Future Sight?

The Knox Report

From the Firearms Coalition

 

The Past Illuminates the Future

 

By Jeff Knox

(June 3, 2008) Now that all practical doubt has been removed as to who the Democrat and Republican candidates for President are going to be, let’s look forward to what the future might hold.  Is there doom and gloom on the horizon or is tomorrow a bright new day?

I haven’t found anyone in the firearms rights community who is looking forward to a brighter tomorrow.  All of the arguments I hear are about which candidate is more of a threat to gun rights.  While most believe Obama, with his far-left philosophy and horrible record on guns must be defeated at all costs, there is a vocal minority who are convinced that McCain, in spite of his solid pro-gun voting record, is more dangerous, citing his past betrayals and “maverick” deal making.  A third camp suggests that the only thing that will bring our country back from the brink is a disastrous Democrat presidency, pointing out that it was Jimmy Carter’s train wreck that swept Ronald Reagan into office and Democrats overreaching that led to the “Republican Revolution” in 1994.

Continue reading Future Sight?

Shooting for The Future

Last year I wrote an article for Handguns magazine titled Shooting for the Future about the basics of introducing new folks to the fun of shooting.  That article is now available on the internet at the magazine's web stie and can be viewed by clicking here.

I would invite everyone to take a look at it and let me – and the editors – know what you think about it.  Unless you happen to dislike the article for some reason in which case I would encourage you to keep that opinion to yourself. Laughing

African Safari for Sale

African Safari for Sale

        Several months ago, we purchased an African Safari for 4 people – 2 hunters and 2 tourists – at a Friends of NRA Banquet.  The trip is all-inclusive – food, accomodations, guides, permits, tags, and trophy fees for several types of game, almost everything except airfare.  Now it is apparent that the trip is simply not going to be possible for any of us, so we’ve decided to auction it off to the highest bidder.  All proceeds will go directly to The Firearms Coalition.  The trip is valued at $11,000, but we’re accepting reserve bids starting at $4195.  We encourage you to make an offer, as we’d rather have it go to one of our regular supporters.  So, who’ll start the bidding?  Learn more about the trip by clicking here and then clicking on the image to make it larger.  It might take a moment for the images to load.

Olofson Sentenced

Olofson Sentenced to Thirty Months

 

David Olofson, the Army Reservist who loaned a twenty-year old AR15 rifle to a prospective buyer and was charged with illegally transferring a machinegun, was sentenced to thirty months in prison by a Federal Judge in Wisconsin.  Olofson, his attorneys, and many legal observers were surprised by the sentence.  The long delay in sentencing was interpreted as an indication that the judge was uncomfortable with certain irregularities in the prosecution.  They speculated that he was delaying sentencing with the intention of quietly setting the conviction aside, or at least ordering a new trial.  Instead he went right in line with the prosecution’s requests and dismissed defense complaints about improperly suppressed evidence.

The case, aside from being a travesty of justice and senselessly destroying David Olofson’s life, has dire implications for anyone who owns any semi-automatic firearm.  Under the standards of this case, any gun that malfunctions and fires a multiple round burst is a machinegun and the owner is at risk of prosecution.

At this point Olofson is appealing the conviction based on suppression of evidence. There were two documents that Olofson asked for in discovery and which the ATF refused to provide. They claimed that the documents contained privileged tax information and could not be released; this even though Olofson had copies of both documents from public sources. Since those sources were not "official" the copies Olofson had were inadmissible and since ATF claimed their copies were protected, the judge accepted their word on that and refused to demand the documents be produced.

The first document was a letter sent by ATF to manufacturers of AR-15's back in the mid'80's warning them that the parts they were using were prone to hammer-follow malfunctions and suggesting that they should institute a recall to replace the offending parts. The makers of Olofson's rifle were included in that letter and Olofson's rifles was manufactured during that time period.

The second document was a letter from the ATF to the owner of a rifle that was legally registered as a machinegun. It informed him that his gun was being removed from the National Firearms Transfer Registry because ATF testing showed that it was not really a machinegun, but just an AR-15 with some M-16 parts in it (just like Olofson's) that were causing it to malfunction with hammer-follow (just like Olofson's.)  They basically told him that his $20,000 M-16 was really a malfunctioning $1,500 AR-15 and that he should get it fixed. The test and evaluation was signed by the same ATF firearms expert who concluded that Olofson's rifle was not a machinegun and then retested and concluded that the gun was a machinegun.  Both of these rifles were tested by the same examiner within a matter of just a few weeks of each other.

Olofson has found an ATF memo which specifically declares that the warning letter from ATF to manufacturers did not contain privileged information and is not subject to any disclosure restrictions.  He has also connected with the guy whose rifle was reclassified and gotten certified copies of those letters and test results.

It seems pretty clear that the judge was misled by ATF and the Federal Prosecutor and that all of the information relating to these letters should have been provided to the court, entered into evidence, and shown to the jury.  Based on this fact, the Court of Appeals should, at a minimum, grant Olofson a new trial and actually should simply vacate the whole case.  There is just no telling what a court will do though.  The more I study some of these court cases, the more I am convinced that our “Justice” System is seriously broken.  I am hopeful that NRA or someone else with some experience and money to pay good lawyers will jump into this case now that it is becoming more prominent.

            Several months ago, while Olofson’s trial was just getting started, I provided him with information on how to formally request assistance from the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund.  I don’t know if his lawyers ever followed through with such a request.  I also brought the case directly to the attention of members of the NRA Board of Directors and NRA staff, encouraging them to take a closer look at the case and provide some assistance or support.  Just a short article in NRA magazines might have been very helpful.  When a reporter from CNN’s “Lou Dobbs” show contacted NRA after Olofson’s sentencing, he reported that they said they had been watching the case closely and were considering offering assistance.

I should also point out my own failure to help as much as I could have.  When a major national magazine asked me to write a comprehensive article on the case, I agreed, but due to my regular workload and some other mitigating circumstances, I never was able to fulfill that agreement.  Perhaps a bit more publicity earlier on could have forced ATF’s hand.  We’ll never know.  What we do know is that if the Appeals Court functions with the same skill and professionalism displayed by the original trial judge, David Olofson, husband, father, and Army veteran, is going to spend years in prison with murderers and rapists simply because he loaned a 20-year old rifle to a kid who managed to cause it to fire a couple of short multiple shot bursts.

If the ATF can succeed at putting David Olofson away, none of us are safe.  I attended a friendly side-by-side shotgun shoot recently where guys described occasions when their Parker, Purdy, or Fox had fired both barrels with a single trigger pull.  Under the standard demonstrated in the Olofson case, those 100+ year old shotguns are machineguns and their owners are dangerous felons.

This needs to be fixed in the courts and fixed in the congress.  There is no excuse for this type of vindictive prosecution.

Read my original story here. 

You Can’t

The Knox Report

From the Firearms Coalition

 

You Can’t Do That

 

By Jeff Knox

            (May 13, 2008) Everyone knows that you can’t legally purchase a handgun from a dealer in another state, and most folks know that it is a crime to purchase a gun on behalf of someone else or to sell a gun to someone knowing that it is intended for someone else, but there are other deals that many people seem to be confused about.

Ask ten gunowners what the rules are regarding sales by private individuals to other private individuals and you are likely to get at least 12 different answers.  There are also questions about transporting weapons, and of course about carrying concealed or open, carrying in cars, and carrying guns in the woods.

Some of the questions can be easily answered while others can get complicated.  Here are a few items I have run across recently that are in need of illumination.  In all of these cases I am talking about regular folks and regular guns, not FFL holders or C&R items:

Continue reading You Can’t

UVA-UnWise

The Knox Report

From the Firearms Coalition

 

The Pen is Mightier…

 

 and More Dangerous

 

By Jeff Knox

(May 6, 2008) When Steven Barber turned in his midterm creative writing assignment at the University of Virginia’s College at Wise (UVA-Wise), he was hoping for a good grade to complement his 3.9 grade point average.  Instead, Barber was expelled from school, locked in a mental institution for three days, and had his concealed carry permit revoked. 

 Barber’s fictional story was a first person narrative of a troubled college student consumed by depression, paranoia, drug addiction, and alcoholism as he struggles with one of tragedy’s recurrent themes, “To be or not to be.”  The character progresses through fear, anger, and despair; sleeping with a gun under his pillow after the Virginia Tech massacre, contemplating the murder of an unpleasant professor, and finally deciding on suicide.  The entire story is just contemplation – no characters, real or fictional were harmed in the telling of the story – and Barber himself is nothing like the character he described.

Continue reading UVA-UnWise

Obama’s Bitter Pill

The Knox Report

From the Firearms Coalition

 

Obama: Another bitter pill

 

By Chris Knox

(April 28, 2008) The topic of guns came up unexpectedly in the Hila-Bama Follies with Obama expressing the opinion that blue-collar voters are a tough sell for the Democrats because many have been left behind in the economic expansion and they are the first to feel economic contraction. “They get bitter,” Obama intoned, slipping a foot deeply into his mouth. “They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Obama’s “bitter” blooper was just another description of the “Angry White Males” whom the Democrats learned to fear in 1994. That, of course, was the year that GunVoters turned out in droves to punish the 103rd Congress for the Clinton gun ban, changing ownership of the House for the first time in decades, and turning out a sitting Speaker, the first time that had happened in a century and a half.

Continue reading Obama’s Bitter Pill

Lawsuit, Parks, and more…

In this Alert: 

1. Court Shoots Down Bloomberg!

2. National Parks Ending Gun Ban?

3. The National Anthem 

 

Bloomberg

            A 3 judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has dismissed a lawsuit by the city of New York attempting to hold firearms manufacturers responsible for the costs of “gun crime” in the city.  The court ruled that the suit should have been dismissed under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed by the congress in 2005.  The 2-1 decision affirmed the constitutionality of that law and criticized Federal Judge Jack Weinstein for failing to abide by the Lawful Commerce Act when it first passed.

           We can doubtless expect Mayor Bloomberg to try to find some other way to blame gunowners, dealers, and manufacturers for New York's crime problems.

 

Parks

The Department of the Interior has released its long awaited regulatory reform proposals for National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges.  The proposed regulations will be open for public comment for the next 60 days.  It is critical that gunowners let their voices be heard on this regulation change.

Continue reading Lawsuit, Parks, and more…

Primary Concerns

The Knox Report

From the Firearms Coalition

 

Primary Concerns

 

By Jeff Knox

(April 15, 2008) As the interminable presidential primary process drags on and on, with the media intently focused on the three remaining contenders, GunVoters need to look beyond the national media circus and to pay attention to matters closer to home:  to the primary elections for the House, Senate, governor, and state legislatures.  GunVoters’ chances to make a difference in the presidential primaries has come and gone with the result being no candidate that we can get excited about supporting.  We must make sure the same thing doesn’t happen in congressional, state, and local races as well.

Continue reading Primary Concerns

DC v Heller [2]

Let me apologize for speaking about the Supreme Court's "ruling" and "go-ahead for gun control on a major scale." More accurately, I should have talked about comments members of the Court made while hearing oral arguments in the DC v. Heller case, which is a case before them challenging the Washington D.C. ban on handguns. Oral arguments are heard before the final decision is made after  which the Justices' deliberations following oral arguments are made. All the relevant documents are available for everyone's review. [1]  <p>For those who know nothing about the case, Dick Heller is a Washington D.C. special police officer permitted to carry a handgun while on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center. He wanted to have a handgun in his home for the purpose of self-defense, so he applied for a registration certificate, which was denied. At that point he sued the government maintaining that the restriction on his right to bear arms was unconstitutional.  <p>Rights exist. Rights should be taken away when people act criminally or irresponsibly—not before they do, or else regulated rights become nothing more than a temporary privilege held only at the pleasure of the regulators. History has demonstrated time and again that it is the behavior of tyrannical governments to take rights away from individual citizens.  <p>This is even admitted in the Bush Administration brief, or legal arguments presented to the Supreme Court, against Heller when they wrote that "the Framers frequently contrasted American society with the perceived tendency of European governments to disarm their populations in order to facilitate oppressive rule." [2]  <p>But interestingly the Bush Administration brief asks the Supreme Count not to decide, but rather to remand, or return the decision-making to a lower court to determine how the right to bear arms in this case can be subjected to a "more flexible standard of review" [3]  <p>My concern was not in the probability that at least five of the Justices will vote agreeing that it is an individual right under the Second Amendment to bear arms. Certainly they could, on remand, pass the buck and send the case back to the lower court. My concern is not with either decision, but it is, rather, with verbiage by either the courts above or below to restrict an inviolable right.  <p>For example, consider that Justice Paul Stevens asked Heller's lawyer Alan Gura if it would be accurate to say that the right that the Second Amendment protects was a right that shall not be "unreasonably infringed." Amazingly, Gura said "Yes."  <p>

"Amazingly" I say? The Constitution says, flat out, the right of the people to bear arms "shall not be infringed." One doesn't just willy-nilly add words to the Constitution. The attorneys for Gun Owners of America point out that the framers of the Constitution did not say that "shall not be infringed" means "shall be subject only to reasonable regulation to achieve public safety." [4]

This past Sunday  <p>

 I was talking with someone who had read my last week's letter. This individual wanted to know how far one should be able to exercise the right. He noted that there must be some reasonable restriction on the right to bear arms. He asked me, "Do I have the right to keep nuclear weapons privately?" adding "Can I have my own tank, bazooka or surface to air missiles?"

 <p>Infer my answer by considering this hypothetical discussion between Thomas Jefferson and  Benjamin Franklin—Founding Fathers who led the colonies against the British—and others contemplating the writing of the Constitution of the now united States. Perhaps it will spark public written response from the Pioneer readers:  <p>"Gentlemen, we wrote and were inspired by the Truth of the Declaration of Independence. Did we mean it when we wrote therein that there was, at that moment in the course of human events, a time when it became necessary 'to dissolve the political bands' which connected us to Britain?  <p>"Did we just, sirs, when we said, at the Beginning, that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness remain inviolable Rights given to us by our Creator? Did we quip when we wrote those awe-filled words: 'That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government'?  <p>"Gentlemen, that Terrible Nation across the Atlantic offended us with the musket and the canon—terrible weapons of war that they were. Their soldiers quartered in our homes sullying the sacrosanct homes of our families, and they sought to remove what weaponry that we had.  <p>"But our rifles and rockets were equal to theirs. Did not their Red Glare in Just War inspire Mr. Key to write of them in the "Star Spangled Banner" and to say that it was by the fury of their blasts that our Flag—that great symbol of our very right to exist—could be seen waving still as did our Cause?  <p>"Then we will not act foolishly, we who have experienced the Government of Tyrants, to secure what we have won having risen in arms against them. Nay, gentlemen! Indeed it is with grave Consideration that we must Guarantee the people of this new Nation conceived in Liberty, the same Means that will enable them to follow—God forbid that it should be necessary—the same Course of Human Events that may one day befall them!  <p>"Shall we restrict their ability to oppose this government should the people of this newly founded country deem it as tyrannical as they who wrote unjust laws and taxed us unfairly from across the Atlantic? Shall we say that it is Unreasonable to have the Right to Bear Arms that are equal to those who may oppose them?  <p>"Today we see the pistol, the musket, and the canon. How recently could we have only spoken of the sword and shield? Shall we be so foolish as to think that at some future time no greater weaponry might develop in the Hand of an Oppressor that would offend the people? How many of us, especially you, Mr. Jefferson, have written that government, even Our own, should NOT be trusted?  <p>"Nay, gentlemen! One day it might be needful to call upon the people to stand against tyranny once again. Thusly must we write that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed!"  <p>TexasPatriot here again: It is fashionable in this day and time of political correctness to speak disparagingly of the Old Dead White Men who wrote an out of date Constitution. I beg to differ, and would still fight to defend it. Do your children know what's in the Declaration of Independence? Can they recite the Preamble to the Constitution? Are they inspired by Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death!" speech? Are any of your children among those who refuse—and not for religious reasons, which I would understand as justifiable—to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in our schools?  <p>But these are our times. Perhaps recent developments in laws affronting our Constitution and our Liberty, written since September 11, 2001, don't bother you. They do me.  <p>

I mentioned Benjamin Franklin earlier. I end with a quotation often attributed to him: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." But that sparks a subject for another letter on another day.

TexasPatriot  <p>Notes:  <p>[1] http://www.gunowners.org/hellertb.htm.  <p>

[2] District of Columbia, et al, Petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller, Amicus Curiae brief for the United States, No. 07-290.

[3] Id at 32.  <p>

[4] H. W. Titus & Wm. J. Olson "Opposing View: An Unambiguous Right" March 19, 2008 Internet editorial.

  

Ammunition for the grassroots gun rights movement