•  
• 3 teens arrested in Goshen with handgun

NEW YORK STATE

•  
• New York Bill Would Create Advocate for Wildlife-(read anti-hunting)
• S467 Making it illegal to wear a Bullet proof vest during a violent crime passes
• Republicans and Gov. Pataki want your $$$

• CONGRESS CONSIDERS "DEMILITARIZATION" REQUIREMENT
• University asks historian to defend his research on gun ownership book
• F.O.P. Says Let Police Carry Firearms Nationwide
• Conn. Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of Bridgeport Lawsuit
• Guns and criminals: More gun laws = more thugs with guns
• McCain using 9/11 to push for more gun control/ gun show check
• Fall out from 9/11
• BATF has not received mail since October 25
• US Supreme Court Won't Hear N.J. Weapons Case
• NJ Court affirms dismissal of Camden County, (NJ) gun lawsuit
• BRADY FALLS UPON HARD TIMES
• U.S. v. Emerson Ruling Is In - Celebrate -- With Reservations

• Handgun company, (Smith & Wesson,) says it had $7.6 million in sales last month

 

   Teens charged with having handgun
   Three teen-agers from Westchester County were jailed Thursday after a state trooper found a loaded handgun in their car, police said.
   The vehicle was stopped about 1:30 p.m. for speeding in Goshen while heading west on Route 17. After smelling marijuana, a trooper searched the 2001 Dodge Neon and found 15 grams of marijuana and a loaded, .25-caliber pistol, police said.
   Arrested were Dante Beamon, 16, of White Plains; Kevin Moore, 19, of White Plains; and Keith Rogers, 19, of Mount Vernon. Beamon was the driver.
   Each was charged with second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, a felony, and unlawful possession of marijuana, a violation. They were sent to Orange County Jail after being arraigned. Rogers' bail was set at $5,000 cash; Moore and Beamon's bail was $7,500 cash.

    Legislation filed on September 6th could greatly change the way wildlife is managed in New York by creating a new cabinet position, the Advocate of Wildlife, to advise the Governor and legislature on policies and plans that affect wildlife programs.
    Assembly Bill 9421 would allow the appointment of an Advocate of Wildlife to advise elected officials on wildlife programs and recommend legislation to protect the resource. The Advocate would conduct studies relating to the protection, conservation, and preservation of wildlife and be able to appoint officers, committees, and agents to pursue goals. The bill specifically instructs the Advocate to promote non-lethal methods of wildlife control.(emphasis mine-LRS)
    Every state, including New York, already has a department of environmental or wildlife conservation to manage wildlife and habitat. These state agencies balance the wildlife resource with the needs of the people. The proposed position basically duplicates the state agency, but with a new focus.  Assembly Bill 9421 would give the Advocate broad power that seems to supercede the state wildlife agency.
    Assembly Bill 9421 is currently under consideration in the Assembly Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Information on this website can be reprinted with a citation to WLFA and www.wlfa.org
For more information about how you can protect your rights as a sportsman, contact The Wildlife
Legislative Fund of America, 801 Kingsmill Parkway, Columbus, OH 43229. Phone (614) 888-4868.
E-Mail us at info@wlfa.org

    The following new law was passed and signed by the Gov. on 9/19/01 so that means that it is in effect now.
TITLE....Prohibits the wearing of a bullet proof vest during the commission of a violent offense while possessing 
a rifle or shotgun.

S3678
001-2002 Regular Sessions 
I N  S E N A T E
March 19, 2001
___________
Introduced  by  Sen. VOLKER -- (at request of the New York State Police)
         -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to
         the Committee on Codes                                                
                                                                               
       AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to the  unlawful  wearing  of
         body vests                                                            
                                                                               
         THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
       BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:                                               
                                                                               
    1    Section 1. Subdivision 1 of section 270.20 of the penal law, as  added
    2  by chapter 56 of the laws of 1984, is amended to read as follows:       
    3    1.  A  person  is  guilty  of the unlawful wearing of a body vest when
    4  acting either alone or with one or more other  persons  he  commits  any
    5  violent  felony  offense  defined  in  section  70.02 while possessing a
    6  firearm, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN and in the course of  and  in  furtherance  of
    7  such crime he wears a body vest.                                        
    8    S  2.  This  act  shall  take effect on the first day of November next
    9  succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.

By David Mehegan, Globe Staff, 10/3/2001
    Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles, author of a controversial book on gun ownership in early America, has been asked by his department to write a detailed defense of his research for the book.
    The 2000 book, ''Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture,'' won the prestigious Bancroft Prize for history, but a story last month in the Globe appeared to confirm a pattern of questionable research claims.
    ''What is important is that he defend himself and the integrity of his scholarship immediately,'' said James Melton, Emory history department chairman. ''Depending upon his reponse, the university will respond appropriately.''
    Melton added, ''If there is prima facie evidence of scholarly misconduct, the university has to conduct a thorough investigation. Whether it be a purely internal inquiry, or the university brings in distinguished scholars in the field, will depend on how Michael responds. It is important that he be accorded due process.''
    Bellesiles's book argued that few Americans had owned guns in early America, and that more than half of those that were owned were old or broken. The book set off a storm of protest by gun-owner organizations, but independent scholars also raised serious questions about the veracity of Bellesiles's research. The Globe story confirmed allegations that San Francisco probate records, which Bellesiles had cited in his book as one of his sources, had been destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire. It also confirmed that an article by Bellesiles on his Web site, defending his work, misstated the contents of some 18th-century Vermont probate records.
    Melton, in a telephone interview yesterday, said, ''I advised him that he needed to find a public professional forum where he would give a full and complete response to the allegations against him.'' Melton's letter to Bellesiles asked for ''a detailed point by point response.''
    Bellesiles, responding by e-mail to a request for comment by the Globe, confirmed he will write a response in the quarterly newsletter of the Organization of American Historians. He wrote, ''I am trying to treat errors in an honest, scholarly, and non-confrontational form.''
    David Mehegan can be reached by e-mail at d-mehegan@globe.com.
This story ran on page C5 of the Boston Globe on 10/3/2001. © Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.

    Steve Young, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, urges the Bush Administration to include H.R. 218, the "Community Protection Act," enabling qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry their firearms when traveling outside their own jurisdiction into legislation aimed at improving public safety. "For too long, this has been considered to be a 'firearms issue,'" Young said. "If it ever was just a 'firearms issue' it certainly is that no longer. On Sept. 11, 2001, it became a critical public safety issue."

Connecticut's Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Bridgeport's lawsuit against gun makers Oct. 1, saying the city had no legal standing to sue and that none of the city's arguments withstood judicial scrutiny.

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain says he will force Senate consideration of a controversial gun control measure early next year bolstered by a newly powerful argument: Foreign terrorists have exploited a loophole to buy weapons at gun shows while bypassing federal background checks.
    "Clearly, alleged members of terrorist organizations have been able to secure guns and weapons using the gun show loophole," McCain, R-Ariz., said ...

"Several lawmakers described colleagues - including some advocates of strict controls on handguns - who are now seeking firearms training in hopes of protecting themselves if the need should arise."

    And so ended the appeal of the NJ assault weapons ban.  NJ has one of the worse AWBs because it included guns legally purchased and owned and guns that in no way were AWs.  Any 22 rifle with a tube feed that would hold more than 15 rounds of  22 cal.  Short were banned.  (NJ is also know for its ban of all hollow point ammo.)  While this is not what we would like it still is not the end of the world.  The court could feel that the topic is not "RIPE" or that this is not  the best case.  It could also be waiting to see how the federal AWB turns out in 2004 when it comes up for renewal.
    The ban, enacted in 1991, forbids the possession, sale or transport of assault weapons or large-capacity ammunition clips. The law applied retroactively to guns purchased before the law was passed.
    A group led by the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen argued the law is unconstitutional because it is vague in describing the guns to be banned, focuses on brand names displayed on guns and forces people to join a target shooting club to qualify for an exemption. New Jersey's law listed 37 models by name but also covered others that are ``substantially identical'' to any on the list.

NRA FACT SHEET: "Assault Weapons" & Semi-Autos

    A federal appeals court in Philadelphia yesterday affirmed last year's decision by a federal judge dismissing Camden County's "public nuisance" lawsuit against 21 firearms manufacturers and dealers seeking restitution for the costs of gun violence.
    In an unsigned but unanimous opinion, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit wrote that the lawsuit was filed under New Jersey's public-nuisance statute and that a federal court had no authority to "expand or narrow state law in ways not foreshadowed by state precedent. Here, no New Jersey precedents support the county's public-nuisance claim or provided a sound basis for predicting that the Supreme Court of New Jersey would find that claim to be valid."
    The Camden County lawsuit was one of a series of suits against firearms companies since 1999 in an effort to force the gun makers to incorporate safety features in firearms. Last year Philadelphia officials dropped a similar lawsuit after Smith & Wesson, the nation's largest firearms maker, agreed to produce safer weapons.

    In a major victory for gun manufacturers, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday upheld the dismissal of a suit brought by Camden County, New Jersey, that accused gun makers of creating a "public nuisance" and sought to recoup the governmental costs associated with gun-related crimes.
    "Whatever the precise scope of public nuisance law in New Jersey may be, no New Jersey court has ever allowed a public nuisance claim to proceed against manufacturers for lawful products that are lawfully placed in the stream of commerce," the unanimous three-judge panel said ...

SEVEN-STEP CHAIN
In response, defense lawyers argued that the factual allegations amounted to an "attenuated" chain of events.
To link the manufacturers to the nuisance of gun crimes, they said, the county has to take seven steps:
• The manufacturers produce the firearms.
• They sell the firearms to federally licensed distributors.
• Those distributors sell them to federally licensed dealers.
• Some of the firearms are later diverted by unnamed third parties into an illegal gun market, which spills into Camden County.
• The diverted firearms are obtained by unnamed third parties who are not entitled to own or possess them.
• Those firearms are then used in criminal acts that kill and wound county residents.
• And finally, this harm causes the county to expend resources to prevent or respond to those crimes.

    As a result, defense lawyers said, the manufacturers are six steps removed from the criminal end-users. And the fourth link in this chain, they said, consists of acts committed by intervening third parties who divert some handguns into an illegal market.
    Now the 3rd Circuit has sided completely with the gun manufacturers.
 

November 8, 2001 Dear Friends,
     Regretfully, I must report to you that in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, we have been forced to make significant cut backs in our programs, threatening our ability to fight for a safer America. ...
    ...  the Brady Campaign is aggressively pushing for new legislation to add three gun safety measures to anti-terrorist efforts being undertaken by Congress and the Justice Department.

• Gun Safety Measure #1: Comprehensive criminal background checks for absolutely all gun purchases, whether they are made at licensed gun dealers, gun shows, flea markets or through classified ads.
• Gun Safety Measure #2: Permanent retention of all firearm sales records to ensure that law-enforcement officials can track terrorists, trace their weapons, and know what threats they are facing when they attempt to apprehend these criminals.
• Gun Safety Measure #3: Increase identity verification by requiring two forms of valid I.D. and proof of residency.

     This is our immediate agenda, and I must tell you that that our financial shortfall is seriously jeopardizing our ability to meet this challenge. In fact, as a part of our forced downsizing and restructuring, we have been forced to lay off approximately 20 percent of our staff.
     Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association, with its deep pockets, continues to try to exploit the September terrorist attacks as a reason to buy more guns. But, we cannot let the gun lobby win the day.
     We cannot let the terrorists intimidate us, nor let the NRA and the gun industry win. We must move forward. And to do that, we are dependent upon you and all of our members and supporters. Thank you for your helping during these difficult times.                     SARA

by John G. Lankford, October 16, 2001

    The Fifth Circuit's ruling in U.S. v. Emerson, released today, gives proponents of the individual right to keep and bear arms reason to cheer. But not quite as much reason as many may think.
    Evaluation of the import of judicial decisions and their supporting opinions begins with the premise that the narrowest possible meaning be attributed.
    In this case, the Fifth Circuit stated that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms free of federal infringement was indeed personal rather than one allocated to states, or to individuals only when actually participating in the business of a state-organized militia, now, for all practical purposes, the National Guard.
    But, despite the Court's couching its conclusion following its extensive analysis of that issue as a "holding", it was in fact "obiter dictum", observations on the law not strictly necessary to decide the case.
    The Court held against Mr. Emerson. It reversed the District Court which had dismissed the charge against him. That court dismissed on the grounds that Mr. Emerson's right to keep and bear arms was personal, and the federal statute under which he was charged could not be allowed to infringe that right under the circumstances his case presented.
    Reversing, the 5th Circuit agreed that his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was personal, but that, under the circumstances, the federal statute he was held to have violated could Constitutionally  incriminate him.
    In other words, the 5th Circuit could have said,

"It does not matter whether the Second Amendment protects for Mr. Emerson a personal right to keep and bear arms. If it does not, the statute may operate and his conviction is valid. If it does, under the circumstances presented, the statute does not present a Constitutionally impermissible infringement on that right, and his conviction is valid nevertheless."