text:
Thursday, January 31, 2013

First Firearms-Related Bills Introduced In NC General Assembly

A number of bills concerning firearms rights have been introduced in the last couple of days in the North Carolina General Assembly as it starts its new session. The firearms bills in this session will probably be more evolutionary than revolutionary as the Castle Doctrine, universal reciprocity, and parks carry were passed in the last session. Restaurant carry made it through the State House last session but ran out of time in the State Senate. That is addressed in a new bill in the State House as well as the confidentiality of concealed handgun permit holders. While it hasn't been introduced yet, I fully expect a bill to be introduced to clarify the language of parks carry to prevent cities like Winston-Salem from perverting the intent of the bill.

With one exception, the bills below are favorable towards gun rights. The one exception is a bill that would curtail the universal reciprocity by only recognizing carry permits held by residents of the state that issued it. Non-resident permits would not be recognized for reciprocity under the bill. Sean Sorrentino has much more on this backwards step.

State House

HB 17 - Gun Permits/Restaurants and Confidentiality
This bill would allow concealed handgun permit holders to carry in eating establishments and restaurants unless the restaurant or eating establishment had been posted by the owner prohibiting carry. Unlike last year, it does not include the prohibition against consumption of alcohol. This bill would also make the list of permit holders and their application information confidential. It would only be available to law enforcement and would no longer be public data.
Primary Sponsors: Rep. Burr (R-Stanley), Hager (RR-Rutherford), Hollo (R-Alexander), and J. Bell (R-Wayne)
Other Sponsors: Rep. Arp (R-Union); Blust (R-Guilford); W. Brawley (R-Mecklenburg); Brody (R-Union); R. Brown (R-Davidson); Bumgardner(R-Gaston); Cleveland (R-Onslow); Collins (R-Nash); Fulghum (R-Wake); Hardister (R-Guilford); Holloway (R-Stokes); Horn (R-Union); Iler (R-Brunswick); Jones (R-Rockingham); Jordan (R-Ashe); Martin (R-Pitt); McElraft (R-Carteret); McGrady (R-Henderson); McNeill (R-Randolph); Millis (R-Pender); Moffitt (R-Buncombe); Pittman (R-Cabarrus); Saine (R-Lincoln); Schaffer (R-Mecklenburg); Setzer (R-Catawba); Shepard (R-Onslow); Speciale (R-Craven); Starnes (R-Caldwell); Steinburg (R-Chowan); Stone (R-Lee); Szoka (R-Cumberland); Torbett (R-Gaston); Warren (R-Rowan);

HB 49 - Firearm in Locked Motor Vehicle/Parking Lot
This bill provides that no business, commercial enterprise, or employer may prohibit the transportation or possession of firearms and ammunition when kept out of sight in a locked motor vehicle. Among other provisions it releases the business, commercial enterprise, or employer from civil liability for damages from another person's actions involving a firearm or ammunition stored in a locked car that complied with state law.
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Shepard (R-Onslow)
Other Sponsors: Rep. McElraft (R-Carteret; Pittman (R-Cabarrus); Warren (R-Rowan)

State Senate

SB 17 - Concealed Carry Permits/Validity
This bill would not provide reciprocity for any carry permit held by a person who was not a resident of the issuing state.
Primary Sponsor: Sen. Stan Bingham (R-Davidson)

SB 27 - Public School Protection/Firearm Amendments
This bill would create school safety marshals. These would be persons certified by the NC Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission and designated by local school boards or boards of directors of charter schools to possess and carry firearms on school property. The intent of the bill is to provide additional protection for students and staff.
Primary Sponsor: Sen. Stan Bingham (R-Davidson)
Other Sponsors: Sen. Andrew C. Brock (R-Davie); Bill Cook (R-Beaufort); Warren Daniel (R-Burke); Clark Jenkins (D-Edgecombe); E. S. (Buck) Newton (R- Johnston); Norman W. Sanderson (R-Pamlico); Jerry W. Tillman (R-Randolph);

 SB. 28 - Gun Permit Information/No Publication
This bill would provide for the confidentiality of concealed handgun permits and pistol purchase permits. The information would only be available upon request to law enforcement agencies and to the courts or other appropriate parties in response to either a subpoena or court order.
Primary Sponsor: Sen. Stan Bingham (R-Davidson)
Other Sponsors: Sen. Tom Apodaca (R-Henderson); Chad Barefoot (R-Wake); Andrew C. Brock (R-Davie); Bill Cook (R-Beaufort); Ralph Hise (R-Mitchell); Brent Jackson (R-Sampson); Clark Jenkins (D-Edgecombe); E. S. (Buck) Newton (R-Johnston); Norman W. Sanderson (R-Pamlico); Trudy Wade (R-Guilford);

WV Citizens Defense League Joins The Firearms Policy Coalition

The Firearm Policy Coalition added another state to their organization - West Virginia. They will be joined by organizations from California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, Florida, Hawaii, and Texas.

BELLEVUE, WA (January 31, 2013) – While the U.S. Senate held hearings on new federal gun control proposals, another prominent Second Amendment rights group joined the fast-growing Firearms Policy Coalition, noted managing director Brandon Combs. In addition to the existing Coalition representation in Washington, D.C., California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Texas, West Virginians now have the backing of FPC’s innovative and dynamic cross-state gun rights advocacy platform.

“The West Virginia Citizens Defense League is pleased to partner with the Firearms Policy Coalition in the defense of our rights,” commented WVCDL president Keith Morgan. “We recognize and support the need for nationwide cooperation in this critical fight.”
Morgan’s televised interview on The State Journal’s “Decision Makers” program in mid-January became an internet sensation among gun rights activists and gun owners across the nation, receiving nearly 200,000 views since being uploaded on January 13.

“One thing is clear, and that’s gun owners are taking a stand against gun bans no matter where they might reside,” said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of FPC’s national group Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. “People see through the outright lies of the gun-grabbers and know that the only real option is to fight back through real cooperation and hard work. No question about it, there’s strength in numbers.”

“It’s exciting to see our Second Amendment advocate friends in West Virginia combining forces with those in other states, like Illinois and New Jersey, through the power of FPC’s technology,” explained Combs. “Hopefully other gun rights groups, especially those in key states like New York, Connecticut, and Colorado, take notice and realize that they don’t have to go it alone any more. We’re here for them.”

“The Coalition is very much looking forward to working with Keith and the WVCDL membership to secure a strong right to keep and bear arms throughout the U.S.”

Dave Kopel's Testimony At Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing

Dave Kopel replaced Fordham Prof. Nick Johnson at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence (sic) yesterday. Below is his prepared testimony before the committee. It also includes Dave answering questions from some senators.

While not as dramatic as the "testimony" that former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords gave, it is a lot more instructive on the issue. Unfortunately, the national media will concentrate on the former and ignore this.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Ted Cruz At The Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is the junior senator from Texas and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In his comments and questions today at the Judiciary Committee's hearing on gun violence (sic) he brought out that the bill proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is concerned with cosmetics and not functionality. It is a message that most Americans are not getting. I think Cruz is correct when he asserts the average American thinks of full-auto firearms when the term "assault weapon" is used.

Wayne LaPierre's Prepared Testimony In Today's Gun Control Hearing

The NRA-ILA has published Wayne LaPierre's prepared testimony given before the Senate Judiciary Committee today. It was for their hearing on "What Should America Do About Gun Violence (sic)?"

JANUARY 30, 2013

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

It's an honor to be here today on behalf of more than 4.5 million moms and dads and sons and daughters, in every state across our nation, who make up the National Rifle Association of America. Those 4.5 million active members are joined by tens of millions of NRA supporters.

And it’s on behalf of those millions of decent, hardworking, law-abiding citizens … to give voice to their concerns … that I'm here today.

The title of today’s hearing is "What should America do about gun violence?"

We believe the answer to that question is to be honest about what works – and what doesn’t work.

Teaching safe and responsible gun ownership works – and the NRA has a long and proud history of teaching it.

Our "Eddie Eagle" children’s safety program has taught over 25 million young children that if they see a gun, they should do four things: “Stop. Don’t touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult.” As a result of this and other private sector programs, fatal firearm accidents are at the lowest levels in more than 100 years.[1]

The NRA has over 80,000 certified instructors who teach our military personnel, law enforcement officers and hundreds of thousands of other American men and women how to safely use firearms. We do more – and spend more – than anyone else on teaching safe and responsible gun ownership.

We joined the nation in sorrow over the tragedy that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut. There is nothing more precious than our children. We have no more sacred duty than to protect our children and keep them safe. That’s why we asked former Congressman and Undersecretary of Homeland Security, Asa Hutchison, to bring in every expert available to develop a model School Shield Program – one that can be individually tailored to make our schools as safe as possible.

It's time to throw an immediate blanket of security around our children. About a third of our schools have armed security already – because it works.[2] And that number is growing. Right now, state officials, local authorities and school districts in all 50 states are considering their own plans to protect children in their schools.

In addition, we need to enforce the thousands of gun laws that are currently on the books. Prosecuting criminals who misuse firearms works. Unfortunately, we’ve seen a dramatic collapse in federal gun prosecutions in recent years. Overall in 2011, federal weapons prosecutions per capita were down 35 percent from their peak in the previous administration.[3] That means violent felons, gang members and the mentally ill who possess firearms are not being prosecuted. And that’s unacceptable.

And out of more than 76,000 firearms purchases denied by the federal instant check system, only 62 were referred for prosecution and only 44 were actually prosecuted.[4] Proposing more gun control laws – while failing to enforce the thousands we already have – is not a serious solution to reducing crime.

I think we can also agree that our mental health system is broken. We need to look at the full range of mental health issues, from early detection and treatment, to civil commitment laws, to privacy laws that needlessly prevent mental health records from being included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

While we're ready to participate in a meaningful effort to solve these pressing problems, we must respectfully – but honestly and firmly – disagree with some members of this committee, many in the media, and all of the gun control groups on what will keep our kids and our streets safe.

Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals. Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families.

As I said earlier, we need to be honest about what works and what does not work. Proposals that would only serve to burden the law-abiding have failed in the past and will fail in the future.

Semi-automatic firearms have been around for over 100 years. They are among the most popular guns made for hunting, target shooting and self-defense. Despite this fact, Congress banned the manufacture and sale of hundreds of semi-automatic firearms and magazines from 1994 to 2004. Independent studies, including a study from the Clinton Justice Department, proved that ban had no impact on lowering crime.[5]

And when it comes to the issue of background checks, let’s be honest – background checks will never be “universal” – because criminals will never submit to them.

But there are things that can be done and we ask you to join with us. The NRA is made up of millions of Americans who support what works … the immediate protection for all – not just some – of our school children; swift, certain prosecution of criminals with guns; and fixing our broken mental health system.

We love our families and our country. We believe in our freedom. We’re the millions of Americans from all walks of life who take responsibility for our own safety and protection as a God-given, fundamental right.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I thank you for your time and consideration.

[1] Pre-1981 data from National Safety Council, Accident Facts (annual); 1981 forward from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, available at

[2] Gary Fields et al., NRA Calls for Arms in School, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 22, 2012, available at

[3] Calculated from U.S. Department of Justice data available through Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse,

[4] Ronald J. Frandsen, Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010: Federal and State Investigations and Prosecutions of Firearm Applicants Denied by a NICS Check in 2010 , available at

[5] Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, (1997), available at

Firearms Legislation Introduced This Week In Congress

Three more bills affecting gun rights and shooting opportunities have been introduced since Monday. Two are anti-gun and come from well-known gun prohibitionists and the third is a bill that would protect hunting, shooting, and fishing on public lands. It is interesting to note that on Carolyn McCarthy's HR 437 that 70% of the co-sponsors come from states that severely restrict gun rights.

HR.437 - Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [D-NY-1] - 1/29/2013
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3] - 1/29/2013
Rep Brady, Robert A. [D-PA-1] - 1/29/2013
Rep Carney, John C., Jr. [D-DE] - 1/29/2013
Rep Cartwright, Matt [D-PA-17] - 1/29/2013
Rep Cicilline, David N. [D-RI-1] - 1/29/2013
Rep Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9] - 1/29/2013
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-13] - 1/29/2013
Rep DeGette, Diana [D-CO-1] - 1/29/2013
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3] - 1/29/2013
Rep Deutch, Theodore E. [D-FL-21] - 1/29/2013
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [D-CA-18] - 1/29/2013
Rep Esty, Elizabeth H. [D-CT-5] - 1/29/2013
Rep Frankel, Lois [D-FL-22] - 1/29/2013
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [D-AZ-3] - 1/29/2013
Rep Hahn, Janice [D-CA-44] - 1/29/2013
Rep Himes, James A. [D-CT-4] - 1/29/2013
Rep Holt, Rush [D-NJ-12] - 1/29/2013
Rep Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2] - 1/29/2013
Rep Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] - 1/29/2013
Rep Larson, John B. [D-CT-1] - 1/29/2013
Rep Levin, Sander M. [D-MI-9] - 1/29/2013
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-19] - 1/29/2013
Rep Lowenthal, Alan S. [D-CA-47] - 1/29/2013
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [D-NY-17] - 1/29/2013
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-12] - 1/29/2013
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-6] - 1/29/2013
Rep McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4] - 1/29/2013
Rep McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2] - 1/29/2013
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY-5] - 1/29/2013
Rep Meng, Grace [D-NY-6] - 1/29/2013
Rep Miller, George [D-CA-11] - 1/29/2013
Rep Moran, James P. [D-VA-8] - 1/29/2013
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10] - 1/29/2013
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [D-NJ-6] - 1/29/2013
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [D-NJ-9] - 1/29/2013
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [D-CO-7] - 1/29/2013
Rep Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5] - 1/29/2013
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9] - 1/29/2013
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA-28] - 1/29/2013
Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3] - 1/29/2013
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [D-NY-15] - 1/29/2013
Rep Sherman, Brad [D-CA-30] - 1/29/2013
Rep Sires, Albio [D-NJ-8] - 1/29/2013
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [D-NY-25] - 1/29/2013
Rep Speier, Jackie [D-CA-14] - 1/29/2013
Rep Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-15] - 1/29/2013
Rep Takano, Mark [D-CA-41] - 1/29/2013
Rep Tierney, John F. [D-MA-6] - 1/29/2013
Rep Tsongas, Niki [D-MA-3] - 1/29/2013
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD-8] - 1/29/2013
To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.
Referred to the House Judiciary Committee
(Since the text hasn't been received yet, I am presuming that this bill is the House version of Feinstein's S.150 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2013)

S.170 - Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) - 1/29/2013
A bill to recognize the heritage of recreational fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting on Federal public land and ensure continued opportunities for those activities.
Referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

S.174 - Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [D-NJ] - 1/29/2013
Sen Murphy, Christopher S. [D-CT] - 1/29/2013
A bill to appropriately restrict sales of ammunition.
 Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bitter's Live Blog Of The Senate Hearing

I have been occupied with other things today so I haven't been able to watch the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?

Fortunately, Bitter at Shall Not Be Questioned has been live blogging this hearing. I suggest going there to read it.

UPDATE: Links for the prepared testimony of the participants in the hearing (other than Wayne LaPierre) are below:

 Mark Kelly

Chief James Johnson

David Kopel

Gayle Trotter

We Need To Clone Jessie Duff

Champion shooter Jessie Duff appeared on Fox New's Justice with Judge Jeanine speaking about firearms and the Second Amendment. She was poised, she was confident, she knew her stuff, and she looked fantastic. It is an image that needs to repeated over and over to break the barely articulate, old overweight white guy in camo stereotype that the media and the enemies of gun rights wishes to perpetuate.

Judge Jeanine Pirro served first as a county judge and then as the District Attorney of Westchester County, NY for 12 years. She lost the race for Attorney General of NY to current Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2006.

Paul Erhardt, writing in today's The Shooting Wire, points out the value of a Jessie Duff and how well she had done.
One bright spot in recent days has been by Jessie Duff, the Taurus sponsored national champion shooter who hosts her own show (along with husband Matt) on the Outdoor Channel. She appeared on Fox News Channel three times in the last week to 10 days and has done an excellent job.

Putting Jessie out front on the gun issue is a great move and there are a few more women from the competition world that could, and should be, utilized the same way.

However, imagine how much more effective Jessie and other women shooters would be if the industry invested in them well before all this with media training and messaging - assuming there was an actual message. We might be in a slightly better position.
 Erhardt is right. We need to be better at getting our message out and we need to be better prepared.

Shall Issue Concealed Carry Bill Introduced In Illinois

Illinois State Rep. Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg) introduced HB997 - the Family and Personal Protection Act - yesterday. This bill would, if passed, would bring shall-issue concealed carry to Illinois.

From the bill's synopsis:
Creates the Family and Personal Protection Act. Provides that the Department of State Police shall issue a license to a person to: (1) carry a loaded or unloaded handgun on or about his or her person, concealed or otherwise; (2) keep or carry a loaded or unloaded handgun on or about his or her person when in a vehicle; and (3) keep a loaded or unloaded handgun openly or concealed in a vehicle. Prohibits the carrying of the handgun in certain locations. Provides that the license shall be issued by the Department of State Police within 30 days of receipt of a completed application and shall be valid throughout the State for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance. Provides for renewal of licenses. Establishes qualifications for licensees, certified firearms instructors, and instructor trainers. Provides for home rule preemption. Provides that the provisions of the Act are severable. Amends the Freedom of Information Act. Prohibits from inspection and copying information about applications for licenses to carry a handgun and about license holders contained in the database created by the Family and Personal Protection Act, except as authorized by that Act. Amends the State Finance Act and the Criminal Code of 2012 to make conforming changes. Effective immediately.
Having read the bill in its entirety, let me highlight key components of the bill.

First and foremost, this bill provides for Shall-Issue concealed carry permits. The permit would allowed a permit holder to (a) carry a firearm, loaded or unloaded, "concealed or otherwise", on his or her person; (b) on his or her person in a motor vehicle; or (c) in a vehicle either openly or concealed while not on the person. Concealed is defined by the law to mean "completely or mostly concealed". This should take care of the issue of incidental exposure or printing. Moreover, as I read "concealed or otherwise", I think a strong argument could be made that this would make open carry permissible with a CCW.

The Illinois State Police will be in charge of issuing the permit. The fee is $25 to apply with a 30-day turnaround time. As I noted above, the permit is shall-issue. However, a sheriff or municipal chief law enforcement officer can object in writing to the issuance of a permit to an individual especially if they feel the person would be a danger to him or herself or others. The burden of proof is upon the state to prove this and the applicant has a right to know. Applicants consent to a complete background check including psych records and juvenile court records. Applicants "may" be requested to provide fingerprints with the cost to the applicant of no more than $15.

Illinois residents with a current out-of-state carry permit would be allowed to carry concealed for up to 180 days after enactment. After that, they would be required to have an Illinois CCW.

Section 25 of the bill sets the qualifications:
  • Age 21 or more
  • Valid FOID card if a resident
  • Not prohibited by either state or Federal law from possessing a firearm
  • Not under pending arrest warrant that would be a disqualifying offense
  • Not a chronic abuser of alcohol in prior 3 years as evidence by either (a) residential or court-ordered detox or treatment for alcohol abuse or (b) 2 or more DUIs.
  • Has completed approved training and education component
The state - and only the state - will keep a database of all permit holders. No local law enforcement agency or local government may keep their own database. Violations of this incur a $5,000 per record punitive fine. The state database would be available to all law enforcement agencies but individual records would not be subject to freedom of information requests. The only public data provided from this database would be statistics showing permits by county, age, gender, or race.

Permit renewals would cost $25 and require a shooting requalification. This could be satisfied by either shooting in a competition such as IDPA or USPSA within six months of renewal or by showing evidence of a range exercise with a certified instructor.

The bill does provide for non-resident permits and waives the FOID card requirement. It would require a notarized statement from the home state that the person is eligible under state and Federal law to possess a firearm. More importantly, the bill provides for reciprocity with other states that recognize the Illinois permit and that have substantially similar requirements to that of Illinois.

The bill does have a substantial list of restricted areas which would apply to where a permit holder could carry concealed. There are exceptions in some of these areas if consent is given or if the holder is a judge or a State's Attorney.
  • Any building under control of the Illinois General Assembly including district offices. Members could carry concealed in their district offices.
  • Courthouses
  • Meeting places of local governments
  • Bars but not restaurants that merely serve alcohol
  • Airport secure areas
  • Area prohibited by Federal law
  • K-12 schools without consent
  • Child care facilities without consent
  • Casino
  • Gated areas of amusement parks
  • Stadiums and other sports venues
  • Colleges and universities without consent
  • Public libraries without consent
  • Police stations and sheriff's offices without consent
  • Prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities
Businesses would be allowed to post against concealed carry and the bill does specify the posting requirements. Local governments and school boards may prohibit by a majority vote concealed carry in any building controlled by them. However, they cannot prohibit carry in public housing, rest stops, public right of ways, or parking facilities. State buildings under the control of the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Comptroller, or Treasures would be allowed to be posted against concealed carry.

Permit holders would be required to disclose if carrying as soon as possible if stopped by law enforcement officers. The bill prohibits carrying under the influence which is defined as 0.08 blood alcohol or higher.

The training requirements can be fulfilled by passing the NRA Basic Pistol course, the NRA Personal Protection in the Home course, the NRA Personal Protection Outside the Home course, or another 4 hour course approved by the State Police. In addition, there is a live fire component that also must be passed. A person must fire at least 30 rounds with a 70% hit score of a B-21 silhouette or similar. Of these 30 rounds, the bill specifies 20 rounds at 7 yards and 10 rounds at 15 yards. The fees for training are allowed to be set by the instructor. Instructors can be anyone who is an NRA certified instructor, a retired law enforcement officer who has passed the qualifications to carry, an active or retired military member with a combat MOS, or a person certified by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training State Board.

Finally, and second only in importance to the bill mandating Shall-Issue carry permits, the bill contains a very strong state preemption clause. It prohibits any home rule unit from regulating the possession, carrying, or transportion of firearms. The only exception is that local governments can post buildings owned by them against carry. In addition, no home rule unit can regulate the number of handguns owned or require the registration possessed by a person under the act. Violation of Section 95 brings a $10,000 per day per individual affected punitive fine.

This is a very strong shall-issue law with reasonable costs and reasonable training requirements. The prohibited areas are similar to many other shall-issue states. The preemption clause is a critical component of this bill as it prevents the City of Chicago from setting their own draconian regulations. You can expect that Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the Chicago legislators under his sway will fight this part of the bill tooth and nail. In conclusion, I think Rep. Brandon Phelps - a Democrat, mind you - should be congratulated for drafting and introducing a good bill. For the sake of the people of the State of Illinois, I hope it passes.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

For Zombie Aficionados

I know zombies have jumped the shark. Still I couldn't resist when I saw this picture of Dorothy on Pinterest especially with the movie World War Z coming out this summer.

Steyr L-Series Pistol

I have always been intrigued by the Steyr pistols due to their low bore axis as well as their fairly smooth - for a striker-fired pistol - triggers. They have now launched the new L Series which is a full size service pistol available in 9mm and .40 S&W.

In the video below from Tactical Life, you can see some of the details of this new pistol. The only thing that I object to is the keyed lock on the slide. Checking the M and S Series, I see they both have it. It seems to me to be superfluous and just one more thing to break.

STEYR PISTOL L-A1 Technical Data

Technical DataSTEYR PISTOL L-A1
Length x Height x Width
188 mm x 136 mm x 30 mm
Weight (without ammunition)
appr. 810g

Barrel length
102 mm (4")
9x19, .40 S&W (9x21 on request)

Magazine Capacity
9x19 and 9x21: 15 cartridges
.40 S&W: 12 cartridges

Synethetic balck
Trigger way
4,0 mm (app. 0,2") (constantly)
triangular / trapezoid shape

rectangular sights with or without  Trilux, match sights

What's Banned In New York

The office of Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) has provided a graphic summary of what rifle features are now banned under NYSafe. That is the draconian law pushed through so quickly that even law enforcement if prohibited from having more than 7 rounds in their magazines. NY(un)Safe stands for Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act.

As you look through the pages of the graphic you need to ask yourself how the absence of a bayonet lug or a muzzle break will make the people of New York State any safer. The obvious answer is that it won't.

NY State - Banned Rifle Features by

Hear, Hear, Mr. Ong!

Henson Ong is an immigrant to the United States. Yesterday he testified before the Connecticut legislature's Gun Violence Prevention Public Hearing. Listening to his testimony, it quickly becomes evident that Mr. Ong has a better understanding of and a better appreciation for the Constitution than many sitting on the panel. He certainly has more of an appreciation for it than do those in the gun prohibitionist community who would seek to do away with the Second Amendment and to deny First Amendment rights to their opponents.

As Mr. Ong noted to the panel, if gun control actually worked, then Chicago and Washington, DC would be the safest cities in America - which they aren't.

CCRKBA On Rahmbo's Strong Arm Attempt

Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago is trying to use the "Chicago Way" to hurt firearms manufacturers. He has "suggested" to Bank of America and TD Bank that that should end lending to Sturm, Ruger and Smith & Wesson. Like most, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is taking a dim view of this.

BELLEVUE, WA – Anti-gun Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is taking his demagoguery to a new level by attempting to coerce banks into refusing service to firearms manufacturers, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

CBS News in Chicago reported that Emanuel was pressuring two major banks, identified as Bank of America and TD Bank, to stop lines of credit to Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger, two of the largest gun makers in the industry. In letters to bank executives, Emanuel reportedly said he wanted to send a message to gun makers that they must buckle under to gun control measures being pushed by the Obama administration.

“This is outrageous,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Mayor Emanuel is acting like a Chicago gangster instead of a public servant, and we are very concerned that there might be legal ramifications. How dare the mayor engage in this kind of anti-gun lobbying effort, trying to cut off operating capital to a pair of perfectly legal companies that happen to be engaged in perhaps the most heavily-regulated business in the country.

“Gun owners and people who believe in the Bill of Rights should stop giving Chicago a line of credit by purchasing municipal bonds,” he added. “Rahm wants to send a message, and the nation should send him a reply.

“Mayor Emanuel is allegedly contending that lines of credit should dry up unless Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger submit to operating their businesses the way anti-gunners demand,” Gottlieb continued. “That conduct seems more in the realm of a street thug than a political leader, but then, again, we’re talking about a mayor who presides over a city with Draconian gun laws and a murder rate rivaling a Third World country.

Emanuel is a career anti-gunner who served in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, typically as point man on some kind of gun control effort.

“Mayor Emanuel seems to be under the illusion that he can force banks to act as his surrogates in an unrelenting campaign to crush the firearms industry and erase the Second Amendment,” Gottlieb said. “This is insidious and we hope the banks recognize it for the kind of below-the-belt political chicanery for which Chicago politicians have become famous. No wonder they sometimes refer to him as ‘The Godfather’.

Monday, January 28, 2013

“Gun laws are not the problem"

Mark Mattioli lost his 6-year old son James to the madman in Newtown, Connecticut. Today, he testified before the Gun Violence (sic) Task Force of the state legislature. His testimony was moving and not exactly what gun control proponents were expecting to hear.

You can see the highlights of his testimony below:

Adolf Gets Irate About His PMag Order Being Delayed

In the never-ending stream of Hitler parody videos, we now have one about the shortage of AR magazines. Hitler gets irate when his PMag order from Brownells doesn't get delivered. You could just as well substitute MidwayUSA, AIM Surplus, 44Mag, or any number of other vendors and the result would be the same.

I love the comments about looking like a noob on Arfcom.

H/T Yamil Sued

The Next Round Of Congressional Legislation

Certain congressmen and senators have been busy introducing new legislation that may impact gun rights. A number of bills dealing with school safety have also been introduced and I'm including them in this list until such time as the text of the bill becomes available. Never forget that deceptively named bills can cause immense problems for gun owners.

House of Representatives

HR.359 - Rep. Robert "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD] - 1/23/2013
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [R-VA] - 1/23/2013
To establish and operate a National Center for Campus Public Safety.
Referred to the House Judiciary Committee

HR.404 - Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Rep Davis, Danny K. [D-IL] - 1/23/2013
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT] - 1/23/2013
Rep Lee, Barbara [D-CA] - 1/23/2013
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY] - 1/23/2013
Rep Moran, James P. [D-VA] - 1/23/2013
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC] - 1/23/2013
Rep Pierluisi, Pedro R. [D-PR] - 1/23/2013
Rep Sherman, Brad [D-CA] - 1/23/2013
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [D-NY] - 1/23/2013
Rep Takano, Mark [D-CA] - 1/23/2013
To enhance criminal penalties for straw purchasers of firearms.
Referred to the House Judiciary Committee

HR.410 - Rep. Steve Stockman (R-CA)
Restore the Constitution Act of 2013 (To provide that any executive action infringing on the Second Amendment has no force or effect, and to prohibit the use of funds for certain purposes.
) Referred to the House Judiciary Committee

HR.427 - Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL)
Rep Chu, Judy [D-CA] - 1/25/2013
Rep Deutch, Theodore E. [D-FL] - 1/25/2013
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [D-AZ] - 1/25/2013
Rep Lee, Barbara [D-CA] - 1/25/2013
Rep Moran, James P. [D-VA] - 1/25/2013
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC] - 1/25/2013
To prevent the illegal sale of firearms, and for other purposes.
Referred to the House Judiciary Committee

HR.431 - Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA)
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [D-NY] - 1/25/2013
Rep Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR] - 1/25/2013
Rep Cicilline, David N. [D-RI] - 1/25/2013
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY] - 1/25/2013
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI] - 1/25/2013
Rep Ellison, Keith [D-MN] - 1/25/2013
Rep Farr, Sam [D-CA] - 1/25/2013
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [D-AZ] - 1/25/2013
Rep Holt, Rush [D-NJ] - 1/25/2013
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA] - 1/25/2013
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY] - 1/25/2013
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC] - 1/25/2013
Rep Pingree, Chellie [D-ME] - 1/25/2013
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL] - 1/25/2013
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [D-PA] - 1/25/2013
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [D-NY] - 1/25/2013
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD] - 1/25/2013
To restore certain authorities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to administer the firearms laws, and for other purposes.
Referred to the House Judiciary Committee

S.129 - Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
A bill to save money and reduce tragedies through prevention grants.
Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee

S.134 - Sen John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV)
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT] - 1/24/2013
Sen Coburn, Tom [R-OK] - 1/24/2013
Sen Heller, Dean [D-NV] - 1/24/2013
Sen Johanns, Mike [R-NE] - 1/24/2013
A bill to arrange for the National Academy of Sciences to study the impact of violent video games and violent video programming on children.
Referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

S.145 - Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
A bill to amend title 32, United States Code, to authorize National Guard support for State and local efforts to keep schools safe from violence, and for other purposes.Referred to Senate Committee on Armed Services

S.146 - Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
A bill to enhance the safety of America's schools.Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee

S.147 - Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
A bill to establish minimum standards for States that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee

S.148 - Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
A bill to safeguard America's schools by using community policing strategies to prevent school violence and improve student and school safety.Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee

S.150 - Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
See this post for more information on this bill.

A Short And To The Point Letter To Send To Congress

I have been asking people to share letters that they have used to tell Congress no new gun control. The following letter was sent to me by Brent. It is short, sweet, and to the point. I think this one would be suitable for email, faxes, or letter sent in the mail. I would send this letter to both my congressman and both senators.

California Senator Feinstein is once again pushing for a ban on so called “Assault Weapons”.

This is a thinly veiled attack on all private gun ownership. Her own publications make it clear that her proposal is not about the features of the firearms, but instead is about removing as many firearms as possible from private ownership, despite the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Please help support the law abiding gun owners of (insert your state) and the United States by just saying “NO!” to all gun and magazine ban or registration proposals.

The NRA-ILA has a "write your reps" address locator. It can be found here. Either way, write them, call them, AND fax them. Moreover, do it like voting in Chicago - early and often.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Necessity Is The Mother Of Invention

Tonight I happened upon the picture below of an improvised holster on Pinterest. A Yaqui holster by Andy Langlois it ain't but it looks like it actually might work.

Whomever said necessity was the mother of invention definitely must have had this in mind.

Comment Of The Day

SayUncle links to a story in the New Republic in which Barack Obama says when asked if he has ever fired a gun, "Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time." To which Tam replies:
Yeah, he was busting clays with Mantei’s girlfriend.

Pics or it didn’t happen, Urkel.
Just like Joe Biden saying he isn't going to give up his Beretta O/U, Obama saying this to suck up to hunters and skeet/trap shooters just doesn't ring true. Like someone else commented, the White House Press Office would have released pictures of this a week or two before his press conference outlining his gun control plans.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Senate Judiciary Committee: “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?”

Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has set January 30th as the date for a hearing on "gun violence" according to a posting on the committee's website.

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing entitled “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?” for Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

By order of the Chairman.

Witness List

Hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary

“What Should America Do About Gun Violence?”

Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Hart Senate Office Building, Room 216
10:00 a.m.

Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.)
Americans for Responsible Solutions
Tucson, AZ

Nicholas Johnson
Professor of Law
Fordham University School of Law
New York, NY

James Johnson
Chief of Police
Baltimore County Police Department
Chair, National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence
Towson, MD

Gayle Trotter
Attorney and Senior Fellow
Independent Women’s Forum
Washington, DC

Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer
National Rifle Association
Fairfax, VA

I learned of the hearing thanks to a post by Stranger at Extrano's Alley. He thinks that with the exception of Wayne LaPierre all the participants are anti-gun.
The first four witnesses are anti’s. Mark Kelley is Gabrielle Giffords husband, and the titular head of an anti-gun group. Given that every restrictive gun law in history has driven violent crime rates sky high, it would be more accurate to say Kelley is head of a pro-crime group.

Chief Johnson is an anti-gun activists as is Trotter. The same comments apply to Johnson and Trotter that apply to Kelly.
I must respectfully disagree on part of his comments. Mark Kelly and Chief James Johnson are most definitely anti-gun activists. However, from what I know of Professor Johnson he is most definitely not an anti-gun activist. Professor Johnson is a co-author with Dave Kopel of the first law school casebook devoted to the Second Amendment - Firearms Law & the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy. Likewise, Gayle Trotter recently penned an article saying that gun control disarms women.

While this hearing seems to be an effort to push the Obama Administration's gun control agenda, three of the five witnesses are on our side. This might not turn out as bad as some think it will.

Five More Groups Join The Firearms Policy Coalition

The Firearms Policy Coalition is a joint effort by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Second Amendment Foundation, CalGuns Foundation, and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees. It is intended to be an agile, effective, and scalable vehicle for advocacy, education, and grassroots action to advance Second Amendment civil rights. From my perspective, I see the FPC as using the CalGuns model of agility and guerrilla activism and bringing it to the national scene.

They announced yesterday that five more groups have joined their effort. They are Florida Carry, Illinois Carry, Commonwealth Second Amendment, Hawaii Defense Foundation, and the Lone Star Shooting Association.
BELLEVUE, WA (January 25, 2013) – As the debate over new gun control laws continues to take top billing in state and national news, organizations representing gun owners and Second Amendment rights in five U.S. states have recently joined Firearms Policy Coalition, noted managing director Brandon Combs.

New FPC members include Commonwealth Second Amendment (of Massachusetts), Florida Carry, IllinoisCarry, Hawaii Defense Foundation, and Lone Star Shooting Association (of Texas).

“In the midst of one proposed gun ban after another, the addition of these outstanding organizations to our Coalition means that those working hard to secure our Second Amendment rights are coming together to tell President Obama and our state legislatures that enough is enough,” remarked CCRKBA founder Alan Gottlieb. “The millions of law-abiding American gun owners have had it with being scapegoated for the crimes of the evil and insane.”

“There’s never been a more critical time for all of us fighting for the advancement of Second Amendment rights to work together,” observed Brent Carlton, president of Comm2A. “Our litigation efforts are critically important, but it’s equally important that gun owners be informed and take action every day to oppose those laws which infringe on their rights.” Continued Carlton, “FPC provides an opportunity for Massachusetts gun owners to have an impactful and far-reaching effect, both in terms of their own state’s laws as well as proud Americans who value their federal Constitutional rights."

“This partnership brings Florida Carry to the forefront of the national public policy debate on private firearms ownership,” said Sean Caranna, Executive Director of Florida Carry, Inc. “As Florida's largest and most active Second Amendment rights organization, we're proud to be a part of this coalition and through it extend our grassroots efforts to combat gun control laws in Florida and everywhere.”

IllinoisCarry spokesperson Valinda Rowe added, “IllinoisCarry is pleased to join efforts with the Firearm Policy Coalition. Not only must we actively work toward beating back irrational gun control laws in our home state of Illinois but we must also work toward protecting and preserving our rights on a national level. This would be a daunting task if not for a nationwide coalition of Second Amendment groups like the FPC. We thank the FPC for creating this opportunity to work together, coast to coast across the nation. Together, we can stand up to those who would strip us of our Constitutional rights and insure the Second Amendment remains strong for many generations to come."

“Over the past two decades, many states have used common sense and protected the civil liberties of their residents, such as through permit-less and accessible shall-issue firearm carry laws,” said Chris Baker, president of Hawaii Defense Foundation. “However, some states just can’t seem to grasp the plain meaning of the Constitution. To those states, we say this: we will fight hard together, we will fight smart together, and we will win together. That is exactly what we and the Firearms Policy Coalition will do.”

“While Texas residents may not face the same gun law challenges as those in Massachusetts, California, or Illinois, all Texans are Americans first and know that gun control laws anywhere are an affront to liberty everywhere,” commented Gary Burris, president of Lone Star Shooting Association. “We’re proud to join with FPC and work cooperatively to secure our fundamental rights so that law-abiding gun owners can exercise their rights across our great state and country, in Texas and in Toledo.”

“Firearms Policy Coalition has reached millions of Americans since launching in December and we're looking forward to reaching millions more,” said FPC’s Combs. “The overwhelmingly positive reaction to our message of civil rights and the facts about gun control really drives home how much Americans value their freedom. These new FPC member organizations are key to ensuring that the Second Amendment means what it says.”

“While some power-hungry politicians want nothing more than to undermine the Second Amendment and important legal decisions like Heller and McDonald, we’re confident that the Constitution provides the best policy: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not - and must not - be infringed.”

Another Example Of A Letter To Send

One of the administrators at The AK Forum, KrinkFreak,  has been posting a series of letters to send to Congress. The letter below is the sixth in the series. I look it as a comprehensive, everything and the kitchen sink, sort of letter. This is the sort of letter you might send if you want to hit all the bills. However, you could cut it apart and make it multiple letters by only referring to a couple of letters at a time.
Dear Elected Official,

I am writing to express my concerns with the recent onslaught of Gun Control legislation introduced in the House and Senate chambers. The legislation introduced by some lawmakers seriously infringes on my rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, I would like to address:

H.R. 21, NRA Members’ Gun Safety Act of 2013, Sponsor: Rep. James Moran, D-VA. This would require background checks for every gun purchase, require background checks on gun shop employees, bar those on the terrorist watch list from buying firearms, require gun owners to report to police when their guns are lost or stolen, and establish minimum standards for concealed carry permits.
* This is nothing more than a legislation “blitz” effort by the anti-gun legislators to sway public opinion against law-abiding gunowners and to infringe upon the Second Amendment. These requirements are already addressed in existing laws. Enforce the existing laws, don’t waste time creating new ones.

H.R. 65, Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2013, Sponsor: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. This would raise the age of Handgun Eligibility to 21 and prohibit youth from possessing semi-automatic weapons.
* Handgun Eligibility is already 21 years of age. Also, youths already cannot legally own/purchase semi-automatic weapons, etc. when under the age of 18. Enforce the existing laws, don’t waste time creating new ones.

H.R. 133, Citizens Protection Act, Sponsor: Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. This would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which makes illegal the possession of a gun on school grounds or within 1,000 feet of a school.
* This legislation is one of the few coming out Congress that makes sense. Repealing this law would allow school teachers and administrators the ability to legally carry firearms to protect students from criminal and mentally ill persons that want to harm our children.

H.R. 321, Firearm Safety and Public Health Research Act of 2013, Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. This would amend the continuing resolution to add money for research into gun violence.
* Will this taxpayer money be used to research why video games depicting gun violence, blood, gore, etc. are specifically targeted towards are children? Will this taxpayer money be used to research why Hollywood glorifies gun violence, blood, gore, etc. in the movies specifically targeted towards the American people?

H.R. 141, The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. This would require criminal background checks on all firearm transactions at gun shows.
* Is the Federal Government going to fund/provide free FBI NICS Background Checks for law-abiding citizens to utilize when legally selling their firearm to another individual? Or is this another example of the Federal Government forcing the America people to purchase something as in the case of the Affordable Care Act?

H.R. 137, Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013, Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. This would require background checks for every gun sale, make sure that those barred from buying firearms are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
* FBI NICS checks are already required for the legal purchase of firearms at gun stores that have Federal Firearms Licenses. Are you going to finally address the issue of requiring the Mental Health Care agencies and law enforcement agencies to identify persons with mental disorders, as well as persons that are the subject of Protection Orders and convictions of Domestic Violence to be identified in the NICS database? If so, I applaud the effort.

S. 22, A Bill to Establish Background Checks Procedures for Gun Shows, Sponsor: Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. This would ensure that those who buy guns at gun shows undergo background checks.
* Is the Federal Government going to fund/provide free FBI NICS Background Checks for law-abiding citizens to utilize when legally selling their firearm to another individual? Or is this another example of the Federal Government forcing the America people to purchase something as in the case of the Affordable Care Act?

S.150, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, Sponsor: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA. This bill would stop the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specifically named military-style firearms and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. It would also ban an additional group of assault weapons that accept detachable ammunition magazines and have at least one military characteristic.
* This is nothing more than an assault on law-abiding American citizen’s right to own guns under the Second Amendment. Senator Feinstein's measure would exempt weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel. Is this a precursor to effectively disarming the American people and paving the way for wholesale government tyranny?

In summary, as a law-abiding American citizen I am deeply concerned and fearful of what our elected officials are trying to legislate in Congress. I recommend that all elected officials read and refresh their memory on the content of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. I encourage you to focus your legislative efforts on addressing the problems plaguing the mental health system, not the Second Amendment.

As my elected official, as a law-abiding citizen, I expect your support in protecting my Second Amendment rights. If you cannot support me, I cannot support you in future elections.

Here are a couple of the links where you can find the names and addresses of your state's US Senators. First, by state, from the US Senate's webpage. Click on the senator's name to be linked to their home page. From there you can find their fax numbers. Second, the NRA-ILA has a "write your reps" address locator. It can be found here. Either way, write them, call them, AND fax them.

As I said, I will be posting more letters. I have a handful that have been sent to me by readers and I need to get those up. If you have a letter that you like, please send it to me at jpr9954 AT gmail DOT com.

Friday, January 25, 2013

S.150- Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced S.150 - the Assault Weapons (sic) Ban of 2013 - to much hoopla yesterday. She may have even pulled a David Gregory when she used 10 firearms prohibited by the District of Columbia in her presentation. While the bill as it stands may not even get enough Democrat votes to pass the Senate, I have the feeling that it will be used as a negotiating tool.

S.150 has 17 original co-sponsors and has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT] - 1/24/2013
Sen Boxer, Barbara [D-CA] - 1/24/2013
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD] - 1/24/2013
Sen Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE] - 1/24/2013
Sen Durbin, Richard [D-IL] - 1/24/2013
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY] - 1/24/2013
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [D-NJ] - 1/24/2013
Sen Levin, Carl [D-MI] - 1/24/2013
Sen Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] - 1/24/2013
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD] - 1/24/2013
Sen Murphy, Christopher S. [D-CT] - 1/24/2013
Sen Reed, Jack [D-RI] - 1/24/2013
Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [D-WV] - 1/24/2013
Sen Schatz, Brian [D-HI] - 1/24/2013
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] - 1/24/2013
Sen Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA] - 1/24/2013
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI] - 1/24/2013
While there are no Republican co-sponsors to this bill, the Washington Post reported today that Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is working with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) on other gun control measures.

The full text of S.150 is not yet up on the Library of Congress' Thomas server. However, a full text copy have been loaded on Scribd and can be found here. Appendix A lists a large number of single-shot, double-barreled, pump, bolt-action, and some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that would be expressly exempted from the provision of S.150.

To be frank, Appendix A reads as if some staffer sat down with old copies of Gun Digest and started copying names. For example, it exempts the Ithaca Model 87 pump shotgun but makes no mention of the Model 37. The Model 37 was renamed the Model 87 for a brief period of time and then reverted back to the original name of Model 37.

A summary of the provisions of S.150 can be found here. While grandfathered firearms were not put under the National Firearms Act as previously speculated, it still contains onerous provisions. It contains a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms and forbids the sale or transfer of grandfathered magazines. Grandfathered firearms would be allowed to be sold but must go through a FFL and a NICS check.

If you haven't written to your congressman or senator, start now. Even if you live in California or one of the states of her fellow-traveler co-sponsors, write anyway. Don't let anyone say they didn't get letters, emails, and faxes in opposition.

As Leon Trotsky, one of the fathers of the Communist Revolution, said to his Menshevik opponents, and it could just as readily be applied to Feinstein, her bill, and its backers, "You are pitiful, isolated individuals! You are bankrupts. Your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on—into the dustbin of history!"

"It's Too Hard For Women To Use" - Carolyn McCarthy

I know I shouldn't be surprised when I hear nonsense about guns coming out of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's mouth. I really shouldn't. That said, I'm just shaking my head over this little tidbit. It leaves you wondering just how someone like this could ever have been elected much less re-elected numerous times.

To read the transcript of this little interview, go to Breitbart.

Feinstein's Other List

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is all about lists. In addition to her list of firearms with ugly (to her) cosmetics, she has thoughtfully provided a list of those people and organizations who don't support your constitutional rights. One might go so far as to refer to it as an "enemies list".

In addition to the usual politicians and gun control groups, Feinstein lists a number of religious, medical, education, and other non-profits supporting her Assault Weapons (sic) Ban of 2013. I would say it provides a convenient list of the groups who won't be getting my charitable donations.

I would add one caveat. Many of the groups listed are national umbrella organizations whose endorsement is for themselves only and not for their member organizations. For example, Catholic Charities USA is listed as an endorser of Feinstein's bill. As I give substantial donations to my diocesan Catholic Social Services and have been a member of its board of directors in the past, I sought clarification on this endorsement from the executive director of the diocesan organization. He informed me that this endorsement only covers Catholic Charities USA and not the many diocesan Catholic Charities or Catholic Social Services who are constituent members. I'm sure that this may be the same for a number of the other organizations listed.

Below is the complete list of those people and organizations who have lent their name in support of Feinstein's bill.
Law Enforcement

International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Major Cities Chiefs Association
Police Executive Research Forum
Police Foundation
Women in Federal Law Enforcement
Chaska (Minn.) Police Chief Scott Knight, former chairman of the Firearms Committee, International Association of Chiefs of Police
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca
Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck
San Diego Police Chief Bill Lansdowne

U.S. Conference of Mayors
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Ventura County Board of Supervisors
Oakland Unified School District Superintendent Anthony Smith
Boston City Council

California mayors

Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox
Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Oakland Mayor Jean Quan
Petaluma Mayor David Glass
Pleasant Hill Mayor Michael Harris
Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson
San Diego Mayor Bob Filner
San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee
San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed
Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido
Santa Cruz Mayor Hilary Bryant
Saratoga Mayor Jill Hunter
Tiburon Mayor Emmett O’Donnell

California cities

Calabasas, Calif.
Lemon Grove, Calif.
Los Angeles
Stockton, Calif.
Ventura, Calif.
West Hollywood, Calif.

Gun safety (sic)

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Mayors Against Illegal Guns
Violence Policy Center
Washington CeaseFire

Education and child welfare

20 Children
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Federation of Teachers
Boys & Girls Clubs of America
Child Welfare League of America
Children’s Defense Fund
Every Child Matters
Moms Rising
National Association of Social Workers
National PTA
National Education Association
San Diego Unified School District

African Methodist Episcopal Church
Alliance of Baptists
American Baptist Churches of the South
American Baptist Home Mission Societies
American Friends Service Committee
Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America
Camp Brotherhood
Catholic Charities USA
Catholic Health Association
Catholic Health Initiatives
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
Catholics United
Church of the Brethren
Church Women United, Inc.
Conference of Major Superiors of Men
Disciples Home Missions, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Dominican Sisters of Peace
Franciscan Action Network
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Health Ministries Association
Heeding God’s Call
Hindu American Foundation
Interfaith Alliance of Idaho
Islamic Society of North America
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Jewish Reconstructionist Movement
Leadership Conference of Women Religious
Mennonite Central Committee, Washington Office
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd
National Council of Churches
National Episcopal Health Ministries
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Pax Christi USA
PICO Network Lifelines to Healing
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Office of Public Witness
Progressive National Baptist Convention
Rabbinical Assembly
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
San Francisco Interfaith Council
Sikh Council on Religion and Education, USA
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church
United Methodist Women
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Washington National Cathedral
Women of Reform Judaism

Health care

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American College of Surgeons
American Public Health Association
Doctors for America
National Association of School Nurses

Alliance for Business Leadership
American Bar Association
Black American Political Association of California
Grandmothers for Peace International
National Parks Conservation Association
Sierra Club
Washington Office on Latin America

Thursday, January 24, 2013

2013 SHOT Show - Day 3 With Michael Bane & Ed Head

I know the SHOT Show was over last week but I just came across this report from day three by Michael Bane and Ed Head. They discuss AR pistols, Nightforce scopes, the Ruger Bearcat Shopkeeper revolver in .22LR, and the growth in reloading sales. Ed Head was saying that the manufacturers he spoke with had a 50 to 80% increase in sales. With the ammo shortage, reloading is coming back strongly as an option as well as practicing with .22s.

Frigid Cold... In LA!

I just stumbled across this video by Jimmy Kimmel of the reaction (or overreaction) to a burst of cool weather in Southern California.

I feel really bad for them having to suffer those cold temperatures.

However, it might toughen them up a bit so that they could come to my part of the sunny South where the current temperature is 23º with an expected overnight low of 18º. We are expecting snow and sleet for most of tomorrow.

H/T Tiger McKee


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Type: response

text:
Monday, November 8, 2010

Nuclear plant transformer explosion - Indian Point

I love transformer explosions!  Not that I would like to be near one, but the whole 'thang' surrounding transformers, maintenance, etc.  Transformers are the first thing to blow in earthquakes.  Most likely they tend to catch fire, and require huge dousing systems, and the oil is all washed into the lake.  I don't know if this one just blew to smithereens, without a fire.  Then the oil is just scattered to the four winds without dousing.  :)

In the old company, the maintenance on transformers was crap.  I was constantly surprised that they just didn't  blow up on their own.  Their seismic robustness was near zero, so we can expect transformer fires and explosions with the scenario earthquake.  Transformers, block walls, and wobbly pressure tubes are the main seismic susceptibility for these plants.  None of which will lead to anything dramatic, but they won't be back up very soon.  If I were King of the World, I would like to harden up Darlington so it can stay up during an earthquake, but soon the whole thing is going to be ripped up anyway!  :)

Anonymous said...

Harold, this was a well-maintained 4-year-old Siemens transformer, still under waranty, and although some oil was lost, there was no fire, and the oil was contained within a conveniently placed concrete dyke, built ahead of time for just such an eventuality.

Those of us who are simply energy customers, sucking down our miniscule kilowatt or so, forget what huge energies are being created, directed, channelled, and made to dance at the local power plant.

Sometimes it tries to fight back.

Harold Asmis said...

Ah, brand new transformer? Must be that Siemens worm! :)

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-233-31-227.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-13
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for March 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
Sorry, you must login to access this area.
If you are not a member of OPEI, please
CLICK HERE to fill out a membership application.

Look Before You Pump

January 6, 2015

The International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association Partners with OPEI and NMMA on the “Look Before You Pump” ethanol education campaign.  Read more from the article here.


text:
Friday, January 20, 2017

Winners and DT Favorites -- Monthly Challenge #12 {Stitching (Faux or Real)}

Happy Day! Today we are going to announce our DT Favorites from Monthly Challenge #12 -- Stitching (Faux or Real). Everyone's projects were fantastic!! It is sew (pun intended) to see all of the great stitching on all these cards! What a huge statement it makes! We love it!!

We would like to extend a HUGE Thank you to our wonderful and generous sponsors for our December 2016 Challenge. You really help to make the Challenges that much better by providing prizes to give to our winners. Please help us thank our wonderful sponsors by dropping by their shops!!

A&T Digital Designs
Prize: Images Used by the Design Team
And Our Random.Org Winner is:
No. 16 - Helen

Limited Runs
Prize: 3 Images
And Our Random.Org Winner is:

No. 25 - Suze

Morgan's ArtWorld
Prize: 3 Images
And Our Random.Org Winner is:

No. 6 - Steffi H.

Berni's and Rebecca's Pick:

No. 5 - Petra M.

Berni's Thoughts: This is so much for the holidays. Love the colors on this beauty. Nicely done.

Rebecca's Thoughts: I love the color combination on her card. Beside the snowing background, emboss snowflake, she did a great job on her coloring too. Really fabulous piece of artwork.

Joanna's and Sandy's Pick:

No. 10 - Francesca

Joanna's Thoughts: Sweet image, perfect colouring, fab layout and embellishments.

Sandy's Thoughts: Love the cute snowman and the gorgeous colour combo. Fabulous colouring on Kraft cardstock and the textured snow looks wonderful.

Kraftykoolkat's Pick:

No. 19 - Erica

Kraftykoolkat's Thoughts: A really gorgeous,pretty design. Tasty mouthwatering looking strawberries. Awesome stitching and added elements.

Lynnpenguin's Pick:

No. 18 - Donna Mundiger

Lynnpenguin's Thoughts: Love the image and bright colours. Such a fun / cute creation.

Shirley-Anne's Pick:

No. 23 - Heather M.

Shirley-Anne's Thoughts: The background paper is awesome while the colouring of the fun image is amazing for this delightful card.

Traceymo's Pick:

No. 9 - Ma-Mi

Traceymo's Thoughts: Pretty CAS Card.

Susan's Pick:

No. 21 - Crafting Vicky

Susan's Thoughts: I love these.. all of them! They are very unique. I love the colors, the ribbon and the accents on all of them. Gorgeous. And I love the stitching on the binding. Just perfect!

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Monthly Challenge #13 - Jet-Setting In January (vehicles, travel, holiday/vacation, etc)

Good morning fellow crafters!! And a very Happy New Year to everyone! It is a brand new year.... 2017! Crazy, isn't it! We really appreciate you all playing along with us last year! We are hoping for another fun year! We really enjoy seeing all of your projects and are really looking forward to seeing all of the new creations this year!

We have made a little bit of a change in 2017. We are going to have one sponsor for each challenge. We will continue to have the DT Favorites as well. This will be great for the sponsors and us!

We would like to welcome Pam Phelps to our team for 2017. Please visit her blog -- All Jazzed 2 Create. Welcome Pam! We are so very happy to have you with us this year!

We are still looking for one new member to add to our team for 2017. If you are interested in joining us, please send an email to openmindedcrafting at gmail dot com. Include a little bit about yourself and your blog address. We would love to have you join us!

Monthly Challenge #13 is Jet-Setting In January!! We are trying to give you themes that could be used several different ways. For this challenge you can have a project with vehicles, travel, holiday/vacation time, etc. You tell us what Jet-Setting In January means on your project. We are hoping to see a variety of ideas from you!

Please click on the Rules Tab at the Top to read up on the rules!
Deadline: The deadline for this challenge will be midnight on Thursday, February 9th, 2015. Please make sure to link up before then.

Prize and DT Favorite Information: We will randomly draw the winner for our sponsor. These winners will be posted on Monday, February 20th, 2015. We will also post the DT Favorites at the same time.

The Paper Shelter
Prize: $15 Gift Certificate
The Paper Shelter is one of our favorite shops. Whenever we are looking for something, we always seem to find a fit at The Paper Shelter. The designs are unique and so adorable! You can find anything from a whimsical fairy to a biker chick! All the images start out hand drawn. From there they take those digital so we can all use them to create. We love that when you purchase a design from The Paper Shelter, you not only get the line drawn image to color, but you also get a fully digital colored image and backgrounds as well. You just need to go browse around! You will fall in love with this shop just as we have! Thank you so much for sponsoring us for January!

Berni using Where're We Goin'?

Joanna using Where're We Goin'?

Lynda using The Aviator

Lynnpenguin using The Aviator

Rebecca using Where're We Goin'?

Sandy using Where're We Goin'?

Traceymo using Where're We Goin'?


WARC-Truncated: length

text:
443 F2d 246 United States v. C Phelps

443 F.2d 246

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Howard C. PHELPS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 30237.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 14, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1971.

Seagal V. Wheatley, U. S. Atty., Haskell Shelton, Asst. U. S. Atty., El Paso, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

James M. Speer, El Paso, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Before GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges, and GROOMS, District Judge.

GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge:

view counter

This is an appeal from an order of the court below suppressing certain statements made by the defendant during police questioning. The government appeals,1 claiming that the statements should have been admitted into evidence because (1) the defendant was not "in custody" at the time the statements were made and thus had no right to the protections afforded by Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed.2d 694, and (2) even if the custodial interrogation provisions of Miranda did apply, the defendant was properly warned of his rights and voluntarily waived those rights when he made the statements in issue to the investigators.

The defendant, Howard C. Phelps, owned the Dyer Loan and Trading Company in El Paso, Texas. On November 20, 1969, a special investigator with the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Unit of the United States Treasury Department, his assistant, and two El Paso police officers went to the defendant's place of business. The purpose of their visit was to determine if Phelps had complied with the record keeping provisions of certain federal firearms legislation because a previous visit in September of 1969 had disclosed certain irregularities. Immediately upon entering the defendant's store in November the officers noticed a weapon in a showcase which appeared to be a cut down rifle. The investigator asked to see the weapon and Phelps complied. Upon examination the investigator determined that it was an illegal weapon. The investigator then had his assistant advise Phelps of his Miranda rights. A standard rights form was read and Phelps was offered an opportunity to sign a printed waiver of rights. Phelps declined to sign the waiver, but indicated that he did not want a lawyer present and that he knew his rights.

The officers remained in Phelps' establishment, and he later made certain statements to them which were incriminating. At his subsequent trial, a motion was made to suppress the introduction of these statements into evidence. After a hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court granted defendant's motion, and the government now appeals from that decision.

The government initially contends that Phelps was not "in custody," as that term is used in Miranda, and that his incriminating statements are therefore not subject to suppression on the ground that he did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. In essence, the government seems to argue that it was permissible for the investigators to continue to question Phelps after he refused to sign the Miranda rights waiver form because in this situation the Miranda protections were wholly inapplicable. We need not decide the appropriate procedures applicable to non-custodial interrogations, however, since we find that under the circumstances Phelps was in custody within the meaning of Miranda, and that he was therefore entitled to the full protections afforded by that decision.

In Miranda the Court said that it meant by the term custodial interrogation "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way." 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. In subsequent cases in this circuit, when called upon to further elucidate this concept, our court has consistently refused to formulate a general rule to distinguish custodial from non-custodial interrogations. Instead, we have deliberately followed a case-by-case approach. See United States v. Akin, 5 Cir. 1970, 435 F.2d 1011; United States v. Montos, 5 Cir. 1970, 421 F.2d 215. Nevertheless, piecing together the cases in this court and others, some things have become clear. For example, it is now certain that the mere fact that interrogation takes place in the familiar surroundings of the defendant's home or place of business rather than in the police station does not necessarily mean the defendant is not being subjected to custodial interrogation. Orozco v. Texas, 1969, 394 U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311. Nor must the defendant be under formal arrest prior to the interrogation in order for Miranda rights to arise. Windsor v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 389 F.2d 530. On the positive side, we have noted several significant factors which should be considered in determining whether or not a defendant is in custody. For example, probable cause to arrest, subjective intent of the police, focus of the investigation, and subjective belief of the defendant have all been deemed relevant. United States v. Montos, supra. However, throughout the decisions one of these factors has consistently impressed our court: whether or not the focus of the investigation has finally centered on the defendant. In Miranda itself the Supreme Court explained that "in custody" was a short-hand phrase for what Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964, 378 U.S. 478, 490, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, described as an investigation which has focused on an accused. Similarly, in Windsor v. United States, supra, 389 F.2d at 533, we held that Miranda was applicable since

"The obvious purpose of the agents interrogating him was to elicit an incriminating statement for `the investigation was no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime' but had begun `to focus on a particular suspect' namely, Windsor."

In Bendelow v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 418 F.2d 42, 47, we said:

view counter

"We agree with the trial judge that after Hart (the police officer) discovered the alterations in the license the investigation focused upon Bendelow and a Miranda warning was in order before any statement by Bendelow would be admissible."

See also, United States v. Montos, supra, 421 F.2d at 223, where we held that the defendant had not been subjected to custodial interrogation because the investigation, rather than focusing on the defendant, was still in the general investigatory stage of "screening crime from mishap," and United States v. Akin, 5 Cir. 1970, 435 F.2d 1011, where we held that Miranda did not apply because the investigation was still at an early nonaccusatory stage.

Evaluating the present case in light of these prior decisions, we think that Phelps was entitled to the privileges and protections of Miranda. Four policemen with prior knowledge of a firearms infraction went to the defendant's place of business, and, as they testified, "were expecting trouble." They clearly sought out Phelps for the purpose of investigating him in particular for these specific crimes. This was no general on the scene questioning of bystanders to determine whether a crime had been committed; this was accusatory questioning. Moreover, if the investigation was not focused on the defendant when the officers entered the building, it certainly focused on him a few seconds later when the investigators discovered the illegal weapon in the showcase. We think that the presence of four officers in a man's place of business holding a weapon which they discovered on the premises and which they have announced is illegal, presents a situation which is intimidating enough to warrant the application of the Miranda privileges and protections. The investigators had probable cause to arrest Phelps, and he had reason to believe that they would do so. Once the officers found the illegal weapon the investigation focused on Phelps, and the panoply of rights enunciated in Miranda became applicable. Bendelow v. United States, supra.

The government's next contention is that even if, as we have found, Phelps was entitled to the Miranda protections, he waived those rights. There may be some merit in this argument. In Miranda the Court said:

"Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease." 384 U.S. at 473-474, 86 S.Ct. at 1627.

In the present case the record shows that immediately after the investigators discovered the illegal weapon, they properly warned Phelps of his rights. Phelps, while professing to understand and declining the assistance of a lawyer, indicated by his refusal to sign the waiver that he did not wish to waive his right to remain silent. The officers' interrogation, therefore, should have ceased at this point.

However, even though questioning must cease at this point, we have held that the mere refusal to sign a waiver does not automatically render inadmissible all further statements of the defendant. In United States v. Hopkins, 5 Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 1041, a situation arose which may well be similar to the instant case. There the defendant refused to sign the waiver form, but when the interrogating agent got up to leave, the defendant initiated further conversation. We held that the subsequently obtained information was admissible because the defendant had waived his right to remain silent by voluntarily initiating subsequent conversation regarding his alleged complicity in the offense under investigation. In so holding, we said:

"Hopkins argues that after he refused to sign a written waiver of his constitutional rights, Agent Hanley should have immediately terminated the interrogation. Any statement made to Hanley after this refusal to sign the waiver must therefore be considered inadmissible. This argument is without merit. The undisputed facts reveal that after Hopkins refused to sign the waiver, Hanley indeed attempted to terminate the interrogation. It was Hopkins who initiated the subsequent conversation by insisting that he `didn't steal the car in the first place.' While Miranda places upon the Government a heavy burden both with regard to inculpatory and exculpatory remarks `to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel,' 384 U.S. at 475, 86 S.Ct. at 1628, we feel this burden has here been clearly met. There is no evidence that Hanley persisted in interrogating Hopkins despite his refusal to waive his constitutional rights. Nor is there evidence that Hopkins manifested inconsistent conduct because of confusion. See United States v. Nielsen, 7 Cir. 1968, 392 F.2d 849. Rather, the record shows that Hopkins, after refusing to waive his rights and upon seeing Hanley get up to leave, initiated the ensuing conversation in order to exculpate himself. The ensuing questions asked by Hanley were simply designed to pursue the line of inquiry begun by Hopkins. This case then resembles those instances where the accused voluntarily confesses prior to questioning. United States v. Welsh, 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 361; Stone v. United States, 10 Cir. 1967, 385 F.2d 713; Lamb v. Peyton, W.D.Va.1967, 273 F.Supp. 242. We feel that the following language of the Fourth Circuit is particularly relevant to the present case:

"Thompson complains that an oral confession given to agents of the F.B.I. was admitted even though he had refused to sign a written waiver of his rights. The evidence discloses that Thompson, an intelligent man, was informed of his rights in the manner required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). He declined to sign a written waiver, but he stated that he understood his rights. Thereafter he freely and voluntarily answered questions. He was not subjected to prolonged interrogation or in any way coerced. In view of Thompson's intelligence his affirmative statement that he understood the explanation of his rights, and the voluntariness of his confession, we hold that his refusal to sign a written waiver did not render the confession inadmissible. United States v. Hayes, 385 F.2d 375 (4th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1006, 88 S.Ct. 1250, 20 L.Ed.2d 106 (1968)." United States v. Thompson, 4 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 196, 197, cert. denied, 1970, 396 U.S. 1047, 90 S.Ct. 699, 24 L.Ed.2d 692.

We therefore hold that Hopkins waived his constitutional privilege so that his statements to Agent Hanley are admissible." 433 F.2d at 1044.

In the present case we are unable to tell whether Phelps validly waived his right to remain silent or not. It is clear that after Phelps refused to sign the waiver, the officers should have ceased interrogating him. It is also clear that subsequent conversation did occur between the investigators and Phelps. The hearing on the motion to suppress does not reveal, however, whether the subsequent questions by the officers were the result of voluntary conversation initiated by Phelps or whether these questions were initiated by the officers themselves without any instigation by Phelps. If the former situation obtains, then under our decision in Hopkins, Phelps' subsequent answers would be admissible. If the latter situation obtains, however, Miranda compels that we hold the answers inadmissible. The record of the hearing is silent as to these crucial facts, probably because the trial court made its determination prior to our decision in Hopkins. We think, therefore, that justice will best be served by holding a further evidentiary hearing to determine whether Phelps voluntarily waived his right to remain silent.

For the foregoing reasons, this matter is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Vacated and remanded.

Such an appeal is authorized by the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3731


text:
White House Calls for Increased Density to Address Housing Affordability

The latest column in the Chapel Hill News by OrangePolitics Editors Travis Crayton and Molly De Marco cites recent releases from the White House calling for increased density in urban development to address the chronic national problem of housing affordability. These are just the type of strategies that we have been supporting on this blog for Orange County. Read the whole column below:

The nation’s housing shortage and affordability crisis have gotten so bad that President Obama has elevated the usually local issue of housing development to the national stage.

It’s not hard to see why: Housing shortages have led to skyrocketing rents and home prices, which are pricing out working families, increasing wealth inequality, and holding back economic growth nationwide.

In September, the Obama Administration released a white paper (http://bit.ly/obamahdt) that takes a deep dive into the causes and effects of the national housing shortage.

Many of the causes the report identifies will be familiar to regular readers of our column: restrictive zoning rules that prohibit or severely limit construction of multifamily housing; arbitrary preservation regulations and zoning overlays; off-street parking minimums; and slow, uncertain, and confusing regulatory approval processes.

Collectively, these kinds of regulations contribute to exclusionary zoning, practices that keep people out of communities and away from job centers.

Here in Chapel Hill, rents have climbed year after year as more people look to live in our community, close to the major job centers at UNC and UNC Health Care. Home prices have risen just as fast, making owning a home out of reach for more people, particularly younger people, people of color, and those who are less well off.

These local trends provide a good example of what the White House describes in its report. In Chapel Hill, the development approval process is costly, time-intensive, and fraught with uncertainty. Many who would build here simply go elsewhere rather than risk millions of dollars, leaving only those who can afford the high cost of development to build housing that will make a return on their hefty investment.

We also have preservation regulations, such as “neighborhood conservation districts,” that further restrict the construction of new housing and close off large areas of town from any change, including reasonable increases in residential density that could help to alleviate our housing shortage. Parking requirements and low-density, single-family zoning, common throughout town, perpetuate development of housing that most people simply can’t access.

The Obama Administration report outlines a number of policies local governments can implement to tackle housing shortages and housing affordability:

  • Establish “by-right” development, which allows new construction without approval from a governing body, avoiding the uncertainty and cost of approval processes.
  • Tax vacant land or donate it to nonprofit developers.
  • Streamline and/or shorten development processes and timelines.
  • Eliminate off-street parking requirements, which drive up the cost of housing and promote unsustainable dependence on cars.
  • Enact high-density and multifamily zoning to allow construction of a variety of housing options that accommodate more people more efficiently.
  • Establish density bonuses to encourage construction of affordable housing by allowing greater density in desireable areas like downtown.

Not all of the Obama Administration’s recommendations are an ideal fit for our community given challenges with state law, for example. But many deserve serious consideration – right away. The housing crunch we are experiencing locally is not unique to our community –we’re not special in that respect, and we can learn from the many communities that are working to expand housing options to make room for more, and more types of, people.

Total votes: 81

If you don't go read the entire paper from the Obama administration (you really should), at least read the first two summary paragraphs, which I quote in their entirety below because I think they are so important.

Over the past three decades, local barriers to housing development have intensified, particularly in the high-growth metropolitan areas increasingly fueling the national economy. The accumulation of such barriers – including zoning, other land use regulations, and lengthy development approval processes – has reduced the ability of many housing markets to respond to growing demand. The growing severity of undersupplied housing markets is jeopardizing housing affordability for working families, increasing income inequality by reducing less-skilled workers’ access to high-wage labor markets, and stifling GDP growth by driving labor migration away from the most productive regions. By modernizing their approaches to housing development regulation, states and localities can restrain unchecked housing cost growth, protect homeowners, and strengthen their economies.

Locally-constructed barriers to new housing development include beneficial environmental protections, but also laws plainly designed to exclude multifamily or affordable housing. Local policies acting as barriers to housing supply include land use restrictions that make developable land much more costly than it is inherently, zoning restrictions, off-street parking requirements, arbitrary or antiquated preservation regulations, residential conversion restrictions, and unnecessarily slow permitting processes. The accumulation of these barriers has reduced the ability of many housing markets to respond to growing demand.

Content license

Creative Commons License
All content on OrangePolitics is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Donate to OP

Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.


text:
Orioles Card "O" the Day

An intersection of two of my passions: baseball cards and the Baltimore Orioles. Updated daily?

Friday, September 19, 2008

Vintage Fridays: Nelson Briles, 1979 Topps #262

I'm often guilty of failing to really focus on the mundane details that lurk in the background of a baseball card photo. One of the things I admire about fellow bloggers like Josh Wilker and Andy
is their ability to latch on to those little things that you or I might gloss over due to a short attention span. They can zero in on a blurry spectator with an odd-looking outfit, or a junky old car parked behind an adjacent diamond at the Spring Training facility and riff on it for several paragraphs.

I didn't have any pre-existing ideas for today, so I flipped through my binder of vintage Topps looking for nothing more than variety. Often my selections for this blog are remarkably haphazard, and so was the case as I sat down last night. I just did two position players in a row...maybe I'll really mix it up and throw up a team card. Nah, none of these are doing it for me; I'll go with a pitcher. The past few Fridays I've gone with 1960's cards, so let's jump to the late 1970's. So it went, until I settled on a player I haven't featured in the previous 263 entries in this space, a fellow who happens to share a birthday with me. I still didn't have much to say about Nelson Briles; he's a guy who caused Baltimore fans more pain than anything. So I looked deeper.

This photo has an ethereal quality to it, even if it's just the power of suggestion talking. ("Nellie" died suddenly in 2005 after suffering a heart attack while golfing.) You may have to click on the image to study it in greater size and detail, but there's something that's a bit off about the coloring. The hue of Briles' face seems to vacillate between reds and yellows, as if he's being viewed through a prism of light. Then there's the background. The deep blue tint of the outfield wall complements the airy blue of the sky, giving the impression of mountains that reach back to the horizon. Nelson Briles isn't in a run-of-the-mill baseball park; he's one with the land. He's somewhere beyond you and me, and he's staring into eternity.

Johngy said...

Nelson Briles is a great name from my baseball youth!

Spiff said...

Always like the vintage Friday's posts. I did a post on Briles a while back and was surprised to see how good he was for several seasons.