Gun-Free-Zone Liability
A few quick items folks.
Starting with something fun.
Then something wonderful (from Arizona).
Alan.
MEET ALAN KORWIN AT THE RENO SHOW!
If you're going to the big annual NRA Show in Reno (April 26-29, 2002),
let's see if we can meet and chat. I'm staying at the Atlantis Casino
Resort on S. Virginia, 775-825-4700.
I hope to be bringing news about an important new national issue, if I
can get the pieces together in time. Stop by and catch me at the Second
Amendment Foundation booth on Friday and Saturday, from 1:30 to 3 p.m.,
where I'll be autographing books and shooting the breeze. Will I see
you at the banquet Saturday night?
ARIZONA UPDATE THRU 2001 POSTED
(Full details on website)
HERE IS AN ABSOLUTE GEM from the state legislature.
Enacted as part of a new law banning frivolous lawsuits against the gun
industry, it's included in three years of new material now on our
website for Arizona (1999, 2000, 2001).
Page 45. Frivolous Lawsuits.
In an effort to disarm the public, various groups, including in some
cases tax-funded government officials, have initiated lawsuits against
gun manufacturers, distributors and related businesses for the
non-criminal manufacture and sale of firearms. Arizona has enacted a
statute forbidding such suits by political subdivisions of this state,
saying in part:
"The citizens of this state have the right, under the Second Amendment
to the United States Constitution and article 2, section 26 of the
Arizona Constitution, to keep and bear arms."
"Businesses in the United States that are engaged in the lawful sale to
the public of firearms or ammunition are not, and should not be liable
for the harm caused by those who unlawfully misuse firearms or
ammunition."
"The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm
that is the sole responsibility of others is an abuse of the legal
system, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and
constitutes an unreasonable burden on the free enterprise system."
"The liability actions commenced by political subdivisions are based on
theories without foundation in the common law and American
jurisprudence. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a
deprivation of the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to
citizens of this state under both the Constitution of Arizona and the
United States Constitution." See (§12-714) for complete details.
Please note that the current Arizona edition is copyright 2002, Edition
20, now updated to include laws effective as of Jan. 1, 2002.
The following 39 laws ("Arizona Revised Statutes") were changed or are
newly added:
4-244; 12-820.02; 12-714; 13-107; 13-205; 13-604; 13-702; 13-906;
13-912; 13-1204; 13-1213; 13-1406; 13-2501; 13-2514; 13-2911; 13-3101;
13-3102; 13-3107; 13-3108; 13-3110; 13-3111; 13-3115; 13-3116; 13-3601;
13-3602; 13-3708; 15-341; 15-841; 17-273; 17-304; 17-340; 32-2612;
32-2615; 32-2622; 32-2623; 32-2624; 32-2625; 32-2632; 32-2635; 33-1368.
Full details are on the Bloomfield Press update pages.
http://www.gunlaws.com
CHANGE OF ADDRESS
Update your records please --
New street address: 4718 E. Cactus #440
All mail forwarding from
the old Tatum street address
will end in June 2002,
just weeks away.
That's it for now!
Thanks.
Alan.
Contact:
Alan Korwin
BLOOMFIELD PRESS
"We publish the gun laws."
4718 E. Cactus #440
Phoenix, AZ 85032
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 FAX
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for a free catalog.
Get our free gun-law updates, sign up on our home page.
Alan Korwin is the author of seven best-selling books on gun law,
including the unabridged guide "Gun Laws of America -- Every Federal Gun
Law on the Books, with Plain English Summaries," and state gun guides
for AZ, CA, FL, TX, VA. This paper is part of an ongoing series, click
Position Papers on our home page, or write or call for copies.
Permission to reproduce or circulate this message
is granted provided credit is included.
This may be the most pro-rights gun bill to come down in many years. A
version of the bill has already been introduced in Arizona (HB2456) with
considerable support (12 sponsors!) and has excellent PR value even if
it isn't enacted in its first year. A lot of very bad gun bills are
planned, so it's critical to balance that with bills as positive as this
one. Ask your legislators to at least look at the language and support
it. It's about time!
Thanks.
Alan.
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSELESS VICTIM ACT OF 2002
Talking Points & Bill Text
"If you create a gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes."
"If you create a gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes."
(NOTE: Copy of the bill follows.)
Originally called the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act, this bill recognizes
that gun-free zones, recklessly made and typically with no alternative
security provided, are known to be extremely dangerous.
We have seen this recently in the Wakefield, Mass., slayings, the Luby's
Massacre, and even the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, where pilots and
passengers were defenseless, in the false name of security. Congress
responded to that with the "Arm The Pilots" law.
The Defenseless Victim Act basically says that, in public places, if you
create a dangerous gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes.
The idea that gun-free zones are safe is fraudulent.
The unfortunate fact that many people believe gun-free zones are safe is
a testament to the stunning power of American media, its well documented
biases and the ease with which large numbers of people can be misled and
manipulated.
It is a mythology perpetrated by anti-rights activists and left-wing
elites who can often be recognized by their beliefs that:
1 - self defense should be illegal,
2 - guns should be confiscated,
3 - no one but "authorities" should have guns,
4 - government can take care of you better than you can,
and they're actively pursuing these goals.
The anti-self-defense lobby would tell you to rely upon the police for
your safety, but they always omit the inconvenient facts that:
1 - police have no legal duty to protect you, and
2 - they routinely respond only after an event to pick up the pieces.
In the three examples above and countless others, the police don't draw
their guns,
they draw chalk lines when you're gone.*
A person who would deny your right
or ability to self defense is as violent and
wrong as the person who assaults you.
Self-defense against criminal assault is guaranteed in all 50 states and
federally, as it should be, and is as old as the first written laws of
civilization. Denying the fundamental right to self preservation is
unjust, immoral, dangerous and should not be tolerated.
The notion that gun-free zones are safe is fraud perpetrated on the
public because:
a) Only innocent victims like you and me are affected. Armed criminals
ignore no-guns signs and could care less -- they're laughing at you.
b) No alternate form of security is provided. You are knowingly and
recklessly made vulnerable, while property management accepts no
responsibility for your safety or their negligent behavior. The bill
addresses only anti-gun-rights bigots who would callously disarm you and
ignore your plight.
c) Despite bias in news coverage and the fear-mongering left, privately
held firearms have been repeatedly shown to deter and prevent crime in
one scholarly study after another. Since the nation's inception we have
known and embraced the freedom-giving truth that guns protect the
innocent, and that this is good.
Initial reactions to the Defenseless Victim Act have been highly
supportive by knowledgeable people in the gun-rights movement. It shows
all the signs of becoming a major national rallying point. This could
turn into one of the key gun issues of the decade (literally the right
to bear), especially if terrorist attacks continue and defenseless
innocent victims are slaughtered. The PR value alone, forcing the other
side to support helplessness and victimization, are worth the effort.
Now is a good time to bring this issue into the spotlight.
The bill has been introduced as HB2456, sponsored by a dozen
representatives, in the 45th session in Arizona (2002). The legislators
say it gives them something to sink their teeth into. Give your
legislators something this good -- ask them to introduce the Defenseless
Victim Act in your state, for all the right reasons.
Some additional observations appear after the following bill text.
This is good law, supportive of our fundamental rights,
a deterrent to criminals who would perpetrate attacks,
a winner in the publicity battle over gun rights,
and it places responsibility squarely on those
who would cause harm by their direct actions.
It deserves to be enacted.
Please give it your support.
Ask your representatives to introduce and vote for
the Defenseless Victim Act of 2002.
Sincerely,
Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
Scottsdale, AZ
602-996-4020
--------------------------------------------------------
THE DEFENSELESS VICTIM ACT OF 2002
Establishes liability for harm caused by criminal conduct, when such
conduct is wholly or partially enabled by limiting an individual's right
or ability to self defense.
REFERENCE TITLE: Defenseless Victim Act
State of Arizona
(sponsoring house)
Forty-Fifth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2002
__.B. _____ Introduced by ________________________
AN ACT AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 31, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES BY ADDING
A NEW SECTION.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 13, Chapter 31, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
adding new section 13-3117:
A.R.S. §13-3117. Gun-Free-Zone Liability.
A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that
creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from
criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free
zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm
could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. In the
event the conduct is a result of a terrorist attack as federally
defined, or adversely affects a disabled person, a senior citizen or a
child under 16 years of age, treble damages shall apply.
B. For the purposes of this section, criminal conduct shall include
offenses specified under this title in Chapter 11 (Homicide), Chapter 12
(Assault and Related Offenses), Chapter 13 (Kidnapping), Chapter 14
(Sexual Offenses), Chapter 15 (Criminal Trespass and Burglary), Chapter
17 (Arson), Chapter 19 (Robbery), Chapter 25 (Escape and Related
Offenses) and Chapter 29 (Offenses Against Public Order).
C. For the purposes of this section, the term "gun-free zone"
shall
mean any building, place, area or curtilage that is open to the public,
or in or upon any public conveyance, where a person's right or ability
to possess firearms is infringed, restricted or diminished in any way by
statute, policy, rule, regulation, ordinance, utterance or posted signs.
--------------------------------------------------------
OTHER IMPORTANT POINTS
. It's critically important that pro-rights individuals put forth bills
to keep the unfriendlies off balance and busy swatting at all the flies
(like they do to us so effectively). Force the antis into
defensiveness. If you want some ideas for outrageous affronts to the
anti-rights crowd, check out Sunshine Gun Laws, under Position Papers at
http://www.gunlaws.com.
. If you have a problem with holding people accountable for death and
mayhem they cause by enabling crime, then of course you'll be against
the Defenseless Victim Act. That's the position I expect anti-rights
bigots to take. Bring 'em on. If nothing happens, i.e., the bigots
are
correct and gun-free zones are pleasant, safe and crime free, then the
bill has ZERO affect on anything. Personally, I think that facet is
particularly edifying. Sort of like, what harm could it do?
. Despite what some people have claimed, property rights are UNAFFECTED
by the Defenseless Victim Act. Read it yourself and see. Gun-free
zones are allowed, entirely at a property owner's free discretion just
as they are now, property rights remain 100% intact. You can keep guns,
ban guns, allow only 9mm, I don't care, and the new law is silent on
this. There is NO coercion (and also no government spending!) in this
bill at all. That's a big part of its beauty. In fact, only people who
would ban your rights and ignore your plight are affected in any way,
and then only if you're attacked on their grounds.
. Also note that truly private property like your home or ranch are
exempt from the bill. ONLY public property or property open to the
public is affected. There is a clear difference (well, some diehard
libertarians might not agree, but you can't please everyone) between
truly private property (like your home) and a place that is open to the
public and privately run, like a mall, or WalMart. Public places have a
well established duty to provide a reasonably safe environment, and they
have been getting a free ride on this issue, at your expense. They can
still ban guns remember, and you can still go shop elsewhere.
. All this does is make clear that whoever creates an obviously
dangerous situation, by forcing the disarmament of innocent people
entering, ("legitimate" coercion by the property owner) -- which
they're
fully entitled to do under the bill -- there's a consequence for that
risky action. As there should be for creating such a self-evidently
unsafe situation. And it only matters if the danger manifests, and some
psychopath turns the hair parlor into a victim zone. If there's no
assault, then there's no problem, and liberals can sleep tight thinking
we're all a bunch of paranoids. Then they can pretend they're not
quaking, while they wonder if they'll squeak through tomorrow too with
their criminally misguided notions of safety.
. You may find that your legislators object on grounds that are hard to
justify. I've had some tell me the bill would be fine if it only
limited businesses, and left government gun-free zones, like parks and
buses, intact (talk about hubris!). Other legislators, including an
attorney whose clients are in business, say businesses should be
excluded but government must be controlled! Just tell 'em that gun-free
zones are dangerous -- who sets them up is not the issue.
. Try thinking of this as the Luby's Massacre Act. Maybe that will help
emphasize the blatant and profound fraud of proposing gun-free zones as
safety nets. The heartless, insensitive, hate-filled perpetrators of
defenseless victim zones should be ashamed of themselves.
. It's so much better when public places just let people come and go as
they please, without signs and bans, to simply go about their business.
This is how most public places act, and it is responsible and even
patriotic. Think about it -- on a day-to-day basis, places without these
deceptive gun-bans operate just fine.
. After years in which we've been forced to defend assault, lethal
capacity, accessibility and so on, it's time for us to have the moral
high ground for a change. Think about what the antis will have to sound
like to say they don't want any liability for murdered victims they had
disarmed. They have to stand up for defenselessness. It's a good
time
for the Defenseless Victim Act.
* This phrase from a Cartridge Family song is used with permission.
http://CartridgeFamilyBand.com
--------------------------------------------------------
Permission to reproduce or circulate this message
is granted provided credit is included.
Contact:
Alan Korwin
BLOOMFIELD PRESS
"We publish the gun laws."
4718 E. Cactus #440
Phoenix, AZ 85032
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 FAX
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for a free catalog.
Get our free gun-law updates, sign up on our home page.
Alan Korwin is the author of seven best-selling books on gun law,
including the unabridged guide "Gun Laws of America--Every Federal Gun
Law on the Books, with Plain English Summaries," and state gun guides
for AZ, CA, FL, TX, VA. This paper is part of an ongoing series, click
Position Papers on our home page, or write or call for copies.
"If you knew all your rights, you might demand them."
(Steve Maniscalco)
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take
the guns away from the people who didn't do it."
(William Burroughs)
GUN LAW UPDATE AND MORE,
OCTOBER 2001
GUN LAW UPDATE AND MORE, OCTOBER 2001
GUN LAW UPDATE AND MORE, OCTOBER 2001
From Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
alan@bloomfieldpress.com
http://www.gunlaws.com
A lot of juicy items this time, fans and friends:
0. Arm The Pilots Law (proposed)
0. NEW! -- Gun-Free-Zones Liability Act (proposal)
1. Politically Corrected Glossary: "Terrorism"
2. Biggest Gun Show Loophole Yet
3. How To Win The Gun Debate
4. New BATF and NICS Statistics
5. Gun Law Update for Arizonans
6. Gun Law Update for Californians
7. Gun Law Update for Texans
8. Gun Law Update for National:
Federally Armed Civilians Policy
9. About The Emerson Decision
10. Dr. Zero Is Back
ARM THE PILOTS
ARM THE PILOTS
Here's the key language from the bill the Senate just passed. In the
preamble they declare: "Armed pilots, co-pilots, and flight engineers
with proper training will be the last line of defense against terrorist
by providing cockpit security and aircraft security." (Doesn't become
law unless the House also approves, and President signs it.)
"(1) POSSESSION OF FIREARMS ON COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS- The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is authorized to permit a pilot, co-pilot, or
flight engineer of a commercial aircraft who has successfully completed
the requirements of paragraph (2) <a voluntary training program to be
run by FAA>, or who is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a
firearm, from possessing or carrying a firearm approved by the FAA for
the protection of the aircraft under procedures or regulations as
necessary to ensure the safety and integrity of flight."
Now of course, arming pilots and leaving passengers totally defenseless
in a gun-free zone is elitist, immoral and unfair in favor of the enemy
(thank your politicians), and promotes the unsafe officials-will-save-us
mindset. But to take a page from Sarah Brady, it's a good first step.
GUN-FREE ZONES LIABILITY ACT
GUN-FREE ZONES LIABILITY ACT
This is going to stir quite a debate.
Think of it as something that could work
in your state, and just ask your representatives
to introduce it. Then sit back and watch the fun
as gun-bigots try to argue against it.
GUN-FREE ZONE LIABILITY ACT OF 2002 (DRAFT A)
SEC. 101. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of
government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages
resulting from any criminal assault that occurs in such gun-free zone,
if a reasonable person would believe that possession of firearms could
have helped defend against said assault. For the purposes of this
section, the term "gun-free zone" shall mean a place, area or in or
upon
a conveyance where a person's right or ability to possess firearms is
infringed, restricted or diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule,
ordinance, utterance or posted signs.
GUN-FREE ZONE LIABILITY ACT OF 2002 (DRAFT B)
SEC. 101. Any person injured during a criminal assault, who at the time
of the assault was at a place, in an area or in or upon a conveyance
where the person's right or ability to possess firearms was infringed,
restricted or diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule, ordinance,
utterance or posted signs, shall have de facto standing to file suit
against the party or parties responsible for the infringement,
restriction or diminution of the right or ability to keep and bear arms,
for treble damages plus attorney's fees, if a reasonable person would
believe that possession of one or more firearms could have helped defend
against said assault.
Politically Corrected Glossary:
IS THIS TRUE? IT'S NOT TERRORISM -- IT'S RELIGIOUS WAR.
IS THIS TRUE? IT'S NOT TERRORISM -- IT'S RELIGIOUS WAR.
I'm not quite sure what to think about these startling paragraphs:
"Despite intense efforts to present the 9-11 attacks as terrorism,
remember that any attack on your homeland spreads terror. Just read the
news for what it says, not how it's spun: the reports define a single,
religious enemy -- militant Islamic zealots -- lots and lots of them --
not some nebulous and pointless handful of 'terrorists.' This
religion-based enemy runs dozens of dictatorships with non-secular
'governments' where women are chattel. They parade together in the
streets, believe we are the Great Satan, and exist globally but all
comes from the same 'club' -- Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaida,
the PLO -- and wash my mouth with soap -- they look like each other.
"Don't let politically correct hatred of racial profiling blind you to
natural pattern recognition. You are very good at it, same as anyone.
Looking for suspects who are, say, Irish-looking, would be a total waste
of police resources.
"In an effort to garner support from rulers of other Muslim
dictatorships, our government is bending over backwards to convince you
that Muslims are our friends, Islam means peace, and 'terrorists' are
the problem. Don't forget for an instant that our enemies in this
battle are solely Muslims (though obviously not every single one) and
it is that portion of Muslim culture bent on our destruction that we
must crush. Don't ignore all the pictures of ugly mobs in the streets.
It's not terrorism. It's religious war. Every time you see or hear
the
deceptive word 'terrorists' think in your mind 'religious warriors' or
'militant Muslims' or 'Islamic fundamentalists' and watch the spin
unravel into the truth."
What do you think?
BIGGEST GUN-SHOW LOOPHOLE YET
BIGGEST GUN-SHOW LOOPHOLE YET
Recap: The McCain-Lieberman gun-show bill, promoted as a narrow
"loophole closer," is actually incredibly broad and practically
prohibits gun shows altogether (see the detailed analysis on my website
if you missed it).
And now: I've just now found its most damaging paragraph. It's one
of
those very tough-to-spot "errors of omission." You've got to
admire
this guy's craftiness -- this is stealth legislation raised to a whole
new level:
McCain's gun-show bill outlaws gun shows (in its first sentence) and
puts you in jail for five years, if you run one without getting a
complex government license first.
But the government doesn't have to issue the license.
What a great loophole for a tyrant to "legally" fall back upon!
Although 18 USC 931 (d)(1) would require: "The Secretary (of the
Treasury) shall issue a special firearms event license" it, uh, doesn't
say when.
If you properly request a license for your upcoming gun show, and run
the show as scheduled, but they fail to issue your license beforehand,
you go to jail. If they never issue the license at all, your recourse
is... well, you don't have any. There is no penalty at all for
government failure or refusal to issue the license. Isn't that clever?
Someone said the solution is to allow gun shows if the government fails
to issue the license, but we learned from the NICS background check that
this doesn't work. The NICS law plainly says you only have to use NICS
if it exists and it's running (18 USC 922 (t)(5)), a clause specifically
put there by a wary NRA. But the BATF has interpreted that to mean you
can't sell a gun if NICS is down -- rewriting Congress' law from their
bureau desks -- and dealers are too terrified to follow the law and
oppose ATF (which has promised armed arrests for violators). Your state
police insta-check departments (I use the term insta-check lightly)
won't stand up for states' rights and force the issue either. (NICS was
down a few Sundays ago, effectively freezing every gun show in America.)
Anyhow, you don't want to be debating the conditions of a deceitful law
that must be killed. A law that would register anyone who walks into a
gun show. A law that would register every vendor whether they sell guns
or not. A law that requires centralized photo-ID registration as you
drive onto the "curtilage" (legalese for parking lot) -- making the
whole show virtually impossible to hold. A law proposed by a man who
has proven himself unfit to sit in Congress by repeated and grotesque
violations of his sacred oath of office. The McCain-Lieberman gun show
bill, for all the right reasons, must DIE.
How to Win The Gun Debate --
CAN YOU BE MORE POLITICALLY EFFECTIVE?
CAN YOU BE MORE POLITICALLY EFFECTIVE?
Yes. But you must be willing to change the model.
If you're winning all your gun debates, you're losing. That's what I
said, you're losing (and you might even realize it in the back of your
head). It's time to stop winning debates and start winning friends and
influencing people. ("A man convinced against his will is of the
other
opinion still.")
You must start reading LESS about our precious Second Amendment and Bill
of Rights (heresy!), and start learning more about debate, negotiation,
real politik and winning (true wisdom!). The other side kills us on
this.
Can you see what I'm getting at? Are you willing to make the change, or
would you rather still bang people over the head with words like
"Constitution," "gun" and "rights," and feel gut
good about it, but
ultimately lose?
When you deal with leftists or fence sitters, or even politicians and
the media -- people we desperately need to affect -- you automatically
lose if you talk the talk of freedom and the gun movement. I know this
is hard to swallow, but I did say you'd have to change the model.
My company is going to carry the best books on being more effective (we
already carry all the gun-law information we can find). I don't care if
you get it from us or not, but get and read "How To Win Friends And
Influence People," and watch what happens next time you talk to a
leftist or your local representative. Read "Getting To Yes,"
and
convince others like an Ivy-League-expert without a hint of
marginalized-gun-rights-fanatic. Read "Confrontational
Politics," (back
in print at long last), and learn how politics really works, how your
rights are so effectively attacked, and how to turn the tables. Get the
whole story (or get copies) at ?
http://www.gunlaws.com/books3.htm
NEW BATF & NICS STATISTICS
NEW BATF & NICS STATISTICS
BATF is pushing to be a billion-dollar federal agency -- the hallmark of
a beltway institution -- while detractors want to see the agency
disbanded and the FBI seeks to absorb it bodily. Their 2002 budget
request increases to $804 million, placing the drive for the
billion-dollar target probably in 2005. If they still exist by then.
They justified the raise request to the House Appropriations Committee
by touting their current size. Try to imagine how many lawyers and how
much staff this must eat up:
They started 16,604 criminal investigations in 2000, a 26% increase over
the prior year. Do we really have that many ATF criminals in America?
It's hard to fathom. Most gun crime is local, right?
Then they "only" referred 6,938 cases for prosecution (still needs an
army of lawyers, eh?), including 8,737 defendants. It's the ones they
think they can most easily win, or where they want to make an example
out of someone.
On a related note, total NICS checks were down to 7.7 million for 2000.
In 1999 the FBI conducted 8.6 million checks. The 153,000 NICS
rejections in 2000 was 11% less than the 204,000 rejections in 1999 (the
rejection rate runs around 2% of total checks).
In commercial terms, Americans made 7.7 million retail gun purchases
last year, down 11% from 8.6 million in 1999. Every day, 559 Americans
were denied gun sales in 1999, and 419 were denied every day in 2000.
The numbers of denials that represent real criminals, as usual, is
unknown. Arrests are extremely rare.
On a final note, I noticed that the ATF has a new "Frequently Asked
Question" on their website. It deals with how to restore your
"privilege" (their word) to bear arms if it has been removed for a
legal
reason. Congress requires a rights-restoral process in 18 USC 925.
The
BATF's approved method? They assure you there is none available,
although they do say you could ask the President of the United States
for a special act just for you (and you can almost hear the ATF agents
laughing at you).
GUN LAW UPDATE FOR ARIZONANS
GUN LAW UPDATE FOR ARIZONANS
The new and fully updated 20th edition of The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide
is now in print. This is the first update in three years, and a lot has
changed. You'll find rewrites throughout to explain the new preemption
law, Shannon's law, and perhaps most important, coverage of the
court-invented new rules for open carry in the state. More than 40 new
bills and amendments are included (there were 8 in 1999, 20 in 2000, 18
in 2001, and 6 newly referenced laws), and a detailed update will be
posted on our website soon.
NEW ARIZONA GUN BILLS:
(Statute affected / Bill number / Chapter /
Subject)
(a=amended; n=new; r=repealed)
NEWLY REFERENCED
13-205 Self defense
evidence requirement
13-604 Dangerous crime
(referred to by "Shannon's Law" 13-3107)
13-702 Sentencing
(referred to by "Shannon's Law" 13-3107)
13-906(C) Restore gun
rights
13-912 Restore civil
rights
13-3110 Fake bombs
1999 CHANGES
12-280.02 Qualified
immunity for government (1999a)
12-714 Gun industry
lawsuit ban (1999n) (SB1192)
13-1204 Aggravated assault
(1999a)
13-1406 Date rape drugs
(1999a)
13-3115 DPS bullet lab
(1999n)
13-3116 Body armor defined
(1999n)
17-273 Range protection
(1999n) (HB2364) USE 2001 VERSION
33-1368 Rental tenant
(1999a)
2000 CHANGES
4-244
40 USE 2001 VERSION
13-1213 HB2097 Laser on peace
officer (2000n)
13-2911 SB1559 226
Educational Institutions (2000a)
13-3101 SB1316 Definitions (DV
prohib poss; NFA-curio exempt)
(2000a)
13-3102 HB2095 376
Misconduct with weapons, redefine
"public" (2000a)
13-3107 SB1307 Discharge in
cities (2000a)
13-3108 HB2095 Preemption
(2000a)
13-3111 SB1133 Juveniles (2000a)
13-3112 SB1435 113
Permit to carry (2000a)
13-3601
32,42,361,370 USE 2001 VERSION
13-3602
361 USE 2001 VERSION
15-341 HB2095 376
School gun policy (2000a)
15-841 SB1466 82
Responsibilities of pupils (2000a)
17-304 SB1092 138
Trespass signs (2000a)
17-340 SB1092 138
License revocation (2000a)
32-2612 HB2662 220
Armed guard agency qualifications (2000a)
32-2615 HB2662 220
Grounds to refuse agency license (2000a)
32-2622 HB2662 220
Qualifications for armed guard (2000a)
32-2625 HB2662 220
Grounds to refuse armed guard (2000a)
32-2632 HB2662 220
USE 2001 VERSION
2001 CHANGES
4-244 SB1509 352
Unlawful acts (guns and alcohol) (2001a)
13-107 HB2550 271
Sex offenders (2001a)
13-702 HB2473 51
Sentencing (2001a)
13-1204 HB2083 124
Agg assault on prosecutor (2001a)
13-1204 HB2473
Agg assault on prosecutor (2001a)
13-2501 HB2223 334
Define contraband in juvie secure care
(2001a)
13-2514 HB2282 225
Promoting contraband in juvie (2001a)
13-3601 HB2268 217
Domestic violence (2001r)
13-3601 HB2223 334
Domestic violence (2001a)
13-3602 SB1084 255
Disarm DV offender (2001a)
13-3708 HB2282 225
Dept. of Juvenile Correction (2001r)
17-273 SB1250 177
Range management and protection (2000a)
32-2623 HB2453 49
Armed guard application(2001a)
32-2624 HB2453 49
Armed guard provisional certificate
(2001a)
32-2632 HB2453 49
Armed guard firearm training (2001a)
32-2635 HB2453 49
Armed guard uniform and insignia (2001a)
41-1967 HB2185 111
Child care directory gun and ammo locks
(2001a)
HB2038 324 Technical corrections
(big)
GUN LAW UPDATE FOR CALIFORNIANS
GUN LAW UPDATE FOR CALIFORNIANS
From 1998 through 2001, the California legislature passed an astounding
122,247 words of gun law. As a comparison, the entire body of federal
gun law currently stands at 88,584 words.
For the first time, all the major new laws are described in plain
English, in the new Third Edition of The California Gun Owner's Guide,
due out in early November. We've reprinted the Legislative Council's
digest of each of the new enactments. To see any of the bills' original
language click here ?
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
NEW CALIFORNIA GUN BILLS
1998
AB 48 Firearms: SKS Rifles.
AB 2022, R. Wright. Firearms.
1999
SB 15 Firearms.
SB 23 Firearms: Assault Weapons.
AB 106 Firearms: Safety Devices.
SB 130 Firearms: Safety Devices.
AB 202 Firearms.
AB 295 Firearms: Gun Show Promoters
AB 491 Firearms.
AB 1587 Firearms.
2000
AB 1717 Firearms: Ballistic Testing.
AB 1961 Machineguns: Definition.
AB 2351 Weapons: Manufacture, Import, and Sale.
AB 2523 Firearms: Unlawful Display.
AB 2536 Crime Prevention.
2001
SB 9 Firearms: Criminal Storage: Minors.
SB 52 Firearms: Handgun Safety Certificate.
AB 469 Domestic Violence.
SB 626 Weapons.
SB 950 Firearms: Prohibited Possession: Data Base.
Statutes affected include at least: 171b, 245, 417, 417.6, 8103, 11106,
12001, 12001.6, 12010 et seq., 12020, 12021, 12022, 12022.5, 12025,
12028.7, 12031, 12035, 12036, 12050, 12050.2, 12051, 12052.5, 12053,
12054, 12071, 12071.1, 12071.4, 12072, 12072.5, 12076, 12076.5, 12077,
12078, 12079, 12081, 12084, 12087 et seq., 12125 et seq., 12132, 12200,
12276.1, 12280, 12281, 12285, 12289, 12800 et seq., 12810, 13730. Other
statutes may have been added, amended or repealed by subsequent
legislation. For the latest editions of California's rapidly changing
gun laws check the official state legislative law web site-
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
GUN LAW UPDATE FOR TEXANS
GUN LAW UPDATE FOR TEXANS
Texans are lucky, because their legislature only meets in odd numbered
years ? for eighteen months in a row they are basically free from
government meddling in their lives. The 2001 session closed with
basically only three gun laws enacted.
NEW TEXAS GUN BILLS
2001
SB430 Encourages and Eddie Eagle-style safety program
in
schools (a "firearms accident prevention program")
HB1837 Range Protection
HB2784 CHL Record keeping and reports
Federally Armed Citizen Policy --
ARM THE PUBLIC
ARM THE PUBLIC
Enacted in 1996 under the Clinton Administration (that's correct):
Due to a nearly total blackout in the news media, most Americans are
unaware of the government's stated policy on firearms training. That
policy was updated, practically in secret, in the thousand-page National
Defense Authorization Act of 1996.
Even though this law could be considered one of the most important
pieces of gun legislation in a decade, the mainstream media all but
ignored its passage. As a result, very few people appreciate the
benefits it could provide for gun safety, reducing firearm accidents,
and lowering the abuse of firearms by untrained individuals.
The Civilian Marksmanship Program, run by the U.S. Army, has served as
the federal government's official firearms training, supply and
competitions program for U.S. citizens, since 1956. Its history traces
back to the late 1800s, when programs were first established to help
ensure that the populace could shoot straight, in the event an army had
to be raised to defend the country. The program is privatized by this
act.
All law-abiding people are eligible for instruction and range time, and
priority is given to reaching and training youth in the safe, lawful and
accurate use of firearms. Contact your own state's firearms
association, or a good local gun shop, to get involved.
Official federal policy is to:
1?Promote safety in the use of firearms;
2?Teach marksmanship to U.S. citizens;
3?Promote practice in the use of firearms;
4?Conduct matches and competitions;
5?Award trophies and prizes;
6?Procure supplies and services needed for the program;
7?Secure and account for all firearms, ammunition and supplies used in
the program;
8?Give, lend or sell firearms, ammunition and supplies under the
program. Priority must be given to training youths, and reaching as
many youths as possible.
What do you think would happen if Americans everywhere knew of this fine
law, and enrolled their children in programs that teach responsible use
of firearms and gun safety? It would build understanding and
self-esteem, replacing the gun ignorance fostered by wildly violent
senseless TV shows, with knowledge and respect for the power and proper
use of firearms.
Instead of helping to arm the public, I'm sorry to say, the federal
government has adopted this wild policy in response to the Islamic
attacks:
"They take your nail file from your cold dead fingers."
Instead of taking away everyone's knife, they ought to issue knives.
Who would steal an airplane if everyone aboard had a knife?
I'm also sorry to say that most people obediently relinquish their
knives when asked before boarding flights. And no one gets them back
either.
ABOUT THE EMERSON DECISION
ABOUT THE EMERSON DECISION
ABOUT THE EMERSON DECISION
You've seen the early takes on the Emerson decision; Attorney Michael P.
Anthony observes, "When you read the decision, note that the primary
opinion (by two judges) says good things about the 2nd Amendment, but
reverses the District Court's judge's ruling that the Lautenburg
Amendment violates the 2nd Amendment. The concurring opinion (by one
judge) goes to greeeaaat lengths to argue there is no need to decide the
meaning of the 2nd Amendment, that the majority opinion is merely
"dicta," and tries to weaken the majority opinion by excerpting
isolated
phrases from a long list of sources to show that interpretations of the
2nd Amendment vary widely. The real issues are whether either side
(Emerson or gov't) will appeal; whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take
review (they have an excuse to deny review because the case was ordered
remanded and is not technically over); and, if the Supremes take review,
whether they will interpret the 2nd Amendment. In short, there are more
opportunities for things to go wrong than to go right. We'll see.
Mike
DR. ZERO IS BACK!
DR. ZERO IS BACK!
In the days way before Y2K when I was born, the possibility of worldwide
disruption made many thinking people stock up on supplies, take stock of
their life's situation, and prepare for what might be. Sixty billion
dollars was spent to avert that disaster, allowing the mainstream media
to falsely cock and crow, "See, the sky is not falling!" We
propped up
the sky, with typical ingenuity, and indeed, it did not fall. But we
sure recognized the fragility of our predicament. We find ourselves in
similarly fragile times.
If the Arabs or the Muslims, or call them what you will, obtain one of
the thousands of atomic bombs leftover in what used to be the Soviet
Union, or from Pakistan, or from Hussein's ongoing nuclear program, you
will wish you savored the sweet taste of life before the event that
makes Sept. 11 look like a minor prelude.
Enjoy these days of relative bliss. Hug the ones you love, take time to
smell the roses, enjoy the sweet refrain of a song, for these times,
despite the events of Sept. 11, are times to relish and absorb.
Now look at the disruption caused by the destruction of a few buildings
in a city. Can you imagine the disruption of our country if a city were
to disappear? These religious zealots do not have to sneak one of the
thousands of Soviet bombs into a city. They only have to sail it near
and set it off. They have lots of ships, from supertankers to luxury
yachts, and they don't care about escaping before pressing the button.
There is no defense if intelligence fails to identify their plan.
You've read the same mainstream news reports I have ? they want to, plan
to, intend to get their hands on the bomb. We might stop them.
The mainstream "news" media is spinning away about how to endure a
chemical or biological attack. None I have heard are tackling the
unthinkable. Who can blame them. There is a private association
working to rid the world of all the nukes we made during the cold war so
lunatics don't get them. The group is so effective that you've never
even heard of them.
I can't begin to describe the havoc the nuclear loss of a city would
precipitate. America could perish. It's too horrific to think about
for any extended period. I go back to what I uncomfortably suggested in
the days before we rectified the Y2K problem. Prepare.
You have probably used up (or donated) a large portion of the stocks you
built up in case Y2K wasn't repaired in time. It would not be unwise to
lay in a fresh supply of water, candles, batteries, non-perishable
foods, and the like. I'll be releasing updated strategies and lists
soon. Think about driving on the top half of your tank.
This report is brought to you by:
Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
"We publish the gun laws"
4718 E. Cactus #440
Phoenix, AZ 85032
602-996-4020
602-494-0679 fax
alan@gunlaws.com
http://www.gunlaws.com
To get on our list,
click the UPDATE Button
on our website.
Take a look at our THREE national gun-law guides ?
Take a look at our THREE national gun-law guides ?
GUN LAWS OF AMERICA, unabridged guide to
all federal gun laws, in plain English
TRAVELER'S GUIDE TO THE 50 STATES, with
summaries of every state's possession laws for traveling.
LICENSED TO CARRY, with the gun-permit details
for the 31 states with shall-issue laws.
AND!
SEE OUR NEW LINE OF BOOKS ?
"How To Preserve Your Rights"
http://www.gunlaws.com
| BACK | HOME |