June 2003

Sunday, June 1st, 2003

The President “would be wise
to consider a policy flip-flop” on the
issue of support for the so-called
assault weapons ban, editorialized
The Washington Times. “The law was
signed by Bill Clinton in 1994 and
expires next year,” wrote the Times.
“Two weeks ago, Bush spokesman
Scott McClellan stated that, ‘The
President supports the current law,
and he supports reauthorization of
the current law.’ Since then, the
White House has been mum on
the topic. Because the President’s
position doesn’t seem set in stone
yet, now is an opportune time to revisit
the issue.” Point Blank readers
could write The President, The White
House, Washington, D.C. 20500.
New York Times reporter Phillip
Shenon in a story from Glynco,
Georgia writes that, “officials here of
the Transportation Security Administration,
which had initially joined with
the airline industry in opposing the
idea of arming pilots, say they have
come to believe that weapons in the
cockpit could bolster safety. ‘This is
a new level of security,’ said John K.
Moran, deputy assistant administrator
for law enforcement and security.
‘We believe that this is going to be
a very strong deterrent to anybody
who might want to reach a cockpit.’
He said that the first class of pilots
represented some of the finest aviators
in the industry and that several of
them had had distinguished military
careers and extensive weapons training
before joining the airlines.”
Passage in the U. S. House of
Representatives of the proposed
Protection of Lawful Commerce in
Arms Act, writes political analyst
Stuart Rosenberg in Roll Call, a
Capitol Hill newspaper, “and the
size of the majority, reminds us of
how dramatically the issue of gun
control has turned in the United
States. Just a few years ago, supporters
of new restrictions seemed
to have the upper hand. With much
of the national media calling for new
laws, Jim and Sarah Brady leading
the drive to end gun show sales,
and school shootings in Arkansas
and Colorado focusing attention on
gun violence, more restrictions on
gun ownership seemed inevitable.
Now, gun control opponents clearly
have the momentum…How times
have changed.”
Sens. Lindsey Graham of South
Carolina and Zell Miller of Georgia
introduced a proposed Ballistic Imaging
Evaluation and Study Act of
2003, S. 980, to conduct a study on
ballistic imaging technology and its
effectiveness as a law enforcement
tool. While a number of studies
already have shown that existing
ballistic imaging systems are flawed,
congressional gun grabbers are
pushing mandatory ballistics testing
legislation. By supporting S. 980,
pro-gun spokesmen in congress
hope to head-off potential support
for the gun grabbers’ proposals.
Gun grabbers in the U.S. Senate
introduced S. 866, a proposed Child
Safety Lock Act of 2003. It would
require that a locking device be
incorporated into or sold with every
handgun which is sold by a federal
firearms licensee. Introduced by Sen.
Herbert H. Kohl of Wisconsin, cosponsors
include fellow Democrats
Jon Corzine of New Jersey, Richard
J. Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein
of California, Jack Reed of Rhode
Island, Charles E. Schumer of New
York, and Frank Lautenberg of New
Jersey.
Will Hollywood actor Sean Penn
be held personally responsible for
any crimes committed with either
of two handguns taken from his
car after it was stolen in Berkeley,
California recently? He would be
if the loss happened in Indiana
instead of California. The Indiana
Supreme Court ruled 5-0 in April that
gun owners have a responsibility to
the public to exercise “reasonable
care” in the safe storage of their
firearms. If that standard applied
to the Hollywood elite, Penn could
be in big trouble, said Alan M. Gottlieb,
CCRKBA Chairman. Penn lost
a loaded Glock 9mm and unloaded
.38-caliber Smith & Wesson when
his 1987 Buick was stolen while he
was dining at a Berkeley restaurant.
The car was recovered but the guns
are still missing