Terrorist Watch List Bill Out

The “Dangerous Terrorists Act” is out in PDF over at Of Arms and the Law.  I’m really curious why the DOJ wants this so badly, and I’m also really curious why Bush has yet to fire Alberto Gonzalez.  This is not the kind of crap I expect to be coming out of a “pro-gun” administration.

Of course, I could just chalk this up to the Aministration’s penchant for ignoring due process concerns when it comes to people they have declared “terrorists”.   I’ve been willing to grant them a lot of leeway in dealing with foreigners captured in a theater of war, but not with the rights of US citizens.   This is an outrage.

Is This Guy Now a Prohibited Person?

Dave Hardy tells us of a pretty outrageous incident:

In the latest blow-back from the Virginia Tech shooting, State University of New York at Cobleskill suspended a student and sent him to a mental hospital for five days after he posted a photograph of himself posing with a shotgun on his Facebook page. According to reports, somebody found that image along with an away message that read, “I’m tired of people talking sh*t about my school.” As a result, last Friday Tharindu Meepegama (Thar), “a junior majoring in computer information systems, was escorted by the sheriff’s department to a psychiatric center in Oneonta, N.Y., where he was held until Wednesday.”

So is this guy now a prohibited person?   It seems he was involuntarily committed, but I’m wondering where the due process is?  To me, this is clearly an abuse of the mental health system.  If jurisdictions like New York and California want to consider an interest in shooting as a reason for psychiatric commitment, I may just reconsider whether I think there’s enough due process protections in the system to consider whether it’s sufficient to strip someone of their rights.

Strappnig for Urban Renewal

Pro-Gun Progressive asks the Mayor of Balitmore a simple question in regards to helping clean up his neighborhood:

Nice to know she’s not saying I can’t own a gun. Ms. Mayor, can I get a hand from you in getting that permit so I can carry mine when I’m being confronted by roving gangs of drug dealing thugs who say they want to kill me? The bad guys carry theirs.

That’s a great question. But I doubt she’d bother to answer.

Philadelphia Gun Bills

In my last post, I mentioned the Philadelphia City Council was preparing to defy the Commonwealth’s preemption laws and pass their own laws that further regulate firearms. I have tracked down the text of the most onerous of these bills.

Bill No. 070348 “Reporting Requirements Upon the Application for or Renewal of a License to Carry a Firearm”

The name, address, occupation, place of birth of the applicant, date and hour of the application, the caliber, length of barrel, make, model and manufacturer’s number of and type of all guns at the home, business or any other property leased, owned by the applicant or under the control or access of the applicant, at the time of the application.

This information would have to be submitted every year for which you are licensed. Any changes, such as purchase or aquisition of a new firearm, disposition or sale, must be reported to the Philadelphia Police within 30 days.

I have to ask City Council, whether these rules which only apply to people who hold a License to Carry Firearms, are going to affect crime, given that the people shooting it out on the street corner do not have license to carry their guns? This only applies to the law abiding, which we can guarantee since LTC holders must be free of any criminal record.

Bill No. 070345 “Contraband Weapons, Accessories and Ammunition”

In particular, certain paramilitary assault weapons have become the weapons of choice of those engaged in drug trafficking and other enterprises of organized crime. The threat to the lives of Philadelphia police officers has become particularly acute as a result of this on-going trend.

I’m willing to bet this is pure unadulterated bullshit. We know that long guns of all types are used in less than two percent of crime. Assault weapons only constitute a fraction of one percent. They have never been the criminal’s weapon of choice. That, without a doubt, is the handgun.

No person shall own, use, possess or transfer any contraband weapon, accessory or ammunition; provided however, that any person who, prior to the effective date of this Section, was legally in possession of a weapon or device prohibited by this Section shall have thirty (30) days from the effective date of this Section to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution hereunder;
(a) remove said contraband weapon, accessory and/or ammunition from within the City limits of Philadelphia; or
(b) modify said contraband weapon, accessory and/or ammunition to either render it permanently inoperable or to permanently make it a device no longer defined as contraband under this Section; or
(c) surrender it to the Police Department.

No grandfathering, no compensation, no exceptions. It’s good to see the city isn’t just crapping all over the right to bear arms provisions in the State Constitution. Why only violate one right, when you can get two for the price of one? The ban is basically a mirror of HR1022, Carolyn McCarthy’s ban. It bans firearms based solely on cosmetic features.

Bill No. 070344 “Straw and Multiple Handgun Purchase Reduction” to limit purchases of handguns by Philadelphia residents to one a month, and to prohibit “straw purchases” of handguns utilized by criminals for the purpose of evading the one handgun a month limitation; all under certain terms and conditions.

Yeah, because the 300 dollar find and 90 days the city provides in jail will deter the criminal when the laws against murder, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery, all felonies with lengthy jail times, don’t.

Lots of “whereas” in this bill

Whereas, According to the ATF, over 22% of guns used in crime nationally, and 51% of guns used in crime with eliminated serial numbers, come from multiple handgun sales; in addition, “straw purchases” account for 46% of guns used in crime; and

I’ve heard a lot of statistics, but I’ve never heard this one. Does anyone have any idea where they got these statistics? From the ATF, no doubt, but I’ve never seen these numbers from the ATF. Someone with some time ought to try to dig them up.

Whereas, In the Philadelphia assault weapons ban case of Ortiz et al vs. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al, 545 Pa. 279, 681 A.2d 152 (1996), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that municipalities are strictly limited by the Pennsylvania General Assembly regarding the regulation of the possession, sale and transfer of firearms; and

Whereas, The statutory limitations of municipalities to regulate the possession, sale and transfer of firearms, as upheld by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, has been duly incorporated within the body of this legislation along with the paramount and legitimate interests of the public safety of the citizens of our City and the Commonwealth; now, therefore

So basically, even though state government has made it illegal for the city to regulate firearms, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has upheld that, we’re going to go ahead and do it anyway. I guess this is what passes for rule of law in Philadelphia.

Under definitions:

(c) Straw Purchaser: Any person who conducts or attempts to conduct a gun purchase on behalf of another person.

That’s not what a straw purchaser is federally. And even though state law makes it a crime to transfer a handgun privately, it does make an exception for immediate family members.

The interesting thing is they exempted C&R holders, which surprised me. I didn’t think the city council members really understood the gun laws enough to make that exception.

Here’s where it gets really onerous:

No licensed importer, licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer shall sell or deliver any handgun to another person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer or licensed collector, unless he has:
(1) obtained a 30 day eligibility report from the City of Philadelphia Police Department; and
(2) forwarded a copy of the completed application/record of sale from the potential buyer or transferee to the City of Philadelphia Police Department, postmarked via first class mail, within 14 days of the sale.

Nothing in the law says how long the city can take to issue this 30 day eligibility report. It’s basically a defacto waiting period. Since there’s no requirement that the police process these in a timely manner, and a firearm may not be transferred without this report, the police could ban firearms in the city by not processing the application.

Also this:

The receipt of applications/records of sale which indicate that a purchaser or transferee has obtained more than one handgun in any 30 day period shall constitute prima facie evidence that the multiple handgun purchaser is involved in the trafficking of handguns. The City of Philadelphia Police Department shall thereafter commence a criminal investigation to determine the extent, if any, of criminal activities committed by the multiple handgun purchaser.

And the city wonders why the state preempts them from making their own gun laws. And they wonder why we consider one gun a month schemes to be unreasonable. Seriously, this is what reasonable gun laws are in Philadelphia? If these pass out of City Council, I will be sure to contact that state Attorney General, to make sure their office will remind the city that it may not enforce these ordinances.

The media keeps mentioning eight bills. I could only find these. If the other ones are out there, I haven’t been able to find them.

It’s All Been Done

Dave Hardy tell us the City of Philadelphia wants to sue the state over gun control:

City Councilman Darrell L. Clarke said last night that the city plans to file a lawsuit today in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court alleging that the General Assembly has failed in its duty to protect the residents of the city.

“It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the General Assembly is unwilling or unable to act,” Clarke said in a telephone interview last night. “We have no choice but to go to court.”

This is a publicity stunt.  A few weeks ago I mentioned the case of Oritz vs. Commonwealth, which upheld the statewide preemption.  The city has sued the state several times over gun laws, and has lost every single time.  It’s well established that the legislature has the sole power to regulate firearms in the commonwealth.  The idea of suing the legislature for not passing laws is just insanity.

In addition to authorizing the suit today, Council intends to approve eight gun-control measures that have been languishing in Council for more than a year, Clarke said.

Among other things, the bills call for limiting handgun purchases to one a month, and for owners to report any guns that are lost or stolen, Clark said.

David Kairys, a professor at the Beasley School of Law at Temple University, said that the laws Council is expected to enact today should be valid because of the city’s Home Rule Charter. But the charter’s power is diminishing, he said.

“The legislature and the Supreme Court have so undercut it that it’s hard to say we have home rule anymore,” said Kairys, who in the 1990s led the city’s legal team in an unsuccessful court challenge against handgun manufacturers.

Try to enforce any of these, I can promise the city a giant lawsuit that WILL have merit in court.  No gun control law passed by the city is valid law in Pennsylvania, so attempting to enforce it will amount to an unlawful arrest.  I would like to see the state Attorney General remind the city that it is illegal for them to do this.

We’ve been down this road so many times with the city.  More on this issue later.

Ruger Rimfire Challenge

Michael Bane is going to the Ruger Rimfire Challange, and says:

 You guys are going to be kicking yourselves in your sorry butts for NOT signing up for this match…there are, like, 30 — count ’em — guns on the prize table, plus a whole crate of other cool stuff! NOOOOOOOOO, I can’t win anything, except the ever-lasting love of match direction Lisa “Boom-Boom” Farrell, plus a complete collection of Lisa Farrell trading cards…I don’t even get a freakin’ t-shirt, otherwise! Still…

Sounds like a lot of fun, except for the fact that the State of California considers my Ruger 10/22 to be a menace to society…

http://www.pagunblog.com/blogpics/1022.jpg

… and would quickly arrest me and throw me in prison upon arrival.  Ruger should hold the Rimfire Challenge somewhere other than California.   Why would I want my shooting dollars to go to a state that believes I ought to be in prison?

Philadelphia Wants Local Gun Laws

The same people behind the H.B. 760, the statewide registration bill are now pushing for a bill that would allow Philadelphia to maintain a gun registry:

State Reps. Angel Cruz and Rosita C. Youngblood yesterday announced another effort aimed at reducing the flow of guns in Philadelphia, this time by allowing the city to create a gun-registry system. Surrounded by reporters yesterday in his storefront office on North Fifth Street, Cruz said “something has to be done” to ease the wave of gun violence that has gripped the city.

Cruz said that while law-abiding citizens purchase guns, “bad people buy guns, too. This way we will know who has the guns.”

So the drug dealers and gang members are going to register their guns with the police? It would seem that is not likely. So what you’re saying is, you’ll know which law abiding people have guns, which, maybe I’m crazy here, seems pretty useless.

But why do something useful, like locking up criminals, when politicians can keep proposing nonsense like this, and tell the people back home that Harrisburg is really responsible for their own failures.

Hat Tip to Classical Values.

Magazine Ban in Illionis

The State of Illinois is moving through a ban on standard capacity magazines. It was introduced as an amendment to another bill by State Senator Dan Kotowski of Cook County. It’s called SB1007. Here’s the text of the bill.

7   Sec. 24-1.8. Manufacture, possession, delivery, sale, and
8   purchase of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.
9   (a) As used in this Section:
10   "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means:
11   (1) a detachable magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or
12   similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be
13   readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10
14   rounds of ammunition; or
15   (2) any combination of parts from which a device
16   described in paragraph (1) can be assembled.

Of course, Police, Olympic competitors, and folks at the World Shooting and Recreational Complex in Sparta. Odd that anti-gun groups and politicians say these devices have no legitimate use, yet they feel the need to except people who, you know, are using them for a legitimate sporting use.

But I guess Senator Kotowski gets to decide what legitimate sporting uses he approves of. If they don’t like your legitimate sporting use, you’re screwed. And of course, these magazines have no self-defense use either, unless of course you’re a police officer, then they do.

Remember that it only takes a few seconds to change a magazine. This bill will not, of course, affect availability of magazines to criminals. Existing magazines are grandfathered, and there are a lot of them out there.

There is also no exception for people traveling through the State of Illinois. There’s FOPA, but that won’t keep you out of jail.

Good News!

David Codrea tells us that Red’s Trading Post is back in business again, after a federal judge issued an injunction against the BATFE:

Judge Lodge noted in making his decision that “the ATF speaks of violations found during the inspections of 2000 and 2005, but fails to reveal that additional investigations in 2001 and 2007 revealed no violations or problems.” He also notes Red’s statement that ATF is exaggerating Red’s conduct by “double counting” certain violations. Also noted was the balance of the ATF’s hardship compared to Red’s hardship. The judge found “that granting the preliminary injunction would not place the public safety in jeopardy” and “that that the relative hardships tip sharply in favor of Red’s.”

Hopefully Red’s will prevail in their case overall.  These kinds of abuses by the ATF really need to stop.  But hey, it’s Idaho.  Lots of guns and not much crime.  I guess the ATF agents have to make a name for themselves somehow, right?

One area I agree with the hard line, no compromise crowd is elimination of the ATF.   I’ve always believed in consolidating most federal law enforcement functions back down to the U.S. Marshall service.  I’ve never understood the logic of having half a dozen separate federal law enforcement agencies.