Gun owners 'get stabbed in back'

[Shammu]

25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'
Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents

Posted: April 19, 2007
1:52 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

This was not what some predicted.

In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.

Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.

The Reuters story went on to report: "Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer."

Virginia Tech, like many of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so-called "gun-free zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence – especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible.

Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.
~~~~~~~~

Gun control doesn't work, period.

[Soldier4Christ]

30 months in jail for broken gun
Judge hands down penalty for misfire from 20-year-old rifle

A federal judge has ordered a 30-month prison sentence for a man whose rifle misfired, letting loose three shots at a firing range, prompting 2nd Amendment supporters to warn their constituents how easily they, too, can become a "gun felon."

"It didn't matter the rifle in question had not been intentionally modified for select fire, or that it did not have an M16 bolt carrier or sear, that it did not show any signs of machining or drilling, or that that model had even been recalled a few years back," said a commentary in Guns Magazine on the case against David R. Olofson, of Berlin, Wis.

"It didn't matter the government had repeatedly failed to replicate automatic fire until they replaced the ammunition with a softer primer type. It didn't even matter that the prosecution admitted it was not important to prove the gun would do it again if the test were conducted today," the magazine said. "What mattered was the government's position that none of the above was relevant because '[T]here's no indication it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it's a machine gun.'

"No matter what the cause.

"Think about if your semiauto ever malfunctions. Because that's how close you could be to becoming a convicted 'gun felon,'" the commentary said.

WND reported earlier when Olofson, a drill instructor in the National Guard, was convicted in a federal court for illegally transferring a machine gun.

The verdict came in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

An expert witness told WND the conviction means anyone whose weapon malfunctions is subject to charges of having or handling a banned gun.

"If your semiautomatic rifle breaks or malfunctions you are now subject to prosecution. That is now a sad FACT," wrote Len Savage, a weaponry expert who runs Historic Arms LLC.

"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."

He said during 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."

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel said Olofson, 36, is free until he gets a letter notifying of his date to report for confinement, and his lawyer, Brian Fahl, promised an immediate appeal with the help of the National Rifle Association.

He said the rifle, which was subject to a manufacturer's recall because of mechanical problems at one point, malfunctioned because of the way it was made.

But he also warned of the potential problems from broken guns.

"If you have a multiple firing, it looks like you can be prosecuted," he told the newspaper.

The judge, Charles Clevert, said he believed Olofson knew about the gun, or should have.

"This was a man who has considerable knowledge of weapons, considerable knowledge of machine guns," Clevert said, according to the Journal-Sentinel. "Mr. Olofson, in this court's view, has shown he was ignoring the law."

Prosecutors said Olofson loaned the Olympic Arms gun to Kiernicki, whose burst of three shots prompted federal investigators to confiscate the gun for testing.

Savage said once the government got the gun, things got worse.

"They 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 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.

Olofson eventually was convicted of and now sentenced for transferring a machine gun.

WND also reported bloggers had a heyday when a federal agent apparently assigned to the same office that did the Olofson investigation left her gun inside the secured area at Milwaukee's airport.

The incident had gotten only nominal publicity, with mostly local reporters carrying the story. According to the Associated Press, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent, who was not identified by authorities, left her gun in the restroom at the conclusion of a long trip.

The special agent alerted authorities at some time later, after she had left the airport, according to Guy Thomas, a spokesman. He said the abandoned gun was recovered either by local authorities or a civilian.

[Soldier4Christ]

Gun-control group braces for court defeat
'We've lost the battle on what the 2nd Amendment means,' Brady Campaign head says

The nation's leading gun control group filed a "friend of the court" brief back in January defending the gun ban in Washington, D.C. But with the Supreme Court poised to hand down a potentially landmark decision in the case, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence fully expects to lose.

"We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically."

While the Brady Campaign is waving the white flag in the long-running debate on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms or merely a state's right to assemble a militia, it is hoping that losing the "legal battle" will eventually lead to gun control advocates winning the "political war."

"We're expecting D.C. to lose the case," Helmke said. "But this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side."

The D.C. ban prohibits residents from keeping handguns inside their homes and requires that lawfully registered guns, such as shotguns, be locked and unloaded when kept at home.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the D.C. gun ban, the Brady Campaign is hoping that it will reorient gun control groups around more limited measures that will be harder to cast as infringements of the Second Amendment.

"The NRA [National Rifle Association] won't have this fear factor," Helmke said.

Brady Campaign Attorney Dennis Henigan said there are multiple gun control measures that would not run afoul of a Supreme Court decision striking down the D.C. gun ban.

"Universal background checks don't affect the right of self-defense in the home. Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home," said Henigan. "Curbing large volume sales doesn't affect self-defense in the home."

The Brady Campaign expects pro-gun groups to use the Supreme Court's decision in the DC case to challenge a gun ban in Chicago, the major city whose gun laws come closest to the nation's capital.

Although the Brady Campaign expects the Chicago ordinance to be challenged, it thinks that it may survive because it does not have the restrictions on long guns like the ones found in Washington, D.C.

The Chicago law may also survive because a decision in the D.C. case will likely not resolve the issue of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states and other cities that are not federal enclaves.

Looking beyond the Supreme Court's D.C. gun ban case to the race for the White House, the Brady Campaign views Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as a better friend to gun control advocates than Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

But given that McCain stood by his support for closing "the gun-show loophole" during a recent speech to the N.R.A., the Brady Campaign president hopes that new gun restrictions can make headway regardless of who wins in November.

"For John McCain to be the political candidate of the NRA shows how things have changed," Helmke said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Supremes: Individuals
have right to bear arms
Divided court strikes down D.C. handgun ban
in 1st conclusive 2nd Amendment interpretation

In its first conclusive interpretation of the Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban, affirming an individual right to own firearms and not merely a right for states to form armed militias.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, said the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Scalia said the ruling should not "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Joining Stevens in dissent were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, called the decision "a great moment in American history."

"I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," he said.

LaPierre told Fox News the NRA is filing lawsuits in Chicago, San Francisco and other cities, vowing the organization "will not rest until individuals everywhere have this freedom."

In a statement, he said the decision "vindicates individual Americans all over this country who have always known that this is their freedom worth protecting."

"Our founding fathers wrote and intended the Second Amendment to be an individual right," LaPierre said. "The Supreme Court has now acknowledged it. The Second Amendment as an individual right now becomes a real permanent part of American constitutional law."

The District's law barred handgun ownership by residents who did not own one before the law was enacted in 1976.

The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, came to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruling the ban unconstitutional, reversing a U.S. District Court decision.

Security guard Dick A. Heller was one of six District residents who filed the challenge to the ban. The others were determined by the appeals court to not have legal standing.

D.C. required residents who owned handguns or rifles before the 1976 ban took effect to keep the weapons in their homes. Any legal firearms had to be kept unloaded and fitted with trigger locks or disassembled.

Republican presumptive presidential nominee Sen. John McCain has opposed the D.C. ban, signing a friend-of-the-court brief in the case affirming his belief the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms.

The Democratic candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, has sidestepped the issue. In an April debate, he was asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considered the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms.

"Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence," Obama said.

The Illinois senator has said the Second Amendment provides an individual right but insists it is not absolute. The Constitution, he has contended, does not bar local governments from enacting "common sense laws."

ABC News reports the Obama campaign is disavowing an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Obama as believing the D.C. ban was constitutional.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the statement to the paper was inaccurate, because the senator has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law violates the Second Amendment.

The Nov. 20 Tribune story quoted the aide saying Obama "believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."

[Soldier4Christ]

NRA's next target:
Re-arming Chicago
2nd Amendment lawsuits
take aim at firearms limits

Responding immediately to the Supreme Court's historic decision striking down the District of Columbia's handgun ban, the National Rifle Association has launched plans for further legal challenges in cities such as Chicago and San Francisco.

In its first conclusive interpretation of the Second Amendment, the high court affirmed an individual right to own firearms, not merely a right for states to form armed militias.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said in the majority opinion.

"We are very pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling today. This is a win for all Americans, and it vindicates the individual's right to keep and bear arms," Rachel Parsons, a spokeswoman for the NRA, told WND. "We are now going to go after other cities' laws that unlawfully ban gun ownership by law-abiding people."

The bull's-eyes will be on Chicago and San Francisco first.

"We will be going into those cities looking to overturn their bans," she said. "We're going to be filing lawsuits."

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told Fox News the lawsuits also will be filed in various Chicago suburbs "to make sure every American everywhere" has access to guns for self-defense.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, said the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Scalia said the ruling should not "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Joining Stevens in dissent were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Parsons noted the highly charged issue comes to a resolution during an election year.

"I certainly will let you know Barack Obama has an F-rating with the NRA. He's never voted for a piece of pro-gun legislation," she said. "John McCain, prior to 2000, had a very pro-gun record. Then we had two highly publicized disagreements withi him, over gun shows and campaign finance. But since 2004 he's voted with the NRA 100 percent of the time."

Alan Korwin, whose Bloomfield Press publishes gun law, called it a "great day for America, for human and civil rights."

He noted one of the footnotes in the court's majority opinion said the Second Amendment should be given equal emphasis as the First Amendment, which provides for free press, free speech and free exercise of religion.

However, he pointed out the minority in the 5-4 split was only one vote from being the decision.

"A lot of people hold with what the dissenters say. They will continue their fight to deny our rights," he told WND. "I don't think a Supreme Court decision will prevent that."

The district's law barred handgun ownership by residents who did not own one before the law was enacted in 1976.

The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, came to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the ban unconstitutional, reversing a U.S. District Court decision.

Security guard Dick A. Heller, 66, was one of six district residents who filed the challenge to the ban. The others were determined by the appeals court to not have legal standing.

The district required residents who owned handguns or rifles before the 1976 ban took effect to keep the weapons in their homes. Any legal firearms had to be kept unloaded and fitted with trigger locks or disassembled.

McCain: Gun ownership 'sacred'

McCain called the decision a "landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States."

The Republican presumptive presidential nominee signed a friend-of-the-court brief in the D.C. case affirming his belief the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms.

He criticized his Democratic Party rival, Obama, for refusing to sign the brief.

"Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly," McCain said.

Obama has sidestepped the issue. In an April debate, he was asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considered the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms.

"Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence," Obama said.

The Illinois senator has said the Second Amendment provides an individual right but insists it is not absolute. The Constitution, he has contended, does not bar local governments from enacting "common sense laws."

ABC News reports the Obama campaign is disavowing an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Obama as believing the D.C. ban was constitutional.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the statement to the paper was inaccurate, because the senator has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law violates the Second Amendment.

The Nov. 20 Tribune story quoted the aide saying Obama "believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."

The amendment, ratified in 1791, 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."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the White House is "pleased by the decision upholding Americans' right to bear arms."

John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said, "With this decision, the Supreme Court has aligned itself with the intent of those who drafted our Constitution. The right of an individual to own a handgun is protected by our Bill of Rights. To decide otherwise would have undermined the rule of law."

House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms "applies to every law-abiding American, not just those who live and work in Washington, D.C."

"'Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition' is the best way to describe today's decision," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law. "The right to self-defense is a liberty at the core of the American Revolution. It was ordinary people who defended life and liberty against organized tyranny."

"Every American has the right to defend his/her self. Our Founders believed that; now even anti-gun extremists must accept that truth,” said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for Liberty Legal Institute.

"This is a great day for law-abiding citizens of the nation's capital who have unjustly been denied their full right to protect themselves and families for over 30 years," said Deneen Borelli of the Project 21 leadership network. "The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right of citizens to arm themselves for self-defense and not become easy prey."