Monthly Archives: April 2010

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.
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


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 – -( 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.

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:

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



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 ( 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.


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

“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.”


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


California Democrat proposes mandatory gun registration

A California Democrat is proposing a new law requiring residents to register their shotguns and rifles or go to jail, has learned.

Assemblyman Mike Feuer, whose district includes Beverly Hill and West Hollywood, this week introduced legislation ordering law enforcement to “permanently keep” records of anyone who buys a gun from a dealer or an individual. California already stores information about handgun purchases.

Feuer is no friend of firearms owners: his previous legislative effort, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law, required all new handguns to include “microstamping” technology that can imprint serial numbers on spent ammunition casings. As a Los Angeles city councilman, Feuer proposed limiting city residents to one gun a month.

Feuer spokeswoman Arianna Smith declined to answer questions about the bill on Tuesday afternoon, saying the staff member involved was in a meeting and not immediately available.

The proposal comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a landmark civil rights case, McDonald v. Chicago, which will decide whether Second Amendment rights in the federal constitution trump state anti-gun laws. But California is proposing mandatory registration — and not a flat ban, as Washington, D.C. once tried and the justices rejected — and even legal scholars specializing in this area disagree about whether registration is constitutional.

“Even though the constitutionality of such a measure is a close call, it is a horrible public policy choice,” says Gene Hoffman, chairman of the CalGuns Foundation. “Just as Canada is about to do away with their long gun registry after squandering $1 billion, California wishes to attack law abiding gun owners for firearms not used in crime.”

A CBC News article last month reported that the Canadian parliament is backing away from the nation’s gun registry, which was enacted in 1989 and has now come under fire by critics who call it a billion-dollar boondoggle.

Feuer’s bill isn’t exactly a surprise: He told the Brady Campaign, an anti-gun advocacy group, earlier this year that his forthcoming proposal would give law enforcement another tool to track down people in possession of illegal firearms. “This legislation will close a glaring loophole and ensure that all firearm records, not just handgun records, are maintained for law enforcement purposes,” Ellen Boneparth, spokesperson for the California Brady Campaign Chapters, said in a statement at the time.

Feuer appears to have adopted an unusual approach to introducing his mandatory registration bill. He took an existing piece of criminal legislation, AB 1810, that dealt with graffiti and vandalism, and replaced it with a completely new version with the same bill number.

A hearing is scheduled for April 13 in Sacramento before the California State Assembly’s Committee on Public Safety.

At the moment, a minority of states including New York, Maryland, California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts require mandatory registration for handguns. Others, like Pennsylvania, require sales of handguns to go through a dealer, who keeps records of the transaction.

No federal firearm registry exists, though some anti-gun types have pushed for one in the past. An unsuccessful 1995 bill, H.R. 169, would have imposed California-style registration of handguns nationwide through a “federal handgun registration system.” Violations would have been punished by up to 12 years in prison. The author of the bill, Rep. Cardiss Collins, D-Illinois, told her colleagues at the time that “I still believe the best way to control handguns is to ban them outright.”

Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBS Interactive’s CNET News and a contributor to You can e-mail him or follow him on Twitter as declanm. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired.


MEGA Products

We are proud to offer MEGA machine products for our customers.

Check out the current inventory page or look at mega website for more info on their products. Then drop us an e-mail to find out about pricing and availability.


New rifle from Savage The Edge!

New rifle just put out by Savage, the Edge, is made to be the “best in class’ entry level rifle, this rifle offers the following features.

  • New Modern Design
  • Silky Smooth Bolt Operation
  • Detachable Box Magazine
  • Dual Pillar Bedding

  • Composite Stock
  • 22″ Free-Floating Barrel with Sporter Taper
  • Matte-Black Metal Finish
  • Two Position Safety

Available in 8 calibers from .223 rem to 30-06, also available in a package deal labeled the XP that includes a 3-9×40 mounted and bore-sighted scope. Rifle is available in ever-fashionable black or camo.

All with a MSRP of $329 for the rifle only and $379 for the package, contact us for quote and availability.

My own review will be coming soon, but here is a review from gun blast


Questions Arise Over Army Bases’ Disposition of Surplus Cartridge Cases

Thursday, April 1st, 2010 at 8:26 pm

Questions Arise Over Army Bases’ Disposition of Surplus Cartridge Cases

National Rifle AssociationNational Rifle Association

FAIRFAX, Va. – -( As reported first on AmmoLand, last week, NRA-ILA learned that quantities of once-fired small arms cartridge cases recovered from firing ranges on military bases, which by federal law the Department of Defense is prohibited from demilitarizing or destroying, were being sold for scrap.

A governing law in this matter, developed with input from NRA-ILA, is a rider to the 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. It stipulates that “None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols, or to demilitarize or destroy small arms ammunition or ammunition components that are not otherwise prohibited from commercial sale under Federal law, unless the small arms ammunition or ammunition components are certified by the Secretary of the Army or designee as unserviceable or unsafe for further use.” However, military bases are authorized to dispose of a variety of items, including surplus cartridge cases, via the Qualified Recycling Program, in place for more than a decade.

NRA members will recall that it was one year ago when a bureaucratic glitch led to the Department of Defense temporarily suspending sales of once-fired cartridge cases, Montana’s U.S. Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester quickly conveyed to the Defense Logistics Agency their judgment that “The destruction of fired brass is unwarranted and has far reaching implications,” including its “impact on small businesses who sell reloaded ammunition utilizing these fired casings, and upon individual gun owners who purchase spent military brass at considerable cost savings for their personal use.” A summary of last year’s “demil” controversy can be reviewed here.

Last week, NRA-ILA again contacted Senators Baucus and Tester to request that they investigate the current disposition of surplus small arms cartridge cases with a view to determining the best way to assure their continued provision to Americans who buy the cases for resale and reloading use. Jointly, Senators Baucus and Tester have made their concerns known to the Defense Logistics Agency and asked its chief to explain, by April 15, the extent which military installations have contracted with private companies for the scrapping of fired cartridge cases, whether such contracts comply with federal law, and what steps the agency is taking “to ensure that all interested buyers have the opportunity to purchased once-fired small arms cartridge cases.”

NRA will continue working with members of Congress and the Pentagon to guarantee that the long-standing practice of making surplus military small arms cartridge cases available for reuse by reloaders continues in perpetuity. NRA members are encouraged to inform their U.S. Senators and Representatives that they expect Army bases to do everything possible to ensure the continued supply of once-fired cartridge cases through channels making them available to the public.

You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121 or use our Write Your Representativestool.

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

Distributed to you by – The Shooting Sports News source.