To: ALL MEDIA
For immediate release

June 28, 2010

Media Only:

Ted Novin
Office: 203-426-1320
Cell: 202-253-1860

Firearms Industry Hails Victory in
Supreme Court Second Amendment Case

NEWTOWN, Conn — The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for the firearms industry – hailed today’s United States Supreme Court 5-4 decision written by Justice Alito that ruled the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to the states and local government.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for freedom and liberty,” said NSSF President Stephen L. Sanetti. “All law-abiding Americans, no matter whether they live in a big city like Chicago or in rural Wyoming, have the same Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Constitutional rights don’t stop at state or city borders. Cities like Chicago and New York and states like California must now respect the Second Amendment.”

The case before the Court, McDonald v. City of Chicago, was filed in 2008 a day after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller — in which the high court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects an “individual” right to keep and bear arms. The Heller decision, however, did not reach the question of whether the Second Amendment also applied to the states.

Immediately after Heller, several Chicago residents including retired maintenance worker Otis McDonald filed a federal lawsuit challenging the city’s long-standing gun ban. The Chicago-based federal courts ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states and local governments, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to decide the question it left unanswered in its Heller decision.

“Today’s decision marks the beginning of a new era of civil rights litigation as laws and regulations that infringe upon and violate the individual right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment, are challenged,” said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. “As the trade association for America’s firearms industry, our members make the products through which our Second Amendment rights are realized. Just as the First Amendment protects and shields newspapers and media, the Second Amendment secures constitutional protections for our industry.”

NSSF filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of McDonald.

For more information and commentary on today’s ruling, please visit: WWW.NSSF.ORG.

###

I just read “the infamous Chapter 20 in Living with Glocks”.   It’s nice to have finally found something I can read that hits the core of what I believe.  I’ll be buying the book now.
G. in Texas

I am a Patriot, a Tea Party’er, I believe our govt, under its current leadership is out to destroy our constitution and it’s for that reason that I’m armed and for that reason I own a Glock, .. reliability. Having read some of your stuff, the 2nd Amendment is more important to me than my family and friends can realize and I enjoy reading your stuff. I believe tyranny is upon us and that history may repeat itself, and for that reason, I own a Glock, …and other firearms. It’s a real honor knowing who you are, who your Dad was and I know I hooked up with the best out there.

Sincerely, Bill

What was your reaction to The Constitutional Right and Social Obligation to Carry a Gun the first time you read it?

Here’s someone’s:

I recently read your article referenced above and I appreciate the spirit in
which it was intended. However, my issue is with the overall tone of your
article along with many other proponents of the 2nd Amendment.

I think we all agree the 2nd Amendment applies to individauls in both
ownership and carry. However, your overwhelming desire to use name-calling
instead of facts hurts our cause. I can’t say for certain if your article is
only to be consumed by the choir or if you’re actually trying to convince
others there might be a better way. You’d be hard-pressed to convince anyone
new to the issue.

There are many folks conservative, liberal and middle-of-the-road who are gun
owners. By making this an emotional, non-logical argument you alienate those
who may be interested in listening and the ones we should be out to convince.
Preaching to the choir may get more amens but it doesn’t do much for the
cause.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a Wednesday vote on a
State Department nominee who supports gun control on a global scale.

While advocates of the Second Amendment have come to expect that
appointees of President Barack Obama would be hostile to the rights of
gun owners, the president’s nominee for legal advisor to the State
Department reaches a whole new level of anti-gun extremism.

Harold Hongju Koh, who served at the State Department under the Clinton
administration, is a self-described “trans-nationalist” who
believes that our laws — and our Constitution — should be brought into
conformity with international agreements.

Harold Hongju Koh

“If you want to be in the global environment, you have to play by the
global rules,” Koh told a Cleveland audience.

Koh’s positions treat our constitutional law as if it were a mere local
ordinance on the greater world stage. This is of particular concern to
gun owners at a time when the U.S. Congress is under pressure from
President Obama to ratify an international gun control treaty with
countries in the western hemisphere.  That treaty, known by its Spanish
acronym CIFTA, would likely serve as a forerunner to a more extensive
United Nations initiative, the “Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and
Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its
Aspects.”

The Bush administration, under the leadership of UN Ambassador John
Bolton, rejected the small arms treaty.  Bolton plainly told the world
that the United States will not accept a gun control document that
violates our Constitutional right to bear arms.  Harold Koh commented
that Bolton was being “needlessly provocative.”

In a paper entitled “A world drowning in guns,” Koh maintains
that a civil society cannot exist with broad gun ownership: “Guns kill civil
society,” he said.

Koh is eager to assume his post at the State Department, having lamented
that there is only so much that can be done from the outside to push gun
control treaties, and that ultimately we need people like him in
positions of power.  The chief lawyer for the State Department is just
the position someone like him needs to put his agenda into play.

While Koh’s nomination has been delayed largely because of Second
Amendment concerns, Sen. Reid plans to force a vote this week.

It is imperative that gun owners contact their Senators and insist that
they vote AGAINST this anti-gun extremist.

ACTION:  Please contact your Senators immediately and urge them to
oppose Harold Hongju Koh’s nomination to the State Department.  You can
use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written
message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

The Senate is expected to soon vote on a State Department nominee who
supports gun control on a global scale.

Harold Hongju Koh, who served at the State Department under the Clinton
administration, is a self-described “trans-nationalist” who
believes
that our laws — and our Constitution — should be brought into
conformity with international agreements.

According to Koh, “If you want to be in the global environment, you have
to play by the global rules.”  Well, I don’t support global rules that
contradict our own Constitution.

Koh supports international gun control treaties such as the United
Nations initiative entitles the “Program of Action to Prevent, Combat
and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all
its Aspects.”

When former UN Ambassador John Bolton told the world that the United
States will not accept a gun control document that violates our
Constitutional right to bear arms, Harold Koh commented that Bolton was
being “needlessly provocative.”

And in a 2003 Fordham Law Review article entitled “A world drowning in
guns,” Koh maintains that a civil society cannot exist with broad gun
ownership: “Guns kill civil society,” he wrote.

I urge you to reject this trans-nationalist, anti-gun extremist who
would place foreign laws and international agreements on equal footing
(at minimum) with the U.S. Constitution.

Sincerely,

Click the above link to vote in a new USA Today poll.  The poll does not ask you for any personal info.  Just make your selection and hit ‘Vote Now.’  Then it shows you the current results (which we are currently dominating.)  After you vote, tell your friends to follow this link and vote too.  Hopefully, the results will be published later this month.

Morgan

Legislation loosens concealed gun law

By HOWARD FISCHER
Capitol Media Services
Friday, June 19, 2009

PHOENIX — Are you 18? Not convicted of a crime?

Legislation set for debate today would let you carry a concealed weapon without having to bother with the background check, training and proficiency test now required. Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said she believes all Arizonans should have the right to defend themselves. Allen, who does have a state-issued permit to carry a concealed gun, said she does not believe that makes gun owners any safer.

Senator Sylvia Allen

More to the point, she said the law makes Arizonans less safe.

Allen’s proposal, SB 1270, does not do away with the concealed weapon permits. In fact, it actually would give those who do decide to get those permits the right to carry their guns into places now off limits, ranging from school campuses in certain circumstances to various public events and buildings — including, as the measure is now worded, the public gallery of the state Senate.

Her proposal drew alarm from Attorney General Terry Goddard along with a handful of police chiefs and sheriffs.

“This bill would made a radical and very dangerous change in state law,” Goddard said at a Thursday press conference. “It would put our law enforcement officers at significant increased risk.”

El Mirage Police Chief Mike Frazier said what Allen has proposed in SB 1270 would change how officers deal with the public.

“We’ve worked very hard to develop relationships within the community,” he said. Frazier said that means officers, in general, assume that most people they deal with are not hiding a gun.

“Now you’re concerned that every person you come into contact with is armed,” Frazier said. “And I can tell you, that will change the dynamic between the way we treat citizens that we deal with every day.”

But Allen said the protests against loosening state gun laws ignore a basic fact: Criminals don’t obey the laws we have now.

“Criminals could care less about any of the gun laws we pass,” she said.

“Gun laws are to restrict me, the law-abiding citizen,” Allen continued. “It’s not to restrict the criminal.”

Frazier conceded the point.

“I realize that criminals are going to carry guns,” he said.

“That’s why they’re criminals,” Frazier said. “But we’re talking about now having to be overly concerned about who may, in thinking they’re doing the right thing, pull a weapon in trying to assist us and, in fact, make things worse.”

Virtually anyone is entitled to carry a weapon in the open, a constitutional right going back to territorial days. But the idea of concealed weapons permits is a more recent legislative creation, dating only to 1994.

Goddard said lawmakers wanted to be sure that only those with additional training got to carry weapons out of sight.

Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris said one of the things that training does is tell people that they should always tell an approaching police officer that they are armed. Nothing in the law, however, actually requires such disclosure.

Goddard, who intends to run for governor next year, said he also is concerned with provisions in SB 1270 that would let those who do decide to get permits to take their guns some places not now allowed.

For example, the measure would allow anyone with a state permit to go onto school grounds with that gun “for the purpose of picking up or dropping off a student.”

Allen said that exception is justified.

“They’re law-abiding citizens,” she said. “They’re not out to do any harm.”

Allen said she sometimes keeps her gun in her vehicle.

“So I take my grandchildren to school,” she continued. “All of a sudden, oh my gosh, I am breaking the law dropping them off at school, I have got to run back home and take that out of my car.”

Bringing the weapon into the school, however, would remain forbidden.

But the special privileges would not end there.

The wording of the legislation would let those with state permits take their concealed weapons into many public buildings, including the Senate. Allen said she has no concern with people with concealed weapons coming into the building where she works.

“They’re law-abiding citizens,” she said.

“You won’t even know they have anything,” Allen continued. “They aren’t going to use it unless their life is threatened.”

OK, I’ve been watching this for a couple of weeks.  Knife-rights organizations have been blowing it all out of proportion.  Now the NRA makes it sound like Obama himself is going to organize a pocket knife turn-in program.  These types of organizations tend to try to stir up fear.  I think they’ve missed the real frightening point of this proposal.

The deeper meaning behind this legislation is this:  It is an attempt to establish a legal precedent, one of the most powerful statutory tools of over-reaching government.

In a nutshell, the new law proposes that ‘assisted’ (either by spring or gravity) knives should be considered Switchblades.  They’ve called out a few of these knives (detailed in the law) and describe them as having no legitimate utilitarian purpose.  They describe them as designed only for use as ‘weapons.’  Read it, as I did, here.

OK.  That’s fine.  Some knives are in fact only intended as weapons.  Some would say that restricting those knives from entering the USA is a good thing.  But think about what that means.  Asside from the fact that everyone needs something that is ‘just a weapon’ sometimes.  Think about the precedent this is setting.  What other class of tools can be handily prohibited if it is shown that ‘weapons’ can legitamately be outlawed?  What about your handguns?  It can be argued, particularly for Glocks, that there is no other reason to have a handgun except to use it as a weapon.

We must not let this ‘Pocket Knife Assault Ban’ get through.  It is much more serious than it appears.

Below is the NRA news blurb and an email from KnifeRights.org.

Friday, June 12, 2009
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued a proposed rule change that directly targets the importation of “assisted opening” folding knives.  (Read the proposed rule here.) The proposed regulations would designate all these knives as “switchblades” (despite the fact they do not fall under the federal definition of “switchblades”), and would make them illegal for import into the United States. The proposed rule could affect all knives that can be opened with one hand, because it also includes changes in the interpretation of “gravity and inertia” opening knives in a way that could outlaw all knives that can be opened with a single hand. This means the new regulation could ban the importation of most of the pocketknives that are now in popular use.  

And it could have a far greater impact.  The American Knife and Tool Institute and Knife Rights, Inc. have both reviewed the proposed new regulations and are very concerned that the impact will be far greater than just a ban on the importation of assisted opening knives.  If the new regulations also affect the broader category of single-handed opening knives, it could make millions of knives illegal for import.  More importantly, many local jurisdictions and some states depend on the definitions used by the CBP.  These changes could make hundreds of millions of knives now in regular use, illegal.  And, of course, millions of hunters use and rely on their knives and would be adversely affected by this proposed regulation.

CBP is attempting to expedite this rulemaking and is only keeping comments open until June 21, 2009.  The American Knife and Tool Institute and Knife Rights, Inc. are leading the charge against the.  For more information and to make your voice heard in opposition to these new regulations, please go to: http://www.kniferights.org/index and http://www.akti.org/.

Knife Rights News Slice Vol. 2 Number 5This newsletter is emailed to Knife Rights members, those who have notified Knife Rights of their interest in the issues discussed and the news media.  If you prefer not to receive these emails from Knife Rights, please email: dritter@kniferights.org and ask to be removed.

A digital copy of this News Slice can be found online at: http://www.kniferights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=1

Customs Says “NO EXTENSION!” – They Want Your Pocket Knives NOW!CBP’s denial of an extension seems to be a clear indication that they do not intend to act in a fair and reasonable manner on this issue and have already made their decision to go ahead. That may be a somewhat cynical viewpoint, but given the history of CBP, it seems like a good bet. That means we have to set the stage for the next act, which will likely be conducted both in court and in Congress. The battle is far from over; your comments will play a key role in both efforts. If you haven’t yet submitted comments, you need to do it NOW!  Your comments on the record will make a difference and the more the better.

Breaking News: We have received word that U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) has DENIED the numerous requests for extension that it had received from Knife Rights, AKTI, manufacturers and citizens like you, and is planning to stick with the June 21 deadline for comments.

In light of the denial, Knife Rights has re-written our Model Comments letter for concerned knife owners to send to CBP.  If you have not already sent your letter to CPB, please do so TODAY!  If you want to send another letter, it couldn’t hurt. The comments cannot be emailed, they must be mailed or sent by FedEx/UPS, etc. and they must be received in Washington, DC, no later than June 20, 2009.  (The deadline is Sunday, June 21, but there’s no mail delivery on Sunday).

To all of the hundreds of you who have already sent letters, thank you very much.  It will make a difference in the end.A number of emails have asked where it explicitly says in the CBP’s document that they are going after almost all pocket knives. If you are looking for explicit language to that effect, you won’t find it. That would be too easy, and CBP had no interest in a direct confrontation of that magnitude. They were, after all, trying to slip this one through in the first place as just a minor ruling change. One has to take the logical next step based on the rationales provided by Customs in expanding the interpretation of a switchblade to assisted openers to see where that is headed. It is not even a small leap from assisted openers to one-hand openers, if they succeed. From there to slipjoint folders that can be opened using various tricks one-handed is only another very small step.

If their new ruling is accepted and put in place, the next step will be seizing a warehouse full of imported one-hand openers, which they can legally do, declaring them to also meet their now very broadly defined interpretation of what a switchblade is. They came very close to doing that a few years back in a seizure involving Columbia River Knife & Tool. With this ruling in place, they would succeed. Then the definition of what is a switchblade is expanded even further. It is this that has knife owners and the knifemaking industry up in arms, because our lawyers understand how these bureaucrats use these rulings and language games to get well beyond what it appears at first glance they are reaching for.

For those who are just now hearing of this, you can find our original News Slice with an expanded explanation of the issues and links to the original CBP document, etc., at:

http://www.kniferights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=1
or
http://tinyurl.com/lbcz4q

We need you to write CBP NOW!  Their 30 day deadline is fast approaching and these letters must go via postal mail (or Fedex/UPS).  Click below for a Model Letter you can send to CBP. You MUST write TODAY!http://www.kniferights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=29
or
http://tinyurl.com/q7w8tm

We also want to continue efforts to bring this absurd proposal and CBP’s efforts to take our pocket knives away to the attention of Congress. Based on feedback already received from some more gullible Members who have swallowed CBP’s story hook, line and sinker, we have revised our Model Letter to Congress to emphasize the far reaching effects that this ruling will have, both on millions of law-abiding citizens and by destroying the vibrant knifemaking industry. This is clearly NOT just about imported assisted openers, no matter how much CBP wants us to believe that.

We must flood Congress with letters so they understand the gravity of the situation. This will be a huge help going forward, so please get your emails out today. Click below for a Model Letter you can send to Members of Congress. Only your efforts will stop this and save our Knife Rights!

http://www.kniferights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=29
or
http://tinyurl.com/qqvmns

We are not about to roll over for this clearly out-of-control government agency. But, we need your help to stop them. Your letters and emails will make a difference!

Knife Rights Retains Nappen Law FirmWith the denial of an extension, our primary attention now shifts to submitting comments on the proposal by the deadline. Towards that end, Knife Rights has retained the law firm of E.F. Nappen Attorney at Law, PC. Evan and his associates specialize in gun and knife criminal cases. Evan is a leading authority on the Federal Switchblade Act and has authored numerous articles on the subject.

As you might suspect, such expertise does not come free. The good news, such as it is, is that with such a tight deadline, the cost is limited, if not insignificant. We need your support to do this; we don’t have a large cash horde or the financial resources of some larger organizations. Please consider becoming a member at the Benefactor level to help pay for this defense of our knife rights.

We’re also setting up a contributions page, but it has been delayed due to technical issues and it will be a day or so before it is up and running.

SAF and CCRKBA Joins with Knife Rights
 
The Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have joined with Knife Rights to help fight this unwarranted knife grab by Customs. They are supporting us with Email Alerts to their membership and additional resources. SAF founder, Alan Gottlieb, noted, “we stand with Knife Rights in their support of Americans’ right to own and carry the knives of their choice.” 

And, just a reminder, the Second Amendment doesn’t say “Firearms,” it says “Arms.” Knives are clearly covered. Clearly the founding fathers expected that knives would be included.

NRA Joins the FightWe have also been working with the National Rifle Association in recent days and they have officially taken this issue up and you should soon be seeing evidence of their involvement if you are an NRA member. NRA recognizes that this ruling will not only affect virtually every NRA member, but that the precedent it would set would not be good for supporters of the Second Amendment.

NRA Alert:  http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4972

Again, the Second Amendment doesn’t say “Firearms,” it says “Arms.” While we primarily focus on our knives as essential tools, mankind’s oldest, our essential rights to own and carry knives are enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Spread the Word!Please, forward on this email to all your friends, email list servers, post it on forums and encourage everyone you know to get on board. Remember, regardless of where you are active online, a significant proportion of your fellow online participants and contacts use and carry a pocket knife. They will be impacted. They need to know. And, that’s the point.  It’s not just a few knife enthusiasts.

You can also add a sig line or button to your email or forum signatures or a banner to your web site to help spread the word about Customs’ rulemaking:

http://www.kniferights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=1
or
http://tinyurl.com/lpglwf

Knife Rights on TwitterKnife Rights is now on Twitter and we’ll issue critical updates and notices on Twitter as this issue evolves:  http://www.twitter.com/KnifeRights

Join Knife Rightshttp://www.kniferights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=52&Itemid=39
or
http://tinyurl.com/qnu988

Your membership dues help support our efforts to protect your rights. Invest a modest sum in A Sharper Future™. Join at the Benefactor level to help us even more. JOIN NOW!

Doug Ritter
Chairman and Executive Director
Knife Rights, Inc.
a 501(c)(4) Member Organization
dritter@KnifeRights.org

Have you signed up? Go to: www.KnifeRights.org
Protecting your right to own and carry knives and pocket tools

BELLEVUE, WA – The nomination of Second Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court is a slap at gun rights and the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Judge Sotomayor, a New York native, ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“While Democrats in Congress have been making great strides in the gun rights arena, refusing to consider a renewal of the Clinton gun ban, and offering overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation allowing citizens to carry firearms in national parks, President Obama just demonstrated that he prefers judges who oppose Second Amendment rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb.

Incorporation may be taken up by the high court during its next session beginning in October, because attorneys in the Maloney case plan to appeal in late June.

“If the Maloney appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb wondered, “would Justice Sotomayor – provided she is confirmed – recuse herself from deliberations?”

Judge Sotomayor has written an opinion that declined to order the release of certain information under the Freedom of Information Act. In one case, according to SCOTUSblog, she wrote that the “unwarranted invasion of privacy” for individuals whose names would be release under an FOIA request outweighed the public interest.

“Would a Justice Sotomayor be just as protective of the privacy rights of concealed carry permit holders if a newspaper wanted to publish that information,” Gottlieb asked. “We hope that during Senate confirmation hearings, someone asks about her positions on incorporation and the privacy rights of gun owners. The Second Amendment needs to be expanded, not eviscerated.”