Starbucks defends in-store gun policy

Following the law

John Nicholson,  National Post 

 Elaine Thompson, AP

'Right To Bear Arms' Means Just That

Posted 03/03/2010 07:01 PM ET

Otis McDonald, 76, stands before the Supreme Court, which Tuesday heard arguments in his suit to overturn Chicago's handgun ban. AP View Enlarged Image

Gun Rights: Otis McDonald, 76, an Army vet who lives in a high-crime area of Chicago, thinks the Constitution gives him the right to bear arms to protect himself and his wife as he protected his country. We think so too.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on behalf of four Chicago residents led by homeowner McDonald, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association to overturn Chicago's three-decade-old ban on owning handguns.

In a 5-4 decision in 2008, Heller v. District of Columbia, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's draconian, 32-year-old ban on the private ownership of handguns. Scalia wrote that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The joy of Second Amendment defenders was short-lived. A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, led by Judge Frank Easterbrook, rejected subsequent suits brought by the National Rifle Association against the city of Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill.

According to Easterbrook, the Revolution was fought and independence won so that the Founding Fathers could write a Constitution with a Bill of Rights that applied only to the District of Columbia.

"Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government," he wrote, "while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state."

We're all for federalism, but the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Constitution. Surely he can't be serious.

Alan Gura, the Alexandria, Va., lawyer who won the Heller case, has expanded the argument to include the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 to prevent infringement on constitutional rights by states and others concerned about newly freed slaves owning firearms.

Introducing the 14th Amendment to Congress, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan referred to "personal rights" such as "the right to keep and bear arms, " explaining that his amendment would compel the states "to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

In 2008, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an amicus brief on behalf of 32 states that also challenged the constitutionality of the D.C. ban. Now he represents a group of 38 states fighting the Chicago ban. "The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a critical liberty interest, essential to preserving individual security and the right to self-defense," Abbott explained.

Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote in 2008 that in Chicago only two classes of people can possess firearms: "The criminals and the politicians."

City politicians, he noted, used their influence to "become deputized peace officers so they can carry" or "often go around surrounded by armed bodyguards on the city payroll."

Otis McDonald wants the same right to defend himself and his family. To deny him that right, city officials argue that repealing the ban will bring carnage in the streets. Yet in the forthcoming third edition of "More Guns, Less Crime," John Lott points out that the Windy City's murder rate fell relative to America's other 50 largest cities before the ban and rose afterward.

In an essay Monday for FoxNews.com, Lott noted that after the D.C. gun ban was ruled unconstitutional, murders in Washington plummeted 25% from 2008 to 2009. D.C.'s murder rate, he reports, is down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, its lowest since 1967.

More guns do seem to mean less crime. And as Mr. McDonald insists, those who gave us liberty gave us the means and the right to defend it.

---

 - FOXNews.com

This isn’t the first time people have been able to carry guns in national parks. They were allowed to do so for over two months last year, from January through March, and absolutely no problems were reported.

Decrease Font A A A Increase Font

A two-decade-old ban on loaded guns in national parks ends today. Loaded guns will be allowed in Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, and other national parks. Guns will still be prohibited in some areas in the parks, federal facilities that are regularly staffed by National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees, but everywhere else they will be allowed.

“You're raising the level of risk in the parks, and the chance that people will use the parks less than they have in the past,” Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign gun control group warned during February 2009. As evidence for his claim, Helmke pointed to a New York school teacher who said that she would cancel school trips to national parks if guns were allowed. Helmke and others opponents have largely focused on permitted concealed handguns again being allowed in the parks.

Yet, despite the opposition of the Obama administration, the new federal law is hardly radical, as it simply defers to state law. It passed the Congress with about 2-to-1 majorities in both the House and Senate. If a state allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, permit holders can carry their guns in the national parks in that state.

Opponents worry about the possibility that permit holders will accidentally shoot others or use their guns to commit crimes such as poaching. But this isn’t the first time people have been able to carry guns in national parks. They were allowed to do so for over two months last year, from January through March, and absolutely no problems were reported. Nor are the proponents of the ban pointing to any problems when guns were previously allowed in national parks during the 1980s and earlier.

When concealed-handgun laws were originally passed, gun control advocates then also warned that permit holders would lose their tempers and there would be blood in the streets.
Obviously that never happened. We now have a lot of experience with concealed-handgun permit holders. In 2007, about 5 million Americans were permitted to carry concealed handguns.
Take Florida, for example. Between Oct. 1, 1987, and January 31, 2010, Florida issued permits to 1,704,624 people, many of whom renewed their permits multiple times. Only 167 had their permits revoked for a firearms-related violation — about 0.01 percent. Over the last 14 months just one more permit has been revoked for firearms violations, a rate among active permit holders of 0.00014 percent. The pattern is similar in other states. Given the very low rate that permit holders commit any type of crime, it seems very doubtful that permit holders would engage in other crimes such as poaching.

Even though the adoption of right-to-carry laws was highly controversial in some states, the laws were so successful that no state has ever rescinded one. Indeed, no state has even held a legislative hearing to consider rescinding concealed-carry.

Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals. The problem is that law-abiding citizens are the ones most likely to obey the gun control laws, leaving them disarmed and vulnerable and making it easier for criminals to commit crime.

Police are extremely important in deterring crime — according to my research, the most important factor. But the police almost always arrive after the crime has been committed. In national parks, with vast land areas and few roads, this problem is exacerbated. Even if one can quickly reach park rangers by using a cell phone, it can be hours before they can arrive at the crime scene.

Wild animals also sometimes do attack humans, and guns can come in handy. According to a study by Professor Gary Mauser at Simon Fraser University, guns were used about 36,000 times a year to stop animal attacks in Canada.

Here is a prediction. Just like the ruckus over passing concealed handgun laws, the fears about guns in national parks will soon be forgotten.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press), the third edition will be published in May

Over the past year, we have reported several times on the abundance of rumors being circulated regarding firearm issues.  Among other things, we've heard phony tales circulating about such things as guns being banned for the elderly, ammunition with expiration dates, a requirement that guns be listed on tax returns, and a prohibition on gun and ammunition imports. The latest scuttlebutt has to do with a recent Executive Order by President Obama concerning the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL). 

Some have argued that the order would make INTERPOL and its officials immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, and that it would therefore allow INTERPOL personnel to seize firearms, kidnap Americans, and otherwise violate U.S. citizens' rights.  Our legal staff has reviewed this order and does not believe it poses any of these threats. 

President Obama's order amends a 1983 order by President Reagan, in which the U.S. recognized INTERPOL as an international organization that is entitled to certain legal immunities under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA). 

One of those immunities is immunity from civil lawsuits.  Under the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," foreign governments generally can't be sued, and the IOIA extended that protection to international organizations.  This has been applied to block suits against the United Nations, Organization of American States, and other international bodies. 

This means that articles on the recent order are incorrect in claiming that the order made INTERPOL immune from civil suits; INTERPOL was already immune. 

Some have also suggested that under the order, INTERPOL agents would receive diplomatic immunity, so they could violate Americans' rights without fear of criminal prosecution.  There are several misconceptions here. 

First, diplomatic immunity only protects diplomats, and the IOIA specifically says it does not confer diplomatic immunity on international organization employees. 

Second, while the IOIA does provide a limited type of immunity for international organization employees, this is only immunity "relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity."  U.S. courts have interpreted this narrowly.  In one case, a court found that a U.N. employee was not immune to a local speeding ticket even though he was actually driving the Secretary General of the U.N. to an official conference.  In other cases, courts have found that employees of international organizations can be prosecuted for espionage, because espionage is not among their official duties. 

Law enforcement officers working with INTERPOL are detailed from agencies in various countries, such as the FBI or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.  They have no power of arrest outside their own countries.  Therefore, a seizure of an American (or of an Americans' firearms) would likely not fall within the official duties for which INTERPOL officials would be immune from prosecution. 

Now don't take any of this to mean that we underestimate our anti-gun opponents, or that we don't believe they would happily and readily seize the opportunity to adopt and enforce measures that would limit our freedom.  We know full well that they would.  Rather, our message is this:  Rumors abound, so don't believe everything you read.  If it's a legitimate concern, rest assured your NRA-ILA will promptly address it and will give you the straight story.

By Arshad Mohammed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.

(Editing by Eric Beech)

Annual Louisiana Second Amendment Weekend Sales Tax Holiday

August 19, 2009

BATON ROUGE - The Louisiana Department of Revenue (LDR) has issued rules and dates for the first annual “Louisiana Second Amendment Weekend Sales Tax Holiday.” The sales tax holiday will take place Friday, September 4, through Sunday, September 6.

Act 453 of the Regular Session of the 2009 Louisiana Legislature provides a three-day exemption from state and local sales and use taxes on consumer purchases of firearms, ammunition, and hunting supplies. This is an annual sales tax holiday that occurs each year on the first consecutive Friday through Sunday in September.

According to the statute, during this sales tax holiday weekend, the sales and use tax levied by the state and its political subdivisions shall not apply to any consumer purchases of firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies. The Annual Louisiana Second Amendment Weekend Holiday Act became effective July 9, 2009.

The state and local sales and use tax exemption applies to an individual’s purchase of firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies. The sales and use tax exemption is not available for business purchases. Consumer purchases do not include the purchase of animals for hunting.

LDR has published a rule that details which consumer purchases are eligible for state and local sales and use tax exemption during the holiday and when these purchases are to occur. The rule (LAC 61:I.4425) is available on the Louisiana Administrative Code: Emergency Rules page at www.revenue.louisiana.gov.

During the Annual Louisiana Second Amendment Weekend Sales Tax Holiday, a consumer’s purchase will be eligible for the state and local sales and use tax exemption, under any of the following conditions:

1. Title to or possession of firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies is transferred from a selling dealer to a purchaser.
2. A customer selects an eligible item from the selling dealer's inventory for layaway that is physically set aside in the selling dealer's inventory for future delivery to that customer.
3. The customer makes final payment and withdraws an item from layaway that might have been placed on layaway prior to the Annual Louisiana Second Amendment Weekend Sales Tax Holiday.
4. The customer orders and pays for an eligible item and the selling dealer accepts the order for immediate shipment, even if delivery is made after the time period provided for in LAC 61:I4425.A, provided that the customer has not requested delayed shipment.

Please Stand-Up and Make Your Voices Heard!

Due to tightening budgets, the Bethlehem Area School District has shut off funding for the Liberty High School and Freedom High School rifle teams.  Both teams have been in existence for over 40 years and have consistently been given grants by NRA.

Unfortunately, the Bethlehem Area School District is choosing to balance the budget on the backs of tomorrow’s shooters.  Rifle teams, such as these, help foster the future of our Second Amendment freedoms, shooting sports, and safe firearms training.   

Please contact the Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Joseph A. Lewis, and the members of the school board TODAY and respectfully voice your disapproval with their action.  Contact information can be found below.

Dr. Joseph A. Lewis, Superintendent of Schools
Phone: (610) 861-0500, ext. 60250
Fax: (610) 807-5599
supt@bethsd.org

Board of School Directors:

(610) 861-0500

Officers:  

Loretta M. Leeson, President
lleeson@rcn.com

Judith A. Dexter, Vice President
ja.dexter@verizon.net

Stanley J. Majewski, Jr., Secretary
smajewski@beth.k12.pa.us

Anne Morton, Treasurer
amorton@beth.k12.pa.us

Members: 

Rosario S. Amato 
ramato@rcn.com
Michele Cann 
mcann@rcn.com
Irene Follweiler 
ifollweiler@rcn.com
Craig T. Haytmanek 
chaytmanek@rcn.com
Charlene A. Koch 
ckoch@rcn.com
Eugene C. McKeon  
e.mckeon@rcn.com
Benjamin M. Tenaglia, III
btenaglia@rcn.com

Atlanta - The appearance of weapons near the president at a speech and a healthcare town hall has been cast as either a danger to the president and public debate or a sign of that gun ownership is gradually losing its stigma.

A man in a shirt and tie carried a shoulder-slung rifle near President Obama's entourage in Phoenix Tuesday. Since carrying a gun is legal in Arizona, police did not take action against him or any other gun-carrying protesters.

Last week, however, a man was arrested near the presidential town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., for not having the proper permits for a gun. Another man wore a gun in a leg holster.

To many liberals, such displays are a worrisome sign that the president's opponents are trying to intimidate public discourse. "Loaded weapons at political forums endanger all involved, distract law enforcement, and end up stifling debate," says Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in a statement issued Tuesday.

But many gun-rights experts see another trend at work: the "re-normalization" of gun ownership in the United States. So-called "must-issue" laws, which mandate that anyone who meets the requirements for a gun permit must be issued one, are spreading to more states. Congress has broadened the rights of gun owners recently, for example allowing guns in federal parks. And the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller last year emboldened gun owners, experts say. It confirmed that the constitutional right "to keep and bear arms" is not a state right, as some gun-control advocates had argued, but an individual right.

The recent furor over the presence of guns near the president is part of an effort to undermine these gains, says Brandon Denning, a law professor at Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Ala. It "is an attempt to somehow reverse the normalization of guns," he says. In actuality, the spread of laws that allow permit-holders to carry their weapons openly throughout much of the central, Southwestern, and Southern United States has gradually made the sight of people carrying guns less jarring, says Dave Kopel, a gun-rights expert at the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo.

Yet the decision by the crisply dressed man in Phoenix to carry a rifle to an anti-Obama rally seemed to be intended as a provocative statement of Second Amendment rights, says Mr. Kopel.

"This is really a form of expressive speech, and I think the fact that the Secret Service ... hasn't gotten particularly upset shows good judgement on their part," he says.

Still, the man didn't necessarily do the Second Amendment cause any favors, Kopel says.

"While I think it's really paranoid for some of the media to falsely characterize this as people trying to threaten the president, I think it shows bad judgement to carry [guns] near a presidential speech," he says. Protesters are "trying to make a statement about Second Amendment rights, but they're doing it in a way that probably sets back that cause."

D.C. delegate calls for ban on guns near Obama
By Jordy Yager
Posted: 08/19/09 05:51 PM [ET]
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) called on the Homeland Security Department and the U.S. Secret Service on Wednesday to provide tighter restrictions on citizens carrying weapons, openly or concealed, while in the vicinity of President Barack Obama.

Norton, who sits on the Homeland Security Committee, made the request after numerous news reports have shown groups of people brandishing firearms while outside of events held by Obama over the past several weeks.

“It is clear that if the Secret Service can temporarily clear all aircraft from air space when the president is in the vicinity, the agency has the authority to clear guns on the ground that are even closer to the President,” Norton said.

But the Secret Service says that Obama was never in danger when a group of about a dozen protesters brandished their firearms outside the Phoenix convention center earlier this week where he was speaking.

One man carried an AR-15 assault rifle, but Arizona law allows people to carry unconcealed guns and police made no arrests.

“This doesn’t change what already exists for Secret Service,” said Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley of Norton’s request.

“Whenever the Secret Service travels somewhere in the country, we are able to determine what the security parameters will be for any particular site and anything within those parameters fall under federal law as far as being able to control what happens there.”

“So even if the state law says that you can have a gun as long as it’s not concealed, it doesn’t mean that you can bring a gun into a protected site.”

Norton has been battling with gun rights supporters for years because of the District’s former ban on handguns, which was struck down by the Supreme Court last year. More recently, a bill to grant the District a representational vote in Congress has stalled in the House because of an amendment that would make it easier to own a gun in D.C.

The Arizona event followed a similar instance in New Hampshire – which has open-carry laws – last week when police arrested a man for having a loaded, unlicensed gun in his car near where Obama was set to hold a healthcare-related forum. Another man outside of that event had a licensed handgun strapped to his leg and held a sign that read: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

“In both instances, those guys were outside of the outer-most perimeter of security, so what would apply is state law,” said Wiley. “They never had any proximity to the president at any time. They weren’t trying to gain access to the event and they weren’t in a position outside the event where they could have affected the president.”

But the Brady Campaign, a gun control group, said that these increasing instances of brandishing firearms in public could lead to escalated scenarios in the future that put the president at risk because it stretches law enforcement thin.

“Law enforcement has to keep an eye on these people,” said Paul Helmke, president of the group. “So the more people [who] carry guns, the more people you need to keep an eye on them, which stretches limited resources further. You get an event like in Phoenix with maybe 12 or 13 people, what if at the next event there are 100? And when you take the law enforcement resources away, that makes the president more vulnerable.”

Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America, a gun rights group in Virginia, said that this is nothing new nor is it different than law-abiding gun owners bringing their weapons into restaurants, as they have been known to do periodically in the Commonwealth.

“There have been a few calls to the police and the police have come to the point now where they ask one question: ‘What are these gun carriers doing?’ And they get the response that they’re eating and say, ‘Well, if they start doing something, let us know.’ So when somebody goes to a rally, obviously if the president is there it’s going to get more attention, but I don’t think we’re really dealing with anything different.”

Obama Administration targets conservatives and war vets
April 15, 6:24 AM
The Obama Administration's new Secretary of Homeland Security recently ordered immigration agents to stop their workplace searches for illegal aliens while at the same time denigrating US war veterans and conservative or right-wing groups.In a warning sent out nationally to local police and law enforcement executives, the Department of Homeland Security is cautioning local police agencies about the alleged rise in “right-wing extremist activity.” The confidential memorandum states that the election of America’s first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of "white-power militias."An addendum attached to the report by DHS's Intelligence and Analysis Office defines “right-wing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. < www.dhs.gov >“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the warning says."This is the shot not heard around the world because the news media are covering up this shocking story. Suddenly, the Obama clique is disparaging not only American citizens but also returning military veterans, who've served their country honorably," said conservative political strategist."I believe this memo is the result of the Tea Party movement, which is viewed by the Obama Administration as a rebellion against his socialist and radical policies," said Baker.When asked for comment on its contents, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said during a press conference that President Obama is not focused on politics but rather taking the steps necessary to protect all Americans from the threat of violence and terrorism regardless of its origins. He went on to state that Obama also believes those who serve represent the best of this country, and he will continue to ensure that our veterans receive the respect and benefits they have earned.However, many police agencies are beginning to question the priorities of this administration."What Obama's minions are attempting to do is create friction between local cops and the military," said Detective Sydney Frances (NYPD-Ret.)."This is Obama's first shot at dissenters who are not willing to turn their nation over to Marxism and socialism," he said in an interview with NewswithViews.com.According to sources, the nine-page memorandum has been sent to police and sheriff’s departments across the United States on April 7 under the headline, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” < www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/04/rightwing_extremism.html   >Part of the document states: "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."Also, he states that the US government “will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months” to gather information on “rightwing extremist activity in the United States.”Homeland Security spokeswoman Sara Kuban told reporters that the DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano report is one in an ongoing series of assessments by the department to “facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the U.S.”The report claims that extremist groups have used President Obama as a recruiting tool.“Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action,” the report says. “In two instances in the run-up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded.”Congressional debates about immigration and gun control also make extremist groups suspicious and give them a rallying cry, the report states.“It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists,” according to the DHS document.There is also fear of the number of Americans legally purchasing firearm. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as reported on Fox News, since November, more than 7 million people have applied for criminal background checks in order to buy weapons.The Homeland Security report added: “Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool.”"This woman is either stupid or a left-wing ideologue," s

Why Congress Should Not Bring Back the Federal ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban

 By PATRICK WALTERS Associated Press WriterPHILADELPHIA (AP) - June 18, 2009 -- A state appeals court ruled Wednesday that the city cannot enforce an assault weapons ban and a law prohibiting guns bought by one person and given to another, measures passed by City Council in an effort to combat persistent gun violence.
The 6-1 ruling marked the latest setback for Philadelphia officials, who have fought for years for the right to pass their own gun legislation. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has previously upheld the state's exclusive right to enact gun laws.
The National Rifle Association challenged a series of measures that were passed by City Council in April 2008 and signed by Mayor Michael Nutter. Both sides expect the case to end up before the state's highest court again.
"The bottom line is, we won," NRA attorney C. Scott Shields said of the ruling.
Story continues belowAdvertisementIn Thursday's ruling, the court said the city could not ban assault weapons or pass the law prohibiting straw purchases, in which one person fills out forms and buys a gun for someone else - often convicted felons who can't legally own guns.
In a dissenting opinion, Commonwealth Judge Doris A. Smith-Ribner asserted the city does have the right to pass its own gun laws, citing the hundreds of residents killed by gun violence every year.
The NRA has also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down strict gun control laws in the Chicago area. The NRA wants the court to rule that last year's decision invalidating a handgun ban in the District of Columbia also applies to local and state laws. The justices likely won't decide before late September whether to hear the NRA's case.
That appeal came after a federal appeals court in Chicago said this month that it is bound by earlier Supreme Court decisions that held the Second Amendment applies only to federal laws. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was part of an appeals court panel in New York that reached a similar conclusion in January.
Judges on both courts - Republican nominees in Chicago and Democratic nominees in New York - said only the Supreme Court could decide whether to extend last year's ruling throughout the country. Many, but not all, of the constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights have been applied to cities and states.
The framers of the Constitution intended "to protect the right to keep and bear arms and other rights from state infringement," the NRA said in a filing to the Supreme Court.
In Pennsylvania, the state appeals court also ruled Thursday that the NRA lacked standing in challenges to three other measures, saying the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered "injury."
Those three laws require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns within 48 hours; allow police to confiscate guns from people who are considered a danger; and prohibit anyone subject to a protection-from-abuse order from possessing a gun. Only the lost-or-stolen gun ordinance is currently being enforced.
A 1974 state law says that only the General Assembly can regulate guns, but the Philadelphia case is being watched by other cities in the state, including several that have passed measures requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen guns.

Follow Action News on Twitter
Get Action News on your website
Follow Action News on Facebook
Click here to get the latest Philadelphia news and headlines from across the Delaware and Lehigh valleys.

(Copyright ©2009 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

Country's gun-loving tradition has gone too far

by Bobby Warshaw

Sunday May 24, 2009, 10:59 AM

On April 29, The Patriot-News reported that the city of Harrisburg created a gun law to increase public safety in the area. It was a great move by city officials to make the city and area better environments.

But the city, state and national government need to continue their efforts. Statistical evidence and common logic suggests that America would improve with tighter gun restrictions.

First, there are legal and Constitutional reasons that the country should increase gun laws. Proponents of gun rights suggest that they have a Constitutional, Second Amendment right to "bear arms." However, they are strongly mistaken.

I could explain that we do not have a well-regulated militia, an executive branch that threatens the liberties of its citizens, or the ability to use a militia to secure the security of a free state. With that said, I do not want to step on the toes of the many scholars who have dedicated years to discussing the Second Amendment. Instead, I want to discuss the personal and individual reasons that guns threaten a better America.

As a college student, I want to feel safe at school. Students have a distinct possibility of walking through campus one day and having someone open fire to kill dozens of their classmates. In high school, the possibility is even more frightful with everyone in an enclosed area.

In 2007, a student opened fire at Virginia Tech University, killing 32 students. In 1999, two high school students in Columbine, Colo., used guns to kill 12 students and injure 21 more. Now I must ask, how many students have to die before we take action?

Quite honestly, I am tired of hearing that the problem is a violent public rather than guns. "Guns don't kill people, people do," the avid gun owner argues. Tell me then how many teenagers the students at Columbine would have killed with a baseball bat? Could the student at Virginia Tech have gotten to 30 young adults with a knife?

Before you argue that Americans have the right to own guns, think of yourself or your child at school and whether you want a disgruntled classmate walking in with a bat or an automatic gun.

Bobby Warshaw

Nationmaster Web site calculated almost 10,000 gun deaths in the United States in 2002 compared with 12 in the United Kingdom.

The International Firearm Statistics organization calculates that the United States is fifth in the world for homicides involving firearms and second in the world for accidental deaths involving firearms. For the most advance and powerful nation in the world, those numbers are a little scary.

Americans, for whatever reason, ignore the obvious evidence and stand rooted in their gun-loving tradition. Keep your rifle and enjoy your hunting. Someone, however, must explain to me why an American needs an automatic weapon to defend his family. I would love to know why an American has a right to bear arms, but not the right to feel safe from a simple and unskilled act of violence.

Now is the time for Harrisburg to take action. The recent law on reporting stolen guns is the first step. The appellate courts need to uphold the legislation. Courts cannot allow multimillion dollar interest groups to determine the safety and future of our country.

Likewise, local, state and national legislatures must continue to push for further gun control. Laws such as restricting automatic weapons, increasing background checks, or increased safety precautions would decrease gun deaths in the area.

Politicians and officials must understand that any decisions and policies that they make will meet opposition. However, they must put the safety of their constituents above all else.

Constituents also must be prepared for the long-term effects. When new statistics come out in five years and we find that our streets, schools and homes are safer, politicians and citizens will be satisfied with the decision.

I hope the day for tighter gun control comes soon. I never want to read about young kids in school falling by a gun or a family losing a little girl on Mother's Day again.

BOBBY WARSHAW, a graduate of Mechanicsburg Area Senior High School, is a student at Stanford University.

May 04, 2009

Second-Amendment Restoration Act Re-Introduced

The right to bear arms

By: Danielle Thompson

Posted: 4/29/09

WASHINGTON - April 28, 2009 - -- Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter disclosed plans Tuesday to switch parties, a move intended to boost his chances of winning re-election next year that will also push Democrats closer to a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority.

"I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," Specter said in a statement posted on a Web site devoted to Pennsylvania politics and confirmed by his office. Several Senate officials said a formal announcement could come later in the day or Wednesday.

Specter, 79 and in his fifth term, is one of a handful of Republican moderates remaining in Congress in a party now dominated by conservatives. Several officials said the White House as well as leaders in both parties had been involved in discussions leading to his move.

With Specter, Democrats would have 59 Senate seats. Al Franken is ahead in a marathon recount in Minnesota, and if he ultimately wins his race against Republican Norm Coleman, he would become the party's 60th vote. That is the number needed to overcome a filibuster.

Specter faced an extraordinarily difficult re-election challenge in his home state in 2010, having first to confront a challenge from his right in the Republican primary before pivoting to a general election campaign against a Democrat.

"I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," he said in the statement.

"I don't have to say anything to them. They've said it to me," Specter said, when asked in a Capitol corridor about abandoning the GOP.

A senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because no announcement has yet been made, said at 10:25 a.m. EDT Tuesday President Barack Obama was handed a note while in the Oval Office during his daily economic briefing. The note said: "Specter is announcing he is changing parties." At 10:32, Obama reached Specter by phone and told him "you have my full support" and that the Democratic Party is "thrilled to have you."

Specter had publicly acknowledged that to win in 2010, he would need thousands of Pennsylvania voters who switched from Republican to Democrat last year to vote for Obama to flip back to the GOP to cast ballots for him.

As one of the most senior Republicans in the Senate, Specter held powerful positions on the Judiciary and Approporiations panels. It was not clear how Democrats would calculate his seniority in assigning committee perches.

Specter has long been an independent Republican, and he proved it most recently when he became one of only three members of the GOP in Congress to vote for Obama's economic stimulus legislation.

As recently as late winter, he was asked by a reporter why he had not taken Democrats up on past offers to switch parties. "Because I am a Republican," he said at the time.

---

Associated Press Writer Liz Sidoti contributed to this story.

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania's economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy's statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

Posted on Thu, Apr. 16, 2009

Rendell calls for reviving assault-rifle ban

By Mario F. Cattabiani

Inquirer Staff Writer

JOHN LOTT: ABC’s Shameful ‘20/20′ Experiment

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's call for assault weapon ban in U.S. gets blasted by gun lobby

BY Richard Sisk
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Thursday, March 26th 2009, 8:07 PM

Estrella/Getty

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shakes hands with the Rector of the Basilica de Guadalupe during a visit to the Basilica in Mexico City.

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Clinton called for a new assault weapon ban in the U.S. on Thursday in hopes of cutting off arms flowing to Mexican drug gangs - and was immediately blasted by the gun lobby.

Clinton was naive in thinking that "if Americans give up their freedoms, that it's somehow going to affect the operations of the Mexican drug cartels," said National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs also signaled that President Obama wasn't itching for a fight with Congress to renew the assault weapon ban enacted by former President Bill Clinton. It expired in 2004.

Obama supported the ban during the campaign, Gibbs said, but "I don't know of any plans" for Obama to go immediately to Capitol Hill with new legislation.

On her two-day visit to Mexico, Clinton told MSNBC it'd be "a very heavy lift" to get Congress to take up the issue.

Under tight security yesterday in Monterrey, Mexico, Clinton said the drug-related violence along the border was "intolerable for honest, law-abiding citizens of Mexico, my country or of anywhere people of conscience live."

"We can worry about what's coming north," Clinton said, "but the Mexican people are worried about what's coming south: assault weapons, bazookas, grenades."

Mexican officials and newspapers hailed Clinton's blunt admissions that the "insatiable" appetite for drugs in the U.S. was contributing to the violence.

rsisk@nydailynews.com

Concealed weapons lawsuit dropped

NOTICE!!!

A hardy congratulation is due to our loyal customers, our good friends, and our fellow shooting enthusiasts through out this great nation! Due to the diligent and overwhelming effort of many thousands of you, calling, writing, and emailing our elected officials, DOD Surplus, LLC, has rescinded its prior directive that ALL small arms spent casings be mutilated rather than recycled. This was a huge victory for common sense and we would like to thank each and every person who made an effort and played a role in correcting this mistake. We at Georgia Arms are proud of everyone who took the time and had the courage to stand up for our rights. We believe, that by your outpouring of anger and dismay, you not only extended our liberty and freedoms but also took a stand for economic common sense in a time when we know our government should be trying to reduce costs at all levels rather than throwing money away for some politically correct reason or the other. Again, our hat is off to everyone who helped and thanks to God as well. We will roll up our sleeves and go back to work; we have 223’s and 308’s to build!  (Below is a copy of the email we received from DOD on 3/17/09 @ 4:30pm)

GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!!!

DOD rescinds its ban on selling brass.

"When they feel the heat, they see the light."

Last Sunday (was it only three days ago?) on my radio show, I had as guests Gordon Hutchinson (author of "The Great New Orleans Gun Grab") and Larry Haynie, owner of Georgia Arms. They told the story about the U.S. Department of Defense changing its policy, and how ammo remanufacturers (reloaders) such as Georgia Arms would no longer be able to buy millions of rounds of fired brass from the government unless they agreed to shred the brass.

Of course, that would make it useless for reloading. This would mean millions of rounds a month would be taken off the market, driving the price of ammunition even higher than it now is. Also, Larry told us he would have to fire half of his 60 employees.

Gordon alerted me, and within hours we put it on Gun Talk radio, live all over the country. You got angry, and being the Truth Squad -- a follower of the "no shrug" doctrine -- you acted.

Emails, faxes, and calls went to the offices of every Senator and Representative on The Hill. Senators Tester and Baucus of Montana (both Democrats) contacted the Department of Defense on Tuesday, and within an hour, they had a reply that this new, ill-considered, policy had been rescinded. Only 48 hours after I broke the news to the nation's gun owners, you responded, and then THEY responded.

This, my friends, is what the Truth Squad is all about. It's about generating a massive, suffocating, instant flood of rational and reasonable demands that our constitutional right to keep and bear arms not be infringed. What you did was create a "what the heck is going on?" response on Capitol Hill.

What's next? A constant stream of "we are watching you" communications which tells all elected officials that we will not stand by and allow them to trade away any of our rights. They all need to see that an attack on gun rights is the third rail of politics, and we will do all we can to send them home to find other work if they support any such effort.

Stay tuned. As always, you'll hear about it first on Gun Talk Radio. No other outlet covers the entire country (regular radio stations, XM and Sirius satellite, and the podcasts) with the latest news on firearms and gun rights.

There WILL be more assaults on our rights. Many of them will come through agencies, where no recorded vote is necessary. Never make the mistake of thinking that we have won and can now relax. By their actions we know that they really ARE out to get us.

If you hear of anything like this, by all means, let me know so we can jump on it.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

NEWS RELEASE

Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA  98005

CCRKBA, BARR TELL HOLDER: ‘BACK OFF’ ON SEMI-AUTO BAN RHETORIC

For Immediate Release: March 6, 2009

BELLEVUE, WA – Calling the ban on semiautomatic firearms “a bad, and totally unnecessary, lapsed federal law,” former Congressman Bob Barr is urging Attorney General Eric Holder to back away from a plan to renew that onerous idea, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is joining in the effort.

“While we opposed Holder’s nomination as Attorney General and Barr supported him,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Barr in opposing the ridiculous notion that the ban be resurrected and made permanent.

“The ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ by Bill Clinton and the Democrats was a bad idea in 1994,” he recalled, “and it is an even worse idea today. We needn’t remind House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about the mid-term election consequences of the 1994 ban.”

Barr was among dozens of pro-gun challengers swept into Congress by angry gun owners in November 1994. He served from 1995 until 2003. The former Congressman sent a letter to Holder on March 3 in which he explained that pushing for a renewal of the ban “would be inconsistent in my view with the clear mandate you enjoy to restore integrity and confidence in the government of which you are an important part.” He encouraged Holder to instead devote his energies to “restoring the civil liberties of American citizens” that have been eroded over the past several years.

“Many law-abiding gun owners voted for Barack Obama,” Gottlieb added, “taking his word that, as president, he would not come after their guns. Renewing the senseless ban on sport-utility firearms and original capacity magazines would betray the trust of those voters, and Holder should understand that.

“We’re delighted that Bob Barr, who supported Holder’s nomination, has added his considerable influence to this debate,” Gottlieb stated. “With Barr squarely in the corner of American gun owners – millions of whom own the kinds of firearms that would be affected by such a ban – hopefully we will prevail and the Obama administration will find more useful endeavors.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee 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. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

Semi-Automatic Rifle Ban
Would Reduce Jobs, Not Crime

Firearms Industry Reminds Congress
to Respect Second Amendment Rights

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Responding to Attorney General Eric Holder's comment yesterday that the Obama Administration will attempt to reinstate a ban against semi-automatic rifles, the National Shooting Sports Foundation reminded Congress and all Americans that such a ban would cause jobs to be lost in a difficult economy, have no effect on reducing crime and would deprive millions of law-abiding sportsmen and gun owners of their Constitutional right to own the firearm of their choice.

Holder made his comments in connection with criminals supplying illegal guns from the United States to drug dealers in Mexico.

"The problem of criminals breaking the law to acquire firearms and illegally smuggling them across the border is not remedied by legislation that would violate the rights of Americans to own semi-automatic firearms," said Steve Sanetti, president of NSSF, the trade association of the firearms industry.

"These types of firearms, which are erroneously called 'assault weapons,' are used by millions of Americans for hunting, sporting and personal defense purposes," Sanetti added. "We can only conclude that certain officials are waiting for any politically advantageous excuse to announce the intention to seek a new ban on sporting rifles, a ban that would break the president's campaign promise to gun owners that 'I'm not going to take away your guns.'"

The industry and firearms owners were understandably outraged by Holder's comments yesterday, and today even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi backed away from the idea of a new gun ban. "On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now," said Pelosi, surprisingly taking the position of pro-gun advocates.

Holder's use of the inaccurate term "assault weapons" is one that is deliberately used by gun-ban advocates to create confusion between legally sold, semi-automatic rifles and look-a-like, fully automatic military versions. While the civilian version of these rifles may resemble their military counterparts, the civilian rifle fires only one round with each pull of the trigger. Additionally, these rifles fire ammunition calibers no more powerful than traditional-looking sporting arms. Civilian access to fully automatic machine guns has been severely restricted since 1934.

Studies show that the ban against sporting firearms, known as the Assault Weapons Ban, that was in place from 1994 to 2004 did not reduce crime. Furthermore, there has been no increase in crime involving these types of firearms since Congress allowed the ban to expire.

A ban on sporting firearms also would have a severe effect on jobs and the economy. Sales of semi-automatic rifles have been strong over the last several months -- overall sales of firearms have increased as much as 42 percent -- and have allowed companies in the firearms industry to withstand, to some extent, the downturn in the economy.

"These semi-automatic rifles are the most popular rifle in America today and they are largely behind the recent increase in firearms sales," said Sanetti. "This is a bright spot in our economy and has helped save jobs in our industry."

Since the election last November gun owners have feared the Obama Administration would seek legislation that would infringe on their Second Amendment rights. "It appears gun owners' fears were well-founded given Attorney General Holder's comment that the Obama Administration will seek new restrictions on gun owners. A new gun ban would fly in the face of last year's Supreme Court decision in the Heller case that reaffirmed the Second Amendment right of all Americans to keep and bear arms," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.

For more information, visit:
http://nssf.org/media/FactSheets/Semi-Auto_Background.cfm

SHIPPEN, Edward, mayor of Philadelphia, born in Hillham, Cheshire, England, in 1639; died in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2 October, 1712. He was the son of William Shippen. His brother, Reverend William Shippen, D. D., was rector of Stockport, Cheshire, and his nephew, Robert Shippen, D. D., was principal of Brasenose college, and vice-chancellor of Oxford university. Edward was bred to mercantile pursuits, and emigrated to Boston, Massachusetts, in 1668, where he became a wealthy merchant. In 1671 he became a member of the Ancient and honorable artillery company of Boston. He married Elizabeth Lybrand, a Quakeress, united with that sect, and shared the "jailings, whippings, and banishments, the fines and imprisonments," that were inflicted on the Quakers. In 1693 Mr. Shippen was either banished or driven to take refuge in Philadelphia. He did not quit Boston without erecting a memorial on "a green," near to "a pair of gallows, where several of our friends had suffered death fox' the truth, and were thrown into a hole." He asked leave of the magistrates to erect some more lasting monument there, but they were not willing. About the time he was leaving he gave a piece of land for a Friends' meeting-house, located in Brattles pasture, on Brattle street, near the site of the Quincey house, and on which was constructed the first brick church in Boston. In Philadelphia his wealth and character obtained for him position and influence. In 1695 he was elected to the assembly, and chosen speaker. In 1696 he was elected to the provincial council, of which he continued a member till his death, and for ten years he was the senior member. 

He was commissioned a justice of the peace in the same year, and in 1697 a judge of the supreme court, and the presiding judge of the courts of common pleas and quarter sessions and the orphan's court. In 1701 he became mayor of Philadelphia, being so named in William Penn's city charter of that year, and during this year he was appointed by Penn to be one of his commissioners of property, which office Shippen held till his death. 

As president of the council, he was the head of the government from May until December, 1703. In 1704, and for several years thereafter, he was chosen one of the aldermen, and from 1 June. 1705, till 1712 he was the treasurer of the city. He contracted his third marriage in 1706, which led to his withdrawal from the Society of Friends. His house long bore the name of "the Governor's House."  It was built in the early rise of the city, received then the name of ' Shippen's Great House, ' while Shippen himself was proverbially distinguished for three great things--' the biggest person, the biggest house, and the biggest coach.' "

--His son, Joseph Shippen, born in Boston, 28 February, 1679 ; died in Philadelphia in 1741, lived in Boston until 1704, when he moved to Philadelphia. He was among the men of science in his day, and in 1727 he joined Benjamin Franklin in founding the Junto "for mutual information and the public good."

--Joseph's son, Edward Shippen, merchant, born in Boston, Massachusetts, 9 July, 1703; died in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 25 September, 1781, was brought up to mercantile pursuits by James Logan, and was in business with him in 1732. as Logan and Shippen; afterward with Thomas Lawrence, in the fur-trade, as Ship-pen and Lawrence. In 1744 he was elected mayor of the city. In 1745, and for several years thereafter, he was one of the judges of the court of common pleas. In May, 1752, he removed to Lancaster, where he was appointed prothonotary, and continued such until 1778. He had large transactions as paymaster for supplies for the British and provincial forces when they were commanded by General Forbes, General Stanwix, and Colonel Bouquet, and managed them with so much integrity as to receive public thanks in 1760. He was a county judge under both the provincial and state governments. 

In early life he laid out and founded Shippensburg, Pennsylvania In 1746-'8 he was one of the founders of the College of New Jersey, and he was one of its first board of trustees, which post he resigned in 1767. He was also a subscriber to the Philadelphia academy (afterward the University of Pennsylvania), and was a founder of the Pennsylvania hospital and the American philosophical society. Mr. Shippen's advanced age prevented him from taking an active part, except as a committee-man, during the Revolution, yet his sentiments were warmly expressed in behalf of his country.-

William Shippen, another son of Joseph, physician, born in Philadelphia, 1 October, 1712; died in Germantown, Pennsylvania, 4 November, 1801, applied himself early in life to the study of medicine, for which he had a remarkable genius. He speedily obtained a large and lucrative practice, which he maintained throughout his life. He was a member of the Junto, and aided in founding the Pennsylvania hospital, of which he was the physician from 1753 till 1778, the Public academy, and its successor, the College of Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania), being chosen in 1749 one of the first trustees of the academy. He was a trustee of the college in 1755-'79, and a member of the American philosophical society, of which he was vice-president in 1768, and for many years after. He was for nearly sixty years a member of the 2(1 Presbyterian church of Philadelphia, being (1742) one of its founders. On 20 November, 1778, he was chosen by the assembly of Pennsylvania to the Continental congress, and he was re-elected in 1779. He was for thirty years a trustee of Princeton college. 

Dr. Shippen was notably liberal toward the poor, and, it is said, not only gave his professional art and medicines without charge, but oftentimes assisted them by donations from his purse. He retained his physical powers very late in life, and it is said that "at the age of ninety he would ride in and out of the city on horseback without an overcoat in the coldest weather."

--William's son, William, known as William Shippen the younger, physician, born in Philadelphia, 21 October, 1736; died in German-town, Pennsylvania, 11 July, 1808, was graduated at Princeton in 1754, and delivered the valedictory for his class. He studied medicine with his father until 1758., when he went to England, and studied under Dr. John and Dr. William Hunter and Dr. McKenzie, and in 1761 was graduated M. D. at Edinburgh. Returning to Philadelphia in 1762, he entered on the practice of his profession, and on 16 November, 1762, he began the first course of lectures on anatomy that was ever delivered in this country. The first were delivered at the state-house, and the subsequent ones in rooms that were constructed by his father for the purpose in the rear of the latter's residence. After the first lecture he made the following announcement in the "Pennsylvania Gazette ..... Dr. Shippen's anatomical lectures will begin to-morrow evening, at six o'clock, at his father's house in Fourth street. Tickets for the course to be had of the doctor at five pistoles each; and any gentlemen who incline to see the subject prepared for the lectures, and learn the art of dissecting, injecting, etc., are to pay five pistoles snore." 

Dr. Shippen's school of anatomy was continued until 23 September, 1765, when he was chosen professor of anatomy and surgery in the newly established medical school of the College of Philadelphia, of which he was one of the founders. This was the first medical school in this country. Dr. Shippen retained this post till 1780, when he was elected professor of anatomy, surgery, and midwifery m the University of the state of Pennsylvania, and in 1791, on the union of these institutions, under the name of the University of Pennsylvania, he became professor of anatomy in the latter, retaining the place until 1806. On 15 July, 1776, he was appointed chief physician of the Flying camp. In March, 1777, he laid before congress a plan for the organization of a hospital department, which, with some modifications, was adopted, and on 11 April, 1777, he was unanimously elected "Director-General of all the Military Hospitals for the Armies of the United States." He was charged with an improper administration of the office, and arraigned before a military court, which led him to resign the post, 3 January, 1781. 

The investigation did not develop any matters reflecting on his integrity. In 1778-'9, and again from 1791 till 1802, he was one of the physicians of the Pennsylvania hospital. He was for snore than forty years a member of the American philosophical society, in which he held the offices of curator and secretary. His skill and eloquence as a teacher, exercised during forty years in the first medical school in the country, made him widely known at home and abroad, and won for him permanent distinction and respect in the medical world.

--Edward Shippen, son of the second Edward, jurist, born in Philadelphia, 16 February, 1729; died there, 16 April, 1806, at the age of seventeen began the study of the law with Tench Francis, and, while pursuing his studies, drafted the first common recovery in Pennsylvania. In 1748 he went to London to complete his law studies at the Middle Temple, and, returning to Philadelphia, was admitted to the bar. On 22 November, 1752, he was appointed the vice admiralty, and in 1755 he became one of the commissioners to wait upon the "Paxton Boys," who were engaged in an insurrection, to persuade them to disperse, which mission was successful. He held several local offices until the Revolution. He took a deep interest in the provincial wars, and watched and recorded every occasion when the provincial troops were successful. In 1762 he was appointed prothonotary of the supreme court, retaining this post till the Revolution. He became a member of the provincial council in 1770, in which office he served for five years. During the war for independence he probably sympathized with the mother country, as he was, by order of the council, placed on his parole to give neither succor nor information to the enemy. He remained in Philadelphia during the British occupancy. 

In May, 1784, he was appointed president judge of the court of common pleas, and in September of the same year he became a judge of the high court of errors and appeals, which latter office he retained until 1806, when the court was abolished. In 1785 he was chosen a justice for the dock ward of Philadelphia, and in the same year was appointed president of the court of quarter sessions of the peace and oyer and terminer. In 1791, at which time he was still at the head of the court of common pleas, he was appointed an associate justice of the supreme court, in which office he served till 1799. Governor McKean then nominated Judge Shippen to be the chief justice, which office he resigned in 1805. He "was a man of large views," said Chief-Justice Tilghman. "Everything that fell from that venerated man," said Judge Duncan, "is entitled to great respect." 

The best extant portrait of him is that by Gilbert Stuart, now in the Corcoran gallery in Washington, and is represented in the accompanying vignette. To his pen we owe the first law reports in Pennsylvania. In 1790 he received the degree of LL. D. from the University of Pennsylvania, of which institution he was a trustee from 1791 till his death. 

His third daughter, MARGARET Shippen  born in Philadelphia in 1760; died in London, 24 August, 1804, was second wife of Benedict Arnold.

--Joseph, another son of the second Edward Shippen, soldier, born in Philadelphia, 30 October, 1732; died in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 10 February, 1810, was graduated at Princeton in 1753, and shortly afterward entered the provincial army, in which he rose to the rank of colonel, and served in the expedition that captured Fort DuQuesne. After the troops were disbanded he went to Europe, partly on a mercantile venture, but chiefly for travel. He returned to Philadelphia in 1761, and in the follow-in/ year was chosen to succeed the Reverend Richard Peters as secretary of the province, in which post he served until the Revolution, when the provincial council ceased to exist. He subsequently removed to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where in 1789 he became a judge of the county courts. He was fond of the fine arts, early noted Benjamin West's genius, and, with William Allen and other friends, greatly aided him with means for pursuing his artistic studies in Italy, for which West was grateful during life. He was for more than forty years a member of the American philosophical society.

--Edward, great-grandson of the second Edward Shippen, lawyer, born on his father's estate, "Elm Hill," Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, 16 November, 1821, was the son of Dr. Joseph Galloway Shippen. He received an academical education, studied law, and, on 11 April, 1846, was admitted to the bar in Philadelphia, where he has since practiced, gaining reputation in his profession. Mr. Shippen is known for his active interest in education. He was for many years a member of the board of public education in Philadelphia, and from 1864 till 1869 its president. He has been a delegate to several national educational conventions, before some of which he has delivered important addresses. He is one of the founders of the Teachers' institute and of the Teachers' benevolent association of Philadelphia. By an appointment of the mikado, he was for many years in charge of the Japanese boys that were sent by the government of Japan to this country to be educated.

During the civil war he was chief of the educational department of the sanitary commission. During the Centennial exposition in 1876 Mr. Shippen was the president of the Chilian commission. For his benevolent, interest in the Italians in Philadelphia he received, on 10 October, 1877, from Victor Emanuel, the order of Cavaliere della Corona d'Italia. He is the president of the art club of Philadelphia. He is consul for the Argentine Republic, Chili, and Ecuador, at Philadelphia, and has filled these posts for many years. Several of Mr. Shippen's addresses on educational subjects have been published, among them one on the dedication of the Hollingsworth school, 31 October, 1867 (Philadelphia, 1867) ; "Compensation of Teachers" (1872); and "Educational Antiques" (1874).

--Edward, great-grandson of Chief-Justice Edward Shippen, surgeon, born in New Jersey, 18 June, 1826, is the son of Richard Shippen. He was graduated at Princeton in 1845, and at the medical department of the University of Pennsylvania in 1848, entered the navy as assistant surgeon, 7 August, 1849, and was commissioned surgeon, 26 April, 1861. He was on the "Congress" when she was destroyed by the "Merrimac" at Newport News, Virginia, and was injured by a shell, and in 1864-'5 was on the ironclad frigate "New Ironsides " in both attacks on Fort Fisher and the operations of Bermuda Hundred. He made the Russian cruise under Admiral Farragut, was commissioned medical inspector in 1871, was fleet-surgeon of the European squadron in 1871-'3, in charge of the Naval hospital in 1874-'7, commissioned medical director in 1876, and was president of the naval medical examining board at Philadelphia in 1880-'2.

Dr. Shippen has contributed largely to Hamersley's "Naval Encyclopaedia," the "United Service Magazine," and to kindred publications.

*347

Tench Coxe, a member of the second rank of this nation's Founders and a leading proponent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote prolifically about the right to keep and bear arms. In this Article, the authors trace Coxe's story, from his early writings in support of the Constitution, through his years of public service, to his political writings in opposition to the presidential campaigns of John Adams and John Quincy Adams. The authors note that Coxe described the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right, and believed that an individual right to bear arms was necessary for self-defense and hunting, as well as for militia purposes and protection against oppression by large standing armies.

"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."

But National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said it's not Obama's words — but his legislative track record — that has gun-buyers flocking to the stores.

"Prior to his campaign for president, his record as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator shows he voted for the most stringent forms of gun control, the most Draconian legislation, gun bans, ammunition bans and even an increase in federal excise taxes up to 500 percent for every gun and firearm sold," Arulanandam said.

Obama answered "yes" in 1996 to a questionnaire from an Illinois group on whether he supported a handgun ban. But he later said a staffer filled out that answer and he did not support a ban.

Nationally, background checks for gun purchases jumped nearly 49 percent during the week Obama was elected, compared with the same time period last year, according to the FBI's National Instant Background Check System.

Anecdotally, gun dealers around the country have reported spikes in sales. The Illinois State Rifle Association Reports gun sales for November were 38 percent higher than last year.

"We don't dispute [the gun sales hike] because the numbers from the federal system certainly confirm that there is increased activity out there. We just think it's a bit stupid," said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign against Gun Violence.

"Anyone who thinks they need to rush out and buy a firearm clearly has not been paying attention to how quickly we make progress on this issue. We don't think these are first-time buyers. We think they are people who already have more than enough guns at their homes to protect themselves and are buying more."

Don't violate Second Amendment rights

Adam Brown

  By Matt O'Donnell

LEHIGH COUNTY, Pa. - October 8, 2008 (WPVI) -- Senator McCain and Governor Palin agreed to speak with us exclusively for five minutes - they ended up giving us nearly 10.

We began by asking them about the $700-billion bailout and bad banking.

Matt
Executives with AIG were vacationing lavishly in California, having a grand time, as the government began the process of trying to bail the company out with taxpayer dollars, should those corporate executives and those like them be imprisoned for their actions?

Sen. McCain
Oh, I don't know if they ought to be imprisoned because everybody has a right to a fair trial, but one of the things I insisted on when I came back to Washington was that taxpayers not pay for CEO salaries any more than the highest government official.

Matt
Do you believe any of their behavior has been criminal?

Gov. Palin
We'll find out, but, atrocious behavior, that is why we're thankful also for Senator McCain working so hard for reform. Remember a couple years ago, he was the one that led the charge in really ringing that warning bell with Fannie and Freddie.

Matt
Are you saying that you really warned that there were some catastrophic times ahead if we didn't change things?

Sen. McCain
Well, I and a number of other members of the Senate predicted exactly this, yes, and I'll give a copy of the letter we wrote. Because it was corruption. Because they were taking their money and they were the influence of the lobbyists, we all know that.

Matt
Four Philadelphia police officers have been shot and killed in line of duty since May of 2006, city officials say the big problem is the availability of guns and the city wants to pass its own gun laws, stricter than those of the state, would you support a locality passing stricter gun laws than that of its state?

Gov. Palin
Well, the city, the state, needs to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys, out of those who would not follow any law anyway even if you do add more laws on top of what's already there. I am a supporter of 2nd Amendment rights for those who are law-abiding citizens.

Matt
Should Philadelphia be allowed to pass stricter gun laws than Pennsylvania itself?

Sen. McCain
No, because 2nd Amendment rights are a right guaranteed by our constitution.

Also, McCain made a pledge about Social Security.

Sen. McCain
No, I would not privatize Social Security, but I would allow young Americans to put some of their own money, just as they can today, into a retirement account.

Gov. Palin
There's no presidential election cycle without the Democrat candidate coming into some of these states and putting the fear of God into us, especially, our esteemed elders' minds.

Click here to get the latest Philadelphia news and headlines from across the Delaware and Lehigh valleys.

By Harry Minium
The Virginian-Pilot

© October 5, 2008
NORFOLK

Once again, members of a guns-rights advocacy group are coming to City Hall, claiming their rights have been violated by the police.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League, a Northern Virginia-based group, said 100 or more of its members will descend upon Tuesday's City Council meeting to vent their displeasure, many with guns holstered to their hips.

The group is upset about a police confrontation involving a member carrying a weapon openly, which is legal in Virginia.

The group last came to the City Council in August 2007, when members protested the arrest of Chet Szymecki of Yorktown at Harborfest for openly carrying a gun. The charge was dropped; Szymecki has filed a federal suit against the city.

They also protested at that meeting about alleged harassment of Danladi Moore, a Peninsula resident who was stopped twice by police and questioned for openly carrying a gun shortly before the meeting.

The city paid Moore $10,000 in July to prevent what could have been long and costly litigation.

However, Moore said, he again was stopped, on Sept. 22, this time while attempting to ride a Hampton Roads Transit bus with a gun. Moore claims police took his gun, ordered him off a bus and threatened to arrest him before eventually giving the gun back and letting him go.

Chris Amos, police spokesman, said he couldn't respond to Moore's specific claims about his September run-in with officers.

"All I know is, we responded to a call for service," Amos said. "We are not at liberty to just refuse" to do so.

Amos said that after Moore's previous incidents, police leaders "sent a memo out in-house reasserting the rights citizens have to carry firearms in plain view." There hasn't been time to react to the latest incident, he said.

Philip Van Cleave, a Midlothian resident who heads the guns-rights group, said he believes Moore will sue the city over the latest incident.

"If Norfolk doesn't begin to get it right, Danladi may wind up owning a yacht or a castle somewhere," he said. "At some point, the people of Norfolk are going to get tired of their tax money being thrown away because the police are violating a basic right," he added.

City Council members acknowledged that the city may have erred, but they accused gun owners of being provocative.

Councilman W. Randy Wright has a concealed-weapons permit, has won awards for marksmanship and believes in gun rights, he said. Yet he said he is appalled by anyone who walks around with a gun in a holster.

"Walking around downtown with a gun on your hip, that's just somebody trying to get attention, somebody trying to embarrass the city," he said. "This is not Wyatt Earp in the wild, wild West. It's an urban city with lots of problems.

"It does absolutely nothing to further the rights of the Second Amendment."

Replied Van Cleave: "He's admitting the city has a lot of problems. That, in itself, is a reason to carry, because you may need to protect yourself."

Van Cleave said he wonders if the incident with Moore was racially motivated, as he is black.

Councilman Paul R. Riddick said that's ridiculous.

"When you see a guy standing downtown in front of a bank with a gun on, what would you expect the average policeman to do?" he said. "You'd expect him to find out what the hell is going on."

Riddick and other council members weren't aware of the financial settlement with Moore. "Before we issue another $10,000 check, we should go to the highest court in the land," he said.

Councilman Barclay C. Winn, who is a hunter, said the guns-rights group's actions are precisely why he won't joint the NRA - the powerful lobbyists the National Rifle Association.

"I believe in the right to bear arms," he said. "But I just don't understand why somebody feels the need to strap a gun on his side, knowing full well that people are going to be alarmed and upset. I don't understand why they have to be such big, bad macho men."

Van Cleave said this is not about being macho - it's about exercising a constitutional right.

"What the city of Norfolk is asking us to do is to give up one of our basic constitutional rights," he said. "Would you ask black citizens to sit in the back of the bus and shut up?"

Riddick left while Van Cleave's group spoke during last year's meeting, saying he didn't want to dignify the group by staying. The meeting was at times tense.

Riddick said he knows a way to ease the tension.

"We should call Bob's Gun Shop and have him deliver eight 9-millimeters to us," he said. "We'll keep them on our desk in case we need them."

Pilot writer Matthew Bowers contributed to this report.

Harry Minium, (757) 446-2371, harry.minium@pilotonline.com

Oct. 1, 2008

Gun shows do not increase homicides or suicides

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—A new study finds no evidence that gun shows lead to substantial increases in either gun-related homicides or suicides.

The University of Michigan and University of Maryland study also shows that tighter regulation of gun shows does not appear to reduce the number of firearms-related deaths.

"We believe that this analysis makes an important contribution to understanding the influence of gun shows, the regulation of which is arguably the most active area of federal, state, and local firearms policy," said Brian Jacob, a professor at the University of Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy.

"To our knowledge, this is the first study that directly examines the impact of gun shows on gun-related deaths."

Jacob wrote the study with co-authors Mark Duggan and Randi Hjalmarsson from the University of Maryland.

The researchers analyzed data from Texas and California, chosen because they are the nation's two most populated states, have large numbers of gun shows, and are at opposite ends of the spectrum regarding gun show regulation. California has some of the most aggressive gun show regulations, including background checks for all gun show purchasers and a 10-day waiting period to obtain the firearm. Texas has no similar regulations.

Data came from the dates and locations of more than 3,400 gun shows, and firearm-related deaths from 1994 to 2004. More than 105,000 homicides and suicides were reported in the two states during the 11-year period.

To determine the impact of gun shows, the authors traced the number of gun-related deaths in ZIP codes close to where gun shows took place, looking at how the number of deaths changed leading up to and following the shows. Researchers looked at the gun-related deaths in the weeks immediately after gun shows and actually found a small decline in the number of homicides following shows in Texas.

"The absence of gun show regulations does not increase the number of gun-related deaths as proponents of these regulations suggest," said Jacob, director of its Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP).

The researchers offered two caveats to their analyses. The study focused on the geographic areas surrounding the gun shows, and would not capture the effect when weapons were transported more than 25 miles away. In addition, the data tracked the effects only up to four weeks after the gun shows, which would exclude later gun-related deaths.

Related Links:

The study (.PDF)

Brian Jacob

Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy

Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Contact: Jared Wadley
Phone: (734) 936-7819

Related Categories: Public Policy

Related Keywords: gun control, guns