8/22/07 www.stopguncontrol.info Lets roll!


PDA






Bret4207
August 22, 2007, 04:42 PM
I want to start things off on a positive note, so the first drive will be in reference to PRO-GUN legislation.

First- S376, The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007- This one takes care of the loophole left in the original act allowing non-police annual qualification. IOW- If your outfit is like mine and won't qualify retired members you can take your annual qualification from another agency or establishment. Seems like a good idea to me.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=211&issue=003

Second- The Stearns-Boucher Right to Carry Reciprocity Bill- Would recognize your carry permit in all 50 States.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=189&issue=003

Third- The Tiahrt Amendment- Keeps confidential firearms trace information confidential. I'm not able to locate the bill number at this time.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...ad.aspx?id=208




Sample email-

Dear Senator/Congressman _________________________

I am writing to let you know I strongly support S________/HR_________
The (title)____________________. This proposal is a common sense idea that should become law. I urge you to support this bill should it come before you.


Sincerely_____________


I'm told simple emails like this work as well as long, specific emails. I prefer something a bit more in depth myself, but if you're not the wordy type, this will work.

You can contact your Senators and Congressmen via this link at GOA using your zip code- http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm

Or this link at NRA-ILA, again using your zip code- http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/


Here's a link to "cut and paste" instructions to make things even easier- http://www.stopguncontrol.info/forum...hread.php?t=24

If you really want to make an impression, I'm told a snail mail letter has about 10 times the weight of an email and a phone call about 10 times the impact of the letter. I imagine a visit to your Congressman/Senators local office would have even more impact!

Remember- You can contact these guys every week if you want. It won't hurt, for sure!



Thanks, and let us know when you respond to these bills. Spread the word too! Bret4207, http://www.stopguncontrol.info

If you enjoyed reading about "8/22/07 www.stopguncontrol.info Lets roll!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bret4207
August 22, 2007, 08:56 PM
Okay, the links won't transfer and they won't stay full length when I cut and paste. So, since I'm learning as I go, here's the link to www.stopguncontrol.info. That will get you to the same post as shown, but with working links.

If anyone knows how to fix this please let me know. Sorry for the inconvenience.





http://www.stopguncontrol.info/forum/showthread.php?p=534#post534

Bret4207
August 24, 2007, 06:51 PM
S. 376: The "Law Enforcement Officers` Safety Act of 2007"

S. 376: The "Law Enforcement Officers` Safety Act of 2007"

When the 108th Congress passed the original "Law Enforcement Officers` Safety Act of 2004"--authorizing active and retired police officers to carry firearms throughout the United States--it took a step forward in advancing public safety.

The premise of that law was simple: Allowing trained, active-duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry firearms could only enhance public safety. It would also allow current and former officers to defend themselves against revenge attacks by those they`d once brought to justice.

Since 2004, however, nagging issues in the original law have prevented police and the public from realizing its potential benefits. Many retirees, in particular, have complained that agencies won`t make the necessary annual training available.

The "Law Enforcement Officers` Safety Act of 2007" (S. 376), sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and a bipartisan group of Judiciary Committee members, would fix these problems. Among its provisions:

* S. 376 would reduce the period an officer must serve before gaining eligibility to carry firearms as a retiree. Under current law, only officers with 15 years of service are "qualified." This arbitrary requirement discriminates against those who go into law enforcement as a second career--after retiring from the military, for example. S. 376 reduces the requirement to 10 years.
* S. 376 eliminates the requirement that retirees have "nonforfeitable" retirement benefits to qualify. Some small agencies have no such benefits--but a retiree`s need to defend himself shouldn`t depend on his pension plan.
* S. 376 would clarify training requirements--ensuring that a retiree can meet the mandatory re-qualification standard either through the agency he or she formerly served, or through the state where he or she currently resides.
* S. 376 would create more flexibility in training. Currently, many retired police officers who are otherwise well qualified, can`t find a state agency willing to train them because of liability concerns. While those concerns are largely imaginary, S. 376 would fix the problem; it would allow certification of the retiree`s training by any person authorized to test law enforcement officers` qualifications.

Bret4207
August 24, 2007, 06:52 PM
The Stearns/Boucher Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill


H.R. 861 and S. 388, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns’ (R-Fla.) and Rich Boucher (D-Va.), and in the U.S> Senate by Senators John Thune R-S.D., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb. would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any state, as follows: In states that issue concealed firearm permits, a state’s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal "bright-line" standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

• Today, 48 states have laws permitting concealed carry, in some circumstances. Forty states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have RTC laws. Thirty-six have "shall issue" permit laws (including Alaska, which also allows carrying without a permit), three have fairly administered "discretionary issue" permit laws, and Vermont (and Alaska) allow carrying without a permit. (Eight states have restrictive discretionary issue laws.) Most RTC states have adopted their laws in the last decade.

• Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other RTC states that keep such statistics. RTC is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.

• States with RTC laws have lower violent crime rates. On average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% lower murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault, compared to the rest of the country. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI.)

• Crime declines in states with RTC laws. Since adopting RTC in 1987, Florida’s total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32% and 58%, respectively. Texas’ violent crime and murder rates have dropped 20% and 31%, respectively, since its 1996 RTC law. (Data: FBI.)

• The right of self-defense is fundamental, and has been recognized in law for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that "life" is among the unalienable rights of all people. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for "security."

• The laws of all states and constitutions of most states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has stated that a person "may repel force by force" in self-defense, and is "entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force" as needed to prevent "great bodily injury or death." (Beard v. U.S., 1895)

• Congress affirmed the right to guns for "protective purposes" in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as "a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms."

Bret4207
August 24, 2007, 06:54 PM
The "Tiahrt Amendment" on Firearms Traces: Protecting Gun Owners' Privacy and Law Enforcement Safety


For more than five years, cities suing the gun industry and anti-gun organizations have sought access to confidential law enforcement data on firearms traces. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) compiles these records when it traces firearms in response to requests from law enforcement agencies.

Every year since 2003, the U.S. Congress has passed increasingly strong language to keep this information confidential. The legislation—a series of "riders" to the appropriations bill that funds BATFE—is widely known as the "Tiahrt Amendment," after its sponsor, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.).

There are good reasons for keeping this information confidential, and for strengthening the Tiahrt Amendment and making it permanent:

* Releasing the information serves no useful purpose. The Congressional Research Service has repeatedly said "firearm trace data may be biased" and "cannot be used to test for statistical significance between firearm traces in general and the wider population of firearms available to criminals or the wider American public."[1] These limitations exist because the "tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics."[2]
* Traced guns aren’t always “crime guns”; firearms may be traced for reasons unrelated to any armed crime. The BATFE trace request form lists “crime codes” for traffic offenses and election law violations, among many others.
* Trace information remains available for law enforcement use. The FY 2007 version of the Tiahrt amendment ensures that trace data is available to federal, state, and local agencies "in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution" or for use in administrative actions by BATFE—which is, of course, the principal agency responsible for overseeing the conduct of federally licensed firearms dealers.The language and history of the Gun Control Act are clear: Congress always intended to keep this information confidential, and to allow its use only for legitimate law enforcement purposes. The firearms trace database includes information such as the agency requesting a gun trace, the location from which the gun was recovered, and the identity of the dealer and original retail buyer.
* Both BATFE and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) oppose release of trace data. In fact, BATFE has fought for years in the federal courts to keep the databases confidential, because they contain information (such as names of gun buyers) that could jeopardize ongoing investigations—not to mention law enforcement officers’ lives. For example, a suspected gun trafficker could search databases for names of "straw purchasers" he had used to buy handguns, or for traces requested on guns he had sold. That information could lead him to names of officers, informants and other witnesses against his crimes. (View commentary by FOP President Chuck Canterbury from April 24, 2007)
* Even the current language has allowed too many disclosures of sensitive information. For instance, anti-gun groups and the media have repeatedly received confidential trace data from government "leaks." And Judge Jack Weinstein of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, who presides over New York City's lawsuit against the firearms industry, has "creatively" ruled that the riders do not protect the information that Congress so clearly intended to protect.

NRA is committed to ensuring confidentiality of sensitive law enforcement information, on two fronts:

* NRA supports continuing and strengthening the annual appropriations riders that prevent abuse of this information outside legitimate criminal investigations.
* In the 109th Congress, NRA supported H.R. 5005 by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), which would make the disclosure ban permanent.

# Resources Letter from the Southern States Police Benevolent Association
# Letter from the New York Police Commissioner Opposing Firearms Trace Data Release
# FOP letter to Senators Mikulski and Shelby opposing the release of trace data
# FOP letter to Congress opposing the release of trace data
# Memo from FOP President Chuck Canterbury to FOP Executive Board
# Commentary by FOP President Chuck Canterbury (Wichita Eagle, April 24, 2007
# Department of Justice letter to Mayor Bloomberg
# Letter from Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell to Mayor Bloomberg
# Project 21 Press Release

Bret4207
September 9, 2007, 02:33 PM
Make sure you send in the letters and emails and make those phone calls! We'll be moving onto anti-gun legislation this week.

If you enjoyed reading about "8/22/07 www.stopguncontrol.info Lets roll!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!