Mayors Abandon Bloomberg’s Gun Control Group

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group Mayors Against Illegal Guns is finding it hard to maintain some of its members, thanks to dozens of resignations and lost elections over the last few months.

Worse for Bloomberg, who has become one of the faces of the gun control movement: the people replacing his lost comrades aren’t particularly eager to sign up with the organization, a rare group battling in the trenches against the well-organized and deep-pocketed National Rifle Association. Some appear not quite to have signed on for that level of political heat.

“The original focus, I thought, was going to be on focusing on better on enforcement of our existing laws, and if anything, we have talked about not getting involved with things like banning assault weapons and banning magazine clips,” said Rockford, Il. Mayor Lawrence Morrissey, who left the group in June because, he said at a town hall meeting, the group had veered from what he originally thought it was about.

Bloomberg’s group has come under fire recently for naming murder suspects, including Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, in its list of victims of gun violence and for hosting its website on New York City government servers.

According to an old version of its member list, saved on a blog dated back to early February, more than 50 mayors who were then listed on MAIG’s website are no longer there. Most of the mayors whose names are no longer affiliated with the group are off the list either because they resigned or lost an election, but others have specifically asked to be removed.

BuzzFeed reached out to dozens of the replacement mayors and none of them would confirm if they planned to join the group or if they were even considering it.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns Director Mark Glaze brushed the issue off. Glaze said the group stays up to date with its mayors who leave office so they can send a letter to the newly elected mayor to try and get them on board, which he said is a process that can take a little while. Glaze said they try not to push new mayors too hard to join as they settle in to office.

“Mayors come and go,” Glaze said. Adding, “We lose them on occasion, but it’s going upward.”

Glaze said that though MAIG has lost some mayors recently, the group is growing much faster than it is shrinking.

Nashua, N.H. mayor Donnalee Lozeau removed her name from the MAIG website when the group released an attack ad, which claimed that Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who voted against the failed Manchin-Toomey gun legislation, was misleading voters when she claimed to have supported background checks in the past.

“I simply cannot be part of an organization that chooses this course of action instead of cooperatively working with those that have proven over a lifetime of work their true intentions,” Lozeau said in a statement to Nashua’s the Telegraph. “I have faith that Senator Ayotte will continue to work toward finding a responsible solution relative to these issues.”

Cyril Kleem of Berea, Ohio, simply opted-out without making a statement or clarifying to his staff why exactly he no longer wanted to be associated with the group. Several other currently sitting mayors names have disappeared from the list as well but were unable to be reached by BuzzFeed in time for publication.

Another former mayor, Bill Rappaport of Star Valley, Ariz., was forced out of his mayorship specifically because of his support for background checks during private sales at gun shows and over the internet. He was forced to resign when other members of the city council allegedly began waging personal attacks against him for his views. In an op-ed to the Payson Roundup, Rappaport defends his position and highlights his National Rifle Association membership.

“For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would stand in opposition to making it harder for felons, the mentally ill, and other potentially dangerous people to acquire guns,” he wrote. “The members of the council should know that 90 percent of Arizonans are in favor of requiring background checks for all gun sales.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacobfischler/dozens-of-mayors-are-quietly-dropping-out-of-bloombergs-gun

Kansas Supreme Court Rules Gun Dealers Can Be Held Accountable to Victims for Supplying Guns to Criminals

(Washington, D.C.) – On Friday, July 19, 2013, the Kansas Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in the case Shirley v. Glass (Case No. 102570), finding that gun dealers must use the highest standard of care when selling weapons, and that dealers can be held liable for violating gun laws under negligence per se. Both rulings were first-of-their kind decisions in the state of Kansas.
Jonathan Lowy, Director of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center, argued the case and praised the ruling as a “landmark victory that will help victims of gun violence in Kansas and across the country.” “Most gun dealers do their best to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, but the bad apples who supply felons with straw purchases should be held accountable to victims,” said Lowy. “This ruling will remove the profit incentive for arming criminals, and make sure that innocent victims of gun violence aren’t the only ones who pay the cost of irresponsible gun sales.”
The suit was filed by Elizabeth Shirley, whose son Zeus was murdered by her estranged husband Russell Graham, against Baxter Springs Gun and Pawn Shop in Baxter Springs, KS, where Graham obtained the murder weapon in a straw purchase earlier that day. Graham’s grandmother completed the sale of the gun after Graham informed the dealer he was a felon, so was ineligible to purchase the weapon himself.
Shirley’s case was initially dismissed by a trial court judge whose decision relied on a Kansas appeals case that held that a gun dealer was not liable for supplying a dangerous individual with a firearm. Represented by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s Legal Action Project, Shirley appealed the decision to the Kansas Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court’s holding and found that the dealer could be liable for negligently entrusting the gun to Graham.
Although the Court had found that Shirley’s case could proceed, Shirley appealed decisions that the dealer could not be liable for violating gun laws, and was not required to exercise the highest degree of care in its sales. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed those two rulings by the Appeals Court in its Friday decision.
Shirley’s case now returns to Cherokee County District Court. A schedule has not been set. James R. Shetlar and Melanie Caro, of the Law Offices of James R. Shetlar, Overland Park, Kansas, is co-counsel for Elizabeth Shirley with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence Legal Action Project.

Colorado anti-gun politicians face recall over gun control

For the first time in Colorado history, two state lawmakers will face recall elections for their support of tougher gun control measures.

Colorado’s Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper signed an executive order on Thursday setting the date for the recall elections of the pair of Democratic state senators.Continue Reading


Morse and Giron asked a Denver District Court judge to block the recall because of the wording, but were ruled against on Thursday. Following the decision, Hickenlooper signed the executive order calling for a Sept. 10 recall election.

NRA organizers submitted petitions to begin the recall process last month, gathering 12,648 signatures in Giron’s district and 10,137 in Morse’s, according to a CNN report.

Both senators voted in favor of universal background checks and limiting ammunition magazines.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/pols-face-recall-over-gun-control-94454.html#ixzz2ZcXYepxe

Gun rights groups join new challenge to NSA surveillance

National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program vacuuming up
logs of Americans' domestic phone calls is unconstitutional, says new lawsuit
 with gun rights groups as plaintiffs.

An AR-15 style rifle that's similar to firearms sold by Franklin Armory, plaintiff 

in a new lawsuit saying the National Security Agency's warrantless

 surveillance program is unconstitutional.

(Credit: Getty Images)

The National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program is now under fire from an unusual source: gun-rights groups.
A federal lawsuit filed today in San Francisco says the NSA's decision to vacuum up nearly all U.S. phone records, including local calls, on a daily basis violates federal law and the Constitution, which protects Americans' rights to speak freely and not be subjected to ongoing warrantless surveillance.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Calguns Foundation, a nonprofit membership organization based in San Carlos, Calif.; the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, an industry association of dealers, collectors, and shooting ranges; and Franklin Armory of Morgan Hill, Calif., known for manufacturing AR-15 and other types of semiautomatic rifles that can legally be sold in California.
They, along with more traditional plaintiffs including Greenpeace, People for the American Way, and the Free Software Foundation, claim that the NSA's acquisition of logs of their members' communications violates their First Amendment right "to communicate anonymously and to associate privately." The lawsuit says the phone call logs reveal "sensitive information about their personal, political, and religious activities" that should not be available to the government in these circumstances.
"People and the organizations they choose to associate with have a Constitutional right to real, meaningful privacy," Brandon Combs, president of the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, one of the plaintiffs, told CNET this morning.
The lawsuit is being organized by the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has a separate lawsuit in progress challenging warrantless NSA surveillance of the contents of Americans' Internet and phone communications by tapping into AT&T's fiber links. A federal judge last week ruled those claims, which have been corroborated by documents leaked by Edward Snowden, could proceed.

A woman learns how to fire a handgun during a basic pistol course, 

in this file photo, held during Gun Appreciation Day.

(Credit: Getty Images)

"California's gun laws are so byzantine that law-abiding folks turn to our telephone hotline to figure out if they're accidental felons," said Gene Hoffman, chairman of the Calguns Foundation. "It scares our members that there is a record of such a sensitive conversation."
Unlike EFF's earlier lawsuit, which focuses on the contents of private communications made available under the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, the new lawsuit challenges logs turned over to the NSA under the 2001 Patriot Act. Those logs are vacuumed up from AT&T -- and Verizon and Sprint as well, according to news reports -- and do not include the contents of phone calls.
"The government doesn't get to claim that we have that [information] and then do whatever it wants -- just because they've made it so we don't know what and when they steal, read, and store our data," Combs said. "The NSA is chilling speech and association because people of all ideological backgrounds are rightfully afraid of being monitored by the most powerful and secretive government agency in the nation."
The lawsuit also alleges violations of the Fourth Amendment, which restricts warrantless surveillance; the Fifth Amendment, which protects Americans' due process rights; and federal surveillance law. It asks the court for a "preliminary and permanent injunction" halting the surveillance program.

The lying liars who lie about psychiatry

These days, we are witnessing an acceleration in the use of psychiatry to target Americans, to label them as dangerous, to take away guns they own, to blame gun violence in the US on mentally ill people. (see also this story by Dan Roberts). It’s a winning strategy, because most Americans don’t have a clue about the way psychiatry actually works or its pose of being a science. The public hears techno-speak and nods and surrenders. If psychiatrists are experts on the human mind, mice can navigate the Arctic in canoes. But psychiatrists are educated to be able to talk a good game. And politicians are more than happy to mouth vagaries, and consign the problems of society to “mental-health professionals.” It turns out that the phrase “mental health” was invented by psyops specialists, who needed to create an analogy to physical well-being. Read Entire Article at JonRappoport.wordpress.com - See more at: http://defendgunrights.com/articles/the-lying-liars-who-lie-about-psychiatry#sthash.sVT6AE24.dpuf

App Finds Ranges Near You

(GunNews.com) — Looking for a place to shoot? There’s a new-and-improved app for that. The National Shooting Sports Foundation has released an all-new Where To Shoot mobile app — available for iPhone, iPad and Android devices — that locates shooting ranges near you.
Available for free in the Apple App Store and Google Play, Where To Shoot puts North America’s most comprehensive directory of shooting ranges in the palm of your hand. It also includes video tips for shooters, news and firearm safety information.
Users can search by current location or zip code and find specifics about each range, including shooting activities offered, accessibility and contact information. The app also makes it easy to get directions to the range.
The app is modeled after NSSF’s popular WhereToShoot.org website and is updated frequently with range information in every U.S. state and Canadian province. New tips for hunters and shooters are also added regularly.
Download the app through the links below or by simply visiting www.wheretoshoot.org on your iOS or Android device.
Click here to download iPhone and iPad
Click here to download Android

OC activists cheer federal judge’s Colorado ruling

Open Carry activists across the country, including the Pacific Northwest, are cheering a federal judge’s ruling Thursday that declared a ban on guns in post office parking lots to be unconstitutional, and they will likely be talking about it today at an Open Carry picnic at the Kitsap County park in Port Orchard.

What has their attention is the summation of U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch, who concluded, “In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment.”
The case, brought by Colorado resident Tab Bonidy — represented by the Mountain States Legal Foundation — caused quite a ripple because it is the third time (the other two being in Maryland and Illinois) in which a federal court has confirmed that the right to bear arms extends outside the home.
Bonidy lives in a rural area outside Avon, and he routinely carries a handgun for personal protection. He also has to retrieve his mail at the Avon Post Office, but was not able to leave his gun in his vehicle when picking up his mail because regulations prohibited him from having a firearm even in the parking lot.

"In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the
Second Amendment."—Judge Richard P. Matsch

As this column noted Friday, the Second Amendment Foundation has asked for Supreme Court review in the Maryland case, Woollard v. Sheridan, which was reversed on appeal by the state.
Today’s festivities in Port Orchard mark the fifth anniversary of the first Open Carry event held at the park. This is a family affair, and will include an opportunity for people to sign Initiative 591 — the “common sense” measure prohibiting gun confiscation without due process and requiring background checks to comply with a uniform national standard — which is supported by several major gun rights organizations.
According to a report Saturday morning on The Gun Wire, open carry is getting attention in a Mississippi legal flap in which it now appears the National Rifle Association may get involved.
For the record — and the umpteenth time, it seems — contrary to claims this week by the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility in its attempts to raise money for its gun control initiative (I-594), the NRA has taken no position in Washington State’s battle of the initiatives. I-594 is the 15-page gun control measure purporting to be about expanding background checks. WAGR keeps asking for money by bashing the NRA, yet the group reportedly has more than $1 million already banked for their campaign.

http://www.examiner.com/article/oc-activists-cheer-federal-judge-s-colorado-ruling

Ten Really Important Problems with the Toomey-Schumer-Manchin Sell-out

The following addresses the top ten problems that Gun Owners of America has with the Toomey-Schumer-Manchin draft.

(1)  First of all, it’s pretty clear by now that the goal of Obama and Schumer is, in the words of the Brady Campaign, to put “points on the board” so they can maintain their momentum for more gun control demands.  Mark Glaze of Mayors Against Illegal Guns said on MSNBC that they would be back with new demands “the day after” background checks are signed into law. So, now that we are on the verge of winning, why, in heaven’s name, would Pat Toomey try to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, hand a “win” to Barack Obama so he can credibly say he “broke the back of the gun lobby,” invigorate fundraising for anti-gun groups in 2014, let red state Democrats who are up in 2014 off the hook, and create a platform for unending gun control demands that will resume the day his bill is signed into law?

(2)  SECTION 102, Finding 3:  "Congress believes the Department of Justice should prosecute violations of background check requirements to the maximum extent of the law."

COMMENT:  You understand that 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3) and (g)(3) make a person a prohibited person if they are "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," right?  And you understand this would subject every gun owner who smokes marijuana (medical or otherwise) to a ten-year prison sentence (under 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2)), right?  And you understand that records of medical marijuana use, drug diversion programs, etc., are in the possession of many state governments and are, technically, required to be turned over to the FBI under the NICS Improvement Act of 2007, right?  So are you still so enthusiastic about throwing 20,000,000 gun owners in prison for ten years for smoking pot -- not to mention the thousands upon thousands of military veterans who have also been thrown into the NICS system without any due process whatsoever?

(3) “SEC. 112.  IMPROVEMENT OF METRICS AND INCENTIVES.”

COMMENT:  This section pretty well gives Eric Holder unfettered discretion to demand any information from the states which he, in his unilateral discretion, chooses to demand.  And he would do this, not by threatening to take away funds under this act, but by threatening to withhold already-existing 505 funds.  For anyone who thinks this is innocuous, consider this:  Under section 922(g)(3)’s prohibition of guns for any “user of ... any controlled substance,” the AG could demand medical marijuana records, diversion records, and arrest records.  Under 922(g)(4), he could demand Medicaid, Medicare, and IDEA records of persons with PTSD, ADHD, and post partem depression.

(4)  “SEC. 114.  RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES PROGRAM.”

COMMENT:  There are already a lot of “relief from disabilities” programs in the NICS Improvement Act of 2007, because GOA insisted on it.  The problem is that most veterans cannot afford the $30,000 in attorneys’ fees it takes to pursue these remedies in some places.  Every week, we hear from veterans who have lost rights WITHOUT DUE PROCESS under the NICS Act of 2007, and don’t have the $30,000 necessary to get those rights back.  Perhaps someone should ask Chuck Schumer to remove his amendment which continuously defunds the more expansive program under McClure-Volkmer whereby a prohibited person can petition ATF for relief from disabilities.  But, again, the problem is not that veterans can’t get their rights back if they have $30,000 to spend; the problem is that their rights were taken away in the first place without any court order or other due process.

(5) SECTION 117:  “Information collected under section 102(c)(3) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) to assist the Attorney General in enforcing [prohibited persons provisions of Chapter 44] shall not be subject to the regulations promulgated under ... [HIPAA]...”

COMMENT:  Section 102(c)(3) of the NICS 2007 statute provides that the “State SHALL make available to [NICS] the name and other relevant identifying information of persons adjudicated as a mental defective or those committed to a mental institution.”  [Emphasis added]  But, under the 2007 statute, “adjudicated as a mental defective” was redefined to include an individual who was found, in connection with a government program, to represent “a danger [however miniscule] to himself or others” or a person who is “unable to manage his own affairs...”  (The “however miniscule” embellishment was added by an ATF interpretive letter issued under Bill Clinton.)  Furthermore, under the 2007 statute, these determinations do not have to be made by a court, magistrate, or even an executive branch administrative court, but, rather, may be made by a government-affiliated psychiatrist who, in the case of the Department of Veterans Affairs, almost always accomplishes this by appointing a fiduciary over the veteran’s financial affairs.  Note also that the psychiatrist is almost never a government employee, but rather a doctor who provides the diagnosis in connection with a government-financed program.  In addition to Medicare, Medicaid, IDEA (in relation to which 15% of high school boys have now been diagnosed with ADHD, and recent articles have suggested that that diagnosis never evaporates, even as they get older), the DVA, the armed services, social security disability, a very substantial amount of private health care will be funded, in whole or in part, or regulated by the federal government under ObamaCare.  Thus, since the HIPAA privacy regulations are being waived by Toomey-Schumer-Manchin, it’s probably not much of an overstatement to say that, under Toomey-Schumer-Manchin, “see a shrink; lose your guns.”

(6)  SECTION 122, REVISED 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1):  “...it shall be unlawful for a [non-licensee] to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person ... if the transfer occurs ... pursuant to ... [a] posting ... on the Internet...”

COMMENT:  No one should assume this requirement applies only to Amazon-type sales on Armslist.  If you ever talked about the gun on the Internet, you have arguably lost your right to make a private firearm transfer.  You have certainly done so if you put an ad in the church bulletin and it were distributed to shut-in parishioners over the Internet.  The bottom line:  Unless the buyer approaches the seller face to face and conducts the sale in cash on the spot, you can assume it’s covered.

(7) SECTION 122(a):  “(4)(A)  Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, ... the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.”

COMMENT:  The “chapter” referred to is Chapter 44.  So this means that any limitations on federal action built into federal gun law by McClure-Volkmer or any other pro-gun legislation automatically disappear as impediments to Eric Holder in implementing the massively expanded background checks. Incidentally, the provisions in “this chapter” he can ignore could include the prohibitions on demanding information from dealers and creating a national gun registry.

(8)  SECTION 122(c):  “The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination...”

COMMENT:  First of all, if your private gun transaction is covered by Toomey-Schumer-Manchin (and virtually all will be), you will have a 4473, and, if you have a 4473, you can assume you will be part of a national gun registry.  Schumer’s staff, in drafting this section, might have benefited from talking with pro-gun advocates in connection with the real nature of the problem.  First of all, although taking a storeful of 4473’s to an ATF agent’s home is not unheard-of, the real problem is when ATF agents go into an FFL with a laptop and copy all of the information on the 4473’s.  This language would not stop that.  Second, whatever ATF thinks it’s compiling with the 4473’s it does not regard it as a “national gun registry,” even though we regard it as such.  I drafted the language in McClure-Volkmer prohibiting national gun registries.  I also drafted the first draft of the Smith/Tiarht amendment doing the same.  ATF does not regard itself as violating these.  Third, with respect to making unauthorized copying a crime, the person who will determine whether the Department of Justice is prosecuted is Attorney General Eric Holder (who, by the way, is the head of the Department of Justice).

(9) “SUBTITLE C – NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MASS VIOLENCE.”

(a) "There is established a commission to be known as the National Commission on Mass Violence..."

COMMENT:  Half of the members (including the chairman) are appointed by Harry Reid, in consultation with Nancy Pelosi.  It is hard to imagine that this is anything other than a platform for continuing agitation for more gun control.

(b)  "The members [of the commission] shall include ... individuals who have expertise, by both experience and training, in -- (I) firearms..."

COMMENT:  Tacked onto a bill which ignores any remedy for violence except gun control, we now have a commission which has, as priority number one, guns.  We've seen this movie before.  Media efforts to exploit Newtown in order to achieve gun control will inexorably lead to more copycat shootings.  And, when they do, this commission will be there to serve as an engine for advocacy for anti-gun legislation.

(c)  "[The issues which the Commission shall study include] whether medical doctors and other mental health professionals have the ability, without negative legal or professional consequences, to notify law enforcement officials when a patient is a danger to himself or others..."

COMMENT:  It's not a huge thing, compared with the other problems in the bill.  But it's probably an indication of something that the draft looks not into whether turning in your patients to police or, possibly, the NICS system is ethical or ultimately efficacious, but, rather, whether it's legal.

(d)  "[The issues which the Commission shall study include] the availability and nature of firearms, including the means of acquiring such firearms, and all positive and negative impacts of such availability and nature on incidents of mass violence or in preventing mass violence..."

COMMENT:  Self-explanatory.

(e)  "[The issues which the Commission shall study include] the role of current prosecution rates in contributing to the availability of weapons that are used in mass violence..."

COMMENT:  Many of us don't share the notion that harassing veterans and other potential gun owners for violating the inexplicable myriad of gun laws is a good thing.  I can say from having negotiated with the highest officials in ATF in 1984 that even ATF doesn't understand our gun laws, and sending otherwise law-abiding citizens to prison for petty violations is not a good thing.

(f) [The issues which the Commission shall study include] the availability of information regarding the construction of weapons, including explosive devices, and any impact of such information on such incidents of mass violence..."

COMMENT:  Huh?  This "purpose" probably wins the prize for threatening the most constitutional rights in a single agenda item.

(g)  COMMENT:  For all of the Orwellian purposes of the commission, there is one which is noticeably absent:  The role of the broadcast media in generating copycat shootings through saturation coverage intended to serve as an engine for gun control.

(h)  COMMENT:  Also missing from the politically correct platitudes which will serve as the purpose for this commission is one factor which appears to have been present in many school shootings:  The removal of school discipline and replacement with a "mental health" system which turns perhaps 15% of high school boys into "Ritalin junkies."

(10) COMMENT:  For the record, Adam Lanza stole the guns he used in Newtown.  James Holmes and Jared Loughner passed background checks. Given that the background check legislation -- the centerpiece of Barack Obama's efforts to declare "victory over the gun lobby" -- would not address, in any way, the incidents which supposedly gave rise to it, exactly what is its purpose, other than to destroy the Republicans' "ground game" and decimate the most significant remaining pillar of their coalition

http://gunowners.org/congress04112013.htm