Michigan: Registration Reform Assigned to Senate Committee!
Friday, April 25, 2008
Please Contact the Committee Members Today!
House Bill 4490 sponsored by State Representative Paul Opsommer (R-93) and House Bill 4491 introduced by State Representative Joel Sheltrown (D-103) have passed the House and have been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. A hearing date has not been scheduled yet. The bills would repeal the required "safety inspection" for newly obtained handguns. Current Michigan law requires anyone who comes into possession of a pistol to take it to the police or sheriff’s department for a safety inspection. The requirement of a safety inspection is a burdensome waste of time for law-abiding gun owners and the bills will end that inconvenience. Please contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and respectfully urge them to support these necessary pieces of legislation.
Senate Judiciary Committee:
State Senator Wayne Kuipers – Chair
(517) 373-6920
senwkuipers@senate.michigan.gov
State Senator Alan Cropsey (R-33)
(517) 373-3760
senacropsey@senate.michigan.gov
State Senator Alan Sanborn (R-11)
(517) 373-7670
senasanborn@senate.michigan.gov
State Senator Bruce Patterson (R-7)
(517) 373-7350
senbpatterson@senate.michigan.gov
State Senator Gretchen Whitmer (D-23)
517-373-1734
State Senator Hansen Clarke (D-1)
517-373-7346
State Senator Michael Pruse (D-38)
517-373-7840
senMPrusi@senate.mi.gov
Showing posts with label NRA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NRA. Show all posts
Monday, April 28, 2008
Debating Their Position On Guns
Debating Their Position On Guns
Friday, April 18, 2008
Speaking of “the most anti-gun candidate,” lately it’s becoming more and more difficult to keep track of which candidate is most deserving of that title.
As Democratic Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama squared off at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia this week, moderator Charlie Gibson, from ABC News, opened debate on the gun issue by stating, “Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual's right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns.” (Sound familiar?) “Why don’t you emphasize that now, Senator Clinton?”
Hillary answered with a stream of generalizations, but was specific on at least one thing, “I will [also] work to reinstate the assault weapons ban,” she said, also noting that, “the Republicans will not reinstate it.”
Obama was asked about the Heller case now before the United States Supreme Court, and specifically whether the D.C. gun ban is “consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms.” His response was, “Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…”
When pressed further by the moderator (“But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?”), Obama was evasive, never really giving a straight answer and causing the moderator to quip, “I’m not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama.”
Senator Clinton was then asked, “you have a home in D.C., do you support the D.C. ban?” She, too, was evasive but said that she wants, “to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining…” firearms law. She was further pressed “But what do you think? Do you support it or not?”
“Well, what I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms,” she said.
“Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?” asked the moderator.
“Well, I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But I don't know the facts,” Clinton concluded. At least she was right about that.
What we do know is that neither candidate joined more than 300 of their congressional colleagues in signing a brief in the Heller case in support of the Second Amendment, and both candidates’ records are well documented and show, unquestionably, that they’re both anti-gun. For either to now try to convince us otherwise is absurd. If one can’t plainly state that a ban on guns in the home for self-defense runs afoul of the Second Amendment, one has to wonder if either candidate believes any gun law would.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Speaking of “the most anti-gun candidate,” lately it’s becoming more and more difficult to keep track of which candidate is most deserving of that title.
As Democratic Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama squared off at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia this week, moderator Charlie Gibson, from ABC News, opened debate on the gun issue by stating, “Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual's right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns.” (Sound familiar?) “Why don’t you emphasize that now, Senator Clinton?”
Hillary answered with a stream of generalizations, but was specific on at least one thing, “I will [also] work to reinstate the assault weapons ban,” she said, also noting that, “the Republicans will not reinstate it.”
Obama was asked about the Heller case now before the United States Supreme Court, and specifically whether the D.C. gun ban is “consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms.” His response was, “Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…”
When pressed further by the moderator (“But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?”), Obama was evasive, never really giving a straight answer and causing the moderator to quip, “I’m not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama.”
Senator Clinton was then asked, “you have a home in D.C., do you support the D.C. ban?” She, too, was evasive but said that she wants, “to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining…” firearms law. She was further pressed “But what do you think? Do you support it or not?”
“Well, what I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms,” she said.
“Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?” asked the moderator.
“Well, I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But I don't know the facts,” Clinton concluded. At least she was right about that.
What we do know is that neither candidate joined more than 300 of their congressional colleagues in signing a brief in the Heller case in support of the Second Amendment, and both candidates’ records are well documented and show, unquestionably, that they’re both anti-gun. For either to now try to convince us otherwise is absurd. If one can’t plainly state that a ban on guns in the home for self-defense runs afoul of the Second Amendment, one has to wonder if either candidate believes any gun law would.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Obama: Change For The Sake Of Expediency
Obama: Change For The Sake Of Expediency
Friday, April 11, 2008
When it comes to the Second Amendment, it's somehow appropriate that Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is running on a platform of "change." Because when it comes to his rhetoric on the issue of gun rights, "change" is an apt description.
Last month, we reported on Obama's hypocrisy. We detailed his advocacy of a law to forbid federally licensed gun dealers from legally selling constitutionally-protected products (firearms) in huge geographical areas, without holding purveyors of pornography to the same standard.
Last week, we reported on Obama's attempt at reassuring pro-gun voters by telling them, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns," then telling the Pittsburgh Tribune "I am not in favor of concealed weapons," and that he favors "…reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure[s]…."
Obama is savvy, and he's a quick study. His politically expedient stance on the gun issues has morphed from "a ban on all handguns" to his now frequent use of phrases like "protecting sportsmen."
Lately, in an effort to curry votes from America's gun owners, he's even claiming to believe in the Second Amendment. A recent campaign "fact sheet" touting Obama's support for sportsmen claims that Obama "greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" (note the failure to say "keep" and bear arms). But read further--to the "fine print" at the end of the statement--and you'll see his political safety net…an easily down-played but highly significant "qualifier" that he almost always includes in some form. It reads, "He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation." In other words, "I support your gun rights, so long as that includes "reasonable" restrictions (wink, wink)." Very slick.
The next time you hear Obama talking about "protecting sportsmen's rights," remember that, among other things, he endorses the D.C. gun ban--which outlaws armed self-defense in the home--declaring that the ban doesn't violate the Second Amendment. And that in a "1998 National Political Awareness Test," he pledged to support a "Ban [on] the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons." That includes most handguns and many rifles and shotguns.
Obama's alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false. Barack Obama is not for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; he's out to destroy it.
(From the NRA)
Friday, April 11, 2008
When it comes to the Second Amendment, it's somehow appropriate that Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is running on a platform of "change." Because when it comes to his rhetoric on the issue of gun rights, "change" is an apt description.
Last month, we reported on Obama's hypocrisy. We detailed his advocacy of a law to forbid federally licensed gun dealers from legally selling constitutionally-protected products (firearms) in huge geographical areas, without holding purveyors of pornography to the same standard.
Last week, we reported on Obama's attempt at reassuring pro-gun voters by telling them, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns," then telling the Pittsburgh Tribune "I am not in favor of concealed weapons," and that he favors "…reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure[s]…."
Obama is savvy, and he's a quick study. His politically expedient stance on the gun issues has morphed from "a ban on all handguns" to his now frequent use of phrases like "protecting sportsmen."
Lately, in an effort to curry votes from America's gun owners, he's even claiming to believe in the Second Amendment. A recent campaign "fact sheet" touting Obama's support for sportsmen claims that Obama "greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" (note the failure to say "keep" and bear arms). But read further--to the "fine print" at the end of the statement--and you'll see his political safety net…an easily down-played but highly significant "qualifier" that he almost always includes in some form. It reads, "He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation." In other words, "I support your gun rights, so long as that includes "reasonable" restrictions (wink, wink)." Very slick.
The next time you hear Obama talking about "protecting sportsmen's rights," remember that, among other things, he endorses the D.C. gun ban--which outlaws armed self-defense in the home--declaring that the ban doesn't violate the Second Amendment. And that in a "1998 National Political Awareness Test," he pledged to support a "Ban [on] the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons." That includes most handguns and many rifles and shotguns.
Obama's alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false. Barack Obama is not for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; he's out to destroy it.
(From the NRA)
The NRA Family Mourns the Passing of Our Past President
The NRA Family Mourns the Passing of Our Past President, Dear Friend, and Fearless Advocate, Charlton Heston 1924 - 2008
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Statement of Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America
Today, my heart is heavy with the loss of Charlton Heston.
America has lost a great patriot. The Second Amendment has lost a faithful friend. So have I, and so have four million NRA members and eighty million gun owners. And so has every American who cares about the Bill of Rights, individual liberty, and Freedom.
My heart is heavy, but not without a sense of pride. Pride in a man who devoted his life to his profession with grace and dignity. Pride in an American who devoted himself to civil rights, to correcting injustices around him, and to standing up for what he knew was right. Pride in a friend who stood with me and stood with fellow NRA members to preserve our freedom for future generations. Pride in a patriot who believed with every fiber of his being that our Bill of Rights is the foundation of our freedom that makes Americans singular among the masses of nations.
And now, Charlton Heston has passed that duty to us – the next generation. I am as proud to continue his cause, as I am to have known him as my friend.
But today, my thoughts cannot leave the Heston family. They have always had my utmost respect and admiration and, today, they have my deepest sympathy and most earnest prayers. And they will always have my friendship.
(From The NRA)
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Statement of Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America
Today, my heart is heavy with the loss of Charlton Heston.
America has lost a great patriot. The Second Amendment has lost a faithful friend. So have I, and so have four million NRA members and eighty million gun owners. And so has every American who cares about the Bill of Rights, individual liberty, and Freedom.
My heart is heavy, but not without a sense of pride. Pride in a man who devoted his life to his profession with grace and dignity. Pride in an American who devoted himself to civil rights, to correcting injustices around him, and to standing up for what he knew was right. Pride in a friend who stood with me and stood with fellow NRA members to preserve our freedom for future generations. Pride in a patriot who believed with every fiber of his being that our Bill of Rights is the foundation of our freedom that makes Americans singular among the masses of nations.
And now, Charlton Heston has passed that duty to us – the next generation. I am as proud to continue his cause, as I am to have known him as my friend.
But today, my thoughts cannot leave the Heston family. They have always had my utmost respect and admiration and, today, they have my deepest sympathy and most earnest prayers. And they will always have my friendship.
(From The NRA)
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Gun Control Advocates Introduce 'Microstamping' Bill
(CNSNews.com) - A gun control group is hailing Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) for introducing legislation that would require gun microstamping in all fifty states.
The National Crime Gun Identification Act, introduced in both the House and Senate on Feb. 7, "will help law enforcement track down armed criminals and solve gun murders," the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said.The National Rifle Association calls such legislation "incremental gun control." Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, said microstamping will help police trace guns that are used in crimes.
It's "the common sense thing to do," Helmke said in a news release on Monday."Last year, California passed a bill to take advantage of this new microstamping technology. Governor Schwarzenegger signed that legislation into law. I want to commend Senator Kennedy and Congressman Becerra for introducing these bills to put this technology to work nationwide," Helmke said.
California's microstamping law, which is supposed to take effect in 2010, would require all semiautomatic pistols to have "microstamped identifiers" -- tiny internal markings that transfer themselves onto bullet cartridges fired from a gun. In theory, microstamped cartridges found at crime scenes might help police identify the make, model and serial number of the gun used in the crime -- and perhaps trace the criminal who used it as well.At least one gun manufacturer, STI International, stopped selling firearms in California as soon as Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the state's microstamping bill into law."We will be suspending all shipments of guns to California effective October 13, 2007.
This includes everyone from civilians to Law Enforcement," STI says on its Web site.Sen. Kennedy said his bill would amend federal law by prohibiting licensed federal firearms dealers from manufacturing, importing, or transferring certain semi-automatic pistols that are not capable of microstamping ammunition. According to Rep. Becerra, "Gun microstamping is a simple and effective technology that promises to save lives and keep violent criminals off the streets. It is inexpensive for gun manufacturers to implement, does not infringe on personal ownership rights, and provides a powerful investigative tool to our law enforcement officers."But the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action has outlined the "numerous and varied problems" associated with microstamping.Microstamping has repeatedly failed in tests, the NRA-ILA says. Moreover, the microstamped etchings are easily removed or altered.Beyond the technological questions, the NRA says most gun crimes do not require micro-stamping to be solved; and most criminals who use guns don't get them through legal channels.In fact, the NRA-ILA warns that micro-stamping may increase gun thefts, home invasions and other burglaries, since criminals would rather steal guns than buy them legally and thus leave a trail in a microstamp database.The NRA-ILA says many guns do not automatically eject fired cartridge cases. And given the fact that there are some 250 million guns in the U.S. already, only a small percentage of guns will be micro-stamped if the law is passed.Micro-stamping wastes money, including that which is better spent on traditional crime-fighting and crime-solving efforts, the NRA-ILA said.And finally, the NRA-ILA mentioned the costs associated with microstamping that will be passed along to gun buyers.A database to track micro-stamped handguns will be expensive, the group said; and the handgun manufacturing process will have to be redesigned to accommodate microstamping. And then there are the anticipated licensing fees that would have to be paid to the sole-source micro-stamping patent holder.
"Mandating microstamping will dramatically reduce the product selection available to law-abiding consumers in California and prices for available guns will skyrocket," the National Shooting Sports Foundation says on its Web site.
The National Crime Gun Identification Act, introduced in both the House and Senate on Feb. 7, "will help law enforcement track down armed criminals and solve gun murders," the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said.The National Rifle Association calls such legislation "incremental gun control." Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, said microstamping will help police trace guns that are used in crimes.
It's "the common sense thing to do," Helmke said in a news release on Monday."Last year, California passed a bill to take advantage of this new microstamping technology. Governor Schwarzenegger signed that legislation into law. I want to commend Senator Kennedy and Congressman Becerra for introducing these bills to put this technology to work nationwide," Helmke said.
California's microstamping law, which is supposed to take effect in 2010, would require all semiautomatic pistols to have "microstamped identifiers" -- tiny internal markings that transfer themselves onto bullet cartridges fired from a gun. In theory, microstamped cartridges found at crime scenes might help police identify the make, model and serial number of the gun used in the crime -- and perhaps trace the criminal who used it as well.At least one gun manufacturer, STI International, stopped selling firearms in California as soon as Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the state's microstamping bill into law."We will be suspending all shipments of guns to California effective October 13, 2007.
This includes everyone from civilians to Law Enforcement," STI says on its Web site.Sen. Kennedy said his bill would amend federal law by prohibiting licensed federal firearms dealers from manufacturing, importing, or transferring certain semi-automatic pistols that are not capable of microstamping ammunition. According to Rep. Becerra, "Gun microstamping is a simple and effective technology that promises to save lives and keep violent criminals off the streets. It is inexpensive for gun manufacturers to implement, does not infringe on personal ownership rights, and provides a powerful investigative tool to our law enforcement officers."But the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action has outlined the "numerous and varied problems" associated with microstamping.Microstamping has repeatedly failed in tests, the NRA-ILA says. Moreover, the microstamped etchings are easily removed or altered.Beyond the technological questions, the NRA says most gun crimes do not require micro-stamping to be solved; and most criminals who use guns don't get them through legal channels.In fact, the NRA-ILA warns that micro-stamping may increase gun thefts, home invasions and other burglaries, since criminals would rather steal guns than buy them legally and thus leave a trail in a microstamp database.The NRA-ILA says many guns do not automatically eject fired cartridge cases. And given the fact that there are some 250 million guns in the U.S. already, only a small percentage of guns will be micro-stamped if the law is passed.Micro-stamping wastes money, including that which is better spent on traditional crime-fighting and crime-solving efforts, the NRA-ILA said.And finally, the NRA-ILA mentioned the costs associated with microstamping that will be passed along to gun buyers.A database to track micro-stamped handguns will be expensive, the group said; and the handgun manufacturing process will have to be redesigned to accommodate microstamping. And then there are the anticipated licensing fees that would have to be paid to the sole-source micro-stamping patent holder.
"Mandating microstamping will dramatically reduce the product selection available to law-abiding consumers in California and prices for available guns will skyrocket," the National Shooting Sports Foundation says on its Web site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
