Author Archives: Kevin

Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms

Coming up soon, this hearing aught to be interesting.

Hearings
Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms

Wednesday, May 5, 2010
10:00 AM
Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 342

Witnesses
Panel 1

* The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg
U.S. Senate
* The Honorable Peter T. King
U.S. House of Representatives
* The Honorable Michael R. Bloomberg
Mayor
City of New York

Panel 2

* Daniel D. Roberts
Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Department of Justice
* Eileen R. Larence
Director, Homeland Security and Justice
U.S. Government Accountability Office
* Sandy Jo MacArthur
Assistant Chief, Office of Administrative Services
Los Angeles Police Department

Share

Huge Power Grab Underway in Washington — Democrats looking to get almost ten, brand new anti-gunners in Congress

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm

Friday, April 30, 2010

The Democrat-controlled Congress and the White House are pulling out all the stops to offset the oncoming tidal wave that is threatening to throw them out of power this November.

With their polls sagging badly, the liberal Democrats rammed through a Puerto Rican statehood resolution yesterday which many consider the first step towards making Puerto Rico the 51st state — a move that would give liberal progressives in the Congress six more Representatives and two new Senators.

Making Puerto Rico a state would bring another gun control bastion into our nation and bring almost ten anti-gun congressmen and senators into the Congress.

This is disgraceful! With her party’s polls plummeting, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to get as many additional progressives into Congress as possible so that she can continue advancing her liberal, anti-American agenda.

Regarding the statehood resolution, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) says it “is the Puerto Rico statehood bill which is being pushed by the new progressive party in Puerto Rico trying to create a federally [sanctioned] vote that they say is nonbinding but would give them the legitimacy to then come back and try to seat people in the United States Congress.”

To see how your congressman voted on the Puerto Rican statehood resolution, go to:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll242.xml

GOA will keep you updated as to when a vote is scheduled in the U.S. Senate.

GOA helps kill Pelosi’s attempt to give DC a vote in Congress

Not to be satisfied with merely eight new liberal votes from Puerto Rico, liberal Democrats want to give statehood to Washington, DC. S. 160 would take a major step in that direction by giving this federal enclave a vote in the House of Representatives.

The bill is the DC Voting Rights Act, otherwise known as the DC Vote Grab Act. It would make Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton a legitimate voting member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

If you know anything about Del. Norton, you know that she is one of the most liberal, anti-gun legislators in the country — one who completely supports Nancy Pelosi’s agenda. Of course, Democrats are not just going to settle for a mere Representative in Congress… they want statehood for the District of Columbia in order to get two anti-gun Senators, as well.

It seems that the Obama-Reid-Pelosi strategy is to continue screwing the country — even if it hurts them in the polls — because then they will work to get as many “new” votes as possible through Puerto Rican statehood… DC statehood… and even things like amnesty for illegal aliens.

But if Pelosi were to succeed in making DC a state, there will be two more liberal votes in the Senate — a situation that would allow them to break any Republican filibuster that would stymie their anti-gun agenda.

The Senate passed S. 160 last year, and if it were not for Gun Owners of America and Senator John Ensign, it would have been signed into law last spring.

Pro-gun Senator John Ensign and Gun Owners of America worked together to attach an amendment to the DC Vote Grab Act. The amendment would repeal all the restrictive gun control laws still on the books in DC after the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision. The vote margin was an amazing 62-36 in the Senate!

Wiping out DC’s still very restrictive anti-gun laws was not what Speaker Pelosi and other rabid anti-Second Amendment members of the House wanted to see.

Because of this GOA-supported amendment, the House has been unable to take any action on the Senate measure. While Speaker Pelosi has no desire to see a pro-gun provision within the DC bill, many House members are afraid to vote for any such bill that doesn’t contain the pro-gun Ensign amendment. In short, this has been a real Mexican standoff that has lasted for nearly a year.

In fact, when Pelosi tried to bring up the bill last week, she could not muster enough votes to secure passage. S. 160 might now be dead for the year, but GOA will continue watching this and alert you to any attempts to bring up the bill again.

Senate “disses” America’s veterans

For several years, GOA has been alerting gun owners to the travesty of justice that has been perpetrated on our veterans.

After the Brady law went into effect, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began sending the names of many of its beneficiaries to the FBI so they could be added to the NICS list, denying these individuals their right to purchase a firearm. To date, more than 150,000 military veterans have been denied.

However, none of these veterans were ever convicted of a crime; none were found to be a danger to anyone; and none were afforded any meaningful due process of law. Under the semblance of being “mental defectives,” these veterans were added to the list strictly because a doctor or a bureaucrat in the VA appointed someone to manage their finances.

The al-Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo have been given more due process than the American soldiers who fought them!

To combat this outrage, pro-gun Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) authored S. 669, the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, that will safeguard for veterans two of the most fundamental Constitutional rights enjoyed by Americans: due process of law and the right to keep and bear arms.

The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act merely stipulates that a veteran cannot lose his or her gun rights “without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.”

This very reasonable bill passed out of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee last June, having been approved unanimously.

Burr’s language was offered on the floor of the Senate during the health care debate, but unfortunately, it was defeated 53-45. To see how your Senator voted, go to:
http://tinyurl.com/2ufvgu4

GOA will continue fighting for the passage of this very important legislation.

Where we are at

As you know, elections have consequences. GOA is fighting in the trenches to protect/regain our rights. And, thankfully, we have won a couple of major battles at the federal level — like securing the ability to transport firearms on Amtrak trains and carry loaded guns in National Parks.

In the states, GOA has been successfully pushing Firearms Freedom Acts around the country — laws which allow guns that are made in their home states, and stay in those states, to be free of federal regulation. (Currently, there are seven states that have enacted such laws; several others are still in the process.)

GOA also worked in Arizona to pass a new Alaska-style carry law which allows citizens to carry concealed firearms without first getting permission from the government.

We have also lost some battles, as would be expected in a climate that is overwhelmingly controlled by liberals in Washington.

So we need your help. We can win the battles that are facing us, but only if we each give our maximum effort. Thank you for your continued support for our work. Even if you can only a give a couple of dollars, every little bit counts.

To make a contribution to Gun Owners of America, please visit: http://gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm

Share

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN ARMS RIGHTS UPDATE April 2010

IAPCAR Ambassadors Julianne Versnel (SAF), Alan Gottlieb (CCRKBA) and Simone Ciucchi and Silvia Gentile (FISAT) attended EXA 2010, the 29th International Sporting Arms, Security, Outdoor Show in Brescia, Italy where they launched an IAPCAR supported class action lawsuit to protect the rights of Italian firearms owners.

At the EXA Show over 1200 gun owners signed up as co-plaintiffs for the first ever gun owner class action lawsuit filed in Europe. IAPCAR owes a very big thank you to the Italian gun magazine, ARMIeTiro who provided the exhibit space for the effort.

So far this year, IAPCAR has held meetings and events at SHOT in Las Vegas, Nevada (USA) IWA in Nuremberg, Germany and at EXA in Brescia, Italy.

IAPCAR now has 14 member organizations from 7 countries on three continents. Several more national organizations are in the process of joining.

IAPCAR Managing Director Mark Barnes will hold an Executive Committee meeting on May 1 in Phoenix, Arizona (USA) where plans for additional meetings, events and activities will be developed. Events, meetings and activities on the executive meeting agenda will include:

NRA Convention and Annual Meeting: (May 14-16) A number of IAPCAR Ambassadors and member organizations will be attending and will have an opportunity to get together and network. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) will have an exhibit booth at the Charlotte, North Carolina (USA) event.

UN Programme of Action (POA) on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW): BMS4 will be held the week of June 14-18, 2010, in New York. Several IAPCAR Ambassadors and member organizations will attend this important United Nations meeting.

The UN General Assembly has also authorized an Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) to meet in 2011 to review the POA and make recommendations to a major conference on SALW in 2012. The POA OEWG will meet during the week of January 10, 2011. There are plans for will regional meetings in support of the POA in 2011. UNIDIR will be coordinating these meetings. Dates and locations have not been decided but the meeting for the Americas will probably be held in South America (Argentina or Chile).

UN Arms Trade Treaty: The ATT Preparatory Committee (Prep. Com.) meeting will be held from July 12-23, 2010, in New York. As currently planned, there will be further ATT Preparatory Committee meetings in 2011, a short procedural meeting in 2012 followed by a four-week conference in later in the year.

Gun Rights Policy Conference: The event will take place September 24-26, 2010 in San Francisco, California (USA) and include a panel made up of IAPCAR Ambassadors and member organizations as well as a strategy meeting to combat the global threat to civilian arms rights.

United Nations Firearms Protocol: Work continues for the Expert Working Group for the Development of a Model Law on Firearms. There is a tentative meeting set for the first week of July in Vienna. The Protocol will be on the agenda for the Conference of Parties to the Trans-national Organized Crime Convention that meets in Vienna Oct. 18-22, 2010.

International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS): Reports are due. Please check www.un-casa.org for updates.

International Ammunition Regulations: The UN is circulating draft proposals for stockpile guidelines. This continues to be an area of grave concern as it appears to be a closed.

UN Register of Conventional Arms: There will be a major effort by the international anti-gun rights lobby to expand the UN Register of Conventional Arms to include “small arms and light weapons.” Handguns, rifles and shotguns would fall into this definition and therefore be included in plans for registration and control proposals and treaties. This effort should conclude in 2012.

Future Meetings Calendar
UN POA – Biennial Meeting of States, June 14-18, 2010.
UN ATT Preparatory Committee – July 12-16, 2010, New York.
UN Firearms Protocol – Conference of Parties to the Trans-national Organized Crime Convention that meets in Vienna, Oct. 18-22, 2010.
UN General Assembly First Committee – October/November, 2010 (exact dates to be announced).
UN POA OEWG – January 10-14, 2011.
UN ATT Preparatory Committee – February 28 to March 4, 2011, New York.
IAPCAR IWA 2011 Meetings – March 11-12, 2011, Nuremberg, Germany.
UN ATT Preparatory Committee – July 11-15, 2011, New York.

Share

CCRKBA SUPPORTS LEGISLATION TO CORRECT ONEROUS D.C. GUN LAWS

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today said a bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Jon Tester and John McCain that would repeal most gun laws in the District of Columbia “would not be necessary if District officials had lived up to the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in the Heller case.”

Tester (D-MT) and McCain (R-AZ) unveiled the Second Amendment Enforcement Act Tuesday. It would overrule the District’s deliberately complicated registration requirements and would also prevent enactment of regulations that prohibit the carrying of firearms in public places. The bill would further reign in the police chief’s discretionary power to deny carry licenses to law-abiding citizens. Companion legislation was introduced in the House by Reps. Travis Childers (D-MS) and Mark Souder (R-IN).

“District officials have stubbornly refused to adopt rational gun regulations that include the right-to-carry for self-defense, even after they were essentially told to do so by the Supreme Court,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “The city’s resistance to change has been both obstructive and childish, and it is time for grown-ups in Congress to stop this nonsense.

“Mayor Adrian Fenty, the District Council and Police Chief Cathy Lanier have deliberately, and I believe maliciously placed one roadblock after another in the paths of District citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” he continued. “These officials have hardly dealt with this issue in good faith. Instead they have mired the process in needless bureaucracy with no other apparent purpose than to simply discourage District residents from legally obtaining and keeping firearms for personal protection, as the Heller ruling clearly mandated.

“Just the other day,” he noted, “they willingly sacrificed full congressional voting rights because the measure also included full gun rights provisions.

“We will encourage our members to support the Second Amendment Enforcement Act,” Gottlieb stated. “The District government’s arrogant obstinacy has grown intolerable. Congress must pass this legislation and force the District’s juvenile city government to behave.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

Share

Open Carry in MI from a gun boards view.

Part one

Part two

This took place recently at the local gun board.
Interesting info given by the CWL holder and attitude from the board.

Info Added 4/30/2010
The citizens CPL was returned to him by a Sheriffs deputy 5 hours later…stay tuned for more updates.
CONCEALED WEAPONS LICENSING BOARD
Phone: (231) 724-6324

Marc Curtis, Senior Assistant Prosecuting Attorney

Sgt. Gary Miles, MSP Detective

Lt. James Christianson, Muskegon County Sheriff Detective

Nacy Waters, County Clerk – not present

Share

U.N. Wants Firearms Trace Data But What Do They Really Want

Gun Rights Roundup by Buckeye Firearms Association
United States Concealed Carry Association

United States Concealed Carry Association

Washington, DC – -(AmmoLand.com)-The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for the firearms industry – has learned that the United Nations has filed its first firearms trace request. This is raising serious concerns since the U.N. has been pushing for civilian disarmament.

“Firearms trace data is a law enforcement tool to help aid in specific criminal investigations,” said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. “Our concerns with this trace request stem from U.N.-efforts to impose arms trade control treaties that would lead to a ban on the civilian possession and ownership of firearms, possibly even in the United States.”

Tracing a firearm is the process by which law enforcement tracks the chain of custody of a firearm through the licensed distribution system to the original retail purchaser. In this particular case, the manufacturer declined to provide the information to the United Nations and instead advised U.N. officials to make its request through proper international law enforcement channels. This would ensure that ATF, the appropriate law enforcement entity responsible for handling such requests, would be aware of the world body’s actions. Read More about this controversial ATF Action.

“Some foreign states and well-funded non-governmental organizations, like the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), are using arms trade-control talks at the United Nations to restrict or ban the private ownership of firearms,” continued Keane.

Though this trace request appears to have been an isolated incident, it should make all gun owners nervous. Imagine a future where your firearms are governed by international agreements and politics, where the principle players are not your elected officials, but socialists, Marxists, and dictators around the globe.

For some, this is fine. There is a growing contingent of believers who long for a day when national borders vanish and we all live under one world order. One set of laws. World police. Shared wealth. And laws crafted by people from all corners of the globe.

Given the unique nature of America and the rights we enjoy, such a vision would spell the end of the world as we know it. It would certainly spell the end of the Second Amendment, which is viewed by many around the world as barbaric and out-dated.

The only hope we have is to continue to say “no” to such naïve visions and support only those candidates that not only believe in the Second Amendment but also cherish the absolute sovereignty of the United States.

Gun Rights Roundup is a joint venture of Buckeye Firearms Association and USCCA. We will keep fighting until every American enjoys their natural right to carry and self-defense.

About:
Buckeye Firearms Association is a grassroots political action committee dedicated to defending and advancing the right of Ohio citizens to own and use firearms for all legal activities. Visit: www.BuckeyeFirearms.org

About:
United States Concealed Carry Association is The Most Comprehensive, Up-To-Date Resource for the Law-Abiding, Armed Citizen. Visit: www.usconcealedcarry.com
Distributed to you by – AmmoLand.com – The Shooting Sports News source.

Share

GLOATING OVER COURT RULING IN ‘HELLER II’ REVEALS BRADY CAMPAIGN’S GUN BAN PHILOSOPHY

By Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman

Following the dismissal of a second lawsuit against the District of Columbia by Dick Anthony Heller in U.S. District Court (his first lawsuit resulted in the 2008 Heller ruling), the Brady Campaign for the Prevention of Gun Violence was a little too quick on the trigger in its press release applauding Judge Ricardo M. Urbina’s decision.

Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke, who has garnered quite a bit of self-created publicity lately in his war against Starbucks Coffee, admitted quite by accident that his organization still believes in banning entire classes of firearms, despite the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that such bans would not pass constitutional muster.

But that doesn’t matter to the Brady Bunch. Their agenda has always been one of gun prohibition, not control. The kinds of controls they consider “common sense” are so Draconian in nature that they actually discourage firearms ownership, and lower the civil right to keep and bear arms to the level of a highly-regulated privilege.

Helmke admonished politicians and legislatures “at all levels” to “stop using the Second Amendment as an excuse for inaction” against what the anti-gun lobby has cleverly dubbed “gun violence.” (After all, what is the difference between “gun violence” and any other kind of criminal violence that results in someone being injured or killed? Is someone any less dead if they are stabbed, strangled, burned or bludgeoned? Helmke’s crew has never explained that, but evidently they think there is a difference.)

Millions of Americans understand that the Second Amendment is not “an excuse” for anything. Law-abiding citizens are not “hiding behind” a constitutional guarantee when they oppose the imposition of extremist regulations like those adopted in the District of Columbia, which Helmke finds so reasonable. These regulations include an onerous registration process requiring a ballistics check of the handgun, a written test and proof of good eyesight.

District regulations also ban so-called “assault weapons,” the definition of which has become so nebulous over the years that just about any firearm someone does not like could fall within its scope, particularly if it is a semiautomatic. The Brady group is just fine with that; they think it is a grand idea. Helmke says the aforementioned politicians and legislatures “should follow the District’s example and pass the strong, common sense gun laws Americans need and demand to protect their communities.”

The Brady Campaign has been disingenuous at best over the years. It was on the losing side in the Heller case, but subsequently turned around and claimed that since there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the door has been left open to “reasonable regulation,” then it is reasonable, in their opinion, to essentially regulate gun ownership into extinction. The right would still exist, but exercising it would become a regulatory nightmare.

The Brady Campaign is not now, nor has it ever been, to “prevent gun violence.” Their campaign has always been to prevent gun ownership.

Alan Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. Dave Workman is senior editor of Gun Week. They are co-authors of ‘Assault on Weapons: The Campaign to Eliminate Your Guns.’

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Share

Starbucks Sticks With Second Amendment

Written by James Heiser
Tuesday, 06 April 2010 09:22

As reported previously, Starbucks has found itself enmeshed in the struggle between activists who are attempting to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment liberties, and those who are trying to uphold those constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The controversy erupted when “open carry” advocates began using Starbucks franchises as the location for meetings. As the Wall Street Journal reported over a month ago,

The “open carry” movement, in which gun owners carry unconcealed handguns as they go about their everyday business, is loosely organized around the country but has been gaining traction in recent months. Gun-control advocates have been pushing to quash the movement, including by petitioning the Starbucks coffee chain to ban guns on its premises.

Businesses have the final say on their property. But the ones that don’t opt to ban guns — such as Starbucks — have become parade grounds of sorts for open-carry advocates.

Starbucks on Wednesday, while bemoaning being thrust into the debate, defended its long-standing policy of complying with state open-carry weapons laws, in part by stating that its baristas, or “partners,” could be harmed if the stores were to ban guns. The chain said that in the 43 states where open carry is legal, it has about 4,970 company-operated stores.

The company added: “The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.”

In other words, the corporation simply adopted the position that what is recognized as the “law of the land” ought to apply inside their stores, as well: It was not the policy of Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz and his board of directors to jump into the middle of one of the more contentious civil liberty struggles going on in America today.

Although the press has appeared bent on dragging Starbucks into the camp of those who would restrict the ability of Americans to defend themselves, Schultz has remained focused on his job: Running a coffee company. According to a story online at ABCNews.go.com:

“We woke up one day and all [of a] sudden Starbucks was in the middle of this political crossfire between the people who want to bring a gun into Starbucks and the people who want to prevent it,” said Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. “It is a very difficult, fragile situation. We’re trying to abide by the law.”

In an exclusive interview to air on “Nightline” tonight, Schultz admitted guns in Starbucks are at odds with his vision of what the company should be. But the Fortune 500 CEO said: “I’m not a politician. I run a coffee company and we’re trying to abide by the laws in which we do business.”

Despite the cliche of coffee houses being the haunt of the Left, Starbucks has thus far refused to surrender to pressure generated by opponents of the Second Amendment. State law usually leaves it to proprietors to voluntarily ban firearms (including those carried with a concealed-carry permit, as in the case of 30.06 postings in Texas) from their places of business, if they desire to do so, but Starbucks has apparently decided not to exercise that option.

Perhaps it is time for “Tea Party” activists to learn something from “open carry” advocates: Remember that the Sons of Liberty threw the tea in Boston Harbor, and stick to a good old American “cup of joe.”

Share

Canada set to repeal registration of hunting rifles, shotguns

Gun rights advocates in U.S. hope repeal will spur efforts here
Richard Moore
Investigative Reporter

After nearly 20 years, Canada appears poised to end one of its boldest experiments in gun control – the required registration of long guns, or shotguns and hunting rifles.

Last November, a bill to abolish the Long-Gun Registry, enacted in 1995 and gradually phased in through 2003, passed a second reading in the Canadian House of Commons by a tally of 164 to 137. It faces a third and final reading in that chamber later this year; prospects are good for passage in the Canadian Senate.

The bill would delete from federal law the obligation to register so-called nonrestricted firearms, though licensing requirements for long-gun owners to buy or possess firearms and to buy ammunition would remain in place.

The legislation would also require all registration information collected to date to be destroyed.

About 7 million long guns have been registered, but as many as 8 million guns, according to various estimates, have not been in what many say is outright defiance. The Conservative government has also extended to May 16, 2011, an existing amnesty for rifle and shotgun owners facing charges for failing to register their firearms.

Opponents cite runaway costs, gun rights, and lack of effectiveness in pushing the repeal measure. The author of the legislation, MP Candice Hoeppner, says the registration requirement pays lip service to reducing crime without actually doing so.

“Canadian taxpayers have shelled out $2 billion and counting to hassle hunters, farmers and sport shooters with registration requirements, while receiving nothing in return in crime reduction or prevention,” Hoeppner told a recent gathering of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH).

In an article written for London Free Press, Hoeppner called the registry a “massive” policy failure.

“It makes no sense to force law-abiding individuals with firearms licenses to register their long-guns,” she wrote. “It makes no sense to believe the registry will prevent a gun crime from taking place.”

And, Hoeppner stated, the $2 billion could have been better spent.

“This money could have gone toward front-line police officers, or for programs to help our at-risk kids,” she wrote. ” . . . In order to make our communities truly safer we need to retool our criminal justice system and focus on the real problems. We need to strengthen the Criminal Code with tough anticrime and anti-gang measures and make sure criminals serve the time they deserve.”

Hoeppner has also taken on those who say repeal is a measure aimed against women, the principal victims of domestic violence. In fact, she says, Liberals have called her a “showpiece” and “little foot solder” and have on multiple occasions told her to sit down and shut up.

“They are telling women who are part of families that farm, hunt or sport shoot to also sit down and be quiet,” she wrote. “They are telling women if they don’t think as the Liberals do on these issues, they should be silent.”

Support for the registry

While the odds favor repeal, opponents still have a variety of parliamentary tactics they can use to stall the bill, while outside Parliament a sizable coalition also supports keeping the registry in place.

Advocates say repealing the registry will deprive front line police, suicide prevention and domestic violence prevention workers of an essential tool.

“Opponents of gun control claim rifles and shotguns are not a problem in Canada,” said Denis Côté, president of the Quebec municipal police federation. “They are wrong. Rifles and shotguns make up a substantial proportion of the guns recovered in crime in this country. They are the guns most often used to kill police officers, in domestic violence situations and in suicides, particularly those involving youths.”

In addition, supporters say police use the gun registry approximately 11,000 times a day, and so-called long guns are especially a problem in suicides.

Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control, said an American effort was behind the push to repeal the law.

“There is a well-funded, U.S. inspired campaign to misrepresent the facts,” Cukier said. “Millions have been spent on targeted campaigns and strategies. Reports were withheld until after the registry vote. The opponents continue to invoke the costs of the registry, but the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) have stated clearly that dismantling the registration of rifles and shotguns will at most save $3 million a year, less than the cost of a complex murder investigation.”

Organizations supporting the law include the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Police Boards, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the YWCA Canada, the Canadian Federation of University Women, the Canadian Association for Adolescent Health, le Barreau du Québec, la Fédération des femmes du Québec, the G-13 consortium of 13 national women’s groups.

Arguments against

An equally vocal and perhaps politically stronger coalition has emerged against the registry, particularly the Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters and a wide array of sport shooters groups.

What’s more, there are multiple grassroots groups, including the aptly named Canadian Unregistered Firearms Owners Association, which advocates peaceful, nonviolent but active civil disobedience.

Among other things, opponents allege, assertions that police search the registry 11,000 times a day is bogus because such things as routine traffic stops trigger automatic queries. Others have questioned the security of the system, which they say has been hacked, allowing unauthorized users to gain the personal information of gun owners, including their names and addresses.

Even worse than the security issue are the costs associated with the registry. An auditor general’s report in 2002 found significant cost overruns over original government estimates.

In 1995, according to the audit, the government told Parliament the long-gun registry would involve a net cost of $2 million, with registration fees covering everything else. By May 2000, the government admitted, the costs had ballooned to at least $327 million.

By March 2005, the audit continued, the net cost was $946 million and, by the summer of 2006, costs had exceeded $1 billion. Parliament was misinformed about many of those costs, the auditor general concluded.

The price tag now stands at $2 billion.

What’s more, according to the Public Safety Canada department, neither the costs incurred by provincial and territorial agencies in enforcing the legislation nor the costs carried by firearms owners and businesses to comply with the legislation have been calculated, and the agency cites two Library of Parliament studies estimating enforcement and compliance costs to run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Vic Toews, now the nation’s Minister of Public Safety and a former member of Parliament, has long supported repeal because of the costs associated with a law he says does not work.

“While the majority of Canadians support cost-effective gun-control programs, they also agree that the 2 billion in taxpayer dollars spent since 1995 on the mismanaged Liberal gun registry has not kept guns out of the hands of criminals,” he said in 2006.

At the same time the government was throwing away that money, he said, other law enforcement services continued to suffer from funding cutbacks and staffing shortages, particularly along the borders.

Impact on crime

But what about the impact on crime? According to the current government, it has not reduced the crime rate.

There are nearly 7 million registered long guns in Canada, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics reports. Yet, the public safety department adds, of 2,441 homicides recorded in Canada since mandatory long-gun registration was introduced in 2003, fewer than 2 percent (47) were committed with rifles and shotguns known to have been registered.

In addition, the department cites the Vancouver Police Strategic Plan of 2004-08, which pegs illegal smuggling by organized crime as the principal source of firearms.

“Indeed, the Vancouver police report that 97 percent of firearms seized in 2003 were illegal guns smuggled in from the United States, usually by organized crime,” the public safety department states.

The bottom line is, criminals don’t register firearms, says OFAH executive director Mike Reader.

“Instead of creating a paper chase for the law-abiding, the system needs to be revamped to focus on law breakers who use illegal firearms, many of them smuggled into Canada from the U.S., to commit crimes in our communities,” Reader said.

Of course, Second Amendment advocates are closely watching the Canadian fight, hoping a repeal of the registry in Canada will blunt fledgling gun registration movements not only in the United States but in the United Nations.

“If all goes well in the Canadian parliament, Dominion gun owners will be freed from 14 years of living under the crushing weight of a bureaucratic, scandal-ridden, wasteful, invasive, $2 billion, error-ridden and inarguably worthless long gun registry,” NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre wrote in the March issue of American Hunter. “The registry has been proven a fraud in regard to promised minimal costs and significant impact on violent crime.”

LaPierre quoted Dave Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute in Colorado, as saying, “Repeal of the Canadian registry would be of tremendous global significance. Repeal would also shatter the claim by the Canadian gun prohibition lobby that gun control in Canada is an irreversible ratchet.”

That’s huge on the world stage, LaPierre wrote, “and made all the more significant as a backdrop in the pending debate on the United Nations’ global gun ban.”

Richard Moore can be reached at rmmoore1@verizon.net

Share