Gun News

[JohnRich 4]

Gun News, from the NRA:

GOVERNOR BUSH SUPPORTS GUN OWNERS` RIGHTS: SIGNS TWO IMPORTANT BILLS INTO LAW!

On May 13, with overwhelming support in the Florida Legislature and from firearm owners across the state, Governor Jeb Bush (R) signed two important gun rights bills (SB 1156 and HB 155) into law.

SB 1156 ends damaging government lawsuits provided firearm ranges make good faith efforts to exercise sound management principles in their disposal of lead ammunition. Prior to its passage, range facilities had no shield or protection against environmental lawsuits devised to force ranges out-of-business by placing them at the mercy of the court, irrespective of whether they posed a risk to the environment.

The new law, the first of its kind in the country, requires the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to provide copies of "Best Practices for Environmental Stewardship for Florida Shooting Ranges" to range managers statewide to keep their operations on a sound, environmentally friendly path. That blueprint for action was the culmination of nearly a decade of research and cooperative efforts initiated by the NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the Wildlife Management Institute.

"Shooting ranges that implement these environmental m anagement practices, will not have to fear malicious lawsuits," added Cox. "That is what a win-win strategy is all about, SB 1156 is an ideal remedy for firearms owners and the environment."

The second bill signed by Governor Bush, HB 155, stops the illegal
compiling of computerized lists of law-abiding firearms owners and the guns they own, otherwise known as registration of law-abiding gun owners.

In violation of federal law, a few of Florida`s urban Sheriffs have been effectively building gun registration lists and databases. This
information has nothing to do with criminal investigations or crime guns, and is in clear violation of The Firearms Owners` Protection Act (18 U.S. Code section 926).

"HB 155 will stop law-abiding firearm owners from being profiled and made suspects simply because they exercise their constitutional right," Hammer said. "This law is important because it stops gun registration, the worst form of gun control, that only aims to destroy freedom."

Passage of the bill was supported by the Florida Police Benevolent
Association, the Florida Sheriff`s Association, and the Florida Police
Chiefs Association.

SOUTH CAROLINA REPEALS "ONE-GUN-A-MONTH" LAW

After three decades of hard work, NRA-ILA can announce that the South Carolina Legislature has repealed the state`s one-gun-a-month" law, which has limited the rights of law-abiding citizens by prohibiting multiple handgun purchases within a 30-day waiting period. HB 3442 is now headed to Governor Mark Sanford (R).

"NRA is pleased that the people of South Carolina will no longer be
subject to this unreasonable gun rationing law, a law that has only
affected honest gun owners and therefore could only have a negative impact on crime," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "Gun rationing laws set a bad and unconstitutional precedent that government can limit the frequency with which a law-abiding citizen may exercise a constitutionally-protected right. If governments can limit law-abiding citizens to one gun a month, they can extend it to one gun a year, one-gun a lifetime, or no guns at all."

"One-gun-a-month" laws have been tried in South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland, and have failed in all three states. After South Carolina imposed its law in 1975, violent crime soared there and in New York City, the supposed beneficiary of the law. In the 1990`s, violent crime declined nationally, but rose in Washington, D.C., the supposed beneficiary of Virginia`s law. Maryland imposed its law in 1998, yet it has the highest robbery rate of any state, and Baltimore`s homicide rate is among the worst of all major U.S. cities.

"On behalf of tens of thousands of South Carolina NRA members, gun owners and sportsmen, I want to thank the Senators and Representatives who supported this bill and Governor Sanford for acting to abolish this senseless law," added Cox.

VICTORY FOR NRA AND HUNTERS AS MINNESOTA REINSTATES DOVE SEASON

In an historic vote, law-abiding sportsmen will enjoy a dove hunting
season in Minnesota for the first time since 1946. Despite efforts from anti-hunting groups to block the legislation, the Minnesota Legislature voted overwhelmingly to pass the Omnibus Game and Fish Bill (HF 2368) that places the mourning dove on the state`s game bird list. The bill is now headed to Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) for his expected signature. Minnesota will be the 40th state with an established dove hunting season in America.

"MILLION" MOM FARCE

One Second Amendment supporter who witnessed last Sunday`s
(two-one-thousandths-of-a) "Million" Mom March was quoted as saying, "It wasn`t a ‘Million Mom March,` it was a ‘thousand gang limp.`"

The quote aptly describes the event`s extremely low turnout, and is indicative of the waning interest in the group`s anti-freedom message. The Associated Press generously estimated the size of the crowd at just 2,000, or about 99.8 percent less than the group`s billing implied!

The year`s event, organized in conjunction with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, represents yet another unsuccessful attempt by the "Million" Mom March group to forward its misguided agenda, and rally what`s left of its supporters against lawful firearms ownership. Undeterred by the obvious lack of support, and determined to persist in its anti-gun mission, the group continues to lobby for the renewal of the Clinton gun ban, which will expire on September 13, 2004. And while they will claim that their primary concern is "safety," it is ironic, to say the least, that the group`s two marquee events have coincided with presidential election years.

Make no mistake. Over the next few months we`re in for a sustained political battle over this issue. And we need to be prepared. If you want to know the TRUTH about the Clinton gun ban, please visit NRA-ILA`s informative website-- www.ClintonGunBan.com --and learn the facts about this debate, which has too long been driven and dominated by falsehoods
and emotion.

A LOOK AT THE STATES

GEORGIA
In the first law of its kind in the nation, Georgia will now allow citizens to register to vote while they get their hunting and fishing licenses. The "Sportsmen Voter Registration Bill" (SB 541), signed into law yesterday by Governor Sonny Perdue (R) and supported by NRA, was patterned after the national "motor voter" law and requires businesses who sell hunting and fishing licenses to act as a voter registration site as well. The Georgia General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the measure.

ILLINOIS
This week, the House passed SB 2165, which seeks to provide an affirmative defense for a gun owner if he uses a firearm prohibited by local ordinance in defense of himself or others. This bill now heads to the Senate for concurrence, where it has already passed once with strong, bipartisan support. Please call your State Senator at (217) 782-4517 and urge him to support this critical reform. In addition, SB 2386, which also seeks to prohibit civil suits against a gun owner who uses a firearm to defend himself or others, has now passed both the House and Senate, and heads to Governor Rod Blagojevich (D). In other good news, SB 2156, the "Illinois Hunting Heritage Protection Act," has now passed both the House and Senate, and is awaiting action by the Governor. This legislation seeks to provide protections for the future of hunting in Illinois. Governor Blagojevich continues to threaten to veto any and all pro-gun reforms unless he also is sent anti-gun legislation. In that vein, Chicago Democrats continue their efforts to resurrect attacks on gun shows and semi-automatic firearms. SB 947 is an assault on Illinois gun shows that seeks to tax firearm sales, register transfers, and increase the waiting period. It is being promoted in spite of anti-gun organizations that admit that there is no gun show "loophole" in Illinois. This bill has been on life support since last year, but anti-gun extremists are doing everything they can to revive it. The gun-ban crowd also continues to target semi-automatic firearms. Last year`s gun ban bill from Chicago
Mayor Richard Daley (D), SB 1195, failed to garner enough support to pass, and similar legislation introduced this year also failed to move before legislative deadlines had passed. Nonetheless, it is clear that banning semi-automatics remains a serious threat, and the word is, that Governor Blagojevich will work to have a ban introduced next week. Blagojevich and Deputy Governor Bradley Tusk (D), a former staffer of U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), will be working overtime to build support for their
gun-ban agenda.

LOUISIANA The full Senate approved SB 837, NRA-backed Right-to-Carry reciprocity legislation which requires Louisiana to recognize permits from states which, in turn, recognize Louisiana permits. The bill now moves to the House for consideration. We`ll keep you posted on its committee referral and hearing schedule! Also, the House Natural Resources Committee will consider SB 2, a constitutional amendment regarding the right to hunt, fish and trap, on May 20, at 9:30 a.m. in Committee Room 4 of the
capitol in Baton Rouge.

MISSISSIPPI Governor Haley Barbour (R) signed SB 2623, legislation creating specialized NRA license plates and dedicating a portion of the fees for such plates to the NRA Foundation State Account for Mississippi.

[quade 4]

Lemme get this straight . . .

The government of Florida just let firearm ranges off the hook for lead pollution as long as they can show, "good faith efforts"? I dunno about that one. Intentions are pretty weak sometimes and in this case -- results matter.

I think this was a bad move on their part, but it ain't my state.

I also really find the Mississippi license plate thing kinda silly, but if someone wants a vanity plate to support the NRA, well, I guess there are worse ways of raising funds for PACs. I -assume- that Mississippi takes its regular cut off the top and the extra vanity plate money goes to the NRA. Never really understood vanity plates . . . just kinda advertising the fact you have valuables in your car. Of course, in this instance, the thief -may- think there could also be repercussions if he's caught.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Jib 0]

Quote

Lemme get this straight . . .

The government of Florida just let firearm ranges off the hook for lead pollution as long as they can show, "good faith efforts"? I dunno about that one. Intentions are pretty weak sometimes and in this case -- results matter.

No, Quade. It required the State to tell them how to safeguard the environment:

Quote

The new law, the first of its kind in the country, requires the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to provide copies of "Best Practices for Environmental Stewardship for Florida Shooting Ranges" to range managers statewide to keep their operations on a sound, environmentally friendly path. That blueprint for action was the culmination of nearly a decade of research and cooperative efforts initiated by the NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the Wildlife Management Institute.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The government of Florida just let firearm ranges off the hook for lead pollution as long as they can show, "good faith efforts"? I dunno about that one.

Gun ranges are being sued out of existance over unfounded fears about lead pollution. The gun club to which I belong just spent $150,000 "remediating" the lead from our berms, because of a complaint from just one disgruntled former member, and even though test wells showed there was no ground water pollution. If a range is following the "best practices" recommendations, then they deserve protection from frivolous and polictially-motivated lawsuits.

Quote

I also really find the Mississippi licence plate thing kinda silly, but if someone wants a vanity plate to support the NRA, well, I guess there are worse ways of raising funds for PACs.

This is the NRA Foundation, which is not a PAC - it's the 501C charity arm of the NRA. Other charity orgs get vanity plates, so there is no reason why the NRA's charity arm shouldn't have one also.

NRA Foundation

[quade 4]

Quote

This is the NRA Foundation, which is not a PAC . . .

YOU and they can call it whatever you want, but if they are involved in giving money to candidates (which they are), if they are involved in political lobbying (which they are) and if they are this concerned with legislation (which clearly they are), then, uh, it's a PAC.

Always has been and will be until the cold dead hand.

BTW, don't be ashamed. PACs in and of themselves aren't a bad thing -- people just need to recognise them for what they are.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

The government of Florida just let firearm ranges off the hook for lead pollution as long as they can show, "good faith efforts"? I dunno about that one. Intentions are pretty weak sometimes and in this case -- results matter.

Try to follow me quade. Some people hate guns in all their forms and uses. They want guns gone forever (we'll ignore how impossible that is for now). However, since they can't attain their goal immediately, they are going after everything one piece at a time: CCW, AWB, .50 cal bans, certain hunting seasons, etc. They are also going after shooting ranges because of some half-assed junk science threat of lead (they also went after lead shot in shotgun shells with no evidnece of harm done by the shot).

So, if you want to trust the government to go after people, should you not tell them what they CAN do to avoid lawsuits? Why not have the state version of the EPA tell them what they can do to avoid harm, and as long as they do it, tell them they won't be sued?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

YOU and they can call it whatever you want, but if they are involved in giving money to candidates (which they are), if they are involved in political lobbying (which they are) and if they are this concerned with legislation (which clearly they are), then, uh, it's a PAC.

It's not a PAC.

If a 501C charity organization is involved in any of those things you mention, then they lose their tax-exempt status, are fined, and can no longer be a 501C charity. Just because one part of the NRA contributes money to candidates, doesn't mean that the 501C part isn't a legitimate charity. The PAC part is called the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action).

The NRA splits their functions accordingly, so they can comply with the law. This is adhered to scrupulously. For example, a mailing to members by the NRA-ILA, requesting money for politics, cannot also include a request for donations to the NRA Foundation. Those functions have to be kept separate, even though postage expenses could be saved by combining mailings. This leads to odd things, like receiving two letters on the same day from the NRA, one from the ILA, and one from the Foundation.

The NRA Foundation is not a PAC, no matter how much you might wish to make it sound like one. Plenty of people would love to get the NRA in trouble if they violated the law for a 501C charity. If it wasn't adhering to the laws, we would certainly all hear about it.

P.S. Don't be ashamed for being wrong. Lots of people are wrong about some things. People just need to recognize when they're wrong, so the record is set straight.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

The government of Florida just let firearm ranges off the hook for lead pollution as long as they can show, "good faith efforts"? I dunno about that one. Intentions are pretty weak sometimes and in this case -- results matter.

Try to follow me quade. Some people hate guns in all their forms and uses. They want guns gone forever (we'll ignore how impossible that is for now). However, since they can't attain their goal immediately, they are going after everything one piece at a time: CCW, AWB, .50 cal bans, certain hunting seasons, etc. They are also going after shooting ranges because of some half-assed junk science threat of lead (they also went after lead shot in shotgun shells with no evidnece of harm done by the shot).

So, if you want to trust the government to go after people, should you not tell them what they CAN do to avoid lawsuits? Why not have the state version of the EPA tell them what they can do to avoid harm, and as long as they do it, tell them they won't be sued?

Does this principle apply across the board? If, say, an airport follows all FAA regulations and recommendations, should it be exempt from lawsuits by local residents complaining about noise?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

should it be exempt from lawsuits by local residents complaining about noise?

Hahahahaha

God I hate those, especially when its from someone that moved into a house that's next to/near an airport after that airport has been there for many many years. Or someone is building high-end houses next to /near an airport due to cheap land prices. Uppermiddle class folks that try to sue the airport for doing what its done for many years before they were there.

Most of the lawsuits, complaints and such I've seen are truely laughable.

Step1: Move next to an aiport
Step2: Be surprised that planes take off and land at an aiport.
Step3: Sue airport.
End result: Pointless lawsuit from pointless people.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

This is the NRA Foundation, which is not a PAC . . .

YOU and they can call it whatever you want, but if they are involved in giving money to candidates (which they are), if they are involved in political lobbying (which they are) and if they are this concerned with legislation (which clearly they are), then, uh, it's a PAC.

The NRA Foundation is not a PAC. The Foundation is a charity arm of the NRA. They do not give money to candidates or lobby politicians.

The NRA is very adamant about following the myriad of laws concerning their finances and fund raising. Let me give you an example (I will leave out the education, training, conservation, and range improvement programs).

The NRA ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) is focussed on passing legislation supported by the NRA.

The NRA Foundation is a charity. Calling it anything else is an insult to charities everywhere.

The NRA PVF (Political Victory Fund) is focussed on getting candidates supported by the NRA elected to office.

etc, etc, etc

quade, you know better than to get your information from the evening news. Just because a network says the NRA is nothing but a bunch of lobbyists, that doesn't make it so.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Does this principle apply across the board? If, say, an airport follows all FAA regulations and recommendations, should it be exempt from lawsuits by local residents complaining about noise?

I worked in Northern Virginia for a while, and I worked one project that couldn't have been 5 miles from Dulles Airport. If it were 10-20 miles in any direction, the houses would have gone for $800,000 to $1.5 million. As is was, they were selling around $450,000, and it was the only project that didn't have people lining up to buy them.

While talking with the super about a scheduling conflict (my fault), we overheard a couple tlaking to their realtor, asking about a lawyer. I brought it to his attention, and he said, yeah, he gets noise complaints all the time, and buyers bitching to him about why can't the airport fly somewhere else.



If the airport changes their flight lanes, then maybe a lawsuit if you're lawyer happy. Or if you think you have a better idea than what they are doing now, sure, let them know.
BUT WHY DO PEOPLE INSIST ON SUING FOR EVERYTHING?!?

Oh yeah, beacuse it's too damn easy to not do it. Lawsuits are just too appealing. You can just threaten to sue someone, and they might buckle just from fear of defense fees. There is no penalty for these assholes who make a living suing (or threatening to sue) anyone they see. More and more, the courts seem like a waste of everyone's time and money.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

YOU and they can call it whatever you want, but if they are involved in giving money to candidates (which they are), if they are involved in political lobbying (which they are) and if they are this concerned with legislation (which clearly they are), then, uh, it's a PAC.

It's not a PAC.

If a 501C charity organization is involved in any of those things you mention, then they lose their tax-exempt status, are fined, and can no longer be a 501C charity. Just because one part of the NRA contributes money to candidates, doesn't mean that the 501C part isn't a legitimate charity. The PAC part is called the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action).

The NRA splits their functions accordingly, so they can comply with the law. This is adhered to scrupulously. For example, a mailing to members by the NRA-ILA, requesting money for politics, cannot also include a request for donations to the NRA Foundation. Those functions have to be kept separate, even though postage expenses could be saved by combining mailings. This leads to odd things, like receiving two letters on the same day from the NRA, one from the ILA, and one from the Foundation.

The NRA Foundation is not a PAC, no matter how much you might wish to make it sound like one. Plenty of people would love to get the NRA in trouble if they violated the law for a 501C charity. If it wasn't adhering to the laws, we would certainly all hear about it.

P.S. Don't be ashamed for being wrong. Lots of people are wrong about some things. People just need to recognize when they're wrong, so the record is set straight.

And let's remind Mr. Quade that when the NRA was founded in 1871, it was NOT a "political action" entity by any means. Its intent was to foster interest and competence in the shooting sports!

It did not go into politics until politics began to encroach on the rights guaranteed us by the 2nd Amendment. That spurred gun owners into action to defend what had previously been something so generally accepted that no one thought it even needed defending.

Did they really think we would give up gun ownership without organizing for a fight??

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Does this principle apply across the board? If, say, an airport follows all FAA regulations and recommendations, should it be exempt from lawsuits by local residents complaining about noise?

I'm not sure I get you, quade. Are you suggesting that people who are operating clearly within the bounds of what is legal should be able to be sued??

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[quade 4]

I didn't make the post you've quoted.

Follow the links back and you'll see.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I didn't make the post you've quoted.

Follow the links back and you'll see.

I stand corrected. Thanks.
I guess I meant to say "kallend."

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[quade 4]

Could you please supply me with the URL (if it exists) of the original NRL web page on which this information appeared?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Could you please supply me with the URL (if it exists) of the original NRL web page on which this information appeared?

Here:

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=3710

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The government of Florida just let firearm ranges off the hook for lead pollution as long as they can show, "good faith efforts"? I dunno about that one. Intentions are pretty weak sometimes and in this case -- results matter.

Try to follow me quade. Some people hate guns in all their forms and uses. They want guns gone forever (we'll ignore how impossible that is for now). However, since they can't attain their goal immediately, they are going after everything one piece at a time: CCW, AWB, .50 cal bans, certain hunting seasons, etc. They are also going after shooting ranges because of some half-assed junk science threat of lead (they also went after lead shot in shotgun shells with no evidnece of harm done by the shot).

So, if you want to trust the government to go after people, should you not tell them what they CAN do to avoid lawsuits? Why not have the state version of the EPA tell them what they can do to avoid harm, and as long as they do it, tell them they won't be sued?

Does this principle apply across the board? If, say, an airport follows all FAA regulations and recommendations, should it be exempt from lawsuits by local residents complaining about noise?

Hell yes!

[quade 4]

Quote

Does this principle apply across the board? If, say, an airport follows all FAA regulations and recommendations, should it be exempt from lawsuits by local residents complaining about noise?

Except, from my reading of the news posting, this is not analogous to what the law now says in Florida.

My understanding is that if the shooting range shows that they have made a "good faith effort" to comply with the state's "best practices", then they are exempt, which as I think should be fairly obvious is actually something different than actually following all the rules and taking responsibility for lead pollution.

It would be interesting to see a study on the long term effects of lead levels in ground water and the shooters themselves. As you're probably aware lead hinders the nervous system. http://www.nsc.org/library/facts/lead.htm

I'd also like to see what happens when a firing range goes out of business. Who cleans up and how?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Unstable 9]

Quote

Gun ranges are being sued out of existance over unfounded fears about lead pollution. The gun club to which I belong just spent $150,000 "remediating" the lead from our berms, because of a complaint from just one disgruntled former member, and even though test wells showed there was no ground water pollution. If a range is following the "best practices" recommendations, then they deserve protection from frivolous and polictially-motivated lawsuits.

It's been known for a while that anti-gun activists were using the Lead-pollution ticket as a way to push shooting ranges out of business. Our public range here in my hometown was closed down due to a lawsuite from a local farmer because of "lead Pollution." IMO, it's just another way for the anti-gun crowd to try to gain control.

=========Shaun ==========

[quade 4]

Why do you assume it's anti-gun? Why can't it simply be anti-lead pollution? Lead pollution IS a serious concern.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Jib 0]

Quote

Why do you assume it's anti-gun? Why can't it simply be anti-lead pollution? Lead pollution IS a serious concern.

Out of curiousity, since it's gone from virtually all gasoline and paint, where does the current problem stem from? Actually, you know NASCAR runs leaded gas...

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Why do you assume it's anti-gun? Why can't it simply be anti-lead pollution? Lead pollution IS a serious concern.

Quite simply because tests done by real scientists have shown no appreciable levels of lead in the water table surrounding ranges.

Lead pollution is a serious concern. Now show me where lead from a range is affecting the environment.

Quote

My understanding is that if the shooting range shows that they have made a "good faith effort" to comply with the state's "best practices", then they are exempt, which as I think should be fairly obvious is actually something different than actually following all the rules and taking responsibility for lead pollution.

Well, since no harm is shown by ranges operating normally, and they follow all laws, what is there for them to take responsibility for? They are doing more than they should reasonably be required to do because (A) shooters care more about the environment than the average citizen and (B) it's their hope they might shut up the anti-gunners for a while.

I'd say a good faith effort is more than enough when there is no demostrated harm.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/leadsafe/leadinf6.htm

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

So, according to the EPA, the only threat posed by shooters is to themselves if using an inddor range without proper ventilation.

Tell me again why there should be lawsuits against outdoor ranges...

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*