Try our new site!
The new site is up. I saw at least one member who may need to re-register. The old site is available here. Unfortunately, we've just broken all of our old links, so searches and especially bookmarks won't work. If you've linked to from your blog, they'll need to be updated. Hated to do it but there was no way around it. Old links will work by modifying the link from
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/ (link information)
to
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/tfc1/ (link information)
That /tfc1 after the .org will make a big difference.
Fort Hood Killer Used FN Pistol
The gun that the Ft. Hood killer used in this week's rampage shooting was a Five-seveN pistol manufactured by the venerable Belgian arms manufacturer Fabrique Nationale-Herstal, or FNH. We reported four years ago on the fuss that the Brady Bunch kicked up with the introduction of the latest "Devil's Gun." You can read that story here . In the intervening four years some news organizations (notably ABC ) have apparently learned little about the gun, or about the sources they use. The ABC story seemed to rely heavily on a Brady Center press release that appeared on "Opposing Views," a debate site, but not on their web site. A query to ABC about their sources for firearms technology information and their fact-checking process remained unanswered as I post this note.
Developing.
The "No Guns" Insult
How does it make you feel when you start to walk into a business and see a "No Guns" sign prominently posted? Are you angry? Offended? Indifferent? How do you react? Do you just turn around and take your business elsewhere? Complain to the management? Just ignore it and go on with your business? The members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League take "No Guns" signs as personally offensive and they let their offense be known - to the business, to fellow VCDL members, and anyone else who'll listen - or read a web page. VCDL maintains a list of anti-rights Virginia businesses on their web site, www.VCDL.org, and encourages gun owners and rights supporters to avoid these businesses except to let them know that their policy is offensive. VCDL has actively pursued this position for several years while they have simultaneously grown to become the most politically active and effective rights organization in the state.
So when the 7th District Republican Committee decided to hold a major fundraising rally in a location which is prominently posted "No Guns," VCDL let the Republicans know they weren't happy. When the Republicans held the annual event in the same anti-rights location every year for the next several years, disregarding VCDL's repeated objections, many at VCDL began taking the Republicans' choice as an insult. When the Republicans refused to change venues - even though VCDL offered to help sponsor the event at a different location - VCDL got mad... (Read More)
Prosecution as Punishment
The Troubling Case of Albert Kwan
People who "have nothing to hide" are often quite happy to answer any questions and consent to any intrusion a police officer might ask of them. They may even invite officers to "look around" if they want to. If you ask a good defense attorney how much you should cooperate with police, particularly when they are conducting an investigation in which you could possibly be a suspect, he will tell you "Not at all." Don't give them one word more than you must and never give them permission to search your car, look through your home, or examine any of your guns.
David Olofson took the "nothing to hide" approach. When the police confiscated one of his firearms from a friend he had loaned it to, Olofson freely chatted with police about how many guns he had, how many he has built, how he helps people to buy and assemble their own AR-platform rifles, and quite a bit more. David Olofson's loquacious ways probably helped to put him in prison for 30 months for illegally transferring an unregistered machine gun - that was actually just a malfunctioning semi-auto - and his case has set a very dangerous precedent which threatens all gun owners.
On the other side of the coin is Albert Kwan. A Seattle Class III firearms dealer and collector, Kwan followed the path of minimal cooperation. When agents asked him about a pair of Makarov barrels they thought he might have bought and asked to examine any Makarovs or Makarov parts he might have, Albert told them he had only purchased one barrel and that they should get a warrant if they wanted to examine it or anything else he owned. Kwan says he wasn't trying to hide anything; he just wanted to make sure his rights were respected and his privacy protected. Unfortunately, under-cooperating can be as problematic as over-cooperating. (Read More)
Training, Yes - Mandatory, No
At the recent Gun Rights Policy Conference in Saint Louis, Missouri I had the privilege of introducing a couple of resolutions that were adopted by the assembly. The first dealt with the recent attempt by Customs and Border Protection to classify certain "easy open" pocket knives as "switchblades," and subsequent efforts to amend the Federal Switchblade Act. My resolution suggested that since the problem of switchblades and switchblade crime was primarily a figment of Hollywood and Broadway, and since regulating tools is never a reasonable response to bad behavior, that the rights community should support the outright repeal of the Federal Switchblade Act and any other such laws which are intended to modify behavior by restricting tools. This resolution passed resoundingly with no real discussion.
My second resolution was a bit more controversial. In it I suggested that, while training in the safe, legal, and appropriate use of firearms is strongly supported and should continue to be encouraged, government mandated training is anathema to liberty. I pointed out that there is no statistical evidence that firearms accidents, mistakes, or abuses are any more likely in states requiring little or no training than they are in states with extensive training requirements. The resolution put on the record the GRPC delegates' opposition to government-mandated firearms training and their support for rolling back existing requirements where feasible. (Read More)
Supremes Take a Second Look
High Court Grants Cert in McDonald v. Chicago
On September 30, the Supreme Court announced that they were going to review the Second Amendment case McDonald v. City of Chicago and decide whether the Second Amendment applies at the state and local level. Application of the Bill of Rights to the states has been a long and convoluted battle with the Second Amendment being the last major article left out in the cold.
As originally proposed and applied, the Bill of Rights was an expression of universal, natural rights, but was considered directly enforceable only on the federal government - except that it was a statement of principles to which all of the states in the union agreed. Over the years there has been wrangling between states and the federal government regarding recognition of these rights, particularly in the years surrounding the Civil War as debates raged over the definition of a citizen and the rights such citizens enjoyed. Chief Justice Taney presents these rights of citizenship - privileges and immunities - in a clear and unequivocal fashion in his infamous decision in Dredd Scott v. Sanford. Part of the debate was over whether a person recognized as a citizen by one state was automatically a citizen of the United States and fully possessed of the privileges and immunities of such citizenship. Justice Taney described these privileges and immunities to include, "the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." (Read More)
Clinton Says GunVoters the Key
Bill Clinton says that he does not believe the Democrats will suffer losses in 2010 similar to those they suffered back in 1994. Clintons reasoning for this statement is that the Democrats have not "taken on the gun lobby" like they did in '94. He says that the "gun lobby" (that's you and me) was directly responsible for 15 of the Democrats lost seats in '94 and he has previously said we contributed to other losses as well.
Clinton's statement should (but won't) put an end to claims that the "gun lobby" has lost its clout. It also supports the position we've frequently stated, that the Democrat leadership is afraid of GunVoters and is therefore didlgently avoiding anything that might make us mad. Even without any overt attack on gun rights though, it is likely that GunVoters will play an important role in the coming elections as they are generally very upset about the current climate - overt attack against gun rights or not.
I hope this year, with the statewide elections in Virginia and New Jersey and the special congressional elections in various states around the country, GunVoter.org will reach the necessary critical mass to make it an important resource and power center for the rights movement. The more people who regularly visit GunVoter.org and leave questions or comments, the quicker it will reach that power point. If you haven't visited GunVoter.org recently, please make it a point to drop in and post a comment.
Voting is Everything
When football legend Vince Lombardi famously gathered his team to talk about fundamentals, he went to the most basic level: "Gentlemen," he said, "this is a football." Like Coach Lombardi, I want to get back to basics. In politics, just as in football, "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." When it comes to effective political activism that quote needs to be turned around; "Voting isn't the only thing. Voting is everything." While there are many important things that rights organizations and activists do, it all boils down to the one thing: The Vote. The vote is both the object and the instrument of political power and if we can't wield it effectively, all of our other efforts are useless.
The ultimate objective of the gun rights movement is to win legislative victories to keep politics and politicians away from our guns. To achieve this goal, organizations like The Firearms Coalition must do three things: Recruit, Inform, and Activate. The three are symbiotic, each feeding the other. In its simplest form it translates to: Build a List of names, Tell them What's Going On, and Encourage them to... (Read More)
History Matters
Neal Knox - The Gun Rights War is History
(August 3, 2009) Most readers of this column knew my late father, Neal Knox, as a Washington lobbyist and gun-rights hard-liner. And most of you also know that his family - particularly my brother Jeff and I, along with our mother Jay - continue the work he started with The Firearms Coalition. But in my travels, I've been dismayed to discover that many of "our guys" - from shooters at the range to industry types at the trade shows - don't really know or understand who Neal Knox was and what a significant impact he had on their rights. More importantly, they don't know or understand the history of the fight which has brought us where we are today. Imagine a west-bound wagon train with no one among them who had ever forded a river with a wagon or crossed a difficult mountain pass. Neal Knox - The Gun Rights War is the journal of an experienced guide and wagon master. He wasn't perfect and he wasn't always right, but he had a good compass and was always trying to move in the right direction. Click here to read the full story.
