April 2005

Friday, April 1st, 2005

The anti-gun New Jersey-New
York U.S. Senate gang of four got
together recently in introducing a
bill to ban a single model handgun.
Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Jon
Corzine of New Jersey and Sens.
Charles Schumer and Hillary
Clinton of New York introduced S.
527 to ban the Five-sevenN Pistol
and 5.7 x 38mm SS 190 and SS 192
cartridges and to prohibit the
manufacture, importation, sale or
purchase of such handguns or
ammunition by civilians. The gang
of four claims the item is a “cop
killer.” Firearm experts point out that
the Five seven is a semiautomatic
pistol just like millions of other
semiautomatic pistols, that BATFE
has determined it is “particularly
suitable for or readily adaptable to
sporting purposes,” and in fact has
approved its importation. Since
under federal law, only non-armorpiercing
types of 5.7 ammunition
may be sold to the public, it appears
there is nothing special about the 5
ammunition that is being sold to the
public. S. 527 has been referred to
the Senate Judiciary Committee,
under the chairmanship of Sen.
Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
Reps. Peter King of New York
and John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan
introduced H.R. 1168, to provide
that the Attorney General of the
United States shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to
ensure that, if NICS is contacted by
an FFL for information on whether
receipt of a firearm by an individual
whose name appears in the Violent
Gang and Terrorist Organization File
maintained by the FBI would violate
federal or state law, and the
information available in NICS does
not demonstrate that the receipt
would be such a violation, the
system shall preserve all records of
the system with respect to the
individual and the prospective
transaction until the system has
provided the records to the FBI. It
was referred to the House
Committee on the Judiciary, under
the chairmanship of Rep. F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr. of Wisconsin.
Rep. Juanita Millender-
McDonald of California introduced
H.R. 165, the so-called Child Safety
Lock Act of 2005. It would grant the
Attorney General regulatory authority
to ban handguns by authorizing
him or her (remember Janet Reno)
to set standards for integral and
externally attached handgun “locking
devices” that dealers would be
required to provide in or with handguns
they sell. In describing the
standards, H.R. 165 implies a preference
for potentially expensive and
still on the drawing board “locking
devices” that are built into the gun,
such as those that are operated
electromagnetically or with transmitters,
rather than externally-attached
cable locks. Referred to the
House Judiciary Committee.
CCRKBA Chairman Alan M.
Gottlieb last month condemned a
suggestion by San Francisco Mayor
Gavin Newsom that firemen be
posted on street corners in violent
neighborhoods. Newsom’s
suggestion came at the same time
that five city supervisors are pushing
an initiative to disarm the city’s lawabiding
citizens. “Firemen are
supposed to fight fires, not crime,”
said Gottlieb. “Yet here’s Mayor
Newsom, quoted in the San
Francisco Chronicle, suggesting
that fire trucks and their crews could
be detailed to high crime areas as
some sort of deterrent. The initiative
to ban handguns in San Francisco
is stupid, but this idea is just plain
crazy.”
A pro-gun conservative group
that represents the interests of police
officers and crime victims says the
murders of a judge and two other
people in a downtown Atlanta
courtroom last month should
prompt lawmakers to crack down
on criminals who grab guns away
from police. The Law Enforcement
Alliance of America has drawn up
model legislation called the
Disarming a Law Enforcement
Officer Act. The proposal would
provide severe penalties, above and
beyond assault on an officer, for
criminals who attempt to take an
officer’s firearm. It would read that,
“no person shall knowingly remove
a firearm or weapon from the person
of a law enforcement or corrections
officer, or deprive a law enforcement
officer or corrections officer of the
use of a firearm or weapon, when
the officer is acting within the scope
of his duties, and the offender has
reasonable cause to know or knows
that the individual is a law
enforcement officer.” Violators
would face “aggravated felony”
charges.