Note: scroll down and read about Demil. provision.
--------- Forwarded message ----------
Nov. 23 Neal Knox Update -- The New Mexico Supreme Court on
Wednesday blocked the state's new law allowing licenses to carry
concealed handguns. The State Police immediately stopped
processing applications for licenses which would have been valid
January 1.
The Court's hearing and final decision could take months.
The law violates the state's constitution, according to the
Albuquerque mayor: The state constitution prohibits any law
abridging a citizen's right to keep and bear arms "but nothing
herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed
weapons."
The attorney general says the mayor is reading it wrong.
While the constitution doesn't guarantee the right to carry
concealed weapons, it doesn't preclude the state from enacting a
law authorizing them, he says.
-----------------
In Utah, a long-standing ban on guns in state offices
conflicts with the state's 1999 concealed carry law, according to
an unpublished ruling from the attorney general. The rule
reportedly will be rescinded within the next few months.
I suspect opponents of the law leaked the opinion in order
to stir up renewed opposition.
The attorney general's opinion says state employees who hold
concealed-weapon permits "will likely" be able to carry guns on
the job.
-------------------
Mike Hathorn, a northwestern Arkansas Democrat running for
resigned Rep. Asa Hutchison's seat, had accused his Republican
opponent, Dr. John Boozman, of being "soft on the Second
Amendment."
If that was merely part of the Democrats' post-Gore tactic
of suddenly becoming pro-gun -- which worked in the Viginia
Governors' race earlier this month -- it failed in that fiercely
conservative and pro-gun district. Hathorn, an NRA member who
disparaged Boozman for not even having a hunting license, won
only 42 percent of the vote.
I don't know either candidate, and don't know the reasons
for NRA's endorsement and mailing for Boozman, but I do know that
district. Decades ago, before Edward Kennedy sank his
Presidential campaign at Chappaquiddick, I told friends that if
he were elected I'd move there "because even if Ted Kennedy
becomes President of the U.S. he'll never be President of Boone
County, Arkansas."
Both Democrats and Republicans poured heavy assets into the
Arkansas 3rd race. The Dems thought they had their best chance
of winning the district since a political comer from
Fayetteville, also claiming to being a strong pro-gunner, came
within 6,000 votes in 1974. Name of Bill Clinton.
-----------------
Republican Senatorial Candidate Dr. Jim Parker, who has an
uphill battle trying to keep the North Carolina GOP nomination
from going to Elizabeth Dole, laid the wood to the leading
Democratic candidate Erskine Bowles this week.
He pointed out that Bowles, a key player in the Clinton
Administration, had hired Marc Farinella as part of the
leadership of his campaign. Farinella, once a top aide to the
late anti-gun Gov. Mel Carnahan of Missouri, helped run the 1998
campaign opposing Missouri's concealed carry referendum.
Mrs. Dole, who made "gun control" a major feature in her
short-lived 2000 Presidential campaign, is now furiously back-
pedaling.
In New Hampshire she said "While I am a strong supporter of
the Second Amendment, I simply cannot accept that in modern
America you need an AK-47 to defend your family." Now she
writes: "Seven years after President Clinton and his allies
outlawed so-called 'assault' weapons, the ban there appears to
have been little effect on crime prevention or punishment."
In May 1999 she said "I think it's wrong to let people carry
concealed weapons." A couple of weeks ago she wrote North
Carolina Rifle & Pistol Association supporting the state's
"common sense ... right-to-carry law that allows citizens to
obtain a concealed- handgun permit from the local sheriff after
being trained and certified.... It works because criminals do not
like to prey on those who can defend themselves."
-------------------
Military collectors are anxious about Sec. 1062 of the
Senate- approved Defense Authorization bill allowing "any
significant weapon" -- including all guns -- to be ordered turned
in or destroyed.
I talked with a member of the conference committee earlier
this week who said there have been numerous "top-level" meetings
on the bill -- the chairmen and ranking members of the defense
committee from the House and Senate, but all 50 members of the
conference haven't been participating.
The chairmen are not revealing what changes have been
negotiated.
One of those players, House Chairman Bob Stump (R-Ariz.),
told me a month ago that he is adamantly opposed to that
provision; he's said the same thing to others, including NRA
lobbyists who -- contrary to some internet reports -- have been
very much involved in this bill.
The reported reason for the provision, which originated
within the Defense Department and is being pushed by Sen. Carl
Levin, was the discovery that the Defense Department had sold
extremely high- tech equipment that wound up in the hands of
China. In a classic example of overkill -- which may have been
deliberate -- they made the ban apply to almost everything the
government ever owned.
Because of the importance of this issue, I'm including the
entire piece.
It's accurate except for a crucial error stating the bill
"would" force demilitarization of guns and gear we now own; in
fact, it "could" require demilitarization.
Overstatement of what the bill does is as dangerous as
understatement, so alway be careful what you tell your
Congressman. That's why I've made some all caps notes in the
story. ========= Bill Provision Has Military Collectors Up In
Arms
Washington Times, Page A1, November 22, 2001
Byline: Stephen Dinan
A sweeping provision in the Senate's Defense Department
authorization bill would [Note: COULD] force collectors who have
bought surplus military items to "demilitarize" them - something
hobbyists fear means destroying or turning over vintage military
vehicles and guns. House members stripped that [A SIMILAR]
section out of the version of the bill they passed, and
negotiators from the two chambers are now working to iron out
the issue. No agreement has been announced, but several
lobbyists from vehicle collectors associations and gun rights
groups said House negotiators have promised the provision will
be stricken. Known to opponents simply as Section 1062, the
provision of the Senate bill would [Note: COULD] make it illegal
for anyone to possess "significant military equipment" formerly
owned by the military unless it has been demilitarized, which
means made inoperable as a weapon, according to regulations
[Note: THAT MIGHT BE] set out by the Defense Department. The
purpose of the provision, a Pentagon spokesman said, is to
prevent a recurrence of past mistakes when a helicopter or tank
has been sold without the gun placements removed. But a broad
coalition, from the National Rifle Association to the National
D-Day Museum in New Orleans to vintage military jeep owners and
even military radio collectors, says the provision is drawn so
it encompasses just about anything the military has ever
surplused. "If Uncle George brought an M-1 rifle home from the
war, it would include that," said Scott A. Duff, who has written
a history of the M- 1 Garand rifle, which was a staple for World
War II infantry. Even more ironic, he said, is that the federal
government still sells that particular rifle to civilians
through a marksmanship program, creating a curious situation:
"The FedEx man could come to your door with an M-1 today, and
the Defense Department could come to your door [to demilitarize
it] tomorrow." However, the section of the bill has irked more
than gun enthusiasts. Allan D. Cors, president of the Virginia
Museum of Military Vehicles and owner of more than 100 tanks,
armored vehicles and Jeeps, wrote a memo calling the provision
"a grotesque and frightening grant of authority to seize [or]
destroy legally acquired and legally possessed private
property," especially since it would specifically harm people
like him whose goal is to preserve artifacts of military
history. Nobody knows how many planes, trucks, pistols, radios
and rifles would be covered under the provision - simply that it
is a lot. Several of the groups have been told that
demilitarization wouldn't apply to them, and senators have said
they do not intend it to apply to Civil War cannon and World War
II aircraft. The provision also grants the secretary of defense
discretion on what to demilitarize, and how to do it. But
hobbyists say they want to be sure someone doesn't misinterpret
the provision in the future. "We want to believe that, but our
concern is the language is so broad that 10 years down the line
some bureaucrat may say, `Oh my goodness, we haven't been
keeping up with this, here's all this ex- military aircraft we
need to demilitarize,'" said Peter Moll, executive director of
the Experimental Aircraft Association Warbirds of America, a
group representing civilians who own military aircraft. Yet
there are some groups that say the issue has been blown out of
proportion. "We've been in contact with Senate staffers on this
and it seems like some of the concern is typical knee-jerk
overreaction of some of the gun extremists," said Brendan Daly,
a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
"Congress is trying to do the right thing on this. They're
trying to make sure someone doesn't have access to high-powered
military weapons. They're not going to take away someone's World
War II rifle," he said. The fate of the provision - like the
rest of the bill - rests with Democrats and Republicans who are
now in conference. Tara Andringa, spokeswoman for Sen. Carl
Levin, Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, said the senator will not comment on the
provision until an agreement has been reached. "All that Senator
Levin has said is that he's aware of concerns that have been
raised and they're working to iron out differences in
conference," she said. Lisa Atkins, chief of staff to Rep. Bob
Stump, Arizona Republican and chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee, said he is opposed to Section 1062. "The
congressman is very opposed to it, and doesn't want to include
it" in any piece of legislation that is eventually agreed to by
both chambers, she said.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 00:37:00 PST