your handgun at the time of purchase?
If it is an constitutional right, can the state establish arbitrary testing methods to deem certain firearms 'unsafe' and non-sale able in California, while allowing state agencies, military, and law enforcement the right to to issue those firearms to their personnel?
If it is a right, can California ban the ownership of a semi-auto rifle simply because the caliber exceeds an arbitrary size?
If it is a right, and people in general are viewed as the militia, can the state ban the sale and ownership of fully automatic firearms used by the military and law enforcement?
And, here's a big one; If it is ruled a constitutional right, what powers, if any, do the states have to regulate the sale and ownership of firearms? If you are a strict constitutionalist, the state has no right to be in the business of regulating or limiting firearms ownership, or regulating the sale of firearms for the purpose of restricting ownership. That then becomes the business of the federal government to protect Second Amendment rights, not limit it.
Again, using the Supreme Court ruling on abortions, (and no, we are not making a statement about whether abortion is right or wrong, but it is a case that shows the opposite extremes of the law) if the court can find it is a constitutional right as was found in Roe v. Wade, the states have no say in banning abortions, and limits their role in regulating them. Roe v. Wade overturned all state and local laws on abortion bans. It would then stand to reason that state and local governments have no authority to limit a constitutional right to firearms ownership and would limit their role in regulating their sale and ownership to some degree. But stranger things have happened.
Those questions, along with others, may end up in court in California as a result of a positive Heller ruling at some point in the future.
Unfortunately, it takes money and the best constitutional minds money can buy to carry the fight throughout the balance of 2008 and the next several years.
If you're a regular to Gun News Daily, we are not known to pander for money. That's not our style. You know best where to put your money with an organization that you feel best serves your interests. But, the Heller ruling will be special. It will be a defining point for state gun rights organizations. Despite the power of the NRA, GOA, SAF and other national organizations, they can't pursue all the state level lawsuits that must be filed. They simply can't afford it, nor do they have the legal resources to mount state level lawsuits across the land. This is where state gun rights organizations will pick up the ball and run. And, despite everything you hear, state gun rights organizations fight more legal battles at the state level than the NRA could ever handle. Sure, the NRA helps on some lawsuits, and takes the lead in others. But state organizations generally go about their business challenging gun laws at city, county and state venues, and you never hear about it. I hate to say this, but the NRA is very good at taking credit for their battles, while state organizations tend to stay pretty quiet about their conquests. They just don't get the credit they deserve, in any state, especially California.
If there was ever a time to get into the fight, there is one place you can put your money where you know it will be used to fight the upcoming legal battles in California. It's the California Rifle & Pistol Association. I urge each of you, member or not, to at least donate a sum that you can afford. If you're not a member, $22 a year to join is a cheap price to pay. If you don't live in California, you can join and donate. California gun laws are so convoluted and extensive, a positive ruling which starts in the California court system can most certainly have a positive or negative impact in your state. Don't think this is just for Californians. It's for everyone who cares about gun rights. Case law in one state can often be the foundation for rulings in other states.
And, here's the really good news. CRPA retains the brightest constitutional attorney in California, and possibly the United States, who is nationally recognized as an expert on Second Amendment rights. He is the attorney that fought San Francisco's handgun ban law last week in court representing CRPA, NRA, and other groups, and won. Chuck Michel and his law firm are the pit bulls of the legal world when it comes to civil rights. They know what they're doing and they have successfully stopped literally hundreds of onerous laws and restrictions at the state, county and city level within California over the past several years. We are very lucky to have a civil rights attorney so dedicated and knowledgeable living and working in our state.
If CRPA is to carry the fight forward, they need your support. Frankly, Gunowners of California is a great group as well. If you have some kind of problem with CRPA, give to Gunowners, but please give something to someone at the state level. CRPA is my organization. It's where I hang my hat. They're the biggest, with legal resources and a full time legislative advocate in Sacramento.
This will all be a very costly legal battle. But, there is power when hundreds, thousand or even tens-of-thousands take action in a small way. If ten thousand out of the estimated 10 million gun owners in California join CRPA at $22 a year, thats $220,000 a year. That's a lot of money to any state organization and a good start in launching a couple of major legal battles.
Each of us have an opportunity to not just read about history as it happens, but to help change it. So take advantage of it. Historical moments in time are very rare when it comes to constitutional rights. Millions upon millions of Americans have been born, lived a full life, then died, while never seeing a Second Amendment case go to the Supreme Court. That is how rare this case is.
I urge you to donate or join CRPA, or both, but please do something. Money is needed and legal preparations for the upcoming battles are already underway. CRPA is way ahead of the curve on this because they know what is coming after Heller is history. But it needs to start today, and it needs to start with each of you. Don't be afraid to donate multiple times throughout the year. If you can afford it, donate a small sum monthly. Every donation, no matter the size, whether it's $10 or $100 is important. Use your credit card, debit card or send a check. Please donate to change history.
If you want to drop me a line to let me know you joined or donated, I would be delighted to hear from you. You can contact me at rweller49@yahoo.com. I look forward to hearing from you. And pass this page along to your shooting friends and other gun rights activists and let's start building momentum for the future.
Join California Rifle & Pistol Association
Donate to California Rifle & Pistol Association
It Doesn't Matter What Happens in the Heller D.C. Case
Ralph Weller
January 12, 2008
It's a dramatic headline, but from a legal standpoint it doesn't matter whether the D.C. case is a "win" or a "loss" for Second Amendment rights. Because, regardless of the ruling, the floodgates will open with Second Amendment lawsuits at the state level the likes of which we haven't seen in the history of this country. If you are a Second Amendment advocate, the next few years may be some of the most exciting years of your life from a constitutional rights standpoint.
But, the Heller case is only the beginning. If it's a win for Second Amendment supporters, there may be significant ambiguity in the decision. California, New York, Maryland and Illinois among other state level Second Amendment organizations will file lawsuits to force compliance with the Supreme Court ruling. Liberal states will not willingly comply. Liberals never do unless it's to their advantage. Otherwise, they will simply ignore the ruling.
If it's a loss, and ends up being more of states rights ruling, again, there will be huge efforts in certain states, California included, to obtain gun rights with a state constitutional amendment or via state court rulings. In some cases legal efforts might have to be mounted just to save what little we have. We doubt the Supreme Court will rule that only state militias may be armed, but you never know these days. If the Supreme Court can find that abortions are protected by the Constitution, as crazy as it sounds, they could easily find that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. It's illogical, I know, but it is a possibility.
2008 will most likely be the best opportunity since our founding as a nation to help clarify exactly what constitutional right citizens have when it comes to firearms ownership. But, it is clear in conversations with legal experts, and they all agree, the legal fight will only begin after the Supreme Court issues its ruling.
Don't kid yourself into believing that when the Supreme Court issues its ruling, let's say in favor of an individual right to own a firearm, that California will immediately comply and gut their gun laws that conflict with the ruling. Here are some examples:
If it is ruled a constitutional right, one must then question whether the state can charge a fee every time you purchase a firearm. Government cannot charge money to exercise a constitutional right.
If it is ruled a constitutional right, can California limit purchases to one gun per month?
If it is a constitutional right, can they call a semi-auto rifle an 'assault weapon' because it's black, while not banning other semi-auto rifles?
If it is a constitutional right, can the state ban the sale of certain rifles to the public, while allowing others to continue the right to own those rifles, if they pay a fee?
If it is a constitutional right, can the state say you can no longer sell or transfer your rifle to another person or family member, ever? And, if you die, can the state force your next of kin or executor of your estate to turn them in for destruction?
If it is a constitutional right, does the state have a right to register your handgun at the time of purchase?
If it is an constitutional right, can the state establish arbitrary testing methods to deem certain firearms 'unsafe' and non-sale able in California, while allowing state agencies, military, and law enforcement the right to to issue those firearms to their personnel?
If it is a right, can California ban the ownership of a semi-auto rifle simply because the caliber exceeds an arbitrary size?
If it is a right, and people in general are viewed as the militia, can the state ban the sale and ownership of fully automatic firearms used by the military and law enforcement?
And, here's a big one; If it is ruled a constitutional right, what powers, if any, do the states have to regulate the sale and ownership of firearms? If you are a strict constitutionalist, the state has no right to be in the business of regulating or limiting firearms ownership, or regulating the sale of firearms for the purpose of restricting ownership. That then becomes the business of the federal government to protect Second Amendment rights, not limit it.
Again, using the Supreme Court ruling on abortions, (and no, we are not making a statement about whether abortion is right or wrong, but it is a case that shows the opposite extremes of the law) if the court can find it is a constitutional right as was found in Roe v. Wade, the states have no say in banning abortions, and limits their role in regulating them. Roe v. Wade overturned all state and local laws on abortion bans. It would then stand to reason that state and local governments have no authority to limit a constitutional right to firearms ownership and would limit their role in regulating their sale and ownership to some degree. But stranger things have happened.
Those questions, along with others, may end up in court in California as a result of a positive Heller ruling at some point in the future.
Unfortunately, it takes money and the best constitutional minds money can buy to carry the fight throughout the balance of 2008 and the next several years.
If you're a regular to Gun News Daily, we are not known to pander for money. That's not our style. You know best where to put your money with an organization that you feel best serves your interests. But, the Heller ruling will be special. It will be a defining point for state gun rights organizations. Despite the power of the NRA, GOA, SAF and other national organizations, they can't pursue all the state level lawsuits that must be filed. They simply can't afford it, nor do they have the legal resources to mount state level lawsuits across the land. This is where state gun rights organizations will pick up the ball and run. And, despite everything you hear, state gun rights organizations fight more legal battles at the state level than the NRA could ever handle. Sure, the NRA helps on some lawsuits, and takes the lead in others. But state organizations generally go about their business challenging gun laws at city, county and state venues, and you never hear about it. I hate to say this, but the NRA is very good at taking credit for their battles, while state organizations tend to stay pretty quiet about their conquests. They just don't get the credit they deserve, in any state, especially California.
If there was ever a time to get into the fight, there is one place you can put your money where you know it will be used to fight the upcoming legal battles in California. It's the California Rifle & Pistol Association. I urge each of you, member or not, to at least donate a sum that you can afford. If you're not a member, $22 a year to join is a cheap price to pay. If you don't live in California, you can join and donate. California gun laws are so convoluted and extensive, a positive ruling which starts in the California court system can most certainly have a positive or negative impact in your state. Don't think this is just for Californians. It's for everyone who cares about gun rights. Case law in one state can often be the foundation for rulings in other states.
And, here's the really good news. CRPA retains the brightest constitutional attorney in California, and possibly the United States, who is nationally recognized as an expert on Second Amendment rights. He is the attorney that fought San Francisco's handgun ban law last week in court representing CRPA, NRA, and other groups, and won. Chuck Michel and his law firm are the pit bulls of the legal world when it comes to civil rights. They know what they're doing and they have successfully stopped literally hundreds of onerous laws and restrictions at the state, county and city level within California over the past several years. We are very lucky to have a civil rights attorney so dedicated and knowledgeable living and working in our state.
If CRPA is to carry the fight forward, they need your support. Frankly, Gunowners of California is a great group as well. If you have some kind of problem with CRPA, give to Gunowners, but please give something to someone at the state level. CRPA is my organization. It's where I hang my hat. They're the biggest, with legal resources and a full time legislative advocate in Sacramento.
This will all be a very costly legal battle. But, there is power when hundreds, thousand or even tens-of-thousands take action in a small way. If ten thousand out of the estimated 10 million gun owners in California join CRPA at $22 a year, thats $220,000 a year. That's a lot of money to any state organization and a good start in launching a couple of major legal battles.
Each of us have an opportunity to not just read about history as it happens, but to help change it. So take advantage of it. Historical moments in time are very rare when it comes to constitutional rights. Millions upon millions of Americans have been born, lived a full life, then died, while never seeing a Second Amendment case go to the Supreme Court. That is how rare this case is.
I urge you to donate or join CRPA, or both, but please do something. Money is needed and legal preparations for the upcoming battles are already underway. CRPA is way ahead of the curve on this because they know what is coming after Heller is history. But it needs to start today, and it needs to start with each of you. Don't be afraid to donate multiple times throughout the year. If you can afford it, donate a small sum monthly. Every donation, no matter the size, whether it's $10 or $100 is important. Use your credit card, debit card or send a check. Please donate to change history.
If you want to drop me a line to let me know you joined or donated, I would be delighted to hear from you. You can contact me at rweller49@yahoo.com. I look forward to hearing from you. And pass this page along to your shooting friends and other gun rights activists and let's start building momentum for the future.
Join California Rifle & Pistol Association
Donate to California Rifle & Pistol Association
Bush Administration to Propose New Rule
Bush Administration to Propose New Rule
Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks
Friday, February 22, 2008
Fairfax, Va. - At the request of the Bush Administration and 51 members of the United States Senate led by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prohibition of firearms on agency land will be revised in the following weeks. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is leading the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms in National Parks and wildlife refuges.
"Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's National Parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. "Under this proposal, federal parks and wildlife refuges will mirror the state firearm laws for state parks. This is an important step in the right direction."
These new regulations, when finalized, will provide uniformity across our nation's federal lands and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, only Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while National Park lands did not.
The current regulations on possession, carry or transportation of loaded or uncased firearms in national parks were proposed in 1982 and finalized in 1983. Similar restrictions apply in national wildlife refuges. The NRA believes it is time to amend those regulations to reflect the changed legal situation with respect to state laws on carrying firearms.
The effect of these now-outdated regulations on people who carry firearms for self-protection was far from the forefront at the time these regulations were adopted. As of the end of 1982, only six states routinely allowed citizens to carry handguns for self-defense. Currently, 48 states have a process for issuance of licenses or permits to allow law-abiding citizens to legally carry firearms for self-defense.
The move for regulatory change by the Administration will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes in most National Park lands and will make the laws consistent with state law where these lands are located. Fifty-one U.S. Senators from both parties sent a letter to the Department of Interior late last year supporting the move to render state firearms laws applicable to National Park lands.
"These changes will respect the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens, and we look forward to the issuance of a final rule this year," concluded Cox.
-NRA-
Click Here to read Secretary Kempthorne's letter to Sen. Crapo
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.
Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks
Friday, February 22, 2008
Fairfax, Va. - At the request of the Bush Administration and 51 members of the United States Senate led by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prohibition of firearms on agency land will be revised in the following weeks. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is leading the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms in National Parks and wildlife refuges.
"Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's National Parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. "Under this proposal, federal parks and wildlife refuges will mirror the state firearm laws for state parks. This is an important step in the right direction."
These new regulations, when finalized, will provide uniformity across our nation's federal lands and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, only Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while National Park lands did not.
The current regulations on possession, carry or transportation of loaded or uncased firearms in national parks were proposed in 1982 and finalized in 1983. Similar restrictions apply in national wildlife refuges. The NRA believes it is time to amend those regulations to reflect the changed legal situation with respect to state laws on carrying firearms.
The effect of these now-outdated regulations on people who carry firearms for self-protection was far from the forefront at the time these regulations were adopted. As of the end of 1982, only six states routinely allowed citizens to carry handguns for self-defense. Currently, 48 states have a process for issuance of licenses or permits to allow law-abiding citizens to legally carry firearms for self-defense.
The move for regulatory change by the Administration will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes in most National Park lands and will make the laws consistent with state law where these lands are located. Fifty-one U.S. Senators from both parties sent a letter to the Department of Interior late last year supporting the move to render state firearms laws applicable to National Park lands.
"These changes will respect the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens, and we look forward to the issuance of a final rule this year," concluded Cox.
-NRA-
Click Here to read Secretary Kempthorne's letter to Sen. Crapo
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.
CNN Targets Gun Web Sites
CNN Targets Gun Web Sites Following college murders, reporter goes after company that has 'shocking' connection to two big shootings. By Dan GainorThe Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow Business & Media Institute2/18/2008 10:46:30 AM
Pity the business that gets caught in a media feeding frenzy. The latest example is gun sellers, following another school shooting.
CNN’s Veronica De La Cruz turned a negative spotlight on an online gun dealer for selling legal products that were then used in crimes.
On the Feb. 17 “American Morning,” De La Cruz showed how two Web sites, operated by “the same owner,” sold products to the shooters in both the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University tragedies. She said it was “pretty shocking to figure this out.” Anchor Kiran Chetry agreed, calling it an “eerie connection.”
But that wasn’t enough. De La Cruz was even upset at the sympathy banners on the site because they were near banners that still advertised the company’s business. “I want to show you the strange juxtaposition if you move down the page. Here's the NIU shooting and then ‘Save big on rifles and handguns’ right underneath. You know, something that kind of turns your stomach, if you will,” she added.
De La Cruz didn’t bother to explain that there were actually two banners. The first, “Tragedy at NIU,” included a statement from TGSCOM Inc. President Eric Thompson that she never mentioned. "For now, the most important thing we can all do is send our thoughts and prayers to the families and friends of the victims of this heinous act. I’d also suggest making a contribution to the NIU Memorial Fund,” wrote Thompson.
The second link took readers to a page that included information on the NIU Memorial Fund. But, TGSCOM is a business and there were seven other ads on the page at http://www.topglock.com/ and two at http://www.thegunsource.com/.
De La Cruz also didn’t report much about the Green Bay, Wis., company. She found it “shocking” that two Web sites run by the same company could have sold legal products to recent college killers. But according to its own site, TGSCOM “operates 100 Web sites that sell firearms, firearms’ accessories and hunting supplies.” Having two out of 100 connected doesn’t seem like much of a stretch. Especially since, as De La Cruz said, the NIU shooter purchased only “two 9-millimeter magazines and a holster.”
De La Cruz also seemed stunned that guns could be purchased online and that online shopping might even be easy. “If you click on this link here, buying a gun online, it shows that absolutely it is legal to buy a gun on the internet.” You work through the process, place an order and “then sit back and relax while we do the rest,” she added, her voicing rising for dramatic effect.
De La Cruz and Chetry concluded by emphasizing the connection between the two crimes and the two purchases. “The same owner owning the same two Web sites,” said De La Cruz.
That attack is consistent with recent media coverage of gun companies. In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the media went into a frenzy attacking gun companies. The coverage turned into a debate about gun control, with reporters on the three major networks blaming businesses that committed no crime. ABC’s Brian Ross was the worst offender, painting Roanoke Firearms as the villain on several different ABC programs.
Pity the business that gets caught in a media feeding frenzy. The latest example is gun sellers, following another school shooting.
CNN’s Veronica De La Cruz turned a negative spotlight on an online gun dealer for selling legal products that were then used in crimes.
On the Feb. 17 “American Morning,” De La Cruz showed how two Web sites, operated by “the same owner,” sold products to the shooters in both the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University tragedies. She said it was “pretty shocking to figure this out.” Anchor Kiran Chetry agreed, calling it an “eerie connection.”
But that wasn’t enough. De La Cruz was even upset at the sympathy banners on the site because they were near banners that still advertised the company’s business. “I want to show you the strange juxtaposition if you move down the page. Here's the NIU shooting and then ‘Save big on rifles and handguns’ right underneath. You know, something that kind of turns your stomach, if you will,” she added.
De La Cruz didn’t bother to explain that there were actually two banners. The first, “Tragedy at NIU,” included a statement from TGSCOM Inc. President Eric Thompson that she never mentioned. "For now, the most important thing we can all do is send our thoughts and prayers to the families and friends of the victims of this heinous act. I’d also suggest making a contribution to the NIU Memorial Fund,” wrote Thompson.
The second link took readers to a page that included information on the NIU Memorial Fund. But, TGSCOM is a business and there were seven other ads on the page at http://www.topglock.com/ and two at http://www.thegunsource.com/.
De La Cruz also didn’t report much about the Green Bay, Wis., company. She found it “shocking” that two Web sites run by the same company could have sold legal products to recent college killers. But according to its own site, TGSCOM “operates 100 Web sites that sell firearms, firearms’ accessories and hunting supplies.” Having two out of 100 connected doesn’t seem like much of a stretch. Especially since, as De La Cruz said, the NIU shooter purchased only “two 9-millimeter magazines and a holster.”
De La Cruz also seemed stunned that guns could be purchased online and that online shopping might even be easy. “If you click on this link here, buying a gun online, it shows that absolutely it is legal to buy a gun on the internet.” You work through the process, place an order and “then sit back and relax while we do the rest,” she added, her voicing rising for dramatic effect.
De La Cruz and Chetry concluded by emphasizing the connection between the two crimes and the two purchases. “The same owner owning the same two Web sites,” said De La Cruz.
That attack is consistent with recent media coverage of gun companies. In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the media went into a frenzy attacking gun companies. The coverage turned into a debate about gun control, with reporters on the three major networks blaming businesses that committed no crime. ABC’s Brian Ross was the worst offender, painting Roanoke Firearms as the villain on several different ABC programs.
Concealed weapons bill passes
Concealed weapons bill passes
By Bob Gibson / bgibson@dailyprogress.com 978-7243
February 22, 2008
RICHMOND - The House of Delegates on Thursday passed a bill to allow people with a concealed weapons permit to bring a hidden handgun into a restaurant if they do not drink.
The measure sponsored by Sen. Emmett W. Hanger, R-Mount Solon, won House approval on a 62-36 vote and now goes to the desk of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine.
Delegates in both parties said they expect Kaine to veto it. A spokesman for the governor said he would have to review the bill’s details before deciding whether to sign it.
Gun-rights advocates have sought the bill for years. It passed the Senate by a 24-15 vote last week, so neither chamber passed the measure by a veto-proof two-thirds margin.
Virginia has nearly 150,000 residents who hold concealed-carry permits, said Del. C. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock, who spoke for the bill and said those who hold concealed-weapons permits “are among the most law-abiding citizens in Virginia.”
Delegates who opposed the measure said they doubt whether increasing the number of guns in restaurants that serve alcohol would make people safer.
“In the Wild West in Tombstone, Arizona, even there you had to check your gun at the bar,” said Del. Jennifer L. McClellan, D-Richmond. “People learned back then that guns and alcohol did not mix.”
Delegates who favored the bill said current law allows a person to carry a handgun into a restaurant or bar if the weapon is not concealed and to drink until the restaurant cuts the person off. Any restaurant owner has a right to post a sign saying no one may enter with a gun, and the bill does not change that right.
Del. Harvey B. Morgan, R-Gloucester, said the legislation is years overdue. If someone is walking down the street with a legally concealed weapon “and someone says let’s get some lunch, what are you going to do, put it under an ash can?” he asked.
“Are you going to take it into a restaurant and say, ‘I wonder if the proprietor will hold this for me,’” Morgan said. “I’ve always thought it was absolutely insane to require someone legally carrying a firearm to somehow dispose of it before getting a bite to eat,” he said. He said experience in other states shows that “concealed weapons permits have reduced armed robberies.”
Del. David J. Toscano, D-Charlottesville, was one of 29 Democrats who voted against the bill and who were joined by seven Republicans.
“I was very concerned about where this is going,” Toscano said. “I do not think that guns and alcohol mix very well and while I recognize people’s right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, I don’t think it’s appropriate to make it easier to keep and bear them in a restaurant.”
Del. Rob Bell, R-Albemarle County, was one of 46 Republicans who voted for the measure along with 14 Democrats and two independents.
“If you go through the trouble and background check for a concealed carry permit, I think it makes sense for them to have an additional prerogative under the law,” Bell said. “This is certainly the group that’s been vetted and had the police background check.”
On another measure, the House voted 69-29 to pass a bill allowing people who don’t have concealed weapons permits to transport guns in a locked glove box or other interior compartment of a vehicle rather than carry them on the seat in plain view, as current law requires.
That bill now heads to Kaine’s desk.
Subscribe to the Newspaper
By Bob Gibson / bgibson@dailyprogress.com 978-7243
February 22, 2008
RICHMOND - The House of Delegates on Thursday passed a bill to allow people with a concealed weapons permit to bring a hidden handgun into a restaurant if they do not drink.
The measure sponsored by Sen. Emmett W. Hanger, R-Mount Solon, won House approval on a 62-36 vote and now goes to the desk of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine.
Delegates in both parties said they expect Kaine to veto it. A spokesman for the governor said he would have to review the bill’s details before deciding whether to sign it.
Gun-rights advocates have sought the bill for years. It passed the Senate by a 24-15 vote last week, so neither chamber passed the measure by a veto-proof two-thirds margin.
Virginia has nearly 150,000 residents who hold concealed-carry permits, said Del. C. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock, who spoke for the bill and said those who hold concealed-weapons permits “are among the most law-abiding citizens in Virginia.”
Delegates who opposed the measure said they doubt whether increasing the number of guns in restaurants that serve alcohol would make people safer.
“In the Wild West in Tombstone, Arizona, even there you had to check your gun at the bar,” said Del. Jennifer L. McClellan, D-Richmond. “People learned back then that guns and alcohol did not mix.”
Delegates who favored the bill said current law allows a person to carry a handgun into a restaurant or bar if the weapon is not concealed and to drink until the restaurant cuts the person off. Any restaurant owner has a right to post a sign saying no one may enter with a gun, and the bill does not change that right.
Del. Harvey B. Morgan, R-Gloucester, said the legislation is years overdue. If someone is walking down the street with a legally concealed weapon “and someone says let’s get some lunch, what are you going to do, put it under an ash can?” he asked.
“Are you going to take it into a restaurant and say, ‘I wonder if the proprietor will hold this for me,’” Morgan said. “I’ve always thought it was absolutely insane to require someone legally carrying a firearm to somehow dispose of it before getting a bite to eat,” he said. He said experience in other states shows that “concealed weapons permits have reduced armed robberies.”
Del. David J. Toscano, D-Charlottesville, was one of 29 Democrats who voted against the bill and who were joined by seven Republicans.
“I was very concerned about where this is going,” Toscano said. “I do not think that guns and alcohol mix very well and while I recognize people’s right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, I don’t think it’s appropriate to make it easier to keep and bear them in a restaurant.”
Del. Rob Bell, R-Albemarle County, was one of 46 Republicans who voted for the measure along with 14 Democrats and two independents.
“If you go through the trouble and background check for a concealed carry permit, I think it makes sense for them to have an additional prerogative under the law,” Bell said. “This is certainly the group that’s been vetted and had the police background check.”
On another measure, the House voted 69-29 to pass a bill allowing people who don’t have concealed weapons permits to transport guns in a locked glove box or other interior compartment of a vehicle rather than carry them on the seat in plain view, as current law requires.
That bill now heads to Kaine’s desk.
Subscribe to the Newspaper
Change in gun in vehicle rule makes sense
Change in gun in vehicle rule makes senseComments 1 Recommend 0
2008-02-21 21:30:00
We would guess that a fair number of Arizonans regularly - probably unknowingly - break a law concerning the concealment of a gun in a vehicle. Under Arizona law, drivers who want to have a gun in their vehicle when they travel have to be careful where they put it. It's OK to have it anyplace where it is visible, for example laying on the car seat. It's also OK to have a loaded gun in the glove box, map box or trunk of the car. But you better not have it under your seat unless you have a concealed weapons permit. Clearly, this is a confusing law which the law-abiding citizen might inadvertently violate. That is why State Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, wants to change it so individuals can put their gun wherever they choose in the vehicle, concealed or not. It makes a great deal of good sense, yet the proposed law is being opposed by the Arizona Department of Public Safety, which is concerned its officers may face increased danger during traffic stops. The concern for officers is understandable since traffic stops can be dangerous situations, yet we don't see how blocking this law would make them safer. The reality is that lawbreakers don't care what the the restrictions are on hiding guns in vehicles and will hide them anyway. The lawbreakers are the danger to officers, not law-abiding drivers who simply want to safeguard themselves by having a weapon in the car. The purpose of our laws should be to punish criminals, not to make criminals out of innocent citizens who simply want to exercise their rights, one of which is the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. State Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, said he finds the opposition of DPS to the new law dubious. "If they're (criminals) willing to kill a police officer, they're willing to hide the gun under the seat" even if the law says they can't. This is a reasonable change. It will not encourage more criminality, but rather will benefit the vast majority of Arizonans who want to be able to keep and use their guns in a law-abiding way.
See archived 'Opinion' Stories »
2008-02-21 21:30:00
We would guess that a fair number of Arizonans regularly - probably unknowingly - break a law concerning the concealment of a gun in a vehicle. Under Arizona law, drivers who want to have a gun in their vehicle when they travel have to be careful where they put it. It's OK to have it anyplace where it is visible, for example laying on the car seat. It's also OK to have a loaded gun in the glove box, map box or trunk of the car. But you better not have it under your seat unless you have a concealed weapons permit. Clearly, this is a confusing law which the law-abiding citizen might inadvertently violate. That is why State Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, wants to change it so individuals can put their gun wherever they choose in the vehicle, concealed or not. It makes a great deal of good sense, yet the proposed law is being opposed by the Arizona Department of Public Safety, which is concerned its officers may face increased danger during traffic stops. The concern for officers is understandable since traffic stops can be dangerous situations, yet we don't see how blocking this law would make them safer. The reality is that lawbreakers don't care what the the restrictions are on hiding guns in vehicles and will hide them anyway. The lawbreakers are the danger to officers, not law-abiding drivers who simply want to safeguard themselves by having a weapon in the car. The purpose of our laws should be to punish criminals, not to make criminals out of innocent citizens who simply want to exercise their rights, one of which is the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. State Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, said he finds the opposition of DPS to the new law dubious. "If they're (criminals) willing to kill a police officer, they're willing to hide the gun under the seat" even if the law says they can't. This is a reasonable change. It will not encourage more criminality, but rather will benefit the vast majority of Arizonans who want to be able to keep and use their guns in a law-abiding way.
See archived 'Opinion' Stories »
Hello Kitty Makes CNN
Hello Kitty rifle makes CNN
It looks like the irrational fear of pink Hello Kitty and other painted guns keeps spreading. Now it appears that reporter Brahim Resnik from KPNX Channel 12 in Phoenix has picked up the story and offers this one-sided hit job:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/02/19/resnik.painted.guns.kpnx
After showing a woman on the street a picture of the Hello Kitty rifle and getting a laugh from her, he then proceeds to tell her "that it is a weapon used by the military". The military is using semi-automatic civilian AR15's now? Wow, maybe that is why it is taking us so long to finish up in Iraq.
This is just another made-up hypothetical "threat" to law enforcement that has no basis in the truth. They even dig up a retired police officer to warn us about how frightening it is that it is legal for us to paint our own personal property any color we wish. Must have been a slow news day...
It looks like the irrational fear of pink Hello Kitty and other painted guns keeps spreading. Now it appears that reporter Brahim Resnik from KPNX Channel 12 in Phoenix has picked up the story and offers this one-sided hit job:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/02/19/resnik.painted.guns.kpnx
After showing a woman on the street a picture of the Hello Kitty rifle and getting a laugh from her, he then proceeds to tell her "that it is a weapon used by the military". The military is using semi-automatic civilian AR15's now? Wow, maybe that is why it is taking us so long to finish up in Iraq.
This is just another made-up hypothetical "threat" to law enforcement that has no basis in the truth. They even dig up a retired police officer to warn us about how frightening it is that it is legal for us to paint our own personal property any color we wish. Must have been a slow news day...
U.S. Concealed Carry Armed American Report
U.S. Concealed CarryArmed American Report
Visit Here for Membership Information!
February 22nd, 2008
Dear All,
I'm going to start this week's "Armed American Report" off with a bang.A very important bang.Check out this link at CNN...If you don't want to go to that link, here is what you need to be worried about:"...Hillary Clinton: Voted for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban. Voted for requiring extensive background checks at gun shows. Supports licensing and registration of handguns, mandatory trigger locks for handguns, holding adults responsible for their children's use of guns, raising the youth handgun ban from age 18 to 21, limiting gun sales to one per month and allowing the Consumer Products Safety Commission regulate guns..."You think that's scary? Now take a look at this:"...Barack Obama: Supports extending the assault weapons ban. Supports national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel. Supports limiting gun sales to one per month..."We've fought VERY hard- tooth and nail- for our government to recognize our God-Given right to self defense... let us NOT hand it over! PLEASE make sure you, your friends, and your family all vote against these two enemies of freedom.Okay, now I've got a GREAT newsletter this week... here we go!
USCCA Laugh of the Week
Visit Here for Membership Information!
February 22nd, 2008
Dear All,
I'm going to start this week's "Armed American Report" off with a bang.A very important bang.Check out this link at CNN...If you don't want to go to that link, here is what you need to be worried about:"...Hillary Clinton: Voted for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban. Voted for requiring extensive background checks at gun shows. Supports licensing and registration of handguns, mandatory trigger locks for handguns, holding adults responsible for their children's use of guns, raising the youth handgun ban from age 18 to 21, limiting gun sales to one per month and allowing the Consumer Products Safety Commission regulate guns..."You think that's scary? Now take a look at this:"...Barack Obama: Supports extending the assault weapons ban. Supports national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel. Supports limiting gun sales to one per month..."We've fought VERY hard- tooth and nail- for our government to recognize our God-Given right to self defense... let us NOT hand it over! PLEASE make sure you, your friends, and your family all vote against these two enemies of freedom.Okay, now I've got a GREAT newsletter this week... here we go!
USCCA Laugh of the Week
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Gun Owners of California,
Sam Paredes,
Executive Director of Gun Owners of California,
7996 California Ave Suite F
Fair Oaks Ca, 95628
(916) 967-4970 or www.gunownersca.com
The new state scorecard was released by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its network of Million Mom March Chapters in partnership with state-based gun violence prevention organizations across the nation.
2007 Brady Campaign State Scorecard Rankings
www.stategunlaws.org
Two-thirds of all states score less than 20 points out of 100. Almost half of all states score 10 points or less out of 100. The state with the strongest gun laws is California with 79 points, followed by New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maryland.
The new state scorecard was released by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its network of Million Mom March Chapters in partnership with state-based gun violence prevention organizations across the nation.
Executive Director of Gun Owners of California,
7996 California Ave Suite F
Fair Oaks Ca, 95628
(916) 967-4970 or www.gunownersca.com
The new state scorecard was released by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its network of Million Mom March Chapters in partnership with state-based gun violence prevention organizations across the nation.
2007 Brady Campaign State Scorecard Rankings
www.stategunlaws.org
Two-thirds of all states score less than 20 points out of 100. Almost half of all states score 10 points or less out of 100. The state with the strongest gun laws is California with 79 points, followed by New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maryland.
The new state scorecard was released by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its network of Million Mom March Chapters in partnership with state-based gun violence prevention organizations across the nation.
A 27 year U.S. Navy veteran,
David W Scheid PMW-1601 SCN Coordinator
W: 619-524-2383 C: 619-578-8495
A 27 year U.S. Navy veteran, Shooting competitively since 1976, Bullseye. Shot Highpower Rifle from 1987-1993. Member of the Navy Rifle Team in 1989, 1991 & 1992.
Member of the Board of Directors for South Bay Rod and Gun Club Chief Range Safety Officer for South Bay Rod and Gun Club NRA Training Counselor, Basic Firearms Instructor in Basic Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Metallic Cartridge, Shot Shell Reloading, and Range Safety Officer.
W: 619-524-2383 C: 619-578-8495
A 27 year U.S. Navy veteran, Shooting competitively since 1976, Bullseye. Shot Highpower Rifle from 1987-1993. Member of the Navy Rifle Team in 1989, 1991 & 1992.
Member of the Board of Directors for South Bay Rod and Gun Club Chief Range Safety Officer for South Bay Rod and Gun Club NRA Training Counselor, Basic Firearms Instructor in Basic Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Metallic Cartridge, Shot Shell Reloading, and Range Safety Officer.
Hearing Loss as it Relates to Hunting and Shooting Sports
Garry G. Gordon
E.A.R. Gear, Inc.
P.O. Box 18888
Boulder, Colorado 80308 Ph: 303-447-2619 E-mail: garry@earinc.com
How many of you have a hearing loss of which you are aware?
How many hear better out of one ear than the other?
Do any of you have difficulty understanding speech?
Do you experience ringing or buzzing sounds in your ear?
Do any of you wear a hearing aid? Or thinking about hearing aids?
E.A.R. Gear, Inc.
P.O. Box 18888
Boulder, Colorado 80308 Ph: 303-447-2619 E-mail: garry@earinc.com
How many of you have a hearing loss of which you are aware?
How many hear better out of one ear than the other?
Do any of you have difficulty understanding speech?
Do you experience ringing or buzzing sounds in your ear?
Do any of you wear a hearing aid? Or thinking about hearing aids?
go to www.earinc.com
Blue Wonder Gun Care Product
Blue Wonder Gun Care Product
(832)-200-8005
(832)-200-8005
The head of R & D and the developer of the Blue Wonder line suggest that you go to www.bluewonder.us it tells everything you wont to know about the product. Whether you need gun cleaning solutions, lubrication, finish protection or refinishing, Blue Wonder™ Gun Care Products deliver the very best in gun maintenance products. The Blue Wonder™ Gun Care Product Line consists of Blue Wonder™ Gun Cleaner, Blue Wonder™ Gun Blue and Gun Black, Blue Wonder™ Armadillo, and NOW, Blue Wonder™ Gun Disotec XFR. These award winning products are sold through an exclusive line of retailers and online stores. To see a complete list of Blue Wonder™ Gun Care Products' Dealers or to find a local gun or sporting goods store
Guns And Doctors
Guns And Doctors
Subject: Statistics
Number of physicians in the US: 700,000.
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000.
Accidental deaths per physician.... 0.171
(U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000.
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) 1,500.
Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188
(Benton County News Tribune on 17th of November,
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
"Remember, Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one doctor."
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand.
Remember guns don't kill people, doctors do!
AREN'T STATISTICS GREAT!!!
Subject: Statistics
Number of physicians in the US: 700,000.
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000.
Accidental deaths per physician.... 0.171
(U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000.
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) 1,500.
Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188
(Benton County News Tribune on 17th of November,
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
"Remember, Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one doctor."
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand.
Remember guns don't kill people, doctors do!
AREN'T STATISTICS GREAT!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
