Ohio gun bills dead for now

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Lawmakers won't get a chance to vote on a pair of controversial gun bills despite a rarely used parliamentary procedure from House Republicans that gave backers hope for passage.

Outgoing House Speaker Armond Budish, a Beachwood Democrat, said Thursday that the 99-member chamber has closed up shop for the year, which means that a pair of gun measures won't come up for a vote.

Rep. Danny Bubp, a West Union Republican, had used a discharge petition signed by a bipartisan group of lawmakers to force a vote Wednesday that pulled the bills out of committee and sent them to the House floor.

One measure would allow concealed-carry permit holders to bring guns into bars and restaurants serving alcohol while the other would allow people with misdemeanor drug convictions to get the concealed gun permits.

And while more than 50 House lawmakers were willing to allow a floor vote on the gun bills, it won't happen because lawmakers won't hold any more voting sessions this year. However, with House Republicans back in charge of the chamber next year, Budish knows the gun bills have only been temporarily holstered.

"I have a feeling we're going to see them next year," Budish said, declining to comment further on the legislation. He voted against bringing both measures to the floor.

Meanwhile, in other legislative action Wednesday, the House unanimously passed legislation that would criminalize human trafficking. Earlier this month, the Senate also unanimously passed the measure.

Currently, Ohio has laws against compelling prostitution and solicitation to deal with offenses related to human trafficking.

Sen. Teresa Fedor, a Democrat from Toledo who championed the bill, said the new law will give authorities the necessary tools to fight the growing problem of forced labor. The law also incorporates the definition of human trafficking into kidnapping and abduction offenses; creates a crime for destroying, concealing or confiscating ID documents for the purpose of human trafficking; and it designates human trafficking as an offense under Ohio's wire-tapping laws.

Gov. Ted Strickland has said he will sign the legislation that makes Ohio the 45th state to have a stand-alone penalty for human trafficking.

By: Aaron Marshall, The Plain Dealer

Smith & Wesson shares down as company sees more modest Q3 sales

(Reuters) - Shares of Smith & Wesson Holding Corp (SWHC.O) fell as much as 6 percent Thursday, a day after the company forecast weak third-quarter sales, indicating that demand for firearms in the United States is slowing down.

"The firearms industry appears to have returned to levels no longer driven by fear of increased gun control or political uncertainty," Chief Executive Michael Golden said on a conference call with analysts.

Total firearms sales for the quarter were at about $83.6 million, the company said, which was below its own estimates.

However, Merriman Capital analyst Eric Wold kept his "buy" rating on the company's stock, saying he expected order patterns to improve in the second half of fiscal 2011 and in fiscal 2012.

Wold also said the 158-year-old company is discounting its wares to attract customers, which bodes well for Smith & Wesson as channel inventories stabilize and incoming orders more closely reflect consumer demand.

Smith & Wesson shares were down at $3.83 on Thursday morning on Nasdaq.

By: Nivedita Bhattacharjee, Reuters

 

 

NRA to Pursue Aggressive Agenda During Iowa’s 2011 Legislative Session!

Thanks to your support in the November 2010 elections, over 80% of NRA-PVF’s endorsed candidates were elected to the Iowa legislature. The gain in pro-gun legislators will greatly improve Iowans’ ability to continue to support a pro-gun agenda and build on the momentum from last session when Iowa joined the vast majority of the states with passage of its shall-issue Right-to-Carry law in 2010.

On Monday, January 10, 2011, Iowa’s 84th General Assembly will convene and NRA, with support from Iowa Firearms Coalition, Iowa Sportsman’s Federation, and other pro-gun activists, will pursue an aggressive agenda to make Iowa a leading pro-Second Amendment state. The following is a listing of some of NRA’s top priorities in the Hawkeye State in 2011:

Iowa’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Constitutional Amendment

This proposed constitutional amendment would provide Iowa the strongest and most comprehensive firearm rights protection of any state, guaranteeing our Right to Keep and Bear Arms for future generations. The process of amending the state constitution with these protections would require passage of the legislation in two separate general assemblies and a ballot vote.

“Constitutional Carry”

Building on NRA’s “Constitutional Carry” successes in Alaska and Arizona, NRA is making a strong push for more “Constitutional Carry” states around the country, including Iowa. The proposed legislation would allow individuals who lawfully possess firearms—meaning individuals who are not federally prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm—to either open or conceal carry without a permit. The new shall-issue permit system would remain in place, for those who wish to carry concealed in states that recognize Iowa’s permit, but residents who legally qualify would no longer be subject to the permit process to carry concealed in state.

“Shall-Issue” Carry Reform

As of January 1, 2011, Iowa will become a “shall-issue” state and have one of the strongest shall-issue statutes in the country. In an effort to continue expanding the rights of permit holders, NRA is proposing a number of changes including removing the burdensome and unnecessary retraining requirement while also expanding on the criteria to satisfy the initial training requirement.

“Personal and Family Defense Act”

The proposed legislation would allow Iowans to defend themselves and their families—removing a person’s duty to retreat—from any place they have the legal right to be. Additionally, any Iowan who used justifiable force could not be held civilly or criminally liable.

Preemption Reform

Upon the passage of the new shall-issue law, some counties in Iowa sought to ban firearms from public properties including parks—effectively denying your ability to protect yourself outside your home. Fortunately, Iowa has a firearm preemption law that prohibits counties from passing ordinances that are more restrictive than state law. However, the preemption statute needs to be strengthened to prevent current and future attempts to circumvent the law. The proposed legislation rests the sole authority on these matters with the state legislature and prevents a rights-infringing patchwork of local ordinances.

Emergency Powers Reform

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, local authorities in New Orleans, Louisiana confiscated firearms from lawful owners who had no other means of protection during one of America’s worst natural disasters. Since the passage of Louisiana’s “emergency powers” legislation, approximately 28 states have passed similar legislation. NRA’s proposed language would prevent any state or local authority from confiscating any firearms during a state of emergency—a necessary safeguard for all Iowans.

By: NRA-ILA

Ohio gun bills advance

COLUMBUS – Legislation to relax Ohio’s concealed-carry gun laws got last-minute life Wednesday in a rare maneuver by state Rep. Danny R. Bubp.

But if the Ohio House, controlled by Democrats until Jan. 2, agrees to recess its two-year session before Tuesday, Senate Bills 239 and 247 will die. House Speaker Armond Budish, D-Beachwood, said he doesn’t intend to call any more sessions beyond Thursday.

Ohio mayors against both bills include Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory, Addyston Mayor Dan Pillow, North College Hill Mayor Daniel R. Brooks, Silverton Mayor John Smith, Wyoming Mayor Barry Porter and 65 others:

• Senate Bill 239 would legalize carrying concealed guns in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

• Senate Bill 247 would let people with certain misdemeanor drug convictions legally carry concealed guns.

Bubp, who represents Clermont, Adams and Brown counties, introduced a “discharge resolution” Wednesday to force a floor vote on the pro-gun Senate bills, bypassing lengthy committee hearings and debate. A dozen Democrats joined 44 Republicans in allowing a floor vote.

The Ohio House tentatively planned a voting session for 12:30 p.m. Thursday, but House rules require a waiting period to vote on the gun bills. That means Tuesday would be the earliest legislators can vote to pass either bill.

Bubp, a Republican from West Union, conceded that chances of passage next week, while Democrats still hold a 53-46 majority, are minimal. Republicans will enjoy a 59-40 majority during the 2011-2012 legislative session, after gaining 13 seats in the Nov. 2 election.

“I am very pleased to see the strong bipartisan support for both of these bills and hope we can vote next week,” said Bubp, who previously introduced similar legislation in the House with Rep. Joe Uecker, R-Loveland.

Mallory said Senate Bill 247 would allow criminal offenders with misdemeanor convictions for selling marijuana, cocaine or drug paraphernalia to legally carry concealed guns.

“Individuals convicted of drug crimes need access to jobs, training and treatment, not concealed firearms,” Mallory said in a statement.

An ex-felon can’t get an Ohio license to run a junkyard, according to Mallory, yet someone convicted of selling drug paraphernalia to children or trafficking marijuana or cocaine could legally carry a concealed firearm.

“The Ohio Legislature continues to have their priorities backward when it comes to helping ex-offenders return to being responsible members of society,” said Mallory, a former state legislator.

In other business, the House voted 95-0 on Wednesday to make human trafficking a stand-alone felony punishable by up to eight years in prison. The bill also won bipartisan support in the Senate.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Ted Strickland says he will sign the bill into law.

By: Jon Craig, Cincinnati News

 

Editorial: No nation survives under government gun control

Why is it that every federal administration, be it Democrat or Republican, will always manage to bring up legislation dealing with some form of gun control? I think we can right off the bat, rid ourselves of any notion that the Feds are suddenly concerned about our safety. If they were, don’t you think they would have closed our U.S. southern border long ago before drug dealers, gangs, terrorists, etc., can now usually safely cross over any time of day or night? What, then do you suppose is the real purpose behind said legislation? Perhaps we can find the answer by checking the history of other nations who voted for gun control and what the results were. Following are a list of countries that were so involved.

E In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

E In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917 , 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

E Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

E China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

E Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

E Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

E Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people due to gun control total 56 million. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and gun control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. During World War II, the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were armed.

By: Jean Nyquist, The Bemidji Pioneer

Utah State Rep: We Need An Official State Gun!

Apparently nothing says patriotism like the cold, hard steel of an M1911, .45-caliber handgun -- designed with love by a local gunmaker.

Which is probably why Utah state Rep. Carl Wimmer (R) wants to make it Utah's official state firearm.

Wimmer -- a former cop and life member of the NRA -- told TPM in a phone interview Tuesday that he plans to introduce the legislation in January, when the Legislature is back in session. The gun, designed by Utah-born John Moses Browning, has been used in every war since WWI, and is still used today, Wimmer said. It's the gun's "staying power," he said, that makes it a treasure.

"It is not only of historical value for the state of Utah, but it is of historical value for the United States of America," Wimmer said. "This firearm has literally saved countless lives, it has defended freedom and liberty across the globe and, as Utahans, we should be proud of that."

Wimmer told the Salt Lake Tribune that other states have designated official state firearms, but neither he nor the NRA could confirm that to TPM.

He has received some backlash from anti-gun groups, who say he's trying to "glorify an implementation of death." Others claim Wimmer -- who told TPM he's preparing to campaign for Congress in 2012 -- is using this bill as a publicity stunt. He rejects both claims.

By: David Taintor, TPM.com

Gun-Rights Supporters Won Big at the High Court, But For What?

In the past few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has given gun-control opponents much to cheer about.

In 2008, the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess a firearm for private use inside one’s home.Two years later, the court essentially extended that ruling to the states.

But according to this recent story in the ABA Journal, the Heller and McDonald decisions have not spelled doom for cities’ and states’ gun-control efforts. According to the story, “while there have been challenges throughout the country to local, state and federal gun laws, few have been successful.”

Part of the issue, it seems, concerns the decisions themselves. Critics say the opinions provide insufficient guidance to lower courts wrestling with gun-control laws.

“It’s a huge change in our understanding of the amendment, but not necessarily a huge change in what kinds of gun control laws are constitutional,” said Duke law professor Joseph Blocher to the ABA Journal.

At least 260 challenges to state and federal gun laws have been filed since Heller was decided, according to Jonathan E. Lowy, director of the legal action project at the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. But in most, the gun-control law has been upheld as constitutional.

So don’t be surprised if the Supreme Court decides to get involved once again in the debate, possibly to provide further clarification to lower courts. A couple that could go all the way up: Bateman v. Perdue, which concerns North Carolina’s law forbidding the carrying of firearms or ammunition during an official state of emergency. And there’s Nordyke v. King, which involves a county ban on firearms on public property.

By: Ashby Jones, Wall Street Journal

Redesigned SHOT Business Magazine Website Goes Live

Readers of SHOT Business, the firearms industry’s leading trade magazine, will have 24-7 access to the magazine’s many articles, features and columns on the newly redesigned and upgraded website www.shotbusiness.com.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which owns the magazine, has revised the site to provide more timely updates and a full e-version of the current edition. SHOT Business is published seven times a year through a publishing agreement with Bonnier Corporation, publishers of Field & Stream and Outdoor Life.

“For convenience and to accommodate all reading habits, magazines today must extend beyond print and provide an online experience,” said Slaton White, editor of SHOT Business magazine. “The new and improved SHOT Busineses website will allow firearms retailers to keep up with all the magazine has to offer from their store, home or while on the road. NSSF has done a fine job of making the site a true extension of the magazine.”

All content from the most recent issue of the magazine can be found on the website, including the regular ATF questions-and-answers section, the “From NSSF” section, the popular “What’s Selling” and “Undercover Shopper” features and “New Products,” among other news.

The contents of SHOT Daily, the affiliated news publication of the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show, will be available on the site. Beginning in the first quarter of 2011, a previous issues archive will be added.

Visitors to the site are reminded that they can subscribe to SHOT Business content through Facebook and Twitter.

By: Bill Brassard, National Shooting Sports Foundation

 

 

Republican pushes gun-rights bills to Ohio House floor; Budish may thwart effort

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A Republican state representative pulled off a rare legislative feat on Tuesday in attempt to force a vote on a pair of gun-rights bills - one that could allow firearms in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

Rep. Danny Bubp, a Republican from southwest Ohio, got a bipartisan coalition of 50 lawmakers to sign a petition to bring the measures to the floor.

But Democratic Rep. Armond Budish, in one of his final acts as House Speaker, might thwart the tactic. Budish could allow the lame-duck legislative session to expire at the end of the year without a vote on the bills.

Budish, of Beachwood, said Bubp’s tactic - called a discharge petition - hasn’t been used in more than a decade and "violates the traditions of the House."

"Leader (William) Batchelder and the Republican leadership often talk about admiring and adhering to the traditions and protocols of the House," Budish said on Tuesday. "I believe this violates the traditions and protocols of the House."

Budish would not discuss his position on the bills, which passed the Ohio Senate in May and since have stalled in a House committee. Gov. Ted Strickland has said he would sign the bills if passed by the legislature.

Senate Bill 239 would allow some gun owners to carry their firearms in family restaurants, bars and open-air arenas. It would also modify the concealed-carry law to allow gun owners to travel in their vehicles with their firearms openly displayed. The bill drew staunch opposition from the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police.

If the law passes, restaurants and bars could still decide to prohibit guns inside their businesses, said attorney Ken Hanson, who is legislative chair for the Buckeye Firearms Association. Hanson said privately owned stadiums could make the same decision. Guns would still be prohibited at publicly owned stadiums if the law passed, Hanson said.

The other measure, Senate Bill 247, would allow people with certain misdemeanor drug offenses to acquire or possess firearms.

Bubp, a retired Marine who supports broader gun rights, started a petition this week to bypass the committee process and force the bills onto the floor. Normally, a legislative committee must pass a bill before the entire House votes on it. Bubp said it was clear Democratic leadership had no interest in advancing the gun rights bills.

Batchelder, who will be House speaker next year, conceded that the petition tactic is rarely used but disagreed with Budish’s opinion that it violates House traditions. He said he also signed a discharge petition in the mid-1990s.

House rules require 50 petition signatures, meaning Bubp had to recruit a handful of Democrats to join his cause because Republicans currently hold 46 out of 99 seats. Seven Democrats, six of whom lost in the Nov. 2 election, joined 43 Republicans in signing the petitions on Tuesday. Bubp said he stopped collecting signatures at 50.

The same rules that allow Bubp to force a vote also give Budish enough leeway to allow the year to end without bringing the bills to the floor.

Once the petition is validated, according to House rules, the House must vote on the floor to bypass the committee process for each bill. That vote will occur today. Then, a two-day waiting period must elapse before the House votes on the bills.

By: Joe Guillen, The Plain Dealer

Letter: Memo from a Criminal

I want to appeal to the good citizens of Rockford and Illinois to vote for absolute gun control.

I work in home burglaries, convenience store stickups, an occasional rape and strong-arm robberies. Things are tough enough without me having to worry about citizens being armed when I accost them at home or on the street.

Why should I have to be concerned I might get shot and killed, just for doing my job of robbing and pillaging?

I say eliminate all guns from the hands of private citizens. I’m a professional and I break the law for a living, so it won’t have any effect on me.

You might say having citizens armed, especially with concealed weapons, constitutes a hostile work environment.

How am I to know who is an easy mark and who isn’t? How on earth can anyone think that’s fair?

As a case in point, England, Australia, Washington, D.C., and Chicago have all banned guns. See how much crime rates have risen in those places since then. Much better.

This message is sponsored by: National Criminals Guild, United Auto Theft Workers, Association of Violent Offenders, Serial Killers Anonymous, National Kidnappers Collective and other similar, upstanding organizations nationwide.

By: Dave Willis, Rockford Register Star

Bligh considers firearm law revamp

THE shootings on the Gold Coast could spark another round of bitter public debate over gun control with Premier Anna Bligh vowing to tighten firearm laws if necessary.

Ms Bligh yesterday said she had been shocked by the shootings because they were so unusual.

She said police were throwing everything at the investigation and if they found laws needed to be changed, they would be.

"Here in Queensland we have some of the toughest gun laws in Australia but if in this investigation we find anything that suggests we should be revisiting them then we won't hesitate," she said.

"This sort of lawlessness has no place in a civilised society.

"These events at the Gold Coast are frankly just shocking. There is no place for them in Australia and they are shocking precisely because they are extreme and unusual."

The Opposition seized on the shootings to launch an attack on the Bligh Government over police numbers, claiming Gold Coasters were right to be concerned about going out at night and the tourism industry would suffer.

LNP police spokesman and Noosa MP Glen Elmes said there had been increasingly violent incidents on the Gold Coast's tourist strip.

"The shootings over the past few days are very disturbing, and come on top of the string of violent crime fuelled by alcohol and drugs that occurs in party precincts," he said.

"The Gold Coast community is rightly extremely concerned about leaving their homes at night at the moment and the shootings could have a detrimental effect on the tourism industry which is already struggling."

But Police Minister Neil Roberts said crime rates across a range of categories had decreased over the past 12 months and police numbers had increased.

"Obviously these three incidents are of grave concern and police are throwing tremendous resources into resolving these as quickly as possible," he said.

"In terms of the Gold Coast generally, the recent statistical review showed there was reductions in crime rates across a range of categories, from break and enters to assaults.

By: Sue Lappeman, Gold Coast (AU) News

 

Giving a Firearm as a Gift? Some Reminders from NSSF

The holidays are just around the corner. As hunters, shooters, collectors or just plain plinkers, it’s a natural instinct to want to share our enjoyment of firearms with others. What better way to do that than to make a gift of a firearm to a family member, close friend or relative?

The first thing to remember if you’re thinking about giving someone a gun is that . . . it’s a gun! You already know that ownership of a firearm brings with it some serious legal and ethical obligations that other consumer products don’t. So let’s look at some questions you may have about giving a firearm as a gift.

The first question you have to ask is whether the intended recipient can legally own the firearm where he or she lives. More than 20,000 different gun laws on the books, even the kinds of firearms that law-abiding citizens can own vary from place to place; for example, juveniles (under age 18) generally speaking are precluded by law from possessing a handgun.Check out the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) website for an overview of local laws and, whatever you do, don’t forget that you can never under any circumstances transfer a firearm to someone you know or have reasonable cause to believe legally can’t own one. That’s a federal felony, so be careful.

Though there’s no federal law that prohibits a gift of a firearm to a relative or friend that lives in your home state, some states—California for example—require you to transfer the gun through a local firearms dealer so an instant background check will be performed to make sure the recipient is not legally prohibited from owning the gun.

The ATF recommends that if you want to give someone a new firearm, rather than going to a gun store, buying it on your own and giving it to, say, your father, consider instead purchasing a gift certificate from that retailer and giving that to Dad as his present.That way he’ll get exactly the gun he wants, and there’s no question about who is “the actual buyer of the firearm,” which is a question any purchaser must certify on the Federal Form 4473 at the time of purchase.

You can only ship a handgun by common carrier (but not U.S. Mail) and a long gun by U.S. Mail or common carrier to a federally licensed dealer but not to a non-licensed individual. With all carriers, federal law requires you to declare that your package contains an unloaded firearm. To be safe, always consult your carrier in advance about its regulations for shipping firearms.

What if you want to give “Old Betsy,” your favorite old deer rifle, to your son or daughter as a college graduation gift? Again, in most states, there’s no law that says you can’t, but some states require even interfamily transfers to go through a licensed dealer. Remember, you can never transfer a firearm directly to another person who is a resident of a different state. In that case, you must transfer the firearm through a licensed dealer in the state where the person receiving the gift resides. Using a gift certificate from a firearms retailer near where the recipient lives might be a good solution. Pre-1898 antique firearms are generally exempt from the dealer requirement. Be safe and check with your dealer or local law enforcement before you hand over your prized possession.

It’s often an emotional moment when a treasured family heirloom is passed down to the next generation. These moments are part of what our cherished enjoyment of firearms is all about and represent that unique bond that sportsmen have with their fellow enthusiasts.

So enjoy the holidays and do it right!

By: Bill Brassard, National Shooting Sports Foundation

Texas continues to lead the way in gun silencer sales

Glen Furtardo knows a good buy when he sees one.

He says that's why he has several silencers in his gun collection. "They don't lose value," said Furtardo, manager at the Winchester Gallery gun store in east Fort Worth. "It's a good investment."

He's not alone in thinking that.

Nationwide, more than 22,000 of these noise suppressors were sold this year -- 9 percent more than last year -- and the most were sold in Texas for at least the third year in a row, according to statistics released by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

In Texas, 3,621 silencers were sold in fiscal 2010, ahead of 2,053 in Florida and 1,153 in Georgia, the data show.

"People just want them," Furtardo said. "It's like tattoos. ... They have come out of the closet. Now everyone gets them."

DeWayne Irwin, who owns the Cheaper Than Dirt gun store in north Fort Worth, said he has steadily seen sales of silencers rise, along with ammunition and guns, over the past two years.

That, he said, may be partly due to a widespread concern that the Obama administration will hike taxes on ammunition, guns and other firearms-related materials or ultimately reinstate an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

"People are afraid the federal government will put tighter restrictions on the suppressors, much like they did the machine guns," Irwin said. "I think the sales on the suppressors are going to go up as long as there's a Democrat in the White House."

Buying silencers

Buying a silencer requires an application, just as with buying a legal machine gun.

That application asks various questions about the prospective buyer and the dealer and requires a set of photos, a citizenship certificate and two fingerprint cards. Also, a local sheriff or law enforcement officer must sign off on the form stating that the prospective buyer does not have a criminal record.

The documents and a one-time $200 transfer tax are sent to Washington, D.C., where federal officials conduct a background check that can take two to nine months. If approval is granted, the buyer may then pick up their silencer from the store, area gun sellers say.

"It's a pretty good system," Irwin said. "If you are a convicted felon, they're going to catch you somewhere."

Silencers cost $199 to $6,000, sellers say, and attach to many guns, including handguns and rifles.

Marsha McCartney, a Dallas volunteer for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said she doesn't understand why people would buy silencers in the first place.

"It would only be a concern if they were buying them because they are doing something illegal," she said.

'This is Texas'

Some people take their silencers to shooting ranges. Others might take them to "machine gun shoots," where gun lovers gather to fire at targets. Still more might keep a silencer on their handgun or rifle at home to help with "varmint" control -- shooting coyotes, skunks or snakes.

"The only use I can think of for a silencer is if you are hunting hogs and have 15 to 20 hogs at a feeder," said Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, a former state senator who shepherded conceal-carry legislation in 1995. "That's a practical use if you want to shoot one without scaring others off.

"Or maybe if you're getting rid of squirrels in your back yard," said Patterson, who always carries a gun but does not have a silencer.

It's more than that, Irwin said.

"Ninety percent of the people who buy them just think they are so cool," Irwin said. "This is Texas."

By: Anna Tinsley, Dallas Star-Telegram

 

 

Portland City Council unanimously approves 5 gun-control measures

Portland's City Council this morning unanimously approved five new local gun control measures crafted by the mayor in an effort to reduce gun violence in the city.

"Will this end up in court? Most certainly so. Will we fight it? Absolutely. What's at stake? The safety of our youth," Mayor Sam Adams said.

The council joins major cities around the country, led by mayors who have pushed to pass gun control measures that their state lawmakers would not or could not.

Supporters of Portland's proposed gun control laws have called them a needed tool for law enforcement to crack down on gang-related shootings, while critics have voiced concerns about their constitutionality, and potential for unfairly targeting young blacks.

Three ordinances would hold adults responsible if their gun gets into a child’s hands, penalize gun owners who don’t report the theft or loss of a firearm, and designate shooting hot spots and allow the city to exclude certain gun offenders from them.

While the theft reporting and child protection laws have been passed in other major cities, criminal justice experts say the exclusion zones that would restrict gun offenders from areas designated as high in gun violence would be unique to Portland.

Two other code changes would set a 7 p.m. curfew for juveniles who have been convicted of a gun offense such as possessing or illegally using a firearm, and would enact a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days in jail for a gun offender found carrying a loaded gun in a public place, including a vehicle or on transit.

The mayor said the new laws break nearly two decades of what he termed "legal silence" and "legislative silence" on gun control laws to help reduce homicides and assaults in the city.

Adams noted that 4 out of 10 homicides in the city are committed with guns.

"While the state's preemption laws prevent us from doing all that we can to promote responsible gun ownership, we're doing what we can," Adams said.

Fellow commissioners agreed.

Commissioner Nick Fish, a Northeast Portland resident, sad he was fed up with reading about shootings and homicides in Northeast Portland and elsewhere in the city.

"If our actions result in one life being saved, then it's a worthwhile endeavor," Fish said. "This is not a perfect solution, and it doesn't solve the problem, but it's a first step."

Commissioners Amanda Fritz and Randy Leonard praised the mayor for bringing the ordinances forward.

"It's been a very respectful and reasoned discussion," Fritz said. "Obviously we have problems in our community, so we need to try some new things."

Commissioner Dan Saltzman said he had some concerns about state restrictions on the type of gun laws the city could draft, but was swayed by the need to reduce violence in the city. He also stressed the need to invest in the city's youth.

Adams said he shares concerns raised that some of these measures may contribute to racial profiling. But he urged the community to consider today's reality.

"There's is a unique racial aspect to this issue. Young African American males are killed by guns at a higher rate than any other segment of our community. We want to make safer our youth. We want to make our African American youth safer."

By: Maxine Bernstein, The Oregonian

Narrow, Shrinking Plurality Favors Stricter Gun Laws

A recently released Gallup poll shows that a record low number of Americans support stricter laws governing the sale of firearms. The plurality that still favors stricter laws (44 percent) is a far cry from the 79 percent that gave that response when the question was first asked in September of 1990. Gallup also notes an all-time low of 29 percent favor a ban on the possession of handguns “except by the police and other authorized persons.” When the question was first asked in 1959, 60 percent favored such a ban. The Pew Research Center’s trend on gun control shows a similar change. While half (50 percent) felt that it is more important to control gun ownership than protect the right to own guns (47 percent), the gap has narrowed considerably since the question was first asked in 1993. Then, only 34 percent said protecting the right to own guns trumped control. It’s clear that Americans’ attitudes about gun control are changing.

In its press release, Gallup argues that these attitudinal changes are not related to fear of crime or safety. Between 1990 and 2002, the belief that crime was increasing fell in Gallup’s polling, but since that time it has shot up, reaching a record high of 74 percent in 2008. But gun control attitudes continued their downward trend after 2002. One possibility that Gallup doesn’t consider is that pro-gun attitudes might strengthen as worries about crime increase, especially if Americans perceive current gun control laws as sufficient. And it seems that they do. In October 2007, 58 percent of Gallup respondents stated that they would prefer to enforce current gun laws more strictly instead of passing new laws. Only 38 percent wanted new laws. A majority has given the “enforce current laws” response in the five iterations of that question since April 2000. Americans seem to think that the laws currently on the books to control firearms are adequate if properly enforced. If that’s the case, why would they want to restrict their access to guns as their concerns about crime increase?

A preponderance of Americans also believe that they have a right to own a firearm. While pollsters don’t ask about the subject very often, a substantial 78 percent told Gallup in February 2008 that the Second Amendment applies to a right to own guns and doesn’t just apply to militias. In that poll, even 63 percent of non-gun owners agreed. In an August 2010 AP/Gfk/Constitution Center poll, a majority found that limits to gun ownership infringe on the constitutional right to bear arms. It’s clear that Americans believe they have a right to own a gun and, at some point, gun control measures limiting ownership infringe on that right.

Remarkably, these dramatic attitudinal changes are taking place in the background of declining gun ownership. Only 39 percent told Gallup in October 2010 that they owned a gun in their home, down from 49 percent who reported they owned a gun in 1959.

By: Andrew Rugg, The American