Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association Discussion Forum - National http://forum.pafoa.org Discuss National, firearm-related politics and organize communication with national representatives here. en Thu, 09 Sep 2010 07:56:09 GMT vBulletin 60 http://forum.pafoa.org/images/misc/rss.jpg Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association Discussion Forum - National http://forum.pafoa.org NRA challenges Federal Handgun Ban for 18-20 year olds. http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/110905-nra-challenges-federal-handgun-ban-18-20-year-olds.html Wed, 08 Sep 2010 18:35:24 GMT I know we don't post every news alert from NRA-ILA, but I thought this one was pretty important:

Quote:
NRA CHALLENGES CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL HANDGUN BAN FOR LAW ABIDING 18-20 YEAR OLDS

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Fairfax, Va. -- The NRA is challenging federal laws that prohibit law-abiding Americans eighteen through twenty years of age from legally purchasing a handgun through a federally licensed firearm dealer. The case was filed Tuesday evening in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Lubbock Division. James D'Cruz of Lubbock, TX is the plaintiff in this case.

"In Heller and McDonald, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly stated that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for all law-abiding Americans," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "That right is not limited only to Americans twenty-one years of age and older. Indeed, throughout our nation's history, adults beginning at age eighteen have served in the military and fought for this country with honor. But while the Supreme Court has consistently made clear that the federal government cannot ban or unduly restrict sales of items protected by the Constitution, the federal government continues to prohibit these adults from purchasing handguns from federally licensed dealers, which represent the largest and most accessible means of purchasing handguns."

The suit asserts: "At eighteen years of age, law-abiding citizens in this country are considered adults for almost all purposes and certainly for the purposes of the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights. Indeed, at eighteen, citizens are eligible (and male citizens could be conscripted) to serve in the military-to fight and die by arms for the country. Yet, Section 922(b)(1) prohibits law-abiding adults in this age group from lawfully purchasing -- from the most prevalent and readily available source -- what the Supreme Court has called "the quintessential self-defense weapon" and "the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home."

The plaintiff, Mr. D'Cruz, is well-trained in the proper handling and use of firearms, including handguns. His initial training was with his grandfather, a World War II veteran, who wanted his grandchildren to understand the proper and safe techniques for use and storage of firearms. Mr. D'Cruz received further training from his father and as a member of the Navy Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps, where he achieved the rank of Lieutenant Junior Grade. During his junior and senior years of high school, Mr. D'Cruz was a member of the JROTC's marksmanship team, and as member of that team has competed in regional and national marksmanship competitions. Mr. D'Cruz received numerous awards, including a first place medal for marksmanship, in a regional competition. Mr. D'Cruz also received a Foreign Legion unit award for marksmanship.

The case is D'Cruz v. BATFE.
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/News....aspx?ID=14212 ]]> National USMCRich82 http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/110905-nra-challenges-federal-handgun-ban-18-20-year-olds.html Senate Committee Hearing - Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform... http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/110879-senate-committee-hearing-firearms-commerce-assessing-need-reform.html Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:00:44 GMT Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=4771 ... Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings...ng.cfm?id=4771

Anybody know what this is about? I'm assuming they are not planning to repeal the NFA or GCA ;) ]]> National ungawa http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/110879-senate-committee-hearing-firearms-commerce-assessing-need-reform.html San Francisco reconsidering gun ban in transit ads http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/110872-san-francisco-reconsidering-gun-ban-transit-ads.html Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:53:50 GMT SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The image of a woman brandishing a gun is gracing more than a dozen San Francisco bus stop shelters after the city suspended a... SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The image of a woman brandishing a gun is gracing more than a dozen San Francisco bus stop shelters after the city suspended a policy banning firearms in advertisements on public transportation.

The advertisement, which gun-rights advocates created to promote a conference near the city later this month, was allowed to run after city transportation officials decided they might face a legal challenge on Second Amendment grounds for refusing it.

The Municipal Transportation Agency is "taking a step back" to review its policy in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that said Second Amendment gun protections apply on a state and local level, spokesman Paul Rose said.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...TAM&SECTION=US ]]> National Story http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/110872-san-francisco-reconsidering-gun-ban-transit-ads.html Man at gun show jailed for selling gun to illegal alien w/TX drivers license http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/110703-man-gun-show-jailed-selling-gun-illegal-alien-w-tx-drivers-license.html Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:44:12 GMT Man at gun show jailed for selling gun to illegal alien w/TX drivers license ------------ A Summary of and Conclusion from the following... Man at gun show jailed for selling gun to illegal alien w/TX drivers license

------------

A Summary of and Conclusion from the following article:

The Federal government refuses to deport known illegal aliens,

but rather uses them to arrest and convict lawful American citizens.

1. Paul Copeland is a law abiding citizen and Vietnam Veteran -- a gun collector who buys and sells at gun shows.

2. Paul understands the federal law requirement to ensure that a purchaser is over 18 years of age by a picture ID driver's license.

There are no other legal requirements for a citizen who does not hold a Federal Firearms License.

3. Paul sold a firearm to Leonel Huerta, after checking that he was over 18 according to his valid Texas Driver's License.

4. A BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) undercover agent, knew that Huerta was an illegal alien and had been following Huerta around the gun show, presumably intending to entrap someone.

5. Huerta, an illegal alien, handed the gun to another illegal alien, Hipolito Aviles; the BATFE agent took the gun from them; arrested Paul; and shut down the Gun Show.

6. Huerta appeared as a witness at the trial, admitted he was in the country illegally before federal prosecutors and a federal judge, yet he was allowed to leave the courtroom under his own power.

7. Austin’s ‘sanctuary city’ policy does not allow the police officer at the door of the gun show to ask a person’s immigration status.

8. Paul was convicted by an Austin jury, and is spending hard time in jail. [Austin is a predominantly Democrat city.]

9. No charges have been filed on illegal alien Huerta, nor was he deported.

10. No charges have been filed on illegal aliens Aviles and his son, nor were they deported.

11. Paul remains in federal jail.

12. The BATFE continues to try to shut down gun shows.

----------------

FEDS CONVICT TEXAN FOR SELLING A GUN TO ILLEGAL ALIEN WITH TEXAS DRIVER’S LICENSE

Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights
website: http://www.io.com/~velte/pt.htm

In Federal District Court on July 20, 2010, the ATF won a conviction from an Austin jury that defies logic and reason. In a trial before Federal Judge Sam Sparks, government lawyers conceded Texas resident Paul Copeland did not know his buyer was an illegal alien, but the jury they should convict him anyway because he "had reasonable cause to believe" he was selling to an illegal alien because the two men and a boy who were present at his table at the time of the sale: 1) were Hispanic, 2) spoke Spanish, and 3) wore cowboy clothing. And the jury did as asked. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Freel acted as lead prosecutor in the case.

The firearm transaction at issue occurred on January 16, 2010, at a gunshow at the North Austin Events Center, at 10601 N. Lamar Blvd., in Austin, Texas. Undercover ATF agents followed Mr. Huerta, his son, and another Hispanic male, Hipolito Aviles, around the "Texas Gunshow" that day, and claimed to observe Huerta’s transaction. Austin P.D. used Copeland’s case as the reason to close down the gunshow, leading to a protest by Austin residents in front of APD headquarters on January 25.

Mr. Copeland is a 56 year old Cedar Creek resident and Vietnam veteran who liked to buy, sell, and trade firearms as a hobby. On January 16, however, he had the misfortune to sell a handgun to Leonel Huerta Sr., who spoke both English and Spanish. Huerta Sr. negotiated his purchase from Copeland in English, showing Copeland his Texas Driver’s License. At Copeland’s trial Huerta admitted on the witness stand, that he is in the country illegally, (Huerta Sr. had previously admitted this fact to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Leo Buentello). ATF Agent Shawn Kang claimed he saw Huerta later hand off the gun to Aviles. Despite these admissions, Huerta Sr. was never arrested, charged, or deported. Instead, his presence at the gunshow was used to entrap an American citizen into an unwitting violation of a federal gun control law. Huerta Sr., who is a resident of the City of Austin, appeared as a witness at the trial, admitted he was in the country illegally before federal prosecutors and a federal judge, yet he was allowed to leave the courtroom under his own power. To date Huerta Sr. has not been prosecuted for his purchase, possession, or disposition of the handgun he bought from Copeland, while Copeland is now a convicted felon.

"Instead of busting the illegal alien for buying, they bust the citizen for selling," commented Paul Velte, attorney and founder of Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights, a gun-owners rights advocacy group from Austin. Velte asked, "who was in a better position to know the buyer’s immigration status, the buyer or the seller?" He also said, "What happened to Paul Copeland should enrage all Americans. The Federal Government is using illegal aliens to entrap citizens lawfully exercising their right to sell firearms. The illegal alien walks free, but the citizen gets convicted. The same government charged with controlling immigration is the one using illegal immigrants to attack its own citizens. Does this make any sense? It makes no sense unless the purpose is to discourage attendance at gunshows and frighten citizens from selling their firearms to other citizens."

Velte pointed out that "There is no way for a citizen to know who is here legally or not. In fact, under Austin’s ‘sanctuary city’ policy, not even the police officer at the door of the gunshow was allowed to ask a person’s immigration status, yet the average Texan inside the show is expected to assume that a person standing before them with a Texas driver’s license is in the country illegally just because they look Mexican and speak Spanish." Velte noted that the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona was based on that very type of conduct: Concluding someone could be here illegally based on their looks or their language. Velte said gun owners in his group are outraged, and they want to know:

1. Why is the illegal alien who purchased the gun, Leonel Huerta Sr., still living in Austin?

2. Why does he still have a Texas Driver’s license?

3. Why is ATF using illegal aliens to set up and convict American citizens?

4. What has he been promised for his cooperation?

5. Why has he not been prosecuted? He committed three distinct crimes: he purchased a firearm knowing he was an illegal alien, he possessed the firearm, and he transferred the handgun to another illegal alien (Hippolito Aviles, who was convicted and given time served on June 30, 2010).

6. Why has Huerta Sr. not been deported?

Judge Sparks sentenced Copeland on August 27 to six months confinement and 24 months of probation, and called Copeland "a liar" for not admitting guilt. ATF confiscated Copeland’s entire gun collection and initiated forfeiture proceedings. Copeland was also fired from his job due to the indictment, and he would have lost his home to foreclosure, if not for his family stepping in to pay his mortgage while he serves his sentence. ]]> National Mr. Rodgers http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/110703-man-gun-show-jailed-selling-gun-illegal-alien-w-tx-drivers-license.html Gun Rights Convention in San Fran.???? http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/110265-gun-rights-convention-san-fran.html Wed, 01 Sep 2010 05:33:15 GMT I want your thoughts on this, because I'm having trouble grasping the logic of it. Also, it will continue a recent trend of SAF threads.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF, a.k.a. 2AF) is holding this year's gun rights conference in San Francisco. Yes, the San Francisco in California.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAF
The silver anniversary conference will be held at the Hyatt Regency San Francisco Airport. Gun rights activists and leaders from across the nation will attend.
I surfed over to the website to send a WTF? e-mail. Here's what I wrote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by me
It boggles my mind that SAF picked San Francisco, of all
places, to hold the Gun Rights Policy Conference. You'd
likely get many more to attend if you picked a friendlier
place. California may be a mecca for many things, including
car design and electronics, but gun rights certainly ain't
one of them.
This is the response I got:
Quote:
Dear Sir:

It's unfortunate that the larger picture of protecting the Second Amendment was not automatically apparent in our decision to hold the GRPC in San Francisco, CA but I can certainly understand the confusion.

Having said that, I think the quote below from our founder Alan M. Gottlieb sums it up best.

"We need to take our battle to the enemy so to speak and expand the playing field. If we don't help our brothers and sisters in California we are not in the fight to win. I will not sit on my rights while others need my help. Get real and help save freedom. California here we come! And then on to Chicago, the belly of the beast in 2011!"

Thomas McKiddie
Projects Director
SAF
And then from a recent SAF e-mail newsletter
Quote:
"We take this annual conference around the country," Gottlieb said, "to areas where our rights might be threatened. We're holding it in San Francisco this year because SAF was successful in overturning the city's 2005 handgun ban. Next year, we're holding it in Chicago, where SAF's lawsuit in McDonald v. City of Chicago led to the Supreme Court's ruling in June that applies the Second Amendment to the states.
Sorry it still seems retar. . . It still seems dumb to hold a gun rights conference in a state/city that you'd think hardcore gun rights activists wouldn't want to get near. But maybe it's just me.

The thought of the headlines on local newspapers, reading something like, "Gun Nut Extremists Invade San Francisco!!", or "Gun Rights Extremists Here To Rub Out Noses in Handgun Ban Lawsuit Loss!" does bring a little bit of a smirk to my face, but otherwise trying to figure it out is making my head hurt.


A couple years ago, I guess, NRA had a convention in Wisconsin. Didn't get it then. Still don't get it. ]]> National Suburban http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/110265-gun-rights-convention-san-fran.html NRA Pulls Support for Reid http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/109859-nra-pulls-support-reid.html Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:25:05 GMT Looks like voting for Kagan and Sotomayor broke the camel's back.

Source: NRA Political Victory Fund
Quote:
Statement From NRA-PVF Chairman Chris W. Cox On The 2010 Nevada U.S. Senate Race

Friday, August 27, 2010

In the coming days and weeks, the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) will be announcing endorsements and candidate ratings in hundreds of federal races, as well as thousands of state legislative races. Unless these announcements are required by the timing of primary or special elections, the NRA-PVF generally does not issue endorsements while important legislative business is pending. The NRA-PVF also operates under a long-standing policy that gives preference to incumbent candidates who have voted with the NRA on key issues, which is explained in more detail here.

The U.S. Senate recently considered a number of issues important to NRA members, including the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA did not announce its position on Ms. Kagan's confirmation until the conclusion of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee. Her evasive testimony exacerbated grave concerns we had about her long-standing hostility towards the Second Amendment. As a result, the NRA strongly opposed her confirmation and made it clear at the time that we would be scoring this important vote.

The vote on Elena Kagan's confirmation to the Court, along with the previous year's confirmation vote on Sonia Sotomayor, are critical for the future of the Second Amendment. After careful consideration, the NRA-PVF announced today that it will not be endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for re-election in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Nevada.

NRA members and other interested parties are encouraged to visit www.NRAPVF.org for more information as Election Day draws near.
Also being being reported on Politico ]]> National Nevermore http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/109859-nra-pulls-support-reid.html EPA Opens Comment Period On Lead Ammo Ban http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/109665-epa-opens-comment-period-lead-ammo-ban.html Wed, 25 Aug 2010 19:25:36 GMT Read all about it: But please be sure to go to http://www.nssfblog.com/epa-considering-ban-on-traditional-ammunition-take-action-now/ and... Read all about it:

But please be sure to go to http://www.nssfblog.com/epa-consider...ke-action-now/

and follow the links they provide to submit your written objection to the petition.

I believe it much better for us to fight hard now instead of waiting for EPA rulemaking forcing us to fight harder later.

Bear in mind the EPA can go forward with this ban with no further reference to Congress! Congress has already given them this authority.

Quote:
EPA Considering Ban on Traditional Ammunition — Take Action Now
August 25, 2010 By Larry Keane

With the fall hunting season fast approaching, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Lisa Jackson, who was responsible for banning bear hunting in New Jersey, is now considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) – a leading anti-hunting organization – to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition. If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components, including hunting and target-shooting rounds. The EPA must decide to accept or reject this petition by November 1, 2010, the day before the midterm elections.

Today, the EPA has opened to public comment the CBD petition. The comment period ends on October 31, 2010.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) — the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry — urges you to submit comment to the EPA opposing any ban on traditional ammunition. Remember, your right to choose the ammunition you hunt and shoot with is at stake.

The EPA has published the petition and relevant supplemental information as Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681. If you would like to read the original petition and see the contents of this docket folder, please click here. In order to go directly to the ‘submit a comment’ page for this docket number, please click here.

NSSF urges you to stress the following in your opposition:

* There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations.

* Wildlife management is the proper jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 50 state wildlife agencies.

* A 2008 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on blood lead levels of North Dakota hunters confirmed that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition does not pose a human health risk.

* A ban on traditional ammunition would have a negative impact on wildlife conservation. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of the ammunition (11 percent) is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. The bald eagle’s recovery, considered to be a great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition – the very ammunition organizations like the CBD are now demonizing.

* Recent statistics from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service show that from 1981 to 2006 the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724 percent. And much like the bald eagle, raptor populations throughout the United States are soaring.

Steps to take:

1. Submit comment online to the EPA.

2. Contact Lisa Jackson directly to voice your opposition to the ban:

Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4700
Fax: (202) 501-1450
Email: jackson.lisa@epa.gov

3. Contact your congressman and senators and urge them to stop the EPA from banning ammunition. To view a sample letter, click here.
]]> National Brick http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/109665-epa-opens-comment-period-lead-ammo-ban.html Gun Owners against Illegal Mayors http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/109538-gun-owners-against-illegal-mayors.html Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:50:12 GMT
http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/


I'm actually kind of surprised it took this long :o

(Found on Snowflakes in Hell) ]]> National anonymouse http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/109538-gun-owners-against-illegal-mayors.html SAF sues Chicago again; CeaseFire exec reveals anti-gun mindset http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/108917-saf-sues-chicago-again-ceasefire-exec-reveals-anti-gun-mindset.html Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:59:17 GMT link- http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/saf-sues-chicago-again-ceasefire-exec-reveals-anti-gun-mindset-1 On Monday, the Second... link-
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...-gun-mindset-1

On Monday, the Second Amendment Foundation filed another lawsuit against the City of Chicago, challenging the city’s new gun control ordinance that seems to have been deliberately designed to invite legal action.

Once again joining SAF is the Illinois State Rifle Association, this time along with Action Target, Inc., and three individual plaintiffs including a retired Chicago police detective, according to a SAF press release. Likewise, they are once again represented by attorneys Alan Gura of Virginia and David Sigale of Chicago, who teamed up with SAF and ISRA on the recent historic case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. That was the case decided on June 28 that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, effectively striking down Chicago’s 28-year-old handgun ban.

“While the city has adopted new regulations that make it legal to own handguns,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “they have crafted this new ordinance to make it virtually impossible for prospective gun owners to meet all legal requirements unless they travel outside the city for mandatory training.”

Privately, Gottlieb has suggested that the city administration under Mayor Richard Daley “needs adult supervision.” They have adopted a gun ownership scheme “in name only.” The ordinance had already drawn one lawsuit, and now there is another.

SAF has been busy since the McDonald ruling. The group has filed lawsuits in New York, Maryland and North Carolina.

Chicago acts as though it somehow won the McDonald lawsuit, considering the regulations it adopted. There is an education and training requirement to obtain a Chicago Handgun Permit. The ordinance prohibits the opening of gun ranges within city limits where residents would have to take their training, because it involves at least one hour of live fire on a range.

“This is a ‘Catch-22’ scenario,” Gottlieb said, “that seems deliberately designed to discourage Chicago residents from exercising their firearm civil rights barely two months after those rights were restored by the Supreme Court.”

While Chicago authorities seem content to annoy gun owners and essentially spit on the high court’s ruling in McDonald, the executive director of Washington CeaseFire, has some interesting perspectives on that ruling, according to the South Seattle Beacon. CeaseFire’s Jenny Quynn suggested that “sensible regulation” of firearms has to do with identifying where guns are and who has them, and for what purpose. She also offers the tired argument that gun ownership is some sort of “public health issue.”

“We want out state to be a model of regulation and not a place known for gun violence,” she said.

This may come as a shock to Ms. Quynn, but gun owners don’t happen to think the government — or CeaseFire — has any right to know where guns are kept, who has them and why. It is none of their business. As for being a public health issue, firearms are hardly carriers of disease. They are merely tools. Once again, her assertions show that gun prohibitionists believe the Second Amendment is not protective of a civil right, but is only a highly regulated privilege. ]]> National andrewjs18 http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/108917-saf-sues-chicago-again-ceasefire-exec-reveals-anti-gun-mindset.html