2008 Gun Rights Policy Conference Scheduled Sept. 26-28 in Phoenix

22 09 2008
Last update: 1:33 p.m. EDT Sept. 22, 2008
BELLEVUE, Wash., Sept 22, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ — American gun rights leaders and hundreds of the nation’s leading gun rights activists will gather in Phoenix, AZ Sept. 26-28 for the 2008 Gun Rights Policy Conference, at the Sheraton Crescent Hotel.
U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, representing the Republican John McCain - Sarah Palin ticket, will speak during a Saturday luncheon, and Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, former congressman from Georgia, is also expected.
This is the 23rd annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, sponsored jointly by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Other participating organizations include the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America and National Shooting Sports Foundation. Representatives from several grassroots groups, including the Arizona State Rifle Association, Firearms Coalition, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Illinois State Rifle Association, Canadian Institute for Legislative Action, Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts, Buckeye Firearms Association and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus will also attend.
The weekend conference will feature panel discussions on state legislative and congressional affairs, international firearms regulation, court battles over firearm civil rights, media bias, the right of self-defense and more. There will also be a report on the upcoming congressional elections and on this year’s landmark Second Amendment ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, with remarks from attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued that case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
There will be appearances by Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder and CCRKBA chairman; Joe Tartaro, SAF president and Gun Week executive editor; Charles Cunningham, director of federal affairs for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action; authors John Lott, Alan Korwin, David T. Hardy and David Kopel, and many others.
Additional information is available at: http://www.saf.org.
The Second Amendment Foundation ( http://www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, the Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
SOURCE Second Amendment Foundation
http://www.saf.org

Copyright (C) 2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved End of Story





Could The Castle Doctrine Prompt A Gun Law Change?

31 08 2008

Updated: var wn_last_ed_date = getLEDate(”Aug 27, 2008 2:36 AM EST”); document.write(wn_last_ed_date); Aug 26, 2008 11:36 PM MST

A state lawmaker wants to give homeowners more power when it comes to protecting their homes.

But is it too much?

Action News reporter Heather Klein has more on what this bill could mean if it is passed.

People once felt safe just locking the door, then we moved onto high tech security with alarm systems.

But for some, that is still not enough and people keep guns to protect themselves.

One Nevada Assemblyman believes they should have the right to use them in their home without fearing jail time.

It is a scary thought for anyone, police lights and tape after someone breaks into your house.

As Assemblyman Harry Mortenson puts it, your home is your castle.

“A man’s home is his castle and he defends his castle,” said Harry.

That is why Mortenson requested implementing the castle doctrine.

It is a bill that says someone threatened in their home can use deadly force to protect themselves without duty to retreat.

Basically if you feel threatened you can shoot first and ask questions later.

“You do not want to think twice because when you think twice you are dead because he is going to shoot first,” said Harry.

As a parent of a toddler, Keshrey Smith, supports the bill.

However, he does not want people to be able to police others, just protect.

“When it is your own home your at risk, it is your safety. I think you need to be able to do what you want to do,” said Keshrey Smith.

Several others agreed.

“If they are a threat to anybody in my home I have a right to defend my home,” said Wendy Hall.

You do have that right, right now, but if the suspect appears to be retreating and the victim shoots, they could face charges or lawsuit.

“If they come through the door I want to be able to shoot and I do not want to have to think twice that I may sit in jail the rest of my life,” said Mortenson.

The bill is just a draft right now.

Mortenson says it still needs tweaking before it goes for a vote.

It has already passed in 15 other states.

Stay tuned to Action News as we monitor developing news around the Valley.





What Would an Obama Win Mean for States?

29 08 2008

By Pamela M. Prah and Stephen C. Fehr
Staff Writers
Stateline.org

If elected president, Democrat Barack Obama promises closer ties with states and an infusion of federal dollars that states could use to expand health care, create “green” jobs and fix the country’s crumbling roads and bridges.

Only four years after he left the Illinois Senate for the U.S. Senate, Obama formally accepted the presidential nomination Aug. 28 at the Democratic National Convention. If he were to defeat Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain in November, Obama would be the first former state legislator in the White House since President Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976.

Obama focused largely on the problems of the middle class in his speech to 70,000 supporters at Invesco Field at Mile High stadium, promising a more active government role in seeking solutions.

“Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves – protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology,” he said.

State leaders here all week have expressed confidence that an Obama administration would lessen a string of tensions between Washington, D.C., and statehouses.

“All the governors need a partner in the White House, and Barack Obama has promised us that he will, in fact, be a partner with us,” said Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D).

Democrats say that the Obama campaign has actively enlisted the support and advice of governors — a strategy that insiders say John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, did not always embrace. West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, who chairs the Democratic Governors Association, lauded the Obama campaign for reaching out to the governors’ ranks.

“We’ve sat down intimately with Barack. We’ve had dinner. We’ve had discussions. We’ve been on phone calls. We’ve been talking about the problems we’re having state by state,” Manchin said. “That’s something very fresh.”

Even Obama’s background — eight years in the Illinois Statehouse compared to four in Congress — inspires optimism that he won’t lose sight of how national policies play out at the state level. That same hope was dashed, though, with President George W. Bush, who proved not to be a champion of states’ rights despite having served as governor of Texas.

Despite a huge federal budget deficit, state Democratic leaders are banking on an Obama administration opening the federal purse strings, for needs ranging from roads to energy to health care. “President Obama will have … our federal government actually invest in things,” Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) said.

For example, Obama’s energy policy proposes to pump $150 billion over the next 10 years into developing clean-energy technology. Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) said states would benefit from “a new energy economy” that would create an estimated 5 million jobs building solar and wind farms and clean-coal and geothermal plants.

As motorists nationwide suffer with nearly $4-a-gallon gasoline, the Denver convention was striking in that nearly every governor who spoke touched on some aspect of climate change, oil exploration, renewable fuels or fuel-emission standards.

“Barack Obama has a comprehensive domestic energy plan,” said Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D). “I think that is the largest issue facing our country. We don’t have money to finance education or health care or infrastructure as long as we are sending a trillion dollars to those dictators (to buy foreign oil).”
Of immediate interest to states, Obama proposes to rush $50 billion in federal aid to states in an effort to halt the nation’s economic tailspin. At least 29 states are facing budget problems this year because of falling revenues triggered by the housing and mortgage crisis. Obama pledges a quick infusion of $25 billion to help states offset budget cuts, and another $25 billion for infrastructure. The cost of the rescue plan would pay for itself through increased economic activity, Obama has said.

State treasuries also would get a boost from Obama’s proposal for a second package of federal tax rebates to stimulate the economy, similar to Bush’s refund checks of up to $1,500 this year. Because many state tax systems are tied to the federal tax structure, states also would be impacted by Obama’s pledge to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans while preserving Bush’s tax cuts for people making less than $200,000 a year, and to add a new tax cut for middle-class Americans of $500 for individuals and $1,000 for married couples. He also would increase the capital gains tax.

A year after the deadly collapse of a Minnesota bridge inspired a re-examination of the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, Obama says he also would help the economy by pumping $60 billion over 10 years into a national infrastructure fund. The money would go to repair highways, bridges, roads, ports, airports and rail systems in every state, creating an estimated 2 million jobs.

Maryland’s O’Malley said, “He won’t stand by when bridges collapse, while levees collapse.”

Obama’s ambitious proposal to provide universal access to health insurance, if enacted, would be the single biggest change for states, said Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D). “It wouldn’t take the state out of providing dollars and services for health care, but it would lessen the burden that we have right now. Since I’ve been governor, the single biggest driver of our budget expansion has been increasing health-care costs.”

Obama also is expected to be more generous in giving states leeway — and money — to expand state programs for the uninsured, particularly for children. Ohio’s Strickland said his state has been waiting for a year for the green light from the Bush administration to begin covering 35,000 more children on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

State officials also are hopeful that the Illinois Democrat will scrap or overhaul what states call “unfunded mandates,” laws that Washington, D.C., orders them to carry out without enough federal dollars to do the job.

High on that list is the Real ID Act, the federal overhaul of driver’s licenses inspired by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that could cost states $4 billion, and No Child Left Behind, President Bush’s signature domestic policy that requires regular testing of students’ math and English skills and penalties to schools that don’t measure up.

A number of both Republican- and Democratic-led states have rebelled at the Real ID law for what they regard as federal intrusion and expensive changes in state-issued driver’s licenses. “It looks like Real ID is going down,” no matter who wins the White House, Rendell said. Obama in the past has called the law an unfunded mandate that he opposes.

State Sen. John Hastert (D), who represents Green River in southwest Wyoming, said, “I really believe if we get the nation going the right direction, which I believe Barack can do, then we won’t have as many unfunded mandates coming down to the states.”

Here are Obama’s proposals to address other issues and problems important to states:

Education: Addressing some of states’ concerns with the No Child Left Behind law, Obama promises to provide more money to cover states’ expenses and to move away from that law’s single test to track students’ progress. He also would boost federal education spending by about $18 billion, with much of the money going to pre-kindergarten programs, teacher training and mentoring programs.

Immigration: Obama would allow undocumented immigrants to pay a fine, learn English and “go to the back of the line” to become U.S. citizens. He also plans to add border agents and to sanction employers that hire undocumented workers. He also favors allowing states to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants and giving grants to states to help promote citizenship.

Environment: Attacking global warming with tactics already being piloted by several states, Obama proposes to require a cut in carbon emissions by 2050 and to stipulate that 25 percent of the nation’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2025.

Energy: Obama opposes drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge but supports some exploration along the coasts. To encourage energy conservation over consumption, he proposes to channel federal money to states that begin allowing utility companies to earn higher profits for gains in energy efficiency. Obama wants to require governors and local officials to make energy conservation part of their planning efforts in order to receive federal transportation money; current law asks governors to “consider” conservation. He also proposes a competitive grant program to reward states and local governments that adopt codes for new buildings that make energy efficiency a priority, and federal matching funds for states that put up money for energy upgrades in older buildings.

Abortion: Obama supports abortion rights. While in the Illinois Senate, he voted against a bill to ban late-term abortions because, he said, it did not contain a clause to protect the life of the mother. Obama has strongly supported federal funding of contraception and teen-pregnancy prevention programs.

Same-sex marriage: Obama has said he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman but fully supports marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans. He is opposed to state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, including a California ballot measure this year that seeks to stop gay weddings occurring there, and he supports state efforts to allow marriage equivalents such as civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Gun ownership: Though his campaign has not issued specifics on what kind of gun restrictions he approves of, Obama in the past has voiced support for a national ban on concealed weapons that would nullify individual state “concealed carry” laws. He also supports a permanent, nationwide ban on assault weapons.

Affirmative action: Obama supports affirmative action, a policy that promotes opportunities for racial minorities and women in hiring and education, though he has suggested that such programs should eventually focus on income, not race. Still, he opposes anti-affirmative ballot measures pending in Colorado and Nebraska and possibly Arizona.

Death penalty: Obama supports executing those who commit the “most heinous crimes.” He recently criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for ruling that a handful of states could not execute those convicted of raping — though not killing — children. At the same time, he has expressed concern that capital punishment is administered unfairly and does little to deter crime.

Crime: Obama has vowed to boost funding for state and local law enforcement initiatives, including restoring funds to a grant program that helps pay for state and local anti-drug efforts. All 50 governors and state attorneys general have unsuccessfully lobbied the Bush administration and Congress to restore a 67 percent cut to the program. Obama also has promised to do more to address racial profiling, violence against women and recidivism.

National Guard: He has vowed to address equipment shortages — a persistent problem for the state-run militias — and wants to expand National Guard and Reserve benefits. He supports making the Guard’s commander a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, giving him a more prominent seat at the table with other Pentagon leaders.

Pamela M. Prah is a veteran Washington reporter with some 20 years reporting experience, including stints at Kiplinger, The Bureau of National Affairs, McGraw-Hill and Congressional Quarterly. She has covered legislative, regulatory and political developments affecting states, business, organized labor and education. Her reporting has been cited in The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and C-SPAN. She has a master’s degree in government from Johns Hopkins University and a journalism degree from Ohio University. She also is an adjunct journalism professor at American University. Stephen Fehr joined Stateline.org in June, 2008 from The Washington Post, where he edited Virginia government and politics coverage. As a reporter at The Post, he covered transportation, development and District of Columbia finances. Before joining The Post, Fehr was a Washington correspondent and Kansas statehouse correspondent for the Kansas City Star. He graduated from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Fehr is a native of Missouri who grew up in the Los Angeles area. Stateline.org staff writers John Gramlich, Christine Vestal, Daniel C.Vock and Pauline Vu, managing editor Barbara Rosewicz and intern Nathaniel Weixel contributed to this report. This article originally appeared in stateline.org and is published with their permission.

Posted on August 29, 2008





Right to use Deadly Force against Intruders

26 08 2008

Bill proposed to strengthen right to use deadly force against
Las Vegas Review - Journal - Las Vegas,NV,USA
At least 15 states, including Arizona, have adopted the doctrine in the past few years. “I support the old philosophy that a man’s home is his castle and





Teachers Pack Heat

25 08 2008

Texas students pack bookbags; teachers pack heat
The Associated Press -
School districts in some states, including Florida and Arizona, have closed loopholes that allowed guns on K-12 campuses. Utah allows concealed weapons at





Concealed guns on campus?

23 08 2008

From the editorial advisory board: Concealed guns on campus?
Daily Camera - CO,USA
John Pickens, Arizona State University police chief, believes “no preparation can prevent an accident.” Thus, the International Association of Campus Law





AZ Lawmaker Lauds decision to allow TX teachers to carry guns

18 08 2008

AZ lawmaker lauds decision to allow TX teachers to carry guns
KTAR.com - Phoenix,AZ,USA
by Daphne Adato/KTAR An Arizona state senator is watching closely what happens in a small school district outside Fort Worth, Texas, which is the first in





Bid to allow guns in National Parks

18 08 2008

Bid to allow guns in national parks
Christian Science Monitor - Boston,MA,USA
Those states are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,





The American Right to Keep and Bear Arms – Modern and Historical Context

9 08 2008

By Rick Barkett 

For hundreds of years American citizens have enjoyed the right to “keep and bear arms” within the United States of America. The founders of the nation found it necessary to amend the Constitution, allowing for non-military persons to carry weapons capable of self defense, particularly referring to firearms. While there is no disagreement over the existence of the Second Amendment, there is, as with all ambiguous legal writing, a fierce debate over the true meaning of the Constitution’s creators.

A common interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution follows that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” refers strictly to a MILITIA, as opposed to simply an individual. In order to understand this argument fully it is important to recognize the situation of the budding nation during the drafting of the Constitution (and the subsequent Bill of rights). There was a tangible fear of foreign invasion, as the newly formed country was vulnerable in its early stages, as well as a much greater risk of large scale internal strife (several notable ‘rebellions’ took place during America’s infancy). As such, state and local militia’s existed in almost every area of the country, acting more as a police force rather than a military unit. There is no real local ‘militia’ in 21st century America, thus, opponents of gun control argue that there is little ground to stand on when combating gun-control legislature.

Using this “interpretation” or argument against the individual’s privilege to own private firearms does not take into account other factors and opinions of the founding fathers. Using the context of a local militia to argue for gun control, against the second Amendment, is definitely not foolproof. The term ‘militia’ in the context of the Second Amendment referred to most able bodied men ages 18 to mid 40s. The militia was not a standing force; the weapons were both privately owned and stored.  A local militia does not necessarily imply a government recognized organization, rather, a group of well-rounded, peaceful individuals interested in protecting themselves and their families. When taking this interpretation into a modern context, it makes perfect sense to allow individuals the right to weapons for self defense.

Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams both stated their views concerning the right of the individual to own weapons, shedding some light on the ‘correct’ interpretation of the Second Amendment. According to Jefferson “no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms,” mentioning nothing of a militia. The State of Arizona’s Constitution directly includes provisions for its citizens with “the right of an individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State.”

Another primary threat to personal freedom, that the Second Amendment was created to prevent, is the potential of the central government to become a despotism or dictatorship. A well armed population is much more of a threat than unarmed civilians attempting to defend themselves against a military force. This is an often overlooked aspect of the Second Amendment; however, it remains a critical piece to the foundation of freedom in this country. The Second Amendment gives every citizen a “fighting chance” in the event of hostility, be it from their own country or from robbery, theft or other types of crime.

Strict gun control laws negatively affect honest, law-abiding citizens of the nation, and would do little to deter those with violent intentions. A simple example of this concept exists in Prohibition, a period of time in the early 20th century where alcohol was made illegal within the United States. Most people still got their daily drinking in, the difference was the source. Many hardworking individuals who worked in or owned drinking establishments were unable to make ends meet, smugglers on the other hand made money hand over fist selling alcohol illegally. In the event of strict gun control, those who want a weapon for a shady, violent purpose would have little trouble getting hold of one. If an honest, peaceful citizen wanted one for protection, he or she would not be able to obtain a mode of self defense without breaking federal law.

Copyright ©2008 by Rick Barkett. No articles or content on this site can be reproduced or copied without written permission from rick@azccw.com.





Tips for Finding the Perfect Concealment Holster

22 07 2008

By Rick Barkett

If you carry a concealed handgun, a good holster makes a huge difference in your daily routine. Investing in a quality product that works well with both your body and your firearm will make you more comfortable – and reduce the chances of somebody noticing that odd outline underneath your shirt or shoulder.

Unfortunately, you have to spend some time using a holster before you can be sure that it’s right for your needs. Many people who carry concealed firearms go through several holsters before they find “the one.” Don’t be surprised if this happens to you. This is normal, so don’t worry. You can always trade discarded holsters with another person, or sell them online, to recoup some of your investment.

These tips will help you narrow down your choices and make the selection process easier. Soon, you’ll find the holster that you’ll probably carry for many years.

* First you have to decide on the style holster best suited for you, ie: belt slide, inside the belt, small of back (sob), paddle, ankle or belly band, just to site a few.

* Buy the right model for your handgun. A holster for a five-inch 1911 will not work with a sub-compact .45, so be sure that you’re shopping within the correct range. Most people already know this, but it’s wise to double-check before you make your purchase. Though you can usually exchange incorrect products, you really don’t want to wait, or make a special trip, if you can avoid it.

* Don’t commit yourself to one material. Kydex, ripstop nylon and leather holsters all have the potential to be the best you’ve ever owned. Don’t eliminate a holster just because you don’t think that the material will work. You might even end up with one holster for winter carry and another for summertime.

* Pay attention to body position. If you carry inside the waistband, for example, then you can put the holster pretty much anywhere – from your navel to the small of your back. If the current holster fails miserably just behind your hip, try moving it around.

* Cant – or the holster’s angle (8-18 degrees) – is also important. You might have a terrible time concealing a “straight up and down” configuration, but what if you adjust the cant just a few degrees? Keep this in mind when you try to find your new holster.

* Be sure that your holster accommodates your wardrobe. Some waistband (beltline) holsters let you tuck in your shirt; others don’t. Different ankle holsters are better or worse with your favorite khakis.

* Accessories matter. Do you carry an extra magazine? Does your firearm have laser sights? If so, be sure that the holster can accommodate these extras.

Your friends, family and fellow shooters will probably recommend holsters that work for them. Listening to their opinions is important, but remember that each person is different. What’s comfortable on your father’s waistband might be miserable on yours.

Keep looking, try different types of holsters and carry methods, and enjoy the search. Soon enough, you’ll find exactly what you want – and you can enjoy using that holster for many years. Just be sure to take good care of your new find, and enjoy finding new homes for the rejected holsters in your sock drawer.

Copyright ©2008 by Rick Barkett. No articles or content on this site can be reproduced or copied without written permission from rick@azccw.com.