Advertisements
Home

It Is War, Against Shooting Ranges

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

Gun owners need to wake up and step up to help these people wanting to open a shooting range.

We need places for people to train with their weapons.

 

 

Guns are bad, liberals argue, because they are dangerous and people with guns are unsafe. Just look at all the children who shoot themselves or someone else with a gun they found, left loaded and unattended by an irresponsible gun owner, they claim. Their solution is to try and ban guns, of course, and, barring that, shut down gun ranges and shooting facilities.

In a typical single minded, progressive tantrum mode these activists either don’t realize or don’t care that making it harder for people to find places where they can get firearms training does nothing to contribute to gun safety. In many places you would have an easier time opening up a drive through strip club/liquor store/marijuana dispensary next to a church and across the street form an elementary school than trying to start a shooting range.

Andy Massimilian has been trying to open up a shooting range complex in rural Ransom Township Pennsylvania for years. He found a 600 acre property next to a landfill and a cemetery, which he purchased after checking all of the state and local zoning laws. When neighbors found out about his plans for the property trouble began with wild rumors of militia/paramilitary activity. Organized protests at public meetings followed as well as anonymous fliers accusing him of all sorts of things (including being from New York which was the one accurate detail).

His range proposal was subjected to intentional and unjustified administrative delays, as well as extensive challenges on trumped up accusations of safety, environmental and noise violations. He was forced to hire an engineer selected by the township and who grossly overcharged. State police, Homeland Security and even the FBI were contacted and asked to investigate “terrorist” activities at the site and by the owners. The state highway commission and the FAA were asked to investigate the impact of a shooting range on their operations miles away.

Massimilian had parked a few old surplus army trucks on the property which were subsequently shot full of bullet holes with a death threat left behind just in case the vandalism wasn’t clear enough. He had to sue several individuals for damaging his business by spreading false rumors and misinformation. Trying to shut down the project the township even offered to buy him out at one point. I asked him “why didn’t you just take the money?” Andy said “I have too much time and energy invested to try and find another suitable property just to start from scratch again.”

The worst part so far has been the lack of support from some gun owners. Andy was told that if the range was not going to be open to the public they would not help. Area gun clubs were also told that they would lose membership and business to this new start up. All of this is happening right now in supposedly gun-friendly Pennsylvania but Andy’s experience is far from unique.

In somewhat less gun-friendly Colorado, another long-time friend is trying to open a large indoor/outdoor range complex outside Denver. The plan is to build a world-class shooting and training facility for law enforcement and civilians with extra care taken to be environmental (using only lead free ammunition) and to limit noise. Yet after investing heavily in planning and development and in finding a suitable piece of property the entire process was halted during public hearings. Anti-gun zealots bussed in hundreds of people from out of town to pack the hearings and swamped government officials with opposition e-mails. Again, support from gun owners was disappointing at best.

 

He is going through the process once more from scratch in a different town but unless gun owners start getting a lot more active in defending shooting ranges this attempt may also fail. Progressive activists believe that making life difficult for gun owners in any way possible will reduce our numbers and they are right. Loosing access to safe and well-designed ranges where people can shoot or train is a disaster for all gun owners. Zoning meetings may seem dull but this is where the rubber meets the road and gun owners need to get involved.

 

Jorge Amselle is a certified firearms instructor and writer covering all aspects of the industry from military and law enforcement firearms and training to the shooting sports. His youtube channel is http://www.youtube.com/amselle.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/07/it-is-war-against-shooting-ranges/#ixzz31T6xhXzC

Advertisements

Cook County sheriff’s team taking guns if FOID card is revoked

Leave a comment

This is from The Chicago Sun Times.

More incompetence in the land of Barack Milhous Capone Kardashian.

It seems if you need a FOID to buy and possess a firearm the Sheriff of

Cook County would have been collecting guns.

 

A new Cook County Sheriff’s team is crisscrossing the suburbs to seize guns from thousands of people whose Firearm Owner’s Identification Cards have been revoked.

More than 3,000 people in Cook County have failed to surrender their revoked FOID cards to the state. Sheriff Tom Dart said he thinks many of them continue to possess firearms.

The Chicago Police Department conducts regular missions to recover revoked FOID cards and seize guns from the holders, but there wasn’t a concerted effort to do that in Cook County’s suburbs, Dart said.

“The system is broken,” the sheriff said. “The system revokes cards, but the guns are of no consequence. . . . Our strong hope is that we will eliminate tragedies.”

FOID cards are supposed to protect the public from dangerous people. Mental illness, felonies and protection orders are grounds for the state to revoke the cards from their holders. It’s illegal to buy guns or ammunition without one.

In February, Dart assigned a sergeant and four investigators to a gun team that has recovered about 160 FOID cards and taken more than 160 guns from the cardholders.

In one case, the team recovered more than 35 firearms, including four AR-15 assault rifles, from a suicidal man whose card was revoked.

People with revoked FOID cards can’t buy guns from federally licensed firearms dealers. For any gun sale, a store must conduct a background check that will uncover a FOID revocation.

But background checks aren’t required for ammunition. Someone buying bullets must simply show a FOID card. A person with a revoked card probably would still be able to buy bullets because the salesperson wouldn’t know it was revoked, Dart said.

The sheriff said the bigger problem is that most revoked FOID card holders continue to possess guns. Dart said he persuaded the General Assembly to include new language in the FOID law that would allow sheriffs and municipal police to obtain search warrants to look for guns in the homes of people with revoked FOID cards. Dart called the provision a “hammer” for police to wield when investigators suspect people with revoked cards have guns — but the people insist they don’t.

Sheriff’s investigators learn from the State Police whether someone with a revoked FOID card was ever approved to buy a gun after going through a background check at a gun store.

If the answer is yes, sheriff’s investigators ask the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for any records of the store selling a firearm to the person.

Every week, the State Police alert the sheriff’s gun team of about 10 to 20 new revocations in Cook County. The investigators conduct a basic inquiry into the gun purchasing histories of the people they intend to contact. Then they knock on their doors.

On Tuesday, Sgt. Chris Imhof, the team supervisor, and investigator Adrian Sandoval hunted for a dozen people whose FOID cards were revoked. At many addresses, no one answered the door. Other times, a mother or grandmother came to the door and said her son or grandson wasn’t home. Many of the women were cooperative, and in some cases they were able to call the cardholder and arrange a time to surrender it.

But a woman in Calumet Park, whose son’s FOID card was revoked because of a drug case, told the officers he wasn’t home and he didn’t have a gun because she threw it into the lake. “I explained to her that’s not the way to do things,” Sandoval said, adding that he found her story questionable.

The officers then met a 31-year-old woman at a McDonald’s in Calumet Park and she handed over her FOID card. The woman, whose card also was revoked because of a drug case, had arranged to meet the officers after they went to her mother’s house and she wasn’t there.

They finished in Lyons, where a 43-year-old truck driver handed over a FOID card and a duplicate card with a different address — along with ammunition and the barrel of a 9mm pistol. The driver took the day off to meet the officers after they visited his house the day before and he wasn’t there.

The officers’ final tally for the day: three recovered FOID cards but no guns. They had visited 10 addresses where their targets weren’t even home. It showed just how time-consuming the work can be.

What makes the job rewarding, though, is when the team removes guns from a home where family members are scared of the FOID cardholder, Sandoval said. “We’ve had people say, ‘Thank you, I didn’t want these guns here anymore,’ ” he said.

 

State took guns of man for mischief night egg fight

Leave a comment

This is from The Connecticut Post.

This is from the you can not make this stuff up department.

Maybe it is time for Mr. Gorham  to move to a Red State.

He would enjoy more freedom. 

Norwalk Compressor employee James Gorham poses at his place of work in Stratford, Conn. on Friday June 7, 2013. Gorham has his gun permit revoked because he turned up in a database during a check for a misdemeanor arrest when he was 19 in 1971. Photo: Christian Abraham / Connecticut Post

Norwalk Compressor employee James Gorham poses at his place of work in Stratford, Conn. on Friday June 7, 2013. Gorham has his gun permit revoked because he turned up in a database during a check for a misdemeanor arrest when he was 19 in 1971. Photo: Christian Abraham

HARTFORD — A longtime gun owner who recently had his permit revoked over a 1971 Halloween egg fight was the inspiration for an amendment to the state’s new gun law.

James E. Gorham, a 61-year-old Norwalk gun collector and target shooter, received a letter in January ordering him to turn in his guns; his one instance of teenage mischief disqualified him from legal gun ownership.

“I was first contacted by the Norwalk Police Department before I got a certified letter from the State Police,” said Gorham, a businessman. “It was a real surprise. They told me I had been involved in domestic violence and I told them, `You’ve got the wrong person.’ ”

The letter referred to a misdemeanor charge for the egg fight, for which Gorham paid a $10 fine when he was 19.

So Gorham, manager of customer service and sales for the Norwalk Compressor Co., turned in his seven handguns to state police at Troop G in Bridgeport.

But his plight caught the attention of House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, who successfully introduced a change in gun legislation that will allow people like Gorham, with lower-level misdemeanors adjudicated before 1994 that do not involve drugs or firearms, to hold onto their guns.

During the General Assembly‘s debate on the release of photos of the school massacre victims this week, Cafero successfully argued that the rights of his constituent — Gorham — had to be protected and should be part of the amendments to the landmark April gun reforms.

Now, Gorham will get his guns back and he can resume target practice at Blue Trail Range in Wallingford.

The issue surfaced last year, when the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown sent law enforcement officials scouring through firearms records.

In January, state police ordered Gorham to surrender all his guns because they discovered a “misdemeanor handgun disqualifier” during a routine criminal background check after he used a gift certificate his wife gave him at Christmas to purchase a new new Smith & Wesson .380 revolver.

Even though he had no other criminal record and had held valid permits for more than 35 years, police discovered the third-degree assault arrest from his October 1971 mischief night egg fight in Westport, where Gorham went to high school.

He had been working a second job that night, Gorham said, driving a tow truck along Treadwell Avenue, when an egg hit the side of the truck’s windshield. He and his passenger drove to a nearby gas station to clean off the egg. A pump attendant there offered them a few eggs for later that night.

Soon thereafter, Gorham and his friend found the teens who had egged the truck and Gorham hit one of them, a 16-year-old, in the head from a few feet away. The boy complained to his father, and the issue of who instigated the egg confrontation apparently never came up with the Westport police who arrested him, Gorham recalled.

He paid the fine and that was that, until Jan. 24, when he received the police letter. His only remedies were to appeal to the Board of Firearms Examiners or seek a state pardon for the egg-throwing incident.

Similar seizure letters have gone out to other gun owners, but Lt. J. Paul Vance, spokesman for the state police, said last week he doesn’t know how many people were contacted or how many guns have been turned in.

“I haven’t a clue,” said Vance, who declined to talk specifics about Gorham because of confidentiality requirements and wouldn’t confirm that photocopies of the seizure orders were authentic.

“What happens in many cases, prior to the 1990s, someone might have gotten into a minor event,” said Vance, noting that in 1994, following the 1991 ban on assault weapons, lawmakers approved the tougher rules barring those convicted of misdemeanors from obtaining handgun permits.

Vance said that cases such as Gorham’s permit renewal every five years “could have fallen through the cracks very easily” until he tried to buy the new Smith & Wesson after Christmas.

“It’s very rare something like this rises to the surface,” Vance said. “We’ve got to apply the law as it’s written.”

Cafero said his amendment tries to balance the public’s safety with protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

“Here was Mr. Gorham, who followed the rules, hadn’t had so much as a traffic ticket, I believe, since he was 19, been married for decades, worked for the same company for years, has had his gun permit renewed every five years,” Cafero said. “We had no right to take away his permit. And this had nothing to do with the law we passed in April. The question is, how many more Mr. Gorhams are there?”

Gorham is relieved the new law will result in the return of his guns, even if it leaves state officials with a little egg on their faces.

Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/State-took-guns-of-man-for-mischief-night-egg-4587820.php#ixzz2Vs4kcH24

Police and Military Facing Tough Choice: Constitution or Gun Control

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

I can see the problem out military and police officers

are facing not want to disobey their superior’s orders.

Yet not wanting to arrest or even using deadly force against

friends,family or their neighbors.

Yet they did take an Oath to Protect and defend the Constitution.

So that oath means not enforcing unconstitutional laws.

I have family and friends that have been in law enforcement or still are.  When they took their oath of office, they all swore to uphold the Constitution and laws of their city, state and nation.  When anyone joins the military, they take a similar oath to protect the country and uphold the Constitution.

There is another thing that all of those oaths of office have in common.  The section about protecting the country and Constitution says that they will protect against foreign and domestic threats.  Our Founding Fathers and the people that established our military and various law enforcement agencies knew back then that we may face threats to our way of life from within the country as well as from without.  Domestic threats have always been a real possibility.

Today, it is more than a possibility, it has become a reality.  State and federal governments are the ones posing the domestic threats to the US Constitution and laws of the land.  All of the attacks being made at the state and federal level against the Second Amendment are, by definition, domestic threats to the US Constitution and as such could be considered to be acts of treason.

So what do law enforcement officers and military personnel do in this situation?  They have all sworn an oath to protect the Constitution.  Do they stand by that oath and defy state and federal government officials by not enforcing these unconstitutional laws?  Do they face being fired or court martialed for defending the Constitution?  These are the tough choices that many will soon be faced with.  Listen to this powerful video about them having to make this decision:

The question is easier for county sheriffs because the US Supreme Court has already ruled that they are the supreme law enforcement officers in their jurisdiction, even over federal agencies.  Many county sheriffs have already signed letters and told their citizens that they will not enforce any federal gun control law that they believe to be unconstitutional.

But what about city and state cops?  What are they going to do?  For instance, in Colorado, they recently passed a whole barrage of unconstitutional gun control laws.  Do city and state police enforce those laws or do they defend the state and federal Constitution?

This is surely a difficult and troubling time to be in law enforcement or the military.  Careers are sure to be ruined by the decisions these men and women are about to make.  If their careers are not ruined, then their personal values and duty to country will surely be compromised and they will have to live knowing it.

Years ago, I applied for the city police department back home.  I passed the written and physical test and was waiting to hear if I would be accepted to attend the training academy.  Then I got a call telling me that they discovered that my eyesight without my glasses was just over the allowable qualifications and I was rejected.  Had I been accepted and became a police officer, I know that I would choose to defend the US Constitution over the anti-constitutional gun control laws being passed.  Even though it could mean my career and retirement, I believe it’s more important to stand for the Constitution.  If not, then the Constitution will inevitably be replaced by something far inferior and totally un-American.

What would you do?  What do you want your local and state police to do?  What do you expect military men and women to do?  The last time they were faced with a situation like this, it resulted in the American Civil War.  Are we on the verge of a second one?

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/10526/police-and-military-facing-tough-choice-constitution-or-gun-control/#ixzz2RR2Gdppz

 

Connecticut teacher mistakenly kills son after neighbor reports robber

Leave a comment

 

This is from CNN.

I can not imagine the pain this father is feeling.

He had no way of knowing the person in black was his son.

His son was dressed in black and had a shiny object in his hand.

Then he made a sudden move toward his father and was shot.

I would have fired my weapon also.

 

(CNN) — A Connecticut grade-school teacher accidentally shot his 15-year-old son during what he apparently thought was the attempted robbery of a neighbor’s house, police said Friday.

“Something like this is a tragedy, a loss of human life,” State Police Lt. Paul Vance said.

The incident occurred in New Fairfield about 1 a.m. Thursday when a woman called her neighbor, Jeffrey Giuliano, and said she thought there was a robber in front of her house.

Police say the woman, whom they declined to identify, said the robber was dressed in black, wearing a ski mask and holding a shiny object. CNN affiliate WFSB reported the woman is Jeffrey Giuliano’s sister.

Giuliano confronted the person, whom he apparently didn’t realize was his adopted son, Tyler, and shot the boy when he “came toward him in a threatening manner,” according to police.

Tyler Giuliano was pronounced dead at the scene. His father has not been charged with a crime.

“We’re all waiting for that million-dollar answer: What was going through (Tyler’s) mind that night?” said New Fairfield resident and politician John Hodge. “Something like this really hit us hard. We do want to get the real answers here.”

Hodge added that New Fairfield is “close-knit community” where “certainly nothing of this nature” has occurred in recent memory.

Tyler Giuliano was a sophomore at New Fairfield High School.

Police say they are continuing to investigate the incident.

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: