Arizona CCW Journal

State lawmakers approve bill allowing guns in bars

July 1, 2009 · Leave a Comment

The Associated Press

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 07.01.2009

PHOENIX — The Arizona Senate has approved a bill to allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry a gun into a business that serves alcohol.

The 19-8 vote completes Legislative action on the bill and sends it to Gov. Jan Brewer.

The measure has pitted powerful groups representing gun and bar owners against each other.

It would require bar and restaurant owners who want to ban weapons to post a sign next to their liquor license. Drinking while carrying a weapon would be illegal.

Opponents have said mixing guns and alcohol could cause violence, but supporters argue that people should be able to protect themselves at businesses that serve alcohol.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Legislative
Tagged:

Lawmakers advance gun bills

June 28, 2009 · Leave a Comment

One measure lets firearms in bars, restaurants
By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.26.2009
PHOENIX — State lawmakers agreed Thursday to let some gun owners take their weapons into restaurants — but only after they expanded the measure to apply to bars, too.
That change in SB 1113 came not at the behest of the National Rifle Association, which wrote the bill, but after a push from bar owners. Lobbyist Don Isaacson of the Arizona Licensed Beverage Association said there is no sharp delineation in state law between what is a restaurant and what is a bar.
But Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, noted that NRA lobbyist Todd Rathner has argued all along the legislation is aimed at providing relief to gun owners who simply wanted to get something to eat and did not want to leave their loaded weapons in their vehicles.
She called extending that right to places where food isn’t served “a dangerous cocktail,” although she acknowledged the law would preclude anyone who is armed from also drinking.
But since the privilege will apply only to those who have a state-issued concealed weapon permit, which means they are not carrying a gun in the open, Sinema said, there is no way to enforce that no-drinking provision.
The measure to let guns into bars and restaurants, passed by a 6-2 vote by the House Judiciary Committee, was one of three measures advanced on Thursday to expand the rights of gun owners.
The same panel also agreed to SB 1243, which would allow individuals to “display” their weapons when they feel in danger, without risking prosecution on charges of intimidation.
And the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Rural Development voted to allow people to drive onto private property, including private businesses, and lock their guns in their vehicles, overruling any rules the business owners have for employees or customers. Supporters of HB 2474 said it ensures that people who go to work don’t have to leave their weapons for self-protection at home just because their employer doesn’t want guns on the property.
Current law makes it a crime for anyone to bring a weapon into any place where alcohol is served, which Gary Christensen, lobbyist for the NRA-affiliate Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association, said is an inconvenience for those who have obtained a permit to carry a concealed weapon because they want to be able to defend themselves. He said the law limits where they can eat, as many restaurants also have liquor licenses.
“You have to decide are you going to go in, are you going to go someplace else, are you going to leave the gun in your car?” he told members of the House Judiciary Committee. “Personally, my old pickup truck isn’t the place I want to leave a gun.”
The original version, sponsored by Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, was limited to places that have both a liquor license and a “kitchen.” But Isaacson complained that term isn’t defined.
Harper said he isn’t concerned about the change, saying he still believes that, from a practical standpoint, the law will affect more restaurants than bars.
Rep. Cecil Ash, R-Mesa, said it makes sense to let those with concealed-weapons permits carry their weapons into bars and restaurants.
“Everyone knows places where guns are not allowed are known as target-rich areas for criminals,” he said.
The same argument was the basis for letting gun owners take their weapons to work, at least as far as the parking lot.
Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said lots of people carry guns for self-defense.
“Many of these are women victims of domestic violence or women in general who feel vulnerable if they work late at night and they have to drive home alone and they’re afraid of getting a flat tire on a lonely road,” he said.
The 4-2 vote came over the objections of Clint Bolick, an attorney with the Goldwater Institute, who warned legislators they are setting a bad precedent in elevating the Second Amendment right to bear arms above property rights.
“What we see this legislation doing is turning privately owned parking garages, and mom-and-pop parking lots as well, into quasi-public property, which is something I hope this Legislature, a freedom-oriented Legislature, would never do,” he said. “My gun rights end when I go onto your property.”

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized
Tagged:

Senators favor concealed guns on college campuses

June 28, 2009 · Leave a Comment

By Howard Fischer

Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.28.2009

PHOENIX — State senators voted Friday to let people with concealed-weapons permits carry guns onto college and university campuses. Supporters said the move would make campuses safer.

The 15-6 vote on the provision in HB 2439 came after backers said they believe that having people who are licensed by the state to have weapons should cut down on the number of massacres that occur on campuses. And Sen. John Huppenthal, R-Chandler, said that has happened in Arizona.

He did not refer by name to the 2002 incident at the University of Arizona, where three instructors at the College of Nursing were slain by student Robert S. Flores Jr., who then turned the gun on himself.

But Huppenthal said the evidence shows that it makes sense, from a safety standpoint, to let people carry guns.

“The states that have concealed-carry (laws) have statistically significant smaller mass shootings,” he said.

Huppenthal said he would not support guns on public-school campuses, saying Arizona has no history of massacres on those campuses.

“The situation is different in our universities,” he said.

“We’ve had a mass shooting in our universities,” Huppenthal continued. “We sort of have a track record of not being safe in our universities.”

University of Arizona lobbyist Greg Fahey said his school opposes allowing anyone to have guns on campus. And Fahey said he’s not convinced that rule should be waived for those with permits to carry concealed weapons, even though they have undergone background checks and training in state laws, and have been shown to be proficient in the use of the gun.

“Our chief of police and the police of all three universities have consistently said that their experience is that having people with guns is just more of an invitation to have accidents, to have problems,” Fahey said. “And they don’t want anyone who’s not a sworn officer being armed on campus.”

The bill, which includes provisions to allow permit holders to carry in other public places and events, awaits a final Senate vote.

In separate action Friday, the House voted to restrict the ability of businesses to ban employees from bringing guns into company parking lots.

The original legislation would have barred any limits as long as the worker left the weapon locked out of sight in the vehicle. That brought protests from business owners who said it interfered with their property rights.

As finally approved, SB 1168 allows gun bans to remain, but only if the parking lot or garage is fenced, has limited access and the company provides “temporary and secure” storage for workers’ guns.

Companies also could keep guns out of their parking lots if they provided free parking adjacent to the regular lot.

The measure needs final Senate approval before going to the governor.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Legislative
Tagged:

NRA gears up to fight anti-gun laws

June 18, 2009 · Leave a Comment

By Lee Allen, Inside Tucson Business
Published on Wednesday, June 17, 2009

The National Rifle Association of America is some 3 million strong, and 60,000 of those Second Amendment supporters were in Phoenix last month for their 138th annual meeting. It was billed as a Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum.

Gov. Jan Brewer welcomed them, saying, “Make no mistake. Arizona is NRA country.”

The invitation for the meeting set the tone: “With anti-gun forces aligned against us, America’s gun owners can expect a barrage of anti-gun measures like we have not seen in decades. In order to meet these challenges head on, we must once again redouble our efforts to beat back attempts by the anti-gunners to further erode our cherished freedoms.”

Separate from, but parallel to NRA’s efforts was a message from Chris Chaffin, president of the Professional Outdoor Media Association, on influencing political opinion: “Politicos need to know the magnitude of influence of people who firmly believe the Second Amendment assures them the right to own firearms. They need to know that sportsmen and women contribute billions to conserve and maintain the resources they care about so passionately, and they need to be reminded that citizens who embrace and live the outdoor lifestyle are just as important as those who reside in asphalt jungles.”

Back to the NRA. One way the organization is attempting to increase its influence to fight pending legislation involving the right to keep and bear arms is by offering a free one-year trial membership in the NRA.

Outdoor outtakes

• “Why should we care about nature?” asks The New York Times magazine in an article on “Natural Happiness.”  The article by Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom asks if we should care about nature for its own sake – or for our sake to make us happy. He goes on to pessimistically note: “In many regards our species has already kissed nature goodbye.”  For those who have already lost that magic, the spiritual and moral benefits of an attachment to nature, the tragedy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Others will remember that even in limited doses, exposure to nature, i.e., unstructured physical contact with the natural world, is good for your health.

• Wild elk populations in 23 states are up by 44 percent over what they were 25 years ago when the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation was launched to help conserve elk habitat. “The latest statistics validate our hard work,” says David Allen, president of the foundation. Western states, including California, Nevada, and New Mexico, experienced the greatest increases in growth. Unfortunately, Arizona was not among them. Although there have been more than 350 projects conserving 336,000 acres of habitat, Arizona’s estimated elk population is now half the 35,000 it was of 25 years ago.

• Current economic uncertainty notwithstanding, firearm and ammunition sales continue to climb. According to Department of Treasury figures, manufacturers of arms and ammo paid in more than $98 million in excise taxes in the fourth quarter of 2008, up 31 percent over the same three months in 2007. “Demand is clear,” says Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “Americans are increasing their firearms ownership.”  Lawrence Keane, vice president of the foundation, adds, “These numbers speak to a much greater story because gun owners are not merely consumers buying a product, but voters reacting to concerns.”

• Arizona fishing license sales are up about 10 percent over what they were last year despite the economic downtown “or perhaps because of it,” says Kirk Young, fisheries chief for Arizona Game and Fish. “For the price of a couple of movie tickets ($23.50 for residents), you can get a general fishing license that lasts all year long and brings relief from the doldrums.  Fishing is a universal antidote for an ailing spirit.”

• Despite the economy and worries over fewer people traveling, three fourths of privately-owned campgrounds and RV resorts spent at least $150,000 last year on upgrades, according to research done by Northern Arizona University. Among them, Desert RV Oasis in Florence spent $300,000 and the Equity Lifestyles Properties spent $13 million at 170 RV sites, including Paradise RV Resort in Sun City.

• Add another Arizona waterway to the list of 13 others that have tested positive for elevated levels of mercury. State health officials have implemented a fish consumption advisory for largemouth bass and channel catfish at Roosevelt Lake.

Heavy metals concentrate in the fatty tissues of predatory fish and when eaten by those at the top-of-the-line in the food chain, humans can accrue levels beyond consumption thresholds limits. Recommendations are for no consumption by children under the age of six because infants and pregnant/nursing mothers are most at risk to possible health effects.  More on fish consumption advisories in Arizona is online at www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/download/fish-0409.pdf.

• Coronado National Forest officials report completion of improvement projects at two nearby recreation areas, Sabino Canyon and Mount Lemmon’s Rose Canyon Lake. Four restrooms have been replaced in the canyon and facilities at campsites by the lake have been revamped. Friends of Sabino Canyon helped out with the funding of projects.

• Talk about incentive fish: A new Lake Powell crappie record has been set.  Crappie are a schooling fish. Find a big one and there should be other monsters in the same group. A visiting Wisconsin angler discovered a school of large crappie last month with several tipping 3 pounds on the scale. The largest was a new lake record; 3 pounds, 5 ounces and 18½ inches long. It was caught on a Road Runner jig.

Lee Allen is a Tucson-based freelance writer whose Outdoor Observations column appears the third week of each month.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: CCW News Related Articles

Senate considers allowing guns near alcohol

June 9, 2009 · Leave a Comment

by Associated Press (June 8th, 2009 @ 5:49pm)

PHOENIX – Hoping for better luck with a Republican governor, gun rights advocates are pushing a bill vetoed by former Gov. Janet Napolitano that would allow concealed weapons in restaurants that sell alcohol.

The bill (SB 1113), which passed a Senate panel Monday, would allow people with concealed weapons permits to bring a handgun into a restaurant unless the owner has posted a sign prohibiting firearms. People carrying a weapon would not be allowed to drink.

“The debate has changed from whether guns should be allowed in restaurants to how guns should be allowed in restaurants,” Todd Rather, a lobbyist for the National Rife Association, said after the meeting.

Supporters say lawful gun owners should be allowed to protect themselves, even if they’re inside restaurants with liquor licenses.

“We ought to call these ‘no-defense zones,”’ said Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, one of the bill’s sponsors. “If a bad guy comes in, he knows you’re not armed, he knows they’ve restricted you and that you’re extremely vulnerable.”

Opponents say the bill would increase liability and expenses for restaurant owners.

Sen. Ken Cheuvront, a Phoenix Democrat who owns a wine bar downtown, said he’s concerned that restaurant owners will unknowingly allow guns inside by not posting a sign.

“As a restaurateur, there are a lot of times when we’re not informed of changes in the law,” Cheuvront said. “If they’re not informed, it’s implicit that they’re allowing it.”

Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed a similar bill in 2005 citing the wishes of restaurant owners and law enforcement agencies.

The 2005 version would have allowed guns in all businesses selling alcohol, including bars, but this year’s bill would allow them only in establishments that prepare and sell food on site.

Sen. Meg Burton Cahill, D-Tempe, said the bill is unclear in its definition of a restaurant. She said the bill could allow bars that primarily serve alcohol to permit guns by simply installing a microwave.

Drinking alcohol while carrying a firearm or bringing a gun into a restaurant that doesn’t allow them would be punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine.

Opponents said the punishment for bringing a gun into a restaurant that doesn’t allow them would be less severe than under current law, which allows up to four months in jail and a $750 fine.

The measure also would shield restaurant owners from liability for incidents involving handguns unless restaurant employees incited someone to fire.

The bill pits powerful gun and business lobbies against each other for the second time this year. The House passed a bill in May that would allow gun owners to keep a weapon inside a locked vehicle in a parking lot or garage if the property owner prohibits firearms on the premises.

Several business groups opposed that measure, saying it would make it harder for them to maintain safe workplaces.

The Senate began hearing non-budget bills Monday. Senate President Bob Burns, R-Peoria, wouldn’t allow committees to hear such bills until the chamber passed a budget, which happened Thursday.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: CCW News Related Articles
Tagged:

The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill

June 7, 2009 · Leave a Comment

 

Right-To-Carry
The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill
 
H.R. 197, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns’ (R-Fla.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any state, as follows: In states that issue concealed firearm permits, a state’s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal “bright-line” standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995. 

• Today, 48 states have laws permitting concealed carry, in some circumstances. Forty states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have RTC laws. Thirty-six have “shall issue” permit laws (including Alaska, which also allows carrying without a permit), three have fairly administered “discretionary issue” permit laws, and Vermont (and Alaska) allow carrying without a permit. (Eight states have restrictive discretionary issue laws.) Most RTC states have adopted their laws in the last decade.

• Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other RTC states that keep such statistics. RTC is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.

• States with RTC laws have lower violent crime rates. On average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% lower murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault, compared to the rest of the country. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI.)

• Crime declines in states with RTC laws. Since adopting RTC in 1987, Florida’s total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32% and 58%, respectively. Texas’ violent crime and murder rates have dropped 20% and 31%, respectively, since its 1996 RTC law. (Data: FBI.)

• The right of self-defense is fundamental, and has been recognized in law for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that “life” is among the unalienable rights of all people. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for “security.”

• The laws of all states and constitutions of most states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has stated that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and is “entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.” (Beard v. U.S., 1895)

• Congress affirmed the right to guns for “protective purposes” in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as “a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms.”

For more information on H.R. 1074, please click here.

To see if your Representative is a cosponsor of H.R. 1074, please click here.

Again, please contact your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and urge them to cosponsor and support these measures. For additional information on these bills, please visit www.NRAILA.org.
 
Posted: 1/12/2009 12:00:00 AM

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized
Tagged:

Bi-Partisan Congressional Majority Moves to Restore Second Amendment in National Parks

May 22, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Friday, May 22, 2009

On Wednesday, NRA-backed legislation to restore the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in national parks and wildlife refuges passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 279-147.  Today, the measure was signed into law and, as specified in the legislation, will take effect in nine months, on February 22, 2010. This was a major repudiation of the gun control community’s anti self-defense agenda.

The current Department of Interior (DOI) regulations were amended by the Bush Administration in 2008, allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves by carrying a concealed firearm in national parks and wildlife refuges.  However, early this year, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. granted anti-gun plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against implementation of the new rule.  NRA has been working for the past several years in the regulatory, legal, and legislative arenas to achieve this policy change.

“It has been an NRA priority to change the old, outdated rule, and we are pleased that Congress passed this critical legislation,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox.  “This step brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks and wildlife refuges.  NRA will continue to pursue every avenue to defend the American people’s right of self-defense.”

The National Park Service’s recent report revealed that 11 murders, 35 rapes, 61 robberies and 261 aggravated assaults occurred on parklands in 2006.  Our parks also contain hidden methamphetamine labs, marijuana fields and illegal drug and illegal alien smuggling routes.  In addition to these dangers and potential attacks from human predators, park visitors have to consider attacks from animal predators.  Between April and December 2007 there were at least a dozen grizzly bear attacks reported by park visitors.  Today, 31 states allow the carrying of firearms in state parks–all with safe and satisfactory results.

This bill provides consistency across our nation’s federal lands and puts an end to the patchwork of regulations that govern different lands managed by different federal agencies.  In the past, only Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while National Parks and Wildlife Refuges did not.

In 1982, only six states allowed citizens to carry handguns for self-defense.  Currently, 48 states have some process in place for issuing licenses or permits to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense.  The NRA has long held that the regulations needed to be updated to reflect this change.

This move restores the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes on most DOI lands and makes federal law consistent with the state law in which these lands are located.

“This common-sense measure, offered by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), gives law-abiding gun owners the option of protecting themselves in our federal parks and refuges.  We appreciate the efforts and leadership of Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.), and Representatives Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) and Rob Bishop (R-Utah), in ensuring a legislative remedy to amend out-of-date regulations and restore the Second Amendment rights of American gun owners,” concluded Cox.

Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030    800-392-8683
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy

→ Leave a CommentCategories: CCW News Related Articles
Tagged:

Congress Approves Bill Restricting Credit Card Industry, Allowing Guns in Parks

May 22, 2009 · Leave a Comment

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

The House voted Wednesday to join the Senate in approving sweeping restrictions on the credit card industry, as well as an unrelated measure, which the House passed separately, to allow loaded guns in parks.

The House approved the credit card overhaul measures by a vote of 361-64. Those measures would enact new restrictions on the industry, including a requirement that customers penalized by higher interest rates because they missed a payment are given a chance to reclaim their lower rate after six months.

The other measure, to restore a Bush administration policy allowing loaded guns in national parks, had been pushed by conservative Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who persuaded the Senate to add it to its version of the credit card legislation.

The Senate bill put House Democrats in a tough spot, since they effectively were forced to vote against gun control Wednesday in order to avoid kicking the bill back to the other chamber again. (The House and Senate must approve the same bill.)

House Democrats, though, engineered a delicate legislative maneuver to extend anti-gun Democrats a chance to go on record against the amendment without torpedoing the overall bill. They did this by holding two votes: one for the credit card end of things, one for the firearms portion. This gave anti-gun members political cover by allowing them to vote against the gun measure and for the credit card bill.

But since the gun measure passed, by a vote of 279-147, it nevertheless gets attached to the main bill and becomes law if President Obama signs it. He is expected to do so Friday.

Despite objections from many Democrats over the firearms measure, 105 House Democrats voted in favor of it. On the Senate side, 27 Democrats voted to expand gun rights.

Among those who voted “yes” was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had blocked Coburn’s amendment from coming to the Senate floor for more than a year. Seven other Western Democrats voted with Reid to support the Republican senator’s amendment, which allows a range of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by federal, state and local law.

Spokesman Jim Manley said Reid is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, adding that the guns in parks issue was a major concern for many Nevadans.

Meanwhile, the credit card portion is aimed at addressing consumer concerns.

The new restrictions would protect debt-ridden consumers from many of the surprise charges common in the industry, like over-the-limit fees and a charge to pay the bill by phone.

Some of the changes, including a requirement that cardholders receive 45-days’ notice before their rates are raised, are already on track to take effect in July 2010 under new regulations by the Federal Reserve.

But the legislation would put these changes into law and go further in restricting when and how banks charge people and who could get a card.

For example, the bill would require people under 21 to prove first that they can repay the money or that a parent or guardian is willing to pay off their debt if they default.

As banks scramble to make up for the lost revenue, cardholders who pay off their balance in full each month could also see annual fees become the norm and lucrative rewards programs canceled.

On the plus side for consumers, card holders who see their interest rate skyrocket because they have been late on a payment would get a chance at their older, lower rate if they pay their bill on time each month for six months.

FOX News’ Chad Pergram and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: CCW News Related Articles
Tagged:

Florida’s ‘castle doctrine’ provides rights for shooting would-be robbers

May 4, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Susan Jacobson | Orlando Sentinel Staff Writer
May 4, 2009

In the past 4 1/2 months, six Central Floridians met firepower with firepower when they witnessed or were victims of a robbery. The past four times, a robber ended up dead. Such shootings are routinely reviewed by state attorneys to determine if they were justified. But the chances of anyone being prosecuted are slim, lawyers said. The reason: Florida law gives residents and business owners near-impunity to shoot invaders in their homes or businesses. “If someone came in an office — mine or anybody else’s — and was trying to rob or commit a forcible felony, I have an absolute right to shoot them,” said Cheney Mason, an Orlando criminal-defense attorney who once found himself in just that position. Laws vary from state to state, and Florida has one of the country’s more liberal approaches. Florida law doesn’t require residents to retreat before shooting home burglars. The provision, known as the “castle doctrine,” is thought to have originated in English common-law rules and the notion that “one’s home is one castle,” according to a Connecticut General Assembly attorney. The presumption is that such a shooting prevents imminent death or great bodily harm to self or family, said Shane Fischer, a Winter Park criminal-defense lawyer. Law provides some immunity Shootings of business burglars are justifiable for similar reasons, said the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The law provides immunity from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits in most cases. Prosecutions are rare, Fischer said. “The State Attorney’s Office is too busy prosecuting real crimes to prosecute a law-abiding citizen defending their business,” Fischer wrote in an e-mail to the Orlando Sentinel. “Plus, no jury in the world is going to have sympathy for the dead burglar.” Prosecutors will review a March 31 shooting of a robber by a pharmacist and a Jan. 9 fatal shooting of a robber by a customer at a carwash, both in south Orange County. Ocoee police deemed the Jan. 7 shooting of an armed robber by a convenience-store customer justified. New Smyrna Beach police reached the same preliminary conclusion about a Feb. 7 fatal shooting by a pharmacy security guard. ‘Moral right to protect your life’ According to the National Rifle Association, 23 states have their own a version of the castle doctrine. A Connecticut General Assembly study found 15 states adopted castle-doctrine bills in 2005 and 2006. Almost anybody other than convicted felons can legally own a firearm in Florida without a license, which is required only to carry a concealed weapon. But federal law imposes severe restrictions on short-barrel rifles and shotguns, silencers and automatic weapons such as machine guns. “If somebody’s trying to kill you, you have a fundamental civil, human and moral right to protect your life,” said Alan Korwin, an Arizona author and publisher of gunlaws.com. “It is the most serious, traumatic, emotional situation you will ever be in.” Mason doesn’t remember his experience exactly that way. When a drug dealer stormed into his office and scared his staff, Mason was ready with a 9mm semiautomatic pistol aimed at the man’s heart. “I pulled a gun and ordered him out, and he ran away,” Mason said. “If you believe he’s armed and you’re threatened, you don’t have to wait until you’re shot first.” Case histories *March 31 A pharmacist shoots an armed robber at a south Orange County drugstore. The robber then shoots himself to death. *Feb. 7 A security guard shoots dead an armed robber who tries to steal oxycodone from a New Smyrna Beach pharmacy. *Jan. 9 A customer at a South Orange Blossom Trail carwash pulls a handgun when two men with a sawed-off shotgun try to rob him. One robber is killed. *Jan. 7 A customer shoots a robber dead at a convenience store in Ocoee. “I’m upset that I did take a man’s life,” he says later. “But the man should not have robbed the place.” *Dec. 23 A passer-by trades gunfire with a mugger in the parking lot at Orlando Fashion Square mall. The mugger is wounded. *Dec. 23 A west Orange man, 91, scares off two home invaders by shooting his .38-caliber revolver. He misses. *In 1997 and again in 1998 Orlando convenience-store owner Nam “Jay” Chun shoots and kills a robber. “I hate guns,” Chun said. “But if they mess with me, I’ll mess with them.”

→ Leave a CommentCategories: CCW News Related Articles
Tagged:

Boom in Gun Sales Fueled by Politics and the Economy

April 13, 2009 · Leave a Comment

By Sean Gregory Wednesday, Apr. 08, 2009
A customer samples a handgun at a shop in Glendale, Calif.
A customer samples a handgun at a shop in Glendale, Calif.
Gabriel Bouys / AFP / Getty

Americans are afraid of this economy. As a result, they’re getting locked and loaded. To wit: Jacquita Baker, a soft-spoken single mother from Kentwood, Mich., near Grand Rapids. She works as an administrative assistant at the Grand Rapids Urban League and is studying criminal justice at a local university. As of Monday, she’s the proud owner of a shotgun. Why bear arms now? “The economy played a large part in my decision,” says Baker, 27. “When people don’t have jobs, they might go breaking into people’s homes. I want to be safe in my home.”

She’s not alone. Three recent tragedies have thrust gun control back into the national discussion. On April 3, a Vietnamese immigrant in Binghamton, N.Y., shot and killed 13 people at an immigrant service center before taking his own life. On April 4, a Pittsburgh, Pa., man opened fire on three police officers responding to a domestic-disturbance call. All three officers died. That same day, a man from Graham, Wash., distraught that his wife was planning to leave him for another man, shot and killed his five children and then committed suicide. These horrible tragedies are already roiling gun-control advocates. But those who strive to see shotguns sidelined have to cope with another stinging reality: gun sales are soaring.

According to the SportsOneSource, a research firm that tracks the sporting-goods industry, firearms sales in large retail outlets are up 39% this year. Shops across the country are reporting ammunition shortages because stores can’t meet demand for bullets. Data from the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which the industry uses as a proxy for overall firearms sales, are also revealing. From November 2008 through March 2009, FBI background checks, which are required every time a federally licensed gun dealer makes a sale, rose 29.3% over the same period a year earlier. In November alone, checks jumped 42%, to 1,529,635, the largest monthly total in the decade that the system has been in place. “Consumer demand is unprecedented,” says Larry Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry.

Two factors are fueling the rise. The first is political. It’s no coincidence that a record number of background checks occurred in November, the month Barack Obama was elected President and the Democrats took control of Congress. People grew anxious that the Obama Administration would ban semiautomatic weapons, so they rushed to buy guns before legislation could be passed. In a December survey by the research firm Southwick Associates, nearly 80% of active hunters and target shooters said they believed firearm purchases would “become more difficult” under the new Administration and a Democratic Congress. “Everybody is waiting for when the next foot is going to fall in taking away the right to bear arms,” says Doug VanderWoude, owner of Silver Bullet Firearms in Wyoming, Mich., near Grand Rapids. He estimates that business is up 50% in 2009.

The last Democratic President, Bill Clinton, put into law an assault-weapons ban in 1994. President George W. Bush allowed that ban to expire, but last month Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, said the Administration wanted to reinstate Clinton’s ban. “The gun culture is hypersensitive,” says Miles Hall, an Oklahoma City gun-shop owner. “If someone sneezes in Washington, we hear it and get nervous. There’s a lot of anxiety out there.”

A new market of gun buyers is emerging. Hall estimates that some 80% of his sales since the election have been to first- and second-time gun purchasers, many nervous that this may be their last chance. “Thus far, the Obama Administration has done what they set out to do,” says Joe Keffer, who owns a shop in New Holland, Pa. “And therein lies the concern.” 

For gun-control advocates, this dynamic is bitterly ironic. Tough government talk against firearms, amplified by the Obama Administration’s popularity, has actually helped spark a sales increase. It’s yet another cost of good intentions.

The recession is another factor in the sales jump. Guns are expensive — Baker, for example, paid $200 for her shotgun — yet fear trumps the cost of a weapon for people worried that the economic crisis will lead to more crime. “Protection of the family, protection of the home, is utmost on people’s minds,” says Keffer. Many big cities have indeed seen crime tick higher during the downturn. But in the wrong psyche, this sentiment can carry deadly consequences. For example, the mother of the Pittsburgh man who shot and killed the police officers said her son had been stockpiling guns and ammunition “because he believed that as a result of the economic collapse, the police were no longer able to protect society.”

Gun advocates stress that a few extreme cases shouldn’t penalize law-abiding citizens who exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Roy Richmond, for example, just bought his first small handgun. He’s the heat-packing pastor of a nondenominational church near Oklahoma City. He’s carrying the weapon for protection. “Things are getting worse and worse,” he says. “There needs to be some people out there with guns.” With the weapons business booming, Richmond and his fellow firearms advocates are seeing their wish fulfilled.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: CCW News Related Articles