Gun owners 'get stabbed in back'

[Soldier4Christ]

Gun owners 'get stabbed in back'
'Veterans Disarmament Act on way to president'


Congress has given gun owners in America a Christmas gift: a blade in the back, according to officials with Gun Owners of America.

The organization said the plan supported by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and others, and known as the Veterans Disarmament Act by opponents, is being forwarded now to President Bush.

While other gun groups have endorsed H.R. 2640, a comprehensive plan to expand the powers of the Brady Bill gun restriction plan, Gun Owners of America has opposed it vigorously, and described its provisions for banning individuals, especially veterans, from owning guns as unreasonable.

"The core of the bill's problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes you a 'prohibited person' on the basis of a 'medical finding of disability,' so long as a veteran had an 'opportunity' for some sort of 'hearing' before some 'lawful authority' (other than a court)," the organization said in a new criticism of the plan. "Presumably, this 'lawful authority' could even by the psychiatrist himself," the organization said.

"Note that unlike with an accused murderer, the hearing doesn't have to occur. The 'lawful authority' doesn't have to be unbiased. The veteran is not necessarily entitled to an attorney – much less an attorney financed by the government," the group said.

Gun Owners of America earlier launched a campaign encouraging citizens to call their U.S. senators and ask them to oppose the bill that could be described as "disarmament by diagnosis."

The Gun Owners also were joined by other organizations in opposing the proposal, including the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the American Legion.

"The American Legion, the nation's largest wartime veterans' service organization, strongly opposes specific provisions of H.R. 2640 … that would unilaterally abrogate the rights of certain service-connected disabled veterans to own firearms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment," the group said in a newly released statement.

The Schumer scheme would update federal law in the United States concerning the ownership of guns, and restrictions on those who can own firearms. A decades-old law creates a ban on gun ownership for anyone who has been adjudicated to be mentally defective, Eric Pratt, a spokesman for Gun Owners, told WND. It was intended to be used in cases when a person is declared innocent by reason of insanity in criminal cases.

However, the proposed update would allow that "adjudication" to be determined not only by a court but by any competent authority, which could include a Veterans Administration psychologist, any panel of psychologists or a wide range of other possible "competent authorities."

It also would automatically include people on a federal no-gun-ownership limit who have been diagnosed with some behavior-related childhood conditions, and in a provision that is especially objectionable to the Gun Owners organization, any veterans diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Pratt's organization also has published an open letter to members of the National Rifle Association, which has not been opposing the legislation on the grounds there are provisions that would allow an improperly classified person to "regain" his or her Second Amendment rights.

The letter, from GOA founder and chairman Sen. H.L. "Bill" Richardson, Executive Director Larry Pratt, and legal counsel Michael Hammond, noted the three include two Life Members of the NRA and one who was a paid consultant for the NRA.

"In fact, over the last 30 years, GOA and its staff have worked with NRA to facilitate most of our pro-gun victories…" the group said. "But those who staff the NRA, without consulting the membership, have now made a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes of Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy. And we believe that, if allowed to continue, this will produce anti-gun policies which the NRA staff will bitterly regret."

"What the bill does is to lock in – statutorily – huge numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied the right to own a firearm," Pratt's organization said. "And then it 'graciously' allows these newly disarmed Americans to spend tens of thousands of dollars for a long-shot change to regain the gun rights this very bill takes away from them."

"Let's make one thing clear: the efforts begun during the Clinton presidency to disarm battle-scarred veterans – promoted by the Brady Anti-Gun Campaign – is illegal and morally reprehensible. But section 101(c)(1)(C) of H.R. 2640 would rubber-stamp those illegal actions. Over 140,000 law-abiding veterans would be statutorily barred from possessing firearms."

The organization, however, said it would continue the battle. "GOA wants to repeal the gun-free zones that disarm law-abiding Americans and repeal the other gun restrictions that are on the books. That is the answer to Virginia Tech. Unfortunately, the House and Senate chose the path of imposing more gun control."

[Shammu]

They need to enforce the laws on the books, instead of making more laws. Taking away the guns of those who are law-abiding, they are only give them to the criminal element.

One nice thing about Arizona gun shows. The guns sold aren't required to be registered, afterwards. But then again too, Arizona is also known as a maverick state. P.R. you should know what that means, look towards the Armed Forces......

[Soldier4Christ]

Drill instructor convicted after rifle jams
Guardsman guilt of illegally transferring 'machine gun' after firearm malfunctions

A drill instructor in the National Guard has been convicted in a Wisconsin federal court of illegally transferring a machine gun after a rifle he loaned to a student malfunctioned, setting off three shots before jamming.

The verdict of guilty on one count in the case against David Olofson was confirmed yesterday by the clerk's office in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

That means now that anyone whose weapon malfunctions is subject to charges of having or handling a banned gun, according to an expert witness who reports that the particular problem is a well-known malfunction and was even the subject of a recall from the manufacturer.

"If your semiautomatic rifle breaks or malfunctions you are now subject to prosecution. That is now a sad FACT. I guess we know now what Sen. Kennedy meant when he said he looked forward to working with [Acting Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director] Mike Sullivan on Gun control issues, after his committee approved him for full Senate vote," Len Savage, a weaponry expert who runs Historic Arms LLC, said in a blog.

"To those in the sporting culture who have derided 'black guns' and so-called 'assault weapons'; Your double barreled shotgun is now next up to be seized and you could possibly be prosecuted if the ATF can get it to 'fire more than once,'" he wrote in a blog run by Red's Trading Post.

"Hey, but don't worry," Savage said. "The people testing it have no procedures in writing and the testing will be in secret. Also if you know of information that proves YOUR innocence, maybe the ATF won't claim that it's tax information at your trial and prevent YOUR judge from viewing it."

He told an interview with Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership that Olofson had been instructing a man in the use of guns, and the student asked to borrow a rifle for some shooting practice.

"Mr. Olofson was nice enough to accommodate him," Savage said. So the student, Robert Kiernicki, went to a range and fired about 120 rounds. "He went to put in another magazine and the rifle shot three times, then jammed," Savage said.

A couple of police officers who also were at the ranged immediately approached him and started asking questions about the "automatic" fire, and he told them it was a borrowed weapon.

"Mr. Olofson, being a responsible person, went down to the police station and said, 'I'm in the National Guard. I know what a machine gun looks like. That's not it,'" Savage said.

But instead of having the issues resolve, Savage said, it got worse.

He reported that because of the malfunction, the rifle was seized and sent to the Firearm Technology Branch, the testing arm of the federal agency.

"The examined and test fired the rifle; then declared it to be 'just a rifle,'" Savage said. "You would think it would all be resolved at this point, this was merely the beginning."

He said the Special Agent in Charge, Jody Keeku, asked for a re-test and specified that the tests use "soft primered commercial ammunition."

"FTB has no standardized testing procedures, in fact it has no written procedures at all for testing firearms," Savage said. "They had no standard to stick to, and gleefully tried again. The results this time...'a machinegun.' ATF with a self-admitted 50 percent error rate pursued an indictment and Mr. Olofson was charged with 'Unlawful transfer of a machinegun.'. Not possession, not even Robert Kiernicki was charged with possession (who actually possessed the rifle), though the ATF paid Mr. Kiernicki 'an undisclosed amount of money' to testify against Mr. Olofson at trial," Savage said.

And then during the trial, the prosecution told the judge it would not provide some information defense lawyers felt would clear their client, Savage continued. That included the fact that the rifle's manufacturer, Olympic Arms, had been issued a recall notice for that very model in 1986 over an issue of guns inadvertently slipping into full automatic mode, if certain parts were worn or if certain ammunition was used.

Ryan Horsley, who posts the Red's Trading Post blog, said the results were "very concerning."

"Basically if your Ruger 10/22, Browning Citori Over and Under or Remington 11-87 malfunction and fire more than one round at a time; the ATF will now consider it a machine gun," he wrote.

He told WND he's had personal experience with guns that malfunction and fire more than one bullet. Even double-barreled shotguns, if both shells would be released at once, now could be considered machine guns and illegal, he said.

"This precedent is very dangerous," he said.

Defense attorneys in the Olofson case couldn't be reached immediately to determine whether an appeal would be pursued, but Savage noted the arguments by assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Hannstad, who handled the prosecution.

"Haanstad claimed the law does not exempt a malfunction. He claims that it states 'any weapon that shoots more than once without manual reloading, per function of the trigger is a machinegun.' To clarify when I was on the stand, I asked him, 'Are you saying if I take my Great Granddaddy's double barrel out and I pull one trigger and both barrels go off, it's a machinegun?' He went back to … 'any weapon that shoots…'" Savage said.

On the Red's blog, commenters were incensed.

"'Innocent until proven guilty' has been transformed by the AFT into 'guilty until framed,' said LibertyPlease.

Horsley also told WND the 2008 edition of Firearms Law Deskbook quotes from a 1999 case in which the court concluded the law on automatic weapons "is not intended to trap the unwary innocent, and well intentioned citizen who possess an otherwise semi-automatic weapon that, by repeated use of the weapon, by the inevitable wear and tear of sporting activities, or by means of mere inattention, happenstance, or illfortune, fires more than semi-automatically."

[Soldier4Christ]

Public 'threatened' by private-firearms ownership
Government argues gun restrictions 'permitted by the 2nd Amendment'

Since "unrestricted' private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.

The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.

Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment," he wrote in the brief, the Times reported.

He noted especially the federal ban on machine guns and those many other "particularly dangerous types of firearms," and endorsed restrictions on gun ownership by felons, those subject to restraining orders, drug users and "mental defectives."

His arguments came in the closely watched Washington, D.C., ban that would prevent residents from keeping handguns in their homes for self-defense.

Paul Helmke, of the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, told the Times he salutes the administration for its position.

But Alan Gura, who is heading up the challenge to the handgun ban, told the newspaper he was troubled Clement suggested more hearings on the case.

"We are very disappointed the administration is hostile to individual rights," he told the paper. "This is definitely hostile to our position."

Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the 2nd Amendment includes a right for individuals to have a gun, or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.

The amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Clement is the Bush administration's chief lawyer before the court, and submitted the arguments in the case that is to determine whether the D.C. limit is constitutional. He said the 2nd Amendment, "protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations," and noted the D.C. ban probably goes too far.

But the newspaper said most of Clement's new brief urges the Supreme Court to decided most current restrictions on guns and gun owners cannot be overturned by citing the 2nd Amendment.

He said the failing in the D.C. law is that it totally bans handguns in the homes of private citizens. But he urged the court to recognize, "Nothing in the 2nd Amendment properly understood … calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms."

The Justice Department long had endorsed gun controls until Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2001 switched the department's position to support individual gun rights, the Times said.

The court's hearing on the case has not yet been held.

Clement clerked for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and worked as chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights. He joined the Department of Justice in 2001 and moved into his current position in 2005.

[Soldier4Christ]

Bush legal brief threat
to Second Amendment 
Gun owners warn White House opinion
paves way for 'reasonable' firearm ban

A Second Amendment advocacy organization is asking the Bush administration to withdraw a legal brief that leaders fear could be used to support "any gun ban – no matter how sweeping," as long as some court somewhere determines it is "reasonable."

The concern comes from Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, whose group is pleading with the Bush administration to withdraw an anti-gun brief filed by the U.S. Solicitor General in a Supreme Court case regarding a District of Columbia ban on handguns.

The document from U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement noted since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the Second Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.

His brief suggests gun rights are limited and since they are subject to "reasonable regulation," all gun limits imposed by the federal government should be affirmed as constitutional.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," he wrote in the brief.

But Gun Owners of America, a grass-roots lobby representing more than 300,000 Americans, said the opinion creates a huge threat to the constitutional provision banning the "infringement" of the right to bear arms.

"If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional…" Pratt said.

Worse, when the standard for evaluating gun bans becomes "reasonable," there is nothing else needed in order for a court somewhere to decide that all guns should be forbidden.

"In contrast to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, which can only be trumped by 'compelling state interests,' the Second Amendment would be relegated to an inferior position at the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder, should the Justice Department prevail," said Pratt.

He said the legal opinion could have been written by a gun limit lobby and it could be used in support of a ban on all guns by a government proclaiming "this is a reasonable regulation" even while affirming the "right" to bear arms.

Paul Helmke, of the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, in fact earlier said he saluted the position paper.

But Pratt said it would be analogous to the situation in the state of Illinois, where the state constitution provides a right to keep and bear arms, "subject to the police power," he said. Not surprisingly, Illinois has one of the most restrictive atmospheres in the nation regarding guns, he told WND.

"Under the administration's amicus brief, a national ban on all firearms – including hunting rifles – could be 'constitutional,' even if the Supreme Court decides – on ample historical evidence – that the Founders intended the Second Amendment as an individual right," he continued.

"Rather than argue that 'shall not be infringed' is a categorical prohibition on government gun-banning, the administration has chosen to align itself with those who do not believe in self defense or civilian gun ownership," Pratt said.

He said his organization is issuing a public call for the Justice Department to withdraw the anti-gun statements, and is inviting other organizations to join in its battle against such a precedent.

In the case at hand, a Washington, D.C., ban on all handguns kept by residents in their homes for self-defense is being challenged.

Alan Gura, who is heading up the challenge, said he was troubled by Clement's actions, and described the statements as "hostile" to his Second Amendment position.

"We are very disappointed the administration is hostile to individual rights," he said.

Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the Second Amendment includes a right for individuals to have a gun, or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.

The amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Clement is the Bush administration's chief lawyer before the court, and submitted the arguments in the case that is to determine whether the D.C. limit is constitutional. He said the Second Amendment, "protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations," and noted the D.C. ban probably goes too far.

But his brief urges the Supreme Court to decide most current restrictions on guns and gun owners cannot be overturned by citing the Second Amendment.

"Nothing in the Second Amendment properly understood … calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms," he wrote.

The court's hearing on the case has not yet been held.

[Soldier4Christ]

Congressman asks prez to support 2nd Amendment 
'Administration should reflect right to keep and bear arms'

A Republican congressman from Virginia is asking President Bush to order the Justice Department to submit a brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case that supports the rights afforded U.S. citizens under the Second Amendment.

The request from Rep. Virgil Goode concerns a filing submitted by the Justice Department in a Supreme Court case over the legality of a handgun ban imposed by the District of Columbia.

A similar request already has been submitted by officials for the Gun Owners of America, whose executive director, Larry Pratt, warned:

"If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional. ..."

But worse than that, he said, the new precedent to affirm any and all gun restrictions would be "reasonable," constitutionally the lowest rung of the qualifications ladder.

"In contrast to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, which can only be trumped by 'compelling state interests,' the Second Amendment would be relegated to an inferior position at the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder, should the Justice Department prevail," said Pratt.

Goode now has weighed in on the issue, sending Bush a letter this week about the arguments submitted in the case.

"If this view prevails, a national ban on all firearms – including hunting rifles – could be constitutional, even if the court decides – on ample historical evidence – that the Founders intended the Second Amendment as an individual right," his letter said.

"I would ask that you direct the Justice Department to withdraw this unfortunate brief and to replace it with an opinion which reflects the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms," Goode wrote.

The GOA said Goode also is circulating his letter among colleagues, asking for their support on the issue. The organization also has notified the U.S. Supreme Court of its intent to file a friend-of-the-court brief on the issue soon.

At issue is the phrasing of the government's position, submitted  in a document that was filed by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. He said since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the Second Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," Clement wrote in the brief.

Pratt said the legal opinion could have been written by a gun-limit lobby and it could be used in support of a ban on all guns by a government proclaiming "this is a reasonable regulation" even while affirming the "right" to bear arms.

Paul Helmke, of the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, in fact earlier said he saluted the position paper.

But Pratt said it would be analogous to the situation in the state of Illinois, where the state constitution provides a right to keep and bear arms, "subject to the police power," he said. Not surprisingly, Illinois has one of the most restrictive atmospheres in the nation regarding guns, he told WND.

"Rather than argue that 'shall not be infringed' is a categorical prohibition on government gun-banning, the administration has chosen to align itself with those who do not believe in self defense or civilian gun ownership," Pratt said.

In the case at hand, a Washington, D.C., ban on all handguns kept by residents in their homes for self-defense is being challenged.

Alan Gura, who is heading up the challenge, said he was troubled by Clement's actions and described the statements as "hostile" to his Second Amendment position.

"We are very disappointed the administration is hostile to individual rights," he said.

Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the Second Amendment includes a right for individuals to have a gun or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.

The amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Clement is the Bush administration's chief lawyer before the court. He submitted the arguments in the case that is to determine whether the D.C. limit is constitutional. He said the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations," and asserted the D.C. ban probably goes too far.

[Soldier4Christ]

Credit card company:
No more buying guns 
Foundation says ban impacts firearms
for citizens, military, law enforcement

A major credit card company has issued a letter to a gun dealer canceling his payment processing services because of corporate concerns firearms were being sold to consumers in other states, in "a non face-to-face environment." Now the move has raised the ire of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

"Your anti-gun corporate policy is based on ignorance of the law applicable to the sale of firearms," the NSSF wrote in response to the action taken by First Data Corp., which operates Citi Merchant Services.

"It is perfectly legal, in fact commonplace, for a federal firearms licensee in one state to sell a firearm to a non-licensee (consumer) from another state," the foundation continued. "What you fail to appreciate is that the firearm is not shipped in interstate commerce directly to the consumer. Rather, as required by federal law, the firearm is shipped by the selling licensee to another federal firearms licensee in the state of residence of the consumer … The consumer acquires the firearm from that licensed dealer in a face-to-face transaction…."

The issue arose when Citi Merchant Services, in a letter signed by June Rivera-Mantilla in the "Periodic Review" department, informed CDNN Sports In. of Abilene, Texas, that the company's bankcard processing services were cancelled, and that the banking company was withholding $75,000 as a reserve for "potential chargebacks" and it would be held for six months or longer.

Officials with CDNN declined to discuss the situation with WND, citing the "litigation" that was ongoing over the dispute. But they confirmed that the letter documenting the actions by Citi Merchant Services was accurate.

And a statement from CDNN President Charlie Crawford was posted on the NSSF site. "We were contacted recently by First Data/Citi Merchant Services by a June Rivera-Mantilla stating that we were terminated and funds were being seized for selling firearms in a non-face-to-face transaction. Although perfectly legal, we were also informed that no transactions would be processed in the future, even for non-firearms. I find this very frightening."

"We discussed with Mr. [Charlie] Crawford said termination due to the sale of firearms in a non face-to-face environment," the letter said. "Keep in mind that a violation of the Gun Control Act occurs when a gun offered online is sold to an individual in another State; the act prohibits selling a handgun to a resident of another state. Shipping across state lines is also banned, yet guns for sale online reach people across the country. We at Citi Merchant Service are unable to monitor or track adherence to these Gun Control laws," the letter said.

NSSF officials posted the information on their website, prompting a request from Citi Merchant Services to take the information down.

"The posting is inaccurate," an e-mail, signed only First Data Corp., told the foundation. "Further, while we generally do not comment on individual merchant customers, we would like to briefly address the 12/26 letter posted on your web site. Regretfully, that letter did a less than satisfactory job of expressing applicable policies."

The e-mail said Citi Merchant Services and First Data "do process firearms transactions. Our policy restrictions address only the sale of firearms in a non face-to-face environment." Those happen when a cardholder is "not present in front of a merchant and includes mail order and online purchases."

"It is our policy not to service merchants that make non face-to-face sales in a number of industries, including firearms," the e-mail said.

The foundation declined to change its information.

"Regrettably, your e-mail serves to confirm the anti-gun corporate policy of First Data and Citi Merchant Services and that the article in our publication 'Bullet Points,' and subsequent posting to our Website, was based on a correct and accurate understanding of that policy…," the group said.

"Furthermore, the policy of First Data and Citi Merchant Services interferes with the receiving and shipping of inventory from and to federally licensed firearms retailers, distributors and manufacturers. This inventory supplies not only law-abiding Americans, but military and law enforcement agencies as well," the foundation said.

In a statement to WND, Cara Taylor, communications director for Citi, continued to maintain that the NSSF postings were inaccurate.

"First Data processes more card transactions for gun sales in a face to face environment than any other credit card processor," her statement said. "We do not have a position in the debate about gun control policy. Our credit policies center around certain transactions that occur in a non face-to-face environment and involve third parties to which First Data has no contractual relationship, and therefore pose business concerns about the risk of certain types of transactions."

Ryan Horsley, a spokesman for Red's Trading Post in Twin Falls, Idaho, which has its own battle running over gun sales restrictions, said it appears to be another channel through which anti-gun interests can apply pressure to gun retailers.

He told WND he's experienced difficulties with several other card companies "that have taken that bias."

He said he's even heard of personal accounts at billing industry giant PayPal being cancelled because a single transaction involving a gun.

As WND has reported, Horsley's company is in a court fight now with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives over paperwork errors that largely involved insignificant issues, such as a missing poster or a purchaser failing to provide a county of residence to accompany and street and city address.

Inspectors for the BATFE have been visiting his business regularly in search of records mistakes, he said.

WND also reported earlier how the store appears to be caught up in a new campaign for gun control, focusing on the elimination of retail outlets through technical rules infractions.

His battle is pending in federal court.

Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America told WND that as recently as 15 or 20 years ago, there were 250,000 licensed gun dealers in the United States. The federal government confirms there are only about 108,000 now.

It was in 2000 when a series of WorldNetDaily reports exposed Citibank's practice of denying banking services to firearms business, and the global financial giant reversed its "longstanding" policy.

A spokesman at that time said firearms businesses would be reviewed just like other businesses in determining whether account services would be provided. The reversal came after a situation in which a Las Vegas branch of Citibank closed a three-day-old checking account opened by the Nevada Pistol Academy, a local shooting club. At that time, local area branch managers told the academy's director, Chris Lorenzo, in a letter, "Due to Citibank not maintaining accounts for businesses that deal in weapons," the account would have to be closed.

[Soldier4Christ]

Student disciplined for pen with gun company logo
Caught after borrowing offending writing instrument from father

A student has been threatened with a 3-day suspension from school for bringing to campus, and using, a pen with the corporate logo of the Glock company, a large stylized "G" with the letters "lock" inside.

Cooler heads eventually prevailed, and the father reports that he was successful in convincing the school officials to not only withdraw the threat, but also the formal reprimand that already had been placed in his son's educational file.

However, WND previously has reported on a student who was punished for advocating for gun rights, as well as yet another student who was punished for a sketch of a gun. And the newest incident raised concerns among bloggers and participants in web forums.

"Didn't (sic) Ford and GM build guns during WWII… Those products should not be around children, for there (sic) own safety. All teachers with a ford or GM car should have their illegal property crushed today…," wrote "jhud" on one forum. "Also the word springfield, and the numbers .22, .223, .32, .38, .40, .45, 5.56, 7.62, .50, .44 45-70, .450 etc and any math problem with the numbers involved. Also, we need to remove 9 and 10 mm from the rulers."

"Sounds like under this policy, any student or teacher with the last name of Winchester, Remington, and possibly even Smith (Smith & Wesson) would not even be allowed to attend or work at the school," added "Alacran."

The situation developed recently for a father who is choosing not to put his family through the media mill of publicity. However, he wrote about his case, and its resolution on the AR15.com website, which was founded in 1996 as a mailing list for firearms enthusiasts and grew into a location to collect, share and explore information.

The man, who is in law enforcement, said his son was at home doing homework when his ink pen died.

"He asked if I had one he could have. I reached into the pen holder on my desk and grabbed a pen and gave it to him. He continued his homework as usual," he said.

But the next day, his telephone rang.

"It's the vice principal from my son's school saying that he needs to discuss a serious situation about my son. When I asked him what was going on, he tells me that a pen bearing a Glock logo is forbidden by school policy and that I need to come and pick up my son because there is a mand[a]tory 3-day suspension," the father wrote. "Apparently, one of my son's teachers saw him writing with the pen during an assignment."

The father checked his son's student handbook, and saw that "weapons, replica weapons, pictures of weapons, and weapon images on keychains or other items are forbidden," he said. But the pen had only the Glock name, not any image.

"The VP gets his handbook and looks through it. He was in agreement that the pen did not directly violate the policy, but that the Glock name was commonly known to be a firearm and therefore it technically was in violation," the father said.

"Then, the VP even makes a statement to the fact that I am a local LEO and I should know the proper application of the rules," he continued. "I found this to be the most hilarious interpretation of school law yet. I engaged in an argument for a short time about the suspension and how the pen did not violate the posted rules as understood by anyone reading it. The VP would not budge on his position and referred me to the school system's superintendent's office."

A followup posting shortly later confirmed that the case had been resolved satisfactorily for the father.

The superintendent, he wrote, immediately agreed during a meeting with the officer, the son and a lawyer that the suspension "was uncalled for because the pen was not a physical or graphic representation of a weapon."

The father reported the superintendent described the vice-principal's decision as "bad judgment." He then went to meet with the vice-principal involved.

"I took my son to school and met with the VP. This guy is about 30 years old and looks like a poster child for gay bathhouses. He did apologize lightly, but did not seem overly happy about it. Apparently the superintendent called him about 5 am this morning and told him to 'make it right'. Our meeting very short. The VP ran off and left us with a receptionist. She apologized; returned the pen and gave us the dis[c]iplinary that [was] removed from his record," the father wrote.

"I returned the Glock pen to my son to use until it dies. At which point the pen becomes inoperable, I will be giving him another Glock pen. As far as I am concerned, he can use Glock pens forever...," the father wrote.

Since the school district involved was not identified by the parent, WND could not contact officials for a comment.

But the father, identified only as "odingaard" on the AR15.com site, wrote he probably will allow the issue to end.

"I did not feel like putting my family on display in front of the media and tur[n]ing my life into a freak show. I got the outcome I wanted, as did my son," he wrote.

Individual school district policies differ, as "Chris" pointed out on a forum at the Says Uncle website.

    My daughter took a photo of herself firing a tommy gun to her 8th grade class. I received the call around 10am, asking me to come and pick her up. She had asked if she could take the photo, and I did some research before I allowed her to do so. Nowhere in the school policy book does it say that photos of firearms are banned, and her history book contain dozens of images of firearms. I refused, and told him that if my daughter wasn’t returned to class without punishment, and her property returned to her, he would be hearing from my lawyer. I never heard another word about it. I have a zero tolerance policy for stupidity.

Also on Dustin's GunBlog, the reaction was similar.

Wrote Wendy Weinbaum, "As a Jewess in the U.S., I recall that America wasn't won with a registered gun! Let's all put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!! And remember, criminal are stopped not by talk, but by FIREARMS."

And "Jim" added, "Funny thing, when I was in high school, during the early '70's, in a small southern KY town, many kids brought their .22's, shotguns, and an occasional rifle to school. We were a rural county school and many of us couldn't wait for the bell to ring, so we could go hunting on the way home. There was never an incident where a firearm was used to shoot or threaten anyone…"

One other contributor, "perlhaqr," however, had a different question. "Why would you want the suspension overturned? It's like rubbing your pinky finger up against the burner of the stove and thinking to yourself 'Well, I didn't burn nearly enough of my hand that time. Let me try again!'"

[Soldier4Christ]

"Why would you want the suspension overturned? It's like rubbing your pinky finger up against the burner of the stove and thinking to yourself 'Well, I didn't burn nearly enough of my hand that time. Let me try again!'"

Another quote in this article says it best when it comes to comments like this one.

I have a zero tolerance policy for stupidity.

[Soldier4Christ]

Guess what police are finally admitting about guns?

Who'da thunk? Guns best crime deterrent after all
'People who say bad guys will stop because of 1 more law are full of it'

When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1966, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.

And that, says a new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by police officers and prosecutors in a controversial gun-ban dispute, is why gun ownership is important and should be available to individuals in the United States.

The arguments come in an amicus brief submitted by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, whose spokesman, Ted Deeds, told WND there now are 92 different law enforcement voices speaking together to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.

That pending decision will decide whether an appeals court ruling striking down a District of Columbia ban on handguns because it violates the 2nd Amendment will stand or not. The gun ban promoters essentially argue that any gun restriction that is ruled "reasonable" is therefore constitutional, such as the D.C. handgun ban.

Deeds said this probably is the largest unified law enforcement statement in support of the 2nd Amendment ever, and includes nearly a dozen organizations that represent tens of thousands of police officers across the country, dozens of state attorneys general, dozens of prosecutors and a long list of federal law enforcement experts up to and including federal judges.

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled on March 18, and the LEAA brief is just one of 46 that have been filed on the side of seeking affirmation that the 2nd Amendment does, indeed, document a right for individuals to own guns in the United States.

The brief notes when the Georgia town of Kennesaw decided to require all residents, with exceptions for conscientious objectors, to keep a firearm at home, home burglaries fell from 66 to 26 to 11 in consecutive years.

In Orlando, the deterrence to criminals who simply knew that their victims may have a gun and may know how to use it and may be willing to do just that had a significant impact, because while Orlando's rapes were plummeting, assaults were up 5 percent across the state and 7 percent nationally.

The brief cites a study that discovered, based on interviews with felony prisoners in 11 prisons in 10 states, one third of the felons had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim," and nearly four in 10 had decided against committing a specific crime because they thought the victim might have a gun.

"Seventy-four percent agreed with the statement that 'One reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot,'" the study said.

The brief suggested the nation's crime rate could rocket should more restrictions be placed on guns.

"Numerous surveys show that firearms are used (usually without a shot needing to be fired) for self-defense at least 97,000 times a year, and probably several hundred thousands times a year. The anti-crime effects of citizen handgun ownership provide enormous benefits to law enforcement, because there are fewer home invasion emergencies requiring an immediate police response, and because the substantial reductions in rates of burglary, assault, and other crimes allow the police and district attorneys to concentrate more resources on other cases and on deterrence."

"Guns save lives," the brief said. "In the hands of law-abiding citizens, guns provide very substantial public safety benefits. In all 50 states – but not the District – it is lawful to use firearms for defense against home invaders. The legal ownership of firearms for home defense is an important reason why the American rate of home invasion burglaries is far lower than in countries which prohibit or discourage home handgun defense."

The brief said handgun ownership reduces the number of confrontational home invasions, so "the total U.S. violent crime rate [is reduced] by about 9 percent."

Deeds said it's always hard to predict the U.S. Supreme Court, but ideally the ruling would clarify the 2nd Amendment means exactly what its words say: that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

He compared it to the discussion of freedom of religion, should the Bible be banned. "For Christians there's no effective freedom of religion if they didn't have a Bible," he said.

"To have the 2nd Amendment right on paper, but to be denied the effective means of exercising that right at a moment of truth, when you're trying to defend yourself or your loved one from an aggressor, [is wrong,]" he said. "The gun is the only answer."

Where the rubber meets the road, he said, is when a good guy needs to survive an encounter with a bad guy, he said. There are two possible results: Police arrive on the scene later to have the innocent victim hurt or killed, or they arrive on the scene to "find the victim hearty and the offender on the floor."

"Every cop in American is going to pick the second closing of the story," Deeds said.

He said gun control originally was sold to Americans as a way to lower crime, but he disagreed. "People who sell this idea that bad guys are going to stop because of one more law are just full of it," he said.

"That's a lie. That's a fraud," he said. He also said it's a terribly slippery slope to say that under the 2nd Amendment, some gun restrictions are good because they are "reasonable."

"We are hoping that they [the Supreme Court] make a very clear, very unambiguous decision in favor of the 2nd Amendment," Deeds told WND.

Montana officials already have argued the U.S. already resolved any dispute about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment when it defined in Montana's compact under which it became a state that "any person" has the right to bear arms.

And U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has led a congressional delegation in asking President Bush to order the U.S. Justice Department to submit a brief to the high court supporting the rights of individuals under the 2nd Amendment.

A similar request already has been submitted by officials for the Gun Owners of America, whose executive director, Larry Pratt, warned: "If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional. ..."

The government's position is available in a document submitted by by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. He said since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," Clement wrote in the brief.

Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the 2nd Amendment includes a right for individuals nationwide to have a gun or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.

The amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[Soldier4Christ]

Press 'ignore' terrorist stopped by armed student
'Mr. Dadon is not going to become a victim of this conspiracy of silence'

A gun rights organization in the United States is accusing the media of trying to conceal the fact that a gunman who attacked students at Jerusalem's Mercaz Harav seminary was stopped by an armed student at the school.

Authorities report that Ytizhak Dadon, 40, was a "private citizen who had a gun license and was able to shoot the gunman with his pistol," according to a statement released today by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

In its earlier reporting on the tragedy, WND confirmed, "One terrorist reportedly was shot to death by a student who was armed…"

However, the gun rights organization said "the American press is downplaying his heroism because it proves that armed students can stop campus gunmen."

"Yitzhak Dadon is a hero," said Alan Gottlieb, the chairman of CCRKBA, "and he is living proof that armed students have a place on college campuses. Thankfully, his quick action was reported by the international press … so unlike incidents here in the United States where the press was able to completely ignore the actions of armed students or teachers, the truth about this incident will not be suppressed."

He continued, "Mr. Dadon is not going to become a victim of this conspiracy of silence. Elitist American college administrators, the national press, nor anti-gun politicians can sweep this incident under their rug."

The gun rights group said international reports credit Dadon, who studies at the school, had his pistol available when the shooting erupted. "When the gunman emerged from a library, Dadon reportedly shot him twice in the head. The gunman was subsequently shot by the off-duty soldier," the group said.

"Yitzhak Dadon's apparently well-placed bullets interrupted a rampage," Gottlieb said. "What a pity that someone like Mr. Dadon was not in class last April at Virginia Tech. What a tragedy that anti-gun extremism would keep him from attending class at Northern Illinois University. He would never be allowed to teach at Columbine High School, hold a job at Trolley Square in Salt Lake City, or go shopping at Omaha's Westroads Mall.

"America's acquiescence to anti-gun hysteria has led to one tragedy after another," Gottlieb stated. "This disastrous policy has given us nothing but broken hearts and body counts, and it's got to end. The heroism of an armed Israeli seminary student halfway across the world sends a message that we needn't submit to murder in victim disarmament zones. That's why his actions are getting such short shrift from America's press. It's a story they are loathe to report because it affirms a philosophy of self-reliance that they despise."

The organization boasts more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, and is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

WND had reported just days earlier on plans in Arizona, where lawmakers are considering a way to stem the wave of unarmed students killed in campus slayings by allowing adults to carry firearms onto the grounds of state universities.

"The police got to both the Virginia Tech murder scene and the New Life Church [in Colorado] in about six minutes," noted Larry Pratt, the chief of Gun Owners of America. "At Virginia Tech, 30 people died. At New Life, two died in the parking lot and once the bad guy got inside the building he was engaged by (armed) security team volunteers and nobody else died. In fact, he was finished in about 30 seconds."

Pratt noted the circumstances of the two attacks. After killing two people at a Christian training center in Arvada, Colo., last December, 24-year-old Matthew Murray went to Colorado Springs intending more murder and mayhem.

Murray shot and killed two girls in the New Life Church's parking lot, then headed inside the building where thousands of worshippers were concluding a service.

A volunteer security guard, Jeanne Assam, confronted him almost immediately and fired at him. He fell, and an autopsy later said he had shot himself.

But at Virginia Tech, Cho Seung-Hui, 23, armed himself and went to a classroom building on a campus where guns were banned. He fatally shot a total of 32.

The latest attack on unarmed teachers and students happened on Valentine's Day, when Stephen Kazmierczak, 27, walked into a Northern Illinois University auditorium and shot and killed five people, and wounded 16 others.

The gunman then shot himself.

In Jerusalem, reports said one or possibly two gunmen infiltrated the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, located near the entrance to Jerusalem, and fired hundreds of rounds of bullets at students. One terrorist, who may have been armed with an explosive device, made his way to the yeshiva's main study room, where about 80 students were reportedly gathered.

Israeli police said eight were killed and nearly a dozen were wounded, some seriously.

[Soldier4Christ]

Gun rights to be argued in Supreme Court

A prominent black conservative leader says individual liberty and one of the most fundamental constitutional rights is at risk in a case before the nation's highest court next week.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments March 18 in a case challenging the District of Columbia's 30-year-old ban on handguns. Attorneys for the District plan to argue that the Constitution protects only the gun rights of militias and that the Second Amendment does not prevent states from enacting firearms regulations.

Former Cincinnati Mayor Ken Blackwell, chairman of the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, says the case is to gun rights what Roe vs.. Wade was to the protection of innocent life. He says it all boils down to whether or not big government can take away one of American's "most fundamental individual rights."

"...This is going to come down to probably one vote – [the] vote of Justice Kennedy – he is the swing vote on this," notes Blackwell. "And I think it is very important that those of us who hold [gun rights] as a fundamental human right speak up, speak loudly and sort of flood the public square with our opinion."

Blackwell has co-written a column with former National Rifle Association president Sandy Froman for TownHall.com titled Judging Gun Rights: Are They Inalienable.

[Soldier4Christ]

Searching private homes for guns proposed in D.C.
'Amnesty' offered for illegal weapons, unless investigators link them to crime

The District of Columbia police department is preparing to launch a massive new home-by-home search program to confiscate and destroy handguns, despite arguments pending before the U.S. Supreme Court that challenges the constitutionality of its ban on residents having such weapons.

"Right now we're working under the laws that we have, and we'll continue working under the laws that we have," Police Chief Cathy Lanier said in announcing the program that targets all handguns in the district.

The voluntary program would work like this, according to Traci Hughes, an official with the Metropolitan Police Department: Residents of homes or apartments would contact police and ask them to come and search for such weaponry, they would sign a release, and officers would conduct the search.

She said those who voluntarily contact police would be granted amnesty for any illegal weapons uncovered during the search, although they would not be granted amnesty if those weapons would be traced to any previous crime.

Lanier announced the program, calling it a new anti-violence campaign, during a visit to the DC's 7th District Police headquarters.

Officials estimate authorities already are confiscating and destroying 2,000 handguns annually, but that's not enough.

"For those people who have handguns in their home that become stolen or get out in the street in some other way, a child carries it out and puts it in his backpack and takes it to school, or whatever, worries me," Lanier said in a video posted on WUSA-Television.

The announcement comes just days before the U.S. Supreme Court is to hear arguments that challenge the district's handgun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment.

Lawyers for Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard, sued to overturn Washington's law that prohibits citizens from owning or having handguns. It also imposes severe restrictions on other firearms such as shotguns.

Several other city residents joined in the action, claiming the Second Amendment's individual right to own a gun. A district court judge rejected their claims, but in 2007 a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the amendment also protects the right of individuals to privately own guns.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments March 18 in the dispute, in which dozens of outside groups have filed arguments in support of the appellate decision.

The district's perspective is that the Second Amendment only allows people to have guns in connection with service in a militia – not to own guns as an individual. That is the perspective under which Lanier, a graduate in management from Johns Hopkins University, is operating.

Hughes told WND the program is scheduled to launch on March 24, during spring break for District of Columbia public school students, and the goal is to get "more weapons off the streets" by taking them out of closets and off shelves in residents' homes.

"We're hoping that if the custodian of the premises voluntarily allows the police department to search for weapons, we can immediately remove those weapons. We hope it would prevent [it] from being used in other crimes or against other members of the household," she said.

She said attorneys have developed a release form that grants permission for the officers to search, confiscate and destroy weapons and for the resident to be given amnesty for violating the ban on handgun possession.

However, "if it's tied to a crime, then we do have to investigate," she said.

She said there aren't specific plans if the law is overturned. "We've not crossed that bridge," she said.

"I cannot think of a more inappropriate thing to do," Larry Pratt, chief of Gun Owners of America, told WND. "It may very soon be legal [to own handguns in DC]."

"And do they really think that criminals will be inviting them in?" he asked.

In a commentary on WND, Sandy Froman, the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of American, and Kenneth Blackwell, the former mayor of Cincinnati and a visiting fellow at the American Civil Rights Union, discussed the issue.

From Froman's perspective came this comment: "My political awakening came in the form of terror when a thug tried to break into my house in the middle of the night. Unable to defend myself, it suddenly became very clear that the person responsible for protecting my life and safety was I. I refused to be a helpless victim. It was time to buy a gun and learn how to use it. Later when I joined the NRA and began receiving their flagship publication, The American Rifleman, I knew that Chuck Connors was right. Guns in the hands of good people save lives."

And from Blackwell: "Things were tougher in the South where the Deacons of Defense, most of whom were veterans like my father, chased away KKK riders and thugs. These groups of armed men patrolled their neighborhoods to keep them safe at night. Whether individuals or families, against random criminals or organized threats, our lives are evidence that women and minorities – especially in today's urban areas – need our Second Amendment rights."

They noted the Supreme Court for the first time is settling the question whether individual citizens have a constitutional right to possess private firearms.

The amendment says; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The current case will decide whether that right refers to private, law-abiding citizens as individuals, or whether the right is a "collective" right that refers to the National Guard or some other militia.

Among the 92 different law enforcement voices speaking in support of the individual's right to own guns is the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, which said in its brief:

"Numerous surveys show that firearms are used (usually without a shot needing to be fired) for self-defense at least 97,000 times a year, and probably several hundred thousands times a year. The anti-crime effects of citizen handgun ownership provide enormous benefits to law enforcement, because there are fewer home invasion emergencies requiring an immediate police response, and because the substantial reductions in rates of burglary, assault, and other crimes allow the police and district attorneys to concentrate more resources on other cases and on deterrence."

"Guns save lives," the brief said. "In the hands of law-abiding citizens, guns provide very substantial public safety benefits. In all 50 states – but not the District – it is lawful to use firearms for defense against home invaders. The legal ownership of firearms for home defense is an important reason why the American rate of home invasion burglaries is far lower than in countries which prohibit or discourage home handgun defense."

Montana officials already have argued the U.S. already resolved any dispute about the meaning of the Second Amendment when it defined in Montana's compact under which it became a state that "any person" has the right to bear arms.

And U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has led a congressional delegation in asking President Bush to order the U.S. Justice Department to submit a brief to the high court supporting the rights of individuals under the Second Amendment.

A similar request already has been submitted by officials for the Gun Owners of America.

The government's position is available in a document submitted by by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. He said since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the Second Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.

[Soldier4Christ]

Supremes weigh your 'keep, bear arms' right
'If only bad guys have guns, then bad guys are in charge'

The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing the 2nd Amendment rights, which "shall not be infringed," of Americans to "keep and bear" handguns under a case that challenges a District of Columbia ban on such weapons, and law enforcement and weapons experts say the potential impacts of the decision are huge.

"I was kind of struck by the fact that this is a truly life or death case before the Supreme Court," Ted Deeds, a spokesman for the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, told WND after the justices heard oral arguments today on the case that directly challenges whether the 2nd Amendment right to "bear arms" applies to individuals or only to military organizations.

"Many times the court hears cases about due process and procedure. Those decisions don't necessarily mean people live or die based on what they decide. But large numbers of people will live or die based on what they rule," Deeds said. "If they rule in a positive way for honest people to defend themselves, then honest people hopefully won't die."

"If they go the other way, we're going to see on some level more and more law-abiding people unable to defend themselves and therefore raped, robbed or in the worst case murdered," he said. "If only the bad guys have guns, the bad guys are in charge."

The case on appeal to the high court is a citizen's challenge to a handgun ban in the District of Columbia. Supporters of the ban argue that any gun restriction ruled "reasonable" is constitutional, such as the D.C. law. Opponents, including the D.C. federal appeals court, have said the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms to individuals.

Walter Dellinger argued on behalf of the District of Columbia in support of its handgun ban, while U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement added his endorsement. On the other side was Alan Gura, arguing on behalf of the plaintiff, Dick Heller.

"All 50 states allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families in their homes with ordinary functional firearms including handguns," Gura told the justices. Limiting handguns, he said, is not only unreasonable but "it actually fails any standard of review that might be offered such a … construction of individual rights … as recognized as a matter of judicial notice.

The amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Gura explained that the reference to the militia does not serve as a qualifier to a right.

"It would certainly be an odd right that we would have … if Congress could then redefine people out of that right. Congress could tomorrow declare that nobody is in a militia, and then nobody would have the right against the government."

Justice Antonin Scalia noted, "The principal purpose here is the militia, but ... the second clause goes beyond the militia and says the right of the people to keep and bear arms. … It speaks of the right of the people."

"The rights of the people to keep and bear arms are derived from Blackstone," Gura said. "It was derived from the common-law English right which the founders wanted to expand."

He even noted that the weapons available to individuals at the time the 2nd Amendment was written were the same type used in the military of that time.

The arguments revolved in large part around the meaning of militia and whether the amendment intended to reference a sort of organized militia, such as today's National Guard, or the individuals in a volunteer militia that organized itself and fought many of the battles during the Revolutionary War.

"The 2nd Amendment is clearly addressed to Pennsylvania and New Hampshire and New York and all these other states that were demanding a right to keep and bear arms and there was always understood to be an individual right, because that is the way in which the right that was violated by the British in the War of Revolution that occurred not too long ago," Gura said.

Justice David Souter questioned whether the murder rate in Washington using handguns could be considered in setting the reasonableness of restrictions.

"If we were to consider the extent of the murder rate with handguns, the law would not survive any type of review, your honor," Gura said.

The statement prompted Scalia to add, "All the more reason to allow a homeowner to have a handgun."

Gura said, "The object of the Bill of Rights is to remove certain judgments from the legislature, because we can make policy arguments, normative arguments about many provisions of the Constitution, but to make those arguments and say well, we've decided as a matter of policy that the right to keep and bear arms is no longer a good idea and therefore we are going to have restrictions that violate that stricture in the Bill of Rights, that shouldn't pass judicial review."

Dellenger argued on behalf of the D.C. ban's reasonableness, noting that rifles or shotguns are allowed in private residences if they are disassembled and have trigger locks.

But Scalia raised objections.

"Why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons – that was the way militias were destroyed. … Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed," he said.

Justice Samuel Alito noted the D.C. handgun ban is a total ban.

"Even if you have a rifle or a shotgun in your home, doesn't the code prevent you from loading it and unlocking it except when it's being used for lawful, recreational purposes within the District of Columbia? So even if you have the gun, under this code provision it doesn't seem as if you could use it for the defense of your home," he said.

Deeds, whose LEAA submitted arguments to the court among the nearly 100 amicus briefs filed, said given a self-defense use of any gun in the District of Columbia today, regular procedures would assure that a homeowner who escaped a lethal confrontation alive would then be prosecuted.

"This is, in our lifetime, the pivotal question of self-defense," he told WND. "It's as real as it ever gets."

Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America told WND said it's always difficult to forecast the leanings of the justices based on their arguments and questions.

But he said referring to the "militia" as a collective right is what was common in English jurisprudence, when militias were there essentially for the protection of the nobility.

That should not be the standard in America, he said.

Alan Korwin, the author of multiple books on gun laws, described the arguments as the "biggest 2nd Amendment case in the nation's history."

He owns and operates Bloomfield Press as well as Gun Laws.com, the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the nation.

Montana officials already have argued the U.S. previously resolved any dispute about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment when it defined in Montana's compact under which it became a state that "any person" has the right to bear arms.

WND had reported just days earlier that the District of Columbia police department was preparing to launch a massive new home-by-home search program to confiscate and destroy handguns under its local law, even though the issue was pending before the Supreme Court.

"Right now we're working under the laws that we have, and we'll continue working under the laws that we have," Police Chief Cathy Lanier said in announcing the program that targets all handguns in the district.

The voluntary program would work like this, according to Traci Hughes, and official with the Metropolitan Police Department: Residents of homes or apartments would contact police and ask them to come and search for such weaponry, they would sign a release and officers would conduct the search.

She said those who voluntarily contact police would be granted amnesty for any illegal weapons uncovered during the search, although they would not be granted amnesty if those weapons would be traced to any previous crime.

[Soldier4Christ]

DC proves gun bans don't work

Gun-control advocates claim that banning guns reduces incidences of gun-related violence. But a gun-ownership rights group says the nation's capital is a perfect example of how just the opposite is true.

Police in the District of Columbia have increased patrols city-wide because of a rash of shootings. The city has recorded more than 50 homicides this year, 19 in April alone. The nation's capital also has one of the most far-reaching gun bans in the country. In contrast, the murder rate just across the Potomac River in northern Virginia is only a fraction of that in Washington.
 
So why are so many people dying from shootings in DC? Erich Pratt with Gun Owners of America believes he knows why. He argues against gun-control advocates who claim the firearms are coming into the area from northern Virginia.
 
"Well, if that's the case then why aren't the guns a problem in northern Virginia, [where] the murder rate is only a fraction of what it is in Washington, DC?" he asks. "Even though the northern Virginia area has twice the population, we have only a fraction of the murder rate -- and that's because the potential victims [in Virginia] can arm themselves."
 
Guns, says Pratt, are not a problem in northern Virginia because "bad guys would rather take the guns into a place where they know they're not going to be opposed and [they know] they're going to be the only one with a gun."
 
Pratt says as a rule, thugs do not target areas where they know people can shoot back. They target inner cities that have gun bans, he contends, as well as university campuses that have been declared "gun free."