NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert

Post by **normsutton** » July 6th, 2007, 9:37 pm

JUST GOT THIS

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3145

NORM

trent · Post by **trent** » July 6th, 2007, 11:14 pm

oh man, how stupid can some people be. How often has anything like they are trying to prevent happened, how about NEVER!!!!! To my knowledge ammuntion has been stored in various places for 100's OF YEARS IN THE US!!!! This riles me up, I wanna do something now, Thanks OSHA now I can't get to sleep.

Post by **normsutton** » July 7th, 2007, 5:08 am

OSHA tried to ban ammo 15 to 20 years ago on the grounds that is was unhealthy
OSHA has to much power over our lives
NORM

Post by **normsutton** » July 17th, 2007, 8:52 am

Labor Department Announces It Will Revise
Overreaching OSHA Explosives Rule

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it will significantly revise a recent proposal for new “explosives safety” regulations that caused serious concern among gun owners. OSHA had originally set out to update workplace safety regulations, but the proposed rules included restrictions that very few gun shops, sporting goods stores, shippers, or ammunition dealers could comply with.

Gun owners had filed a blizzard of negative comments urged by the NRA, and just a week ago, OSHA had already issued one extension for its public comment period at the request of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. After continued publicity through NRA alerts and the outdoor media, and after dozens of Members of Congress expressed concern about its impact, OSHA has wisely decided to go back to the drawing board.

Working with the NRA, Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) planned to offer a floor amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill this Wednesday when the House considers this legislation. His amendment would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce this OSHA regulation.

Such an amendment is no longer necessary since Kristine A. Iverson, the Labor Department’s Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, sent Rep. Rehberg a letter, dated July 16, stating that it “was never the intention of OSHA to block the sale, transportation, or storage of small arms ammunition, and OSHA is taking prompt action to revise” this proposed rule to clarify the purpose of the regulation.

Also, working with the NRA, Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) gathered signatures from 25 House colleagues for a letter, dated July 11, expressing concerns about this proposed OSHA rule. The letter calling the proposal “an undue burden on a single industry where facts do not support the need outlined by this proposed rule” and “not feasible, making it realistically impossible for companies to comply with its tenets.”

The OSHA proposal would have defined “explosives” to include “black powder, … small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, [and] smokeless propellant,” and treated these items the same as the most volatile high explosives.

Under the proposed rule, a workplace that contained even a handful of small arms cartridges, for any reason, would have been considered a “facility containing explosives” and therefore subject to many impractical restrictions. For example, no one could carry “firearms, ammunition, or similar articles in facilities containing explosives … except as required for work duties.” Obviously, this rule would make it impossible to operate any kind of gun store, firing range, or gunsmith shop.

The public comment website for the proposed rule is no longer accessible. The Labor Department will publish a notice in the July 17 Federal Register announcing that a new rule proposal will soon be drafted for public comment. Needless to say, the NRA monitors proposed federal regulations to head off this kind of overreach, and will be alert for OSHA’s next draft.

redfestiva · Post by **redfestiva** » July 17th, 2007, 9:18 am

Norm,
Thanks for the update. I've been keeping my eyes and ears open on this matter.

Post by **normsutton** » September 26th, 2007, 11:43 am

Disney readily violates the Second Amendment...

While the Walt Disney Company will immediately fire employees who have a legal firearm unloaded, cased, and locked in their private vehicles while parked on publicly accessible company property, Disney is not firing one of its employees who was recently arrested by the FBI on child-pornography charges.

TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT
09/01/2007
Page 8A

WKMG LOCAL 6
ORLANDO

Police: Disney worker arrested on child-porn charges:

ORLANDO --- A worker at Walt Disney World was arrested late Thursday on child-porn charges, according to police. FBI agents arrested Disney food service worker Tony Guerra in Central Florida on Thursday after an investigation. Guerra was put on unpaid leave until the case against him is resolved

gunneyrabbit · Post by **gunneyrabbit** » September 26th, 2007, 3:53 pm

An article in the NRA magazine recently exposed this thinly disguised attempt at gun control proposed by the wrong headed members of the Democratic party and other anti-gun groups in the country. Using the formula presented, all gas stations would have to close down during thunder and lightening storms or when any one with a lit cigar or cigarette passes within fifty feet. All ships carrying LNG, Propane, Butane, all petroleum distillates etc. would have to be abandoned during such storms.
NORM and his dentist friends, dental and medical clinics and virtually any other business that kept "explosives" on hand, would have to shut down their businesses or be closed down by the Federal Govt. for failure to comply. All house holds in the United States would have to be evacuated during such sessions. What, You think your immune? Just read the volatile verb-age on the sides of that all purpose gun cleaner you have down in the basement. Check out the warnings on the side of your pest control products. Oh Yes, all of you folks that love spending time out in the woods would have to give up your evil DEAT bug repellent because you might explode into flames during a storm or worse when you light up a cigarette, cigar or a campfire. You folks who are muzzle loader fanatics, or re-loaders would no doubt be carted off to prison for failure to comply. I could go on but why kick a dead horse. My take on this issue is that the anti gun control people have once again failed to think through the ramifications of their proposed bill. Please keep this type of governmental abuse in mind when you cast your next vote. YOU DO VOTE DON'T YOU?
G.R.

carguy · Post by **carguy** » September 26th, 2007, 9:51 pm

Isn't it about time "our" elected officials started running the government for the betterment of society? In order to improve our lives and standards of living? When will they start listening to the people that elected them and stop pushing their "personal" agenda once elected?

I vote so I feel I have the right to complain. It is getting more and more frustrating voting for the lesser of 2 evils when choosing a candidate of late.

I sent an email to a state rep last night asking the very same questions. He is from my county and is sponsoring a bill requiring micro-stamping of ammunition for "certain" weapons. Unfortunatley it would require the surrender of non-stamped ammo, raise the price of ammo dramatically as well as the weapons that fire it. This guy is nuts and not even creative, he copied a bill on Arnold Schwarzeneggers desk right now in California!

Lord help us ::)

Post by **normsutton** » September 29th, 2007, 6:11 am

CALIFORNIA: Lead Ammunition Ban Sent to Governor's Desk! On Thursday, September 6, the Assembly passed Assembly Bill 821, which would ban the use of lead ammunition for hunting in areas occupied by California condors. The bill is now on its way to the desk of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) for his consideration. This ban would have disastrous repercussions for California's rich hunting tradition. Please contact Governor Schwarzenegger and respectfully urge him to protect hunting across the Golden State by vetoing AB 821. Governor Schwarzenegger can be reached by phone at (916) 445-2841, fax at (916) 445-4633, or visit http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email to send him an e-mail.

Microstamping Legislation Heads to Governor's Desk! The California Assembly voted 43-29 to pass Assembly Bill 1471 on Monday, September 10. The bill now moves to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R) desk for his consideration. This legislation requires that after a certain date, the make, model, and serial number of the firearm be microstamped onto the interior surface or internal working parts of all new handguns in such a manner that those identifiers are imprinted onto the cartridge case upon firing. Under AB1471, the manufacture, sale, and transfer of new handguns that do not include their identifying information would be a crime. Please contact the Governor and respectfully urge him to veto AB1471. Governor Schwarzenegger can be reached by phone at (916) 445-2841, fax at (916) 445-4633, or visit http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email to send him an e-mail.

Emergency Powers Bill Passes Senate, Heads to Governor! By a vote of 21-16, the California Senate passed Assembly Bill 1645 on Wednesday, September 5. AB1645 will protect law-abiding gun owners during a declared state of emergency from the seizure or confiscation of any lawfully carried or possessed firearm or ammunition. The bill is now on its way to the desk of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) for his consideration.

Post by **normsutton** » October 6th, 2007, 7:03 am

THE NICS IMPROVEMENT BILL: MYTH AND REALITY

Some opponents of the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act" (H.R. 2640) have spent the last several months painting a picture of the bill that would rightly terrify gun owners-if it was true.

The opponents' motive seems to be a totally unrealistic hope of undercutting or repealing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by ensuring that its records are inaccurate and incomplete. But make no mistake-an inaccurate and incomplete system only serves to delay and burden lawful gun buyers, while failing to screen those who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.

Nonetheless, opponents of H.R. 2640 continue to spread misconceptions about the bill. The following are some of the common myths.

MYTH: "Millions of Americans will awake one day and find that they are suddenly barred from buying guns based upon decades old convictions of 'misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence,' or mental health adjudications that were later rescinded or expired."
FACT: H.R. 2640 does not create any new classes of "prohibited persons." The NRA does not, and will not, support the creation of new classes of prohibited persons. H.R. 2640 only requires reporting of available records on people who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.

Also, H.R. 2640-for the first time-specifies that mental health adjudications may not be reported if they've been expunged, or if the person has received relief from the adjudication under the procedures required by the bill. In those cases, the mental adjudication or commitment "shall be deemed not to have occurred," and therefore would not prohibit the person from possessing firearms.

MYTH: "As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be prohibited from owning firearms-based solely on a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder."
FACT: The only veterans who would be reported to NICS under this bill due to mental health issues are-as with civilians-those who are adjudicated as incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

A diagnosis alone is never enough; the person must be "adjudicated as a mental defective," which is a legal term that implies a fair hearing process. The Veterans' Administration has regulations that provide veterans with an opportunity for a hearing on those decisions, and an opportunity for multiple appeals-just as a civilian does in state court. Any records that don't meet this standard could not be reported to NICS, and any deficient records that have already been provided would have to be removed.

Veteran and journalist Larry Scott (operator of the website [url=http://www.vawatchdog.org)]www.vawatchdog.org)[/url] calls the allegation about veterans a "huge campaign of misinformation and scare tactics." Scott points out that thousands of veterans who receive mental health care through the VA-but have not been found incompetent or involuntarily committed-are not currently reported to NICS, and wouldn't be reported under H.R. 2640. (Scott's analysis is available online at http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202 ... html?wh=wh.)

Last, but not least, H.R. 2640 also provides veterans and others their first opportunity in 15 years to seek "relief from disabilities" through either state or federal programs. Currently, no matter how successfully a person responds to treatment, there is no way for a person "adjudicated" incompetent or involuntarily committed to an institution to seek restoration of the right to possess a firearm.

MYTH: A child who has been diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder "can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult." "Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance)."
FACT: Again, a psychiatric or medical diagnosis alone is not an "adjudication" or "commitment."

Critics base their concern on BATFE regulations that define an "adjudication" to include a decision by a "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority." They claim any doctor could potentially be a "lawful authority."

They are wrong. Not even the Clinton Administration took such an extreme position. In fact, the term "lawful authority" was apparently intended to cover various types of government panels that are similar to "courts, boards, or commissions." Basic principles of legal interpretation require reading it that way. The term also doesn't override the basic constitutional protections that come into play in decisions about a person's mental health.

Finally, records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws, which H.R. 2640 also does not override.

MYTH: People who get voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would be prohibited from possessing guns.
FACT: Again, current BATFE regulations make clear that voluntary commitments do not affect a person's right to arms. NRA (and, surely, the medical community) would vehemently oppose any proposal that would punish or deter a person getting needed voluntary treatment.

MYTH: A Pennsylvania man lost his right to possess firearms due to an "offhanded, tongue-in-cheek remark."
FACT: This case does not hold up to close investigation. The person made comments on a college campus that were interpreted as threatening in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy; he was then briefly sent to a mental institution.

Opponents, however, have failed to mention that the man had been the subject of chronic complaints from his neighbors. (The "filth, mold, [and] mildew" in his apartment were so bad that the town declared it unfit for human habitation.) After his brief hospital stay, he was arrested for previously pointing a gun at his landlord and wiretapping his neighbors.

Despite these facts, it also appears he was only committed for a brief period of observation. Current BATFE regulations say that the term "committed to a mental institution" "does not include a person in a mental institution for observation." Therefore, even in this extreme case, the person may not ultimately be prohibited from possessing firearms. Second Amendment scholar Clayton Cramer describes this case in a recent Shotgun News column (available online at http://www.claytoncramer.com/PopularMag ... 202640.htm) and reaches the same conclusion.

MYTH: "Relief from disability" provisions would require gun owners to spend a fortune in legal fees to win restoration of rights.
FACT: Relief programs are not that complicated. When BATFE (then just BATF) operated the relief from disabilities program, the application was a simple two-page form that a person could submit on his own behalf. The bureau approved about 60% of valid applications from 1981-91.

Pro-gun attorney Evan Nappen points out that the most extreme anti-gun groups now oppose H.R. 2640 simply because of the relief provisions. Nappen includes a sampling of their comments in his article on the bill ("Enough NRA Bashing"), available online at http://www.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing.

MYTH: The bill's "relief from disability" provisions are useless because Congress has defunded the "relief" program.
FACT: The current ban on processing relief applications wouldn't affect this bill. The appropriations rider (promoted in 1992 by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)) only restricts expenditures by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. H.R. 2640 requires relief programs to be set up and operated by agencies that make adjudications or commitments related to people's mental health. BATFE doesn't do that, but other agencies-especially the Veterans' Administration-do. Naturally, NRA would strongly oppose any effort to remove funding from new "relief" programs set up under this widely supported bill.

MYTH: The bill must be anti-gun, because it was co-sponsored by anti-gun Members of Congress.
FACT: By this unreasonable standard, any bill with broad support in Congress must be a bad idea. NRA believes in working with legislators of all political persuasions if the end result will benefit lawful gun owners. Anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) supported arming airline pilots against terrorists, but that program was (and is) a good idea nonetheless.

MYTH: The bill "was hatched in secret .and passed out of the House without even a roll call."
FACT: No one asked for a roll call vote. This is not unusual. The House voted on H.R. 2640 under "suspension of the rules," which allows passing widely supported bills by a two-thirds vote. (This procedure also helps prevent amendments-which in this case helped prevent anti-gun legislators from turning the bill into a "Christmas tree" for their agenda.)

After a debate in which only one House member opposed the bill, the House passed the bill by a voice vote. There is never a recorded vote in the House without a request from a House member. No one asked for one on H.R. 2640, again showing the widespread support for the bill.

Post by **normsutton** » October 20th, 2007, 9:26 am

Exploiting Tragedy--Again

You probably recall reading a story we brought you in May regarding the Brady Center's stomach-turning fundraising plea sent in the immediate aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings. The solicitation asked for $32--one dollar for each of the victims that lost his or her life.

You might have thought the condemnation and scorn the Brady Bunch rightly earned for this tasteless stunt would have been enough for them not to do something similar in the future. Apparently not so.

Now comes a "lie-in" protest scheduled nearby a Richmond, Va. gun show this weekend, where 32 "Million" Mom March/Brady supporters will play dead for a few minutes to represent the victims at Virginia Tech.

The protest is part and parcel of their campaign to close the mythical gun show "loophole." Despite the fact that this weekend's show, like the thousands held every year, will see an overwhelming majority of its gun sales go through a licensed dealer and NICS background check, and ignoring the fact that federal reports show gun shows amount for less than 2% of guns used in crimes, the Brady gang is bent on pursuing legislation that would in effect end gun shows as we know them. (For more information on the myth of the gun show "loophole", click here: www.nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=13).

While NRA continues its work to enact proven policies to reduce gun crime, the Brady Center and its affiliates apparently remain content in pushing for more restrictions on lawful gun owners and promoting PR stunts that should offend even the staunchest gun control supporters. The depths to which the Brady Center and its supporters will stoop apparently knows no bounds. Unfortunately for America, we have to be constantly reminded of this fact.

trent · Post by **trent** » October 20th, 2007, 3:22 pm

so essentially they are acting as pavement outside the gunshow, so you have to walk over them go get in, and who said protests are a bad thing. lol

I'd be suprised if more than 100 show up though

Post by **normsutton** » October 27th, 2007, 5:05 am

If You Can’t Beat ‘Em…Shoot ‘Em!?

Friday, October 26, 2007

Leave it to the wordsmiths at the Brady Center to get too cute by half.

In a series of exchanges today between some gun bloggers and the Brady Center’s mouthpiece, Peter Hamm, Hamm threatened to shoot one of the bloggers.

It all started when the blogosphere criticized Hamm’s suggestion that students who “…don't like the fact that you can’t have a gun on your college campus” should “Drop out of school.” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304806,00.html). One would think that quote would be the most ridiculous one of the entire exchange. Not so.

After some light-hearted tongue-in-cheek back and forth banter, Hamm took offense to a blogger who called him “Petey.” Hamm replied, “Don’t call me Petey. Or I’ll have to shoot you.”

Of course, we’ll give Hamm the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t being literal in his threat, and hold off on referring him to anger management classes. In the future, however, we’d advise a mouthpiece for the nation’s gun ban lobby to choose his words more carefully. But then again, based on the Brady’s track record of outlandish statements, that may be asking for too much.

trent · Post by **trent** » October 27th, 2007, 10:07 pm

digging his own political grave...

Post by **normsutton** » December 1st, 2007, 8:16 am

NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 14, No. 47 11/30/07

OUTRAGE OF THE WEEK!

Brady's Shamelessness-Will They Ever Learn? This week's outrage comes, not surprisingly, from the Brady Center. You may recall back in May, we reported on the Brady Center prescribing its remedies for the horrific Virginia Tech slayings well before any of the facts were known. Not content to stop there, they even sent out an extremely distasteful fundraising solicitation seeking contributions in the amount of $32-one dollar for each of the Virginia Tech slayings.

You'd think the Brady Center would have learned its lesson after being pilloried for this stunt by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (among others), who said, "People who want to take this (the Tech shootings) within 24 hours of the event and make it, you know, their political hobby horse to ride, I've got nothing but loathing for them. To those who want to, you know, try to make this into some little crusade, you know, I say take that elsewhere. Let this community deal with grieving individuals and be sensitive to those needs."

Once again, though, the Brady Bunch has proven it has no learning curve.

Boston Gun Search Policy Raises Concerns

Friday, November 30, 2007

Boston Gun Search Policy Raises Concerns

Boston police may soon begin asking parents to allow searches of their homes and children’s bedrooms for firearms—without notice or warrants.

Under the controversial “Home Safe” program, teams of police officers will be assigned to the city’s public schools and will seek out leads on students believed to have firearms. Officers would then show up at the student’s home and ask to immediately search the premises, confiscating any firearms they find. Officers are empowered to exercise their personal discretion should they encounter drugs or signs of other illegal activity.

While parents have the right to refuse the search, questions of constitutionality, intimidation, and civil liberties have rightly been raised.

According to a November 17, MSNBC.com article, Thomas Nolan, a former Boston police lieutenant who teaches criminology at Boston University, deemed the program “an end run around the Constitution.” Nolan further said, “The police have restrictions on their authority and ability to conduct searches. The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don’t have that.”

There is also a fear that people may be too intimidated to deny police access to their homes, or may not understand the legal implications of their compliance with the search, which could include arrest and prosecution.

A November 27, Boston.com article reported that Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner has called for hearings to further review the program. “We should not encourage our police department to engage in clever strategies that undercut the constitutional rights of every citizen,” Turner said in a statement.

Turner’s main concern is that police may not tell residents that they can refuse admittance. He also suggests that a visit by three police officers could be a “subtle coercion of permission.”

Of course, NRA is not alone in its concern over this activity. A November 21, BostonNOW.com article reports that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has “serious concerns about the threat to civil liberties” as well.

The Unofficial P64 Resource Forum