CCRKBA APPLAUDS HOUSE, SENATE VOTE ON PARKS PERSONAL PROTECTION

BELLEVUE, WA – With passage by the House earlier today of legislation that will allow legally armed citizens to carry loaded firearms in national parks, Congress has taken a responsible step toward increasing park safety for millions of visitors, whether they are armed or not, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said.

The measure passed the Senate last week on a lopsided 67-29 vote with 27 Democrats and one Independent joining 39 Republicans. Today’s House vote was equally lopsided, with 279 voting in favor of the measure and 147 voting against it.

“This is a great victory for gun rights and common sense,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “The gun prohibitionist lobby thought they had outmaneuvered the constitution with a lawsuit in March that blocked a new National Park Service rule to allow licensed concealed carry in parks. However, this legislation, which we expect President Obama to sign, essentially moots that lawsuit.

“Citizens do not leave their right of self-defense at the entrance of a national park,” he continued. “Unarmed park visitors will benefit from the deterrent effect this new statute will have on criminals, and that will be especially important if budget cuts reduce the number of commissioned park rangers.

“Those who portray this measure as an attack on public safety will soon be proven wrong, as they have been in the past when they opposed concealed carry legislation in state after state,” Gottlieb predicted. “This new law, which takes effect nine months after the president signs it, restores the Second Amendment to national parks and wildlife refuges.

“Public land, including national park and refuge land, belongs to all of the people,” Gottlieb concluded. “Armed citizens have just as much right to enjoy these parks as anyone, and their presence will make parks safer.”

Tim discusses his inspiration for creating Concealed Carry Magazine: Chapter 20 in Living with Glocks by Robert H. Boatman

I’d like to tell you a story. I hope it will inspire you. It all started for me about four years ago. It was a sunny, yet cool, October morning. I was sitting on an airplane reading an article called The Constitutional Right and Social Obligation to Carry A Gun, by Robert Boatman. A good friend of mine had given me the article and said, “Tim, you just have to read this!” I wish you could have been there with me. I couldn’t’t believe some of the things that I was reading. This Boatman guy had written words that were going straight to what matters most to me. His words were inspiring to say the least. You see, I was a new father at the time and the responsibility of taking care of my wife and new child were weighing heavily on me.
I shifted uncomfortably in my chair as I continued to read. Boatman wrote,

“Carrying a gun is a social responsibility.”

A social responsibility? Come on. I always thought that only cops were supposed to carry guns. Heck, I grew up around guns. My Dad had me shooting is .357 Magnum when I was 10… but carrying one everyday? Now that seemed a little intense. Well, I kept on reading.

Boatman:  “A citizen who shirks his duty to contribute to the
security of his community is little better than the
criminal who threatens it.”

Wow. What he was saying was astounding. I had never really thought that carrying a gun was really that important. And now this guy was telling me that I am “shirking my duty” if I’m not willing to arm myself? Hold on for just one second… Could It Be True? No one had ever told me I wasn’t responsible. Could it be? Was it possible that Boatman was pulling my head out of the sand? Heck, I live in a small town with almost no crime. We sometimes forget to lock our front door! The article went on to cite many interesting statistics regarding the effects of “good guys” carrying concealed guns.

Boatman:  “Even though most people do not carry guns, the
mere possibility that an intended victim could be
armed with a handgun eliminates millions of crimes
every year” “According to the FBI, states with “shall-issue” right-to-carry laws have a 26 percent lower total violent crime rate, a 20 percent lower homicide rate, a 39 percent lower robbery rate and a 22 percent lower aggravated assault rate than those states that do not allow their citizens to legally carry guns.”

“Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at
Florida State University, Gary Kleck, in Point
Blank: Gun Violence in America found that ‘robbery
and assault victims who used a gun to resist were
less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury
than those who used any other method of self-
protection or those who did not resist at all.’”

I sat in my chair utterly dumbfounded. The harsh words from Boatman, coupled with the mind- blowing statistics, had really opened my eyes. I’d always been fond of saying, “You’re either part of the problem or part of the solution.” It was pretty clear to me what side I was on.

Learn more about Living with Glocks.

I just finished Living with Glocks.  Good book, I have to tell you I thought Chapter 20 is where the rubber meets the road.  I knew nothing about guns or shooting until November of last year when I thought that should change.  I am no longer afraid or ignorant of guns and look forward to shooting each week.  It’s my goal to become proficient in my Glock’s use, which is why I’m purchasing this second book.

I have a question if I may. I have applied for a CCW permit for the G19. Is speed or stealth more important on the street? Do I buy an IWB holsters for quick access or a deep conceal holsters like the Smart Carry / Thunderware.

BELLEVUE, WA – Monday’s ruling by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that dismisses a lawsuit against Glock by the victims of a deranged gunman in Grenada Hills, CA was a proper decision under existing statute, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

In a 2-1 decision, a three- judge panel upheld a lower court’s ruling that the case, Ileto v. Glock, was nullified under the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). That federal statute was passed to prevent junk lawsuits against gun makers, and this specific case was cited during Congressional debate as precisely the kind of lawsuit the law would prohibit.

“We are delighted that the Ninth Circuit panel not only affirmed the lower court ruling,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “but also that the court upheld the constitutionality of the federal law prohibiting this kind of lawsuit. While we sympathize with the victims, it would be an egregious miscarriage of justice to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the acts of criminals over whom they have no control.”

In August 1999, a deranged man named Buford Furrow opened fire at a Jewish Community Center summer camp in Granada Hills. The Glock pistol he used had once been owned by a police department in Washington State, but had been sold as surplus and passed through several hands before Furrow got it. Furrow wounded three children, a teenager and adult at the Jewish Center and later murdered a postal carrier, Joseph Ileto. Families of the victims, and Ileto’s widow, sued Glock and others in 2001, claiming that gun companies “intentionally produce, market, distribute, and sell more firearms than the legitimate market demands.”

Judge Susan Graber wrote the majority opinion, stating that “The PLCAA affects future and pending lawsuits, and courts are required to ‘immediately dismiss’ any pending lawsuits preempted by the PLCAA.”

“Holding gunmakers responsible for crime is a false panacea,” Gottlieb said. “Congress saw this when it passed the PLCAA, and now the court has affirmed that logic.”