Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

If it's Tuesday, it must be The Weekly Check on the Bias. Welcome to the April 25th edition where I'll take a gander at some of the past week's media stories regarding guns and the 2nd Amendment.

Last week I reported that NYC Mayor Bloomberg was hosting a "national summit" of the nation's mayors to discuss illegal guns and crimes with them. The National Shooting Sports Foundation -- a group representing firearms manufacturers, among others -- has offered their assistance:

In a letter faxed today to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office, the trade association representing the firearm industry officially requested a seat at the table at tomorrow's national summit on illegal guns organized by Bloomberg and Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston.

Lawrence G. Keane, who signed the letter on behalf of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), said the industry shares the mayors' concerns about further reducing crime by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

"Our industry has developed programs that are working to reduce criminal misuse of firearms, as well as reduce firearms accidents. We would welcome the opportunity to educate mayors about these programs, including Don't Lie for the Other Guy, the straw purchase deterrence initiative developed in partnership with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives," said Keane, senior vice president and general counsel.

ATF Director Carl J. Truscott has praised Don't Lie for the Other Guy as a great success and, "an important tool for ATF as we pursue our mission of preventing terrorism, reducing violent crime, and protecting the public..."

Others also have recognized the firearm industry's goal of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. In dismissing its lawsuit against the industry, the City of Boston acknowledged, "that members of the industry and [NSSF] are genuinely concerned with and are committed to the safe, legal and responsible sale and distribution and use of their products."

So it sounds as if the NSSF has a lot to offer in the discussion to be held by the mayors today. You'd think that Mayor Michael Blowhard Bloomberg would welcome such participation. From today's New York Post:

[Said Keene of the NSSF] "We would welcome the opportunity to educate mayors about these programs."

He didn't get very far.

"Are they mayors?" asked Stu Loeser, Bloomberg's press secretary, dismissing the request out of hand.

Well that's a fine, "How do you do?" from the Mayor's office and it underscores what a phony "national summit" this is. What it really is is a press-release photo-op where these gun control advocate mayors can stand before the cameras and pose as being SO concerned about crime that rather than going after and locking up criminals, they'll instead call for national gun control laws that these criminals will never obey.

Incidentally, I find the NY Post becoming rather more anti-Second Amendment by the day. Here's the graphic that accompanies their article:

Folks, guns are not the problem. They don't "menace" anyone. In the future, might I suggest they use this?

The next time these mayors hold a "national summit" maybe they'll consider that the problem is the criminals as well.

A six-year-old writes an editorial. Well, I don't actually know the age or sex of the author but it certainly seems as if a child wrote this Minnesota Daily piece:

What do people even need handguns for? Protection, right? However, if no one could buy or carry a handgun legally, no one would need a handgun to protect themselves. Also, it is a lie for anyone to say he or she needs a handgun in case of being shot at. The shooter would pull out a gun and shoot before the victim ever could get a gun out of his or her pants and shoot back to protect him- or herself. People who buy handguns likely are people who will use them in ways that affect others’ safety.

So if foks can't legally buy or carry a handgun all crime will evaporate. In the editorialist's Sesame Street world, crooks and gang members don't have guns and don't rob or attack us. And, anyone who does legally buy a gun is going to harm other people. According to the writer, there's probably no reason for cops to carry guns, either, since they couldn't possibly draw theirs quickly enough to avoid getting shot. The idea that law abiding citizens might be armed is not any deterrent, so implies the child.

The simpleton continues:

Minnesota’s Personal Protection Act, also known as the conceal-carry law, is very controversial legislation that allows people to carry a handgun in public with a permit. This permit is given to anyone who has not been convicted of certain violent crimes or those who have finished a prison sentence 10 years prior to applying for a permit.

This means that someone who killed someone and served time potentially could be given a gun to carry in public legally 10 years later and that the state says this is perfectly fine.

Folks, I'm not making this up. This isn't a "sock puppet" I'm quoting. Apparently this fool actually hasn't heard that it's A FEDERAL CRIME for anyone convicted of a felony to legally purchase, own, possess, transfer a firearm. In fact, if you served a prison sentence of more than a year (with some state misdemeanor exceptions) you can't legally buy or own a gun.

We presume that "someone who killed someone and served time" falls under the above. Regardless of state law, we're talking federal law. Talk about a newspaper writer trying to scare the readership with misinformation!

Should legislators who are also lawyers be allowed to sponsor or vote on "tort reform" bills? Actually, that would force most of our national congress critters to recuse themselves. "What does that have to do with the price of potatoes," you ask? Because a state representative in Wisconsin also owns a small gun shop. From the Duluth News Tribune:

A state representative who owns a gun store does not have a conflict of interest even though he's pushing bills to lower the hunting age to 8 and allow people to carry concealed weapons, the state Ethics Board says.

Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford, has led the fight on those two high-profile issues this legislative session and helped pass a number of other pro-hunting bills from his position as chairman of the natural resources committee.

Gunderson has owned Gundy's Sport - which sells hunting and fishing items in Wind Lake in southeastern Wisconsin - during his 12 years in the Legislature, according to economic interest statements filed with the Ethics Board.

But his ownership of the store has received renewed interest from critics of the bills as he pushes the two controversial measures.

"He does stand to financially gain from a lot of the legislation he's introducing," said Jeri Bonavia of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, which lobbied against the concealed carry bill. "More than ever he should be aware of that and aware that people are going to ask questions about it - especially when there's a seeming conflict between financial benefit for gun dealers and public safety."

Gunderson rejected any notion that he had a conflict, saying his store would not directly benefit from any of his legislation. He said the store only sold about 50 guns last year in addition to hunting supplies and ammunition.

He said he is no different than farmers who vote on agricultural issues, lawyers who push legal issues or doctors who work on bills dealing with the medical profession.

"Anyone with common sense knows that it is a good thing to have small-business owners in the Legislature," he said.

I agree. In fact, it gives meaning to "...by the people, for the people...". Gunderson's store doesn't even display handguns -- the obvious choice for concealed carry (if Wisconsin ever allows it) unless you're appearing in the next Matrix movie.

So who are some of his other critics?

The Ethics Board determined Gunderson did not have a conflict in December after a Wauwatosa resident complained in a letter that he was using his position to help his business, said board lawyer Jonathan Becker.

The letter, obtained in an open records request, came after the state Assembly approved Gunderson's bill to change the hunting age from 12 to 8.

Gunderson said the bill would help maintain Wisconsin's hunting tradition. His plan would require an adult mentor to be within arm's length of hunters between age 8 and 12 and share a weapon with them. The bill needs approval in the state Senate.

"Clearly the passage of this bill would benefit his personal business," wrote the resident, Hannelore Schilling Zarse. "Wisconsin public officials have no scruples any more."

Zarse, a 64-year-old retired teacher and animal rights activist, said in an interview she was disappointed the board decided not to take any action.

So this "animal rights activist" doesn't have any motives of her own, eh? If Gunderson is only selling one gun a week, he's hardly the Wal-Mart of the area.

We're starting to learn a lot of what was behind Wal-Mart's decision to stop selling firearms in many stores. From The Times of Illinois:

Wal-Mart in Ottawa [Illinois] plans to hang up its guns.

[...]

Woodrum said that although his store sells about one gun per day, such a rate isn't enough to compensate for the trouble and expense of stocking and selling the items.

The Wal-Marts in Peru and Morris will continue to sell firearms, but the Peru manager, Mitch Lippert, agreed with Woodrum that guns are not a blast to sell:

"There's quadruple the paperwork that used to be needed, which I'm not saying is bad. We sell at least one per day. That may sound like a lot, but it's not when you factor in what you have to pay to stock it, check it in, do audits every day, every week and and every month to make sure we're doing things according to the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms).

The Ottawa store will still sell ammunition and firearm accessories. Wal-Mart only sells handguns at stores in Alaska.

A gun a day wouldn't even keep most moderate sized gun stores in business. We can't really ask Wal-Mart to dedicate a sizable chunk of floor space in their stores that could be making a lot more selling groceries or iPods or what have you -- sans the ATF paperwork.

Pro-gun voters in many states should be so lucky as those in Alabama! How'd you like to have to choose from a gubernatorial candidate field where almost everyone running is a supporter of gun rights? From the Contra Costa Times:

The race for the Republican nomination for governor features two candidates who support the constitutional right to bear arms and who say they will fight attempts to take that right away.

They've been firing on the issue with both barrels lately.

Gov. Bob Riley was literally firing Monday as he hosted a sporting clays shooting tournament as a fund raising event at a rural hunting lodge in Macon County near Tuskegee. At a rally after the tournament at White Oak Plantation, Riley was endorsed by the National Rifle Association's "Political Victory Fund."

The executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, Chris Cox, told a crowd of about 100 Riley supporters, some still carrying guns used in the shooting tournament, that Riley has consistently supported the rights of gun owners as governor and when he was in Congress.

"He knows talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words," Cox said.

Riley's opponent for the Republican nomination, former Chief Justice Roy Moore, also received an endorsement Monday from a pro gun rights organization, Gun Owners of America. The organization's executive director, Larry Pratt, said he believes Moore's position on limited government and following the rule of law will help protect the rights of gun owners.

"His record makes it clear we can rely on him to progressively pursue gun owner's rights," Pratt said.

Well then, what about the Democratic candidate in the race?

Four years ago, the NRA's political fund endorsed former Gov. Don Siegelman, who is running this year for the Democratic nomination. Asked why the organization did not endorse Siegelman this time, Cox said Riley has earned the endorsement by supporting gun rights. He said the endorsement would stand through the November general election and would not be changed if Siegelman wins the Democratic primary.

A spokesman for Siegelman, Chip Hill, said that NRA officials told Siegelman he was not getting the endorsement this year because it was "their policy to endorse incumbents."

"Gov. Siegelman is very proud of the endorsement he received in 2002 and of his lifetime membership in the NRA," Hill said.

It's nice when you can focus on the contenders' stands on other issues for a change and not only have to worry about preserving your Second Amendment rights. Residents of California, New York, Massachusetts -- eat your hearts out!

Meanwhile in England... I first reported on this months ago but the plight of Olympic shooters there is in the news again:

Lawmakers here want to change gun-control laws - some of the strictest in Europe - that force Britain's competitive shooters, including those hoping to compete in the 2008 Olympics, to train abroad.

Nearly all private ownership of handguns is outlawed, and shooters say they must travel to other countries when they want to practice, a time-consuming and expensive exercise.

Labor Party lawmaker Kate Hoey, who has been campaigning for a relaxation of the law, said she expected to hear within weeks whether the government would consider lifting the ban for sport shooters.

Britain traditionally has had stringent gun-control laws, but the handgun prohibition was put in place after a deranged former scout leader shot 16 school children and their teacher to death in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996.

Hoey said the ban was understandable given the circumstances but argued that it had done little since then to curb the trade in black market firearms.

"The pistol ban was one of those knee-jerk things," she said. "I think people realize now that the pistol ban hasn't done anything to reduce gun crime."

John Leighton-Dyson, a coach with the national shooting team, said around 100 athletes were affected by the ban, in addition to the next generation of up-and-coming competitors.

Each year, shooters spend thousands of dollars to travel to Zurich, where their cartridge-shooting pistols are stored and where they may legally train.

Kate Hoey has hit it on the head. Every time there's some act of mutant violence here in America, the anti-gun crowd launches a new knee-jerk campaign against lawful firearm ownership and proposes a new wave of gun control measures that will do NOTHING to prevent crime or stop the misuse of guns. Criminals simply don't care what laws and bans are passed. That's something else the anti-gun mayors at the "national summit" could stand to learn...

Update: Just learned that Arizona now has a firm "Stand Your Ground" law. From KVOA TV:

Governor Napolitano today signed into law a bill to strengthen Arizonans' rights to claim self-defense and to use force against intruders.

The bill was supported by the National Rifle Association and opposed by prosecutors.

It imposes a new burden of proof on prosecutors to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant's self-defense claim was unfounded.

It also implants the so-called "castle doctrine" in Arizona law to give a person the right to use force in a home or vehicle against an intruder without having to retreat.

Cool beans. Another state is added to the list of ones where the law abiding can defend themselves, family, and home without being second-guessed by cops.

Update 2: According to NRA President Sandra S. Froman on Cam & Company a couple minutes ago, the Arizona Governor also signed a bill where the state would recognize the CCW permits of all states that issue them! Would that other states would make reciprocity that simple. Is this the start of a trend? Well, one state isn't a trend but the desired outcome is something to wish for.

Hey, I better get this posted! Naturally I'll be doing this live on my friend Cam Edwards' Show this afternoon and as always, thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at April 25, 2006 10:31 AM