How to get Malls to Allow CCW

Elyria’s Midway Mall Removes “No Guns” Signs
Written by Rich Hardway
Thursday, 22 March 2007

I have been asked to write an account about my experience in changing management’s opinion and policy on posting “No Guns” signs on the doors at Elyria’s Midway Mall in Elyria, OH so others might learn from the way I handled the situation.

I was asked by Daniel White, OFCC Director-At-Large, to verify that the Midway Mall had indeed posted signs on the doors as reported by a member in the forums on the OFCC web site. He asked me if I would be willing to talk to someone about their policy if the doors were in fact posted.

I accepted his request on behalf of the members of OFCC and went to the mall that evening after work. I walked the perimeter of the mall to look at each door and indeed all but one was posted. I then went to the office of the mall but found it to be closed because it was after 5:00 PM.

I then decided this was a good thing because it gave me a chance to prepare what I wanted to say to the mall managers. I then went to the information booth where they rent the strollers and wheel chairs to ask who I might be able to talk to about the signs or someone in public relations. The lady handed me a business card for the assistant manager of the mall.

That night at home I developed my plan of action with the power points that I wished to cover in a meeting with him the next morning

The next morning bright and early I went to the mall wearing an OFCC shirt and a large smile on my face. I asked to speak with the gentleman on the card I received the night before. When he came to the counter, I introduced myself and asked him if we could sit down and discuss the mall’s new policy prohibiting legal concealed handguns.

We began our conversation on what OFCC is and represents. Then we began talking about the mall’s reasons for changing their policy and posting of the property. Within a few minutes, he stopped me and said that he wanted to bring in a couple other management members. After a brief introduction to the general manager, Mark, I began all over again. I asked them why they suddenly changed their policy. Mark said that they wanted to create a safer environment for their customers’ shopping experience. I asked them if they truly feel that they had achieved this goal by refusing to allow law-abiding citizens in the mall that had properly and legally obtained a permit from the state of Ohio to carry a concealed handgun. I went on to say that I don’t feel they did. They made a reference to the recent shooting in a Utah mall and that they did not want a similar action in their mall. I fully agreed with them that I also never want to hear or see such a thing in any mall.

I then countered with the facts. The facts are that a deranged teenager went to that mall with a premeditated plan to illegally assault and kill as many victims as he possibly could. If it was not for the fact that an off-duty police officer was dining in that mall at the time, many more innocent people would have become victims at the killer’s hands. The truth is that due to the off duty police officer’s ability to carry a concealed handgun, he was able to cut the rampage short until police arrived and put an end to the carnage. This man saved innocent lives.

I then asked them if they really think that any sign posted at the door of the Utah mall would have stopped the teen from entering that mall on that day with the small arsenal that he had to support his plan of terror. In fact, that mall did have a “No Weapons” policy. John Lott reported on his website and linked to a picture of the actual sign on the doors. You can view the sign by clicking here.

I asked both managers if they had ever read the concealed carry law, as I handed them a copy of it. Then I made the following statement: “People that have a license to carry a concealed firearm issued by the state of Ohio have obtained that license after successfully attending the mandatory class, been fingerprinted by their local Sheriff, and passed a complete background check that the Sheriff has performed.”

When someone has a license you know that that person is someone that has a clean background and has never been convicted of a serious crime. You can not say that about anyone who comes into your mall that has not received a license just off the fact they don’t have a license

Then I told them that people that have a license would do one of two things when they see the sign on the door. They will either return to their car and remove their sidearm, locking it in the trunk before returning to shop or they will do their shopping at a retailer that respects and supports their Second Amendment rights under the law.

Let’s look at Wal-Mart for a moment. I think we can all agree that Wal-Mart is one of the largest retails in the world and they understand the thinking here. They removed their signs and changed their policy to a pro-choice stance and with that they let the American people decide if they want to carry a concealed handgun or not with their license.

Although law-abiding people will honor your request to not bring a weapon into your mall, criminals will ignore your signs and do as they please. Which customers would you prefer do their shopping here?

The Manager was agreeing with what I was saying and he said that the mall would remove the signs and make changes to their policy as well.

Three hours later I received the following e-mail from him.

Mr. Hardway:

Thank you for coming in to see me today and addressing your concerns. After talking with you and considering the facts that you have voiced we have reconsidered our position and have elected to remove the signs prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. They have all been removed today.

Our intention for posting the signage was an attempt to create a safer environment for our shoppers. However, your points are well taken and thus we have removed the signage.

We hope you and the other members of the O.F.C.C. will continue to consider the Midway Mall a safe place to shop in the future that does value and respect your rights under Federal and State laws. We recognize the fact as pointed out by you that people whom have been issued a permit to carry a concealed weapon are law bidding citizens and that’s the type of shoppers we want in our stores.

Thanks again.

Mark J. Bressler
General Manager
Midway Mall

As OFCC members, we can all make a difference with a polite and understanding voice. The use of diplomacy with education and the truth must be our weapons of choice. The facts are a powerful thing when delivered with respect.

Mr. Hardway is a proud OFCC member that shows what one dedicated individual can achieve. This is his first article for our website.

Share/Save

Zumbo Fires Back At Senator Levin

True to his word, Jim Zumbo responds to Senator Carl Levin who used his words about “banning” “terrorist rifles” in a speech in favor to SB 1022, Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy’s new and improved “Assault Weapon Ban”. …clicky…

In February, hunter and outdoorsman Jim Zumbo enraged shooters across the United States with comments appearing his now-discontinued blog on Outdoor Life. Since that fateful blog, Zumbo’s professional life has changed - profoundly. A marquee career in hunting has effectively been reduced to nothingness. Television sponsors bolted, contracts were cancelled and a former front-man for hunting found himself the object of hatred and ridicule by shooters who felt betrayed by his comments.

Zumbo hasn’t tried to shift the blame to anyone else. In fact, he pledged to go on the offensive to fight HR 1022, the newly introduced and significantly broadened, assault weapons ban.

Last week, Michigan Senator Carl Levin, a staunch opponent of firearms, used Zumbo’s remarks to attack firearms owners, reading portions into the Congressional Record. Zumbo has fired back, sending an open letter to the United States Senate that responds to Levin’s action and makes it plain that Zumbo isn’t letting that action pass.

Last night, Zumbo provided us a copy of his response to Senator Levin. Today, in the sense of fairness, we offer it in its entirety - without comment.

An Open Letter to the United States Senate

Dear Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

It recently came to my attention that one of your colleagues, Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, has chosen to attack firearms owners using remarks I wrote in mid-February as his launch pad. As you probably know, Sen. Levin has been making anti-gun speeches every week for the past eight years because of a promise he made to the Economic Club of Detroit in May 1999.

Mr. Levin has an agenda, and he should have spoken to me before using my name in one of his speeches, especially since his remarks were entered into the Congressional Record. I would like my remarks here entered into the Congressional Record as well.

Sen. Levin is only one of 16 members of the Senate to vote against the Vitter Amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. This amendment prohibits the confiscation of a privately-owned firearm during an emergency or major disaster when possession of that gun is not prohibited under state or federal law.

Eighty-four senators voted for that amendment, inspired by the egregious confiscation of firearms from the citizens of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina in the summer of 2005. Those seizures, you will recall, led the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association to join in a landmark civil rights lawsuit in federal court that brought the confiscations to an abrupt end.

The taking of private property without warrant or probable cause - even firearms - was considered an outrage by millions of American citizens, and yet Sen. Levin joined 15 of his colleagues in voting against this measure. It is no small wonder that Sen. Levin gets an “F” rating from gun rights organizations. He would have American citizens disarmed and left defenseless at a time when they need their firearms the most, when social order collapses into anarchy and protecting one’s self and one’s family is not simply a right and responsibility, it becomes a necessity.

That in mind, Sen. Levin must know that almost immediately after I wrote those remarks, I recanted and apologized to the millions of Americans who lawfully and responsibly own, compete with and hunt with semi-automatic rifles. I took a “crash course” on these firearms and visited with my good friend Ted Nugent on his ranch in Texas, where I personally shot an AR-15 and educated myself with these firearms.

Some of us learn from our mistakes, others keep making them. Legislation to which Sen. Levin alluded, HR 1022, would renew the ban on so-called “assault weapons,” and dangerously expand it to encompass far more perfectly legal firearms. For the Congress of the United States to even consider such legislation is an affront to every law-abiding firearms owner in this country.

This legislation that Sen. Levin appears to endorse is written so broadly as outlaw not only firearms, but accessories, including a folding stock for a Ruger rifle. As I understand the language of this bill, it could ultimately take away my timeworn and cherished hunting rifles and shotguns - firearms I hope to one day pass on to my grandchildren - as well as millions of identical and similar firearms owned by other American citizens.

It is clear to me that the supporters of this legislation don’t want to stop criminals. They want to invent new ones out of people like me, and many of you, and your constituents, friends, neighbors and members of your families. They will do anything they can, go to any extremes they believe necessary, to make it impossible for more and more American citizens to legally own any firearm.

In his final paragraph, Senator Levin misrepresents what I said. I never spoke in favor of a general assault weapons ban. Again, I immediately apologized for my blog statement that was exclusively directed toward hunting and not gun ownership.

I will not allow my name to be associated with this kind of attack on the Second Amendment rights of my fellow citizens.

A few weeks ago, in a letter to Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, I promised to educate my fellow hunters about this insidious legislation “even if I have to visit every hunting camp and climb into every duck blind and deer stand in this country to get it done.”

I will amend that to add that I will bring my effort to Capitol Hill if necessary, even if I have to knock on every door and camp in every office of the United States Senate. In promoting this ban, the Hon. Carl Levin does not speak for me, or anybody I know.

Sincerely,
James Zumbo
Cody, Wyoming

Share/Save

Guns Secure & Save Lives

Meet Darren Seiber. He’s the author of the East Tennessean viewpoint article of 3/26/2007 entitled “Guns do not save or secure lives.“

“Guns do not save or secure lives
Darren Seiber

It is often said that everything’s bigger in Texas - and without the assistance of Academy Award worthy films such as “Debbie Does Dallas” - some may believe this saying to be nothing more than a myth. But for the Texans who don’t quite measure up there is always another way to compensate: own a gun. Because we all know how Texans love their guns, right?”

If you couldn’t be bothered to read the whole bucket of tripe, this first paragraph pretty much sums up the whole article. Throw in three or four bogus statistics from the IANSA (no I won’t link to them) and toss in a blender. Voila!

I commented on the article, but I seriously don’t expect it to be posted. Below is my comment back to Mr. Seiber:

“What a self serving, smug little essay. Too bad your arguments are both disingenuous and puerile. First you start off with the tired old, “He must be compensating for something” gag. Grow up. If you want to be taken seriously as a writer, leave the childish insults at the door.

There are many reasons that Americans own guns, hunting, target shooting, protection and just because they have a right to under The Bill of Rights. Rights I might add, that pre-existed the United States.

Do you have a degree in Philosophy Darren? Why your insistence that gun rights supporters have one? The facts are, it doesn’t take a mental giant to understand that criminals are responsible for their crimes, not the tool they used. With your reasoning we should also ban pagers, cell phones and cars, since they are all used by criminals. While we’re at it, let’s ban swimming pools too since the risk of drowning in a pool is nearly 100 times higher than from a firearm-related accident for everyone, and nearly 500 times for ages 0-5.

Did you know that guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed. This includes 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually fired….and since you bring up Canada, “Statistics Canada, Oct. 1, 2003″ States that the firearm homicide rate in Canada is virtually unchanged from before and after gun registration.

Saying “We are wrong because guns are wrong” is like saying “I am right because I’m right.” Saying so doesn’t make it so Darren. The “Kellerman study” you site used three non-random counties, a limited (266) case file, began with only cases where a death was involved, and had many other statistical weaknesses. This “study” also notes that the majority (54%) of the homicides were committed without firearms, and concluded that “household use of illicit drugs and prior domestic violence increase the risk of homicide.”

The British Home Office – not a “pro-gun” organization by any means, says that you are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:

Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%

Also, the National Crime Victimization Survey states that when using guns in self-defense:

• 83% of robbery victims were not injured
• 88% of assault victims were not hurt
• 76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot

Any questions?

Based on your reasoning that the Second Amendment is no longer appropriate, I could also say that about the First Amendment. Which parts of The Bill of Rights should we keep? Using your very arguments I could also make a case (a weak one at that) that you should only be allowed to use quill pens and hand operated presses. And the internet? Fugetaboutit!

Your argument that gun owners are more likely to kill someone over an disagreement or a crying child is idiotic. Likewise, all men are not potential rapists, and all women are not potential prostitutes just because they have the required equipment. It’s called “Transference” Darren, look it up. Anti-gun advocates have been crying this same old song and dance for years. Every time a state enacts a law allowing law abiding people to carry a concealed handgun, they scream that there will be blood running in the streets, that people will have shoot-outs over a stolen parking space and that fender benders will result in massacres. In fact Multiple victim public shootings drop in states that pass shall-issue CCW legislation. The anti’s even admit that they were wrong, but they keep repeating it anyway. Saying something is so multiple times doesn’t make it true. As a reference the Earth still isn’t flat and still revolves around the Sun.

Your article is based on false assumptions derived from flawed statistics from people with an agenda . I’m sure I won’t change your mind, but I would encourage you to discard the rhetoric and look at all the facts before coming to any conclusions. I would also encourage anyone reading this to do the same.”

Share/Save

Jim Zumbo GunWeek Interview

Zumbo ‘Proud’ of Gun Owners, Vows to Lead Charge for Right
by Dave Workman
Senior Editor

“I’m an idiot. I’m ignorant. My words obviously have come back to destroy my career.”

Thus was the observation of outdoor legend Jim Zumbo, who told Gun Week in an exclusive interview that he harbors no ill feelings toward the legions of angry gun owners whose backlash has possibly cost him his livelihood, and perhaps his reputation.

“I did it to myself,” he said. “I have nobody to blame.”

But in a candid conversation from his home in Wyoming, Zumbo said that the most important lesson he learned—and that he hopes will translate into action in defense of the Second Amendment in this country—is that “When the gun community acts and decides to take on an issue, this is proof positive they can make it work. I am proud of them.”

Stunning words from a man whose 42-year career came to a crashing halt within days of his ill-advised remarks against AR-15 rifles on an Outdoor Life Internet blog. Zumbo said his assignment was to write three of those columns each week, and on Feb. 16 when he came back from a long, grueling coyote hunt and had a spirited discussion about semi-auto rifles with the guide, he sat down and wondered, “What can I write for these guys? What the hell is controversial?”

He found out the hard way.

“They got me,” he said. “I used the word ‘ban’ which I should never have used, and I used the word ‘terrorist’ which I should never have used.”

He has publicly apologized on Ted Nugent’s Internet forum, and he offered the same apology to Gun Week and its readers. The experience has humbled him.

But the disaster to his career has not made Zumbo want to run and hide, though many of his critics say he should. Instead, Zumbo is going to use this experience to become what he hopes will be the worst nightmare that gun-grabbing politicians and gun control activists could imagine.

“I want to join the fight, do whatever it takes,” he said in earnest. “Let’s educate the other dumb people like me who didn’t know about AR-15s. I will lead that charge.

“I’m stupid,” he added, admitting that he has never had what some people might call a “fascination” with firearms. “From my ignorance, let’s enlighten everyone else.”

Zumbo said he could have retired a year ago, and he could do likewise today, but in his heart, he feels a responsibility to square himself, and use his energies to unite the hunting and shooting fraternities, which do not always see eye-to-eye, even in this controversy.

“I want to come out of this and make our gun and hunting community a better place, a more understanding place,” he said. “Within our community, some hunters don’t understand shooters, and some shooters don’t understand hunters…I have got to fix this.”

Share/Save

Couple Terminated From Disney After 10 Years of Employment

Update on Florida’s NRA-Backed “Individual Personal Private Property Protection” Legislation!

Friday, March 23, 2007

House Bill 1417 and Senate Bill 2356 are companion bills that have been introduced to stop businesses from searching customer and employee vehicles in parking lots and from taking punitive action against people who keep firearms in their vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes.

You may think this does not happen, but it does!

Below is a letter received by Marion Hammer, former NRA President and current Executive Director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida, from Ernest J. Myers, Esq. Mr. Myers represents a couple who were fired from their jobs of 10 years because they had a firearm in their locked vehicle on their employer’s property.

Please take the time to read this letter. This is the ugly truth of what is happening in Florida.

_________________________________________________________________

Dear Ms. Hammer:

I am an attorney in Orlando, Florida. I understand that you are supporting the proposed Personal Private Property Protection Act introduced to the Florida Legislature this year. I wanted to bring a matter to your attention that relates to this Bill.

I represent Doug and Linda Gray, a husband and wife who were both employed by the Walt Disney World Company. They worked similar shifts, and traveled to work together. The Grays had to begin their commute before sunrise, and had to travel through some less than safe areas. In fact, they had been accosted on their commute to work in the past. They contacted law enforcement about this and were advised that they should purchase a firearm for their own protection during their commute. Based on this advice, Mr. Gray purchased a revolver to protect he and his wife. When the Grays arrived at work, the revolver was locked in their vehicle.

The Grays were both hired by Disney on November 13, 1996. They met at Disney during the final entry interview process, and were later married. Just 17 days before their 10th anniversary of employment at Disney, they were both terminated. While Mrs. Gray was being asked about an absence from work, she responded that her husband was unable to attend, and she didn’t feel safe traveling into work without him. Upon further questioning, Mrs. Gray revealed that Mr. Gray had the firearm in their vehicle for their protection. Disney had the vehicle searched, and the firearm was found, locked in the vehicle where the Grays indicated it was. Both Mr. and Mrs. Gray were terminated. Additionally, Disney had the Orange County Sheriffs issue a trespass warning against Mr. and Mrs. Gray, so that neither could step foot on any Disney property again.

I attempted to intervene on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Gray. However, Disney would not allow me to participate in their review of this incident. Disney claimed that they had a zero tolerance policy with respect to firearms on their property. They would not listen when they were told that the revolver belonged to Mr. Gray, and that Mrs. Gray had never even handled the same. They would not listen when they were told about the Grays’ commute and how it was dangerous for them to travel to work at the times they were scheduled.

Moreover, Disney showed no leniency toward the Grays whatsoever. The punishment for Mrs. Gray was the same as for Mr. Gray, because she knew that he kept a firearm in the vehicle and the vehicle was titled in both of their names. Disney did not take the Grays’ years of service into account when they were terminated. Disney did not take into account the fact that the Grays voluntarily reduced their hours in the post-September 11, 2001 tourist slump, so that Disney would not have to lay off as many employees. Disney would not even withdraw the trespasses against the Gray so that they could bring their grandchildren to the parks when they visited on vacation. Mr. Gray was originally granted unemployment compensation, but Disney fought that as well and now Mr. Gray is obligated to pay back the unemployment benefits he was paid.

Doug and Linda Gray are good people. They had recently bought a house and were working hard to pay for the same. They worked for Disney for almost 10 years, and they no plans to change their careers. Unfortunately, it is not a perfect world. The Grays had been threatened by criminals on their commute to work during the pre-dawn hours. Mr. Gray purchased a firearm for the sole purpose of protecting himself and his wife so that they could continue to show up for work at Disney. However, when Disney discovered that there was a firearm in its parking lot, Disney fired these hard working, long time employees without hesitation, without remorse, and without any recourse. When Disney was given the opportunity to show leniency, it failed to do so.

In short, Mr. Gray lost his job because he wanted to protect himself and his wife when they were traveling to and from work. Mrs. Gray lost her job simply because her husband wanted to keep her safe during their commute. Their lives have been thrown into upheaval because they were willing to take responsibility for their own safety. Certainly Disney did nothing to keep them safe during their commute; to the contrary, in complete disregard for the safety and welfare of its employees, Disney prohibits employees, such as the Grays, from protecting themselves while traveling to and from work.

The Grays understand that there was no law preventing Disney from terminating them as it did. However, they have asked me to share their story with you and with the Florida Legislature, so perhaps other good citizens of Florida are protected from similar actions in the future.

If I can provide any additional information on this topic that would be useful to you or the Florida Legislature, please do not hesitate to contact me. Until then, I remain,

Very truly yours,

Ernest J. Myers, Esq.
Orlando, FL 32801

Share/Save

Any questions?

Give Them Back!

Share/Save

Rudy Giuliani for President?

Presented without further comment… -Yuri

Share/Save

U.K. School Kids Strap on Stab-Proof Vests as Knife Crime Soars

From the, “Gee, I thought there was no more violent crime in the UK since handguns were banned” file. …clicky…

By Nick Allen

March 22 (Bloomberg) — Ashgar Jilow used to sell stab-proof vests to nightclub bouncers and security guards at his London military surplus store. Now his clients are kids as young as 10 who fear they’re going to be knifed at school or on the street.

“Some of them are so tiny the vests don’t even fit under their school uniforms,” said Jilow, 55, who sells about three of the 120-pound ($230) vests a week. “Parents don’t know what to do to keep their kids safe.”

Every week in London 52 teenagers are victims of knife crime, according to the Metropolitan Police. A child is stabbed to death in Britain every two weeks and knife killings outnumber gun homicides three to one, said Norman Brennan, a police officer and director of the Victims of Crime Trust.

“Knife crime is out of control and kids carry them like fashion accessories,” Brennan said. The youngest child to be suspended from school for brandishing a blade was just five.

Last week two teenagers were knifed to death in London. Adam Regis, 15, was attacked March 17 on his way home from the movies in Newham, an east London borough that is being regenerated by the 2012 Olympics. He called his girlfriend for help as he bled to death, police said.

Three days earlier, Kodjo Yenga, 16, was stabbed to death as a gang of boys and girls chanted “Kill him, kill him” in Hammersmith, west London, where homes sell for more than 1 million pounds, eyewitnesses said.

Gang Culture

Statistics indicate that more children are reaching for blades as gang culture spreads. Some 42 percent of boys aged between 11 and 16 in state-funded schools admit to having carried a knife, according to the Youth Justice Board, which oversees punishment of child offenders.

Natashia Jackman, then 15, was stabbed in the eye with a pair of scissors at Collingwood College in Camberley, Surrey, by a 14- year-old girl who didn’t like her taste in music.

“I came from a private school,” Natashia said in court, according to a transcript of her testimony. “When I started realizing that there were gangs and when I realized that stabbing was common in state schools, then I started worrying about it.”

Her assailant was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in jail in December.

Some students have brought machetes, combat knives, swords and sharpened screwdrivers at school, police say. Girls have been caught with blades hidden in lipstick and mascara tubes.

Security Guards

“I wouldn’t blame any parent for giving their child a stab vest if it makes them feel a bit more secure,” said Nancy Odunewu, a pastor whose son Emmanuel, 19, was stabbed to death in Lewisham, southeast London, in November 2006. “If I could have done anything to save my son then I would have.”

She said all schools should have security guards and airport- style metal detectors. George Mitchell School in Leyton, east London, became the first in the capital to use handheld metal detectors for random checks.

Juvenile knife crime first grabbed the public’s attention in the U.K. when 10-year-old Damilola Taylor was fatally stabbed by other youngsters on his way home from school in Peckham, east London, in November 2000.

Prime Minister Tony Blair opened a community center named after Damilola in 2001. In February 2004, a 14-year-old boy was arrested on suspicion of stabbing another teenager at the facility.

In 2004, 170 pupils between the ages of 12 and 14 were convicted of possessing knives, double the 2000 figure. Last year, one teacher was injured by a pupil every school day. In the 12 months to March 2006, knife crimes rose 73 percent, according to the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College London.

Knife Amnesty

The report said the government’s strategy for tackling knife crime was “incoherent” and criticized the lack of data. Home Secretary John Reid announced March 19 that, beginning in April, police will record knife crimes as a separate offense for a “more detailed understanding” of the problem.

The government’s Violent Crime Reduction Act, passed last year, increases the maximum sentence for possession of a knife in a school or public place to four years from two and raises the minimum age for buying a knife to 18 from 16. An amnesty last year brought in more than 100,000 weapons.

Kids Company, a south London charity partly funded by the government, works to turn around the lives of violent children who have been expelled from school.

“At street level, children are getting killed,” said Camila Batmanghelidjh, a psychotherapist who runs the program. “They are sleeping with knives under their pillows because they don’t feel safe.”

There’s no doubt schools are getting more violent, said Jilow, whose military supply store has received 400 enquiries from parents about protective products.

“The 15- and 16-year-olds have started to ask for bullet- proof vests,” he said. “Some want it for protection, some as a status symbol. One group wanted to buy a gun. They wouldn’t believe me when I said I didn’t sell them.”

Share/Save

NEW JERSEY COURT RECOGNIZES SECOND AMENDMENT

NEW JERSEY COURT RECOGNIZES SECOND AMENDMENT AND HOLDS THAT IT TRUMPS GUN FORFEITURE LAW

Belvidere, N.J, March 19, 2007—In a landmark written opinion filed
February 27, a New Jersey Superior Court recognized the Second
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and held that a citizen’s
Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms cannot be involuntarily
waived under a New Jersey firearms forfeiture law.

“The recognition of Second Amendment rights in New Jersey is long
overdue,” said attorney Evan F. Nappen, whose law firm (including
Richard V. Gilbert, Esq. and Louis P. Nappen, Esq.) represented
appellant Dennis W. Peterson in the Warren County case. “In this
appeal, the Second Amendment was applied to New Jersey via the
Constitutional doctrine of fundamental fairness, overcoming a
significant legal hurdle needed for the Federal Bill of Rights to
apply to the State.”

This decision coincides with the recent Parker v. District of
Columbia case, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia struck down a decades-old handgun ban in Washington,
D.C. on the ground that it violates the Second Amendment.

“The legal significance of the Second Amendment is finally being
recognized by American courts,” Nappen continued, “and this New
Jersey case is part of a growing trend in American jurisprudence.”

In the New Jersey case, the appellant was denied re-issuance of his
Firearms Purchaser ID card based on his consent to relinquish
firearms seized in a domestic dispute in 2000. In 2004, New Jersey
enacted a law barring Firearms Purchaser ID cards to any person
whose firearms have been seized and not returned.

The Honorable John H. Pursel, J.S.C. held that the statute did not
apply and the Firearms Purchaser ID card should be issued because
the appellant did not know that his prior consent to relinquish his
firearms would subject him to permanent loss of his Second Amendment
rights under the 2004 law.

The ruling states in key part:

“Fundamental fairness is a doctrine to be sparingly applied. It is
appropriately applied in those rare cases where not to do so will
subject the defendant to oppression, harassment, or egregious
deprivation.” Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995), citing State v.
Yoskowitz, 116 N.J. 679, 712, 563 A.2d 1 (1989) (Garibaldi, J.,
concurring and dissenting). Egregious deprivation would surely be
the result if this applicant were precluded from obtaining a
firearms purchaser identification card by virtue of the fact that he
consensually surrendered his weapons at a time when it was
impossible for him to have known that such action would later
subject him to lifelong deprivation of his second amendment right.

Additionally, it is clear that in consenting to the disposition of
the weapons seized as a result of the temporary restraining order,
the applicant did not intend to waive his right to bear arms as
provided by the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He
therefore could not have knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily
waived that right.” (Emphasis added.) Click here for full text.

The Warren County Prosecutor has filed a notice of appeal in the
case.

For more information, contact Evan F. Nappen at 732-389-8888.

Share/Save

Ray Schoenke on Zumbo and the NRA

You may not know who Ray Schoenke is, so here’s the 411. Ray Schoenke is the President of the AHSA, a shill organization for The Brady Campaign and their ilk. They pretend to be a hunters organization and are emblematic of the anti’s attempts to drive a wedge between different types of gun owners; attempting to destroy our second amendment rights, one group at a time.

Today, I had the displeasure of reading an opinion piece by him in The Seattle Times where he uses the Zumbo affair to urge hunters to “Stand Up” to the NRA. Below is my fisking, for your reading pleasure. Enjoy!

Real hunters and shooters need to stand up to the NRA

By Ray Schoenke
Special to The Times

BEFORE today’s presidential candidates go courting the National Rifle Association for support (witness Mitt Romney’s sudden enrollment), they should be aware of the case of Jim Zumbo. One of nation’s most famous and respected hunting and outdoors journalists, Zumbo was professionally assassinated by NRA hysteria for simply uttering a single and — many hunters would say — reasonable point of view.

In point of fact Mr. Schoenke, it was the gun owners themselves who were his undoing, not the NRA. From the time line I have, the NRA didn’t even issue a statement on the matter until six days had passed. Numerous sponsors, including Remington and Gerber had already jumped ship at that point. Your assertion that it was the NRA who were his downfall just doesn’t hold water. Also, Jim Zumbo himself has stated numerous times since then that “I was wrong - big time.” He also goes on to say “The Second Amendment, which guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms, has nothing to do with hunting, but everything to do with gun ownership.” What’s that Ray? …crickets from Ray Schoenke’s corner.

Returning from a weekend hunting trip in which he witnessed people using semiautomatic, military-style weapons to hunt varmints, Zumbo dashed off a column for his blog on Outdoor Life in which he played devil’s advocate, suggesting these weapons are not appropriate for hunting.

Ray, that’s just not true, and you know it. He did not witness these rifles being used to hunt varmints and he wasn’t playing devils advocate. He heard from some of the people he was with about them. Incidentally, you know those sniper, I mean, “hunting” rifles you profess to love so much? All of today’s “hunting” rifles are the end result of military-style weapons that have been turned into “hunting” rifles after the fact. For instance, the .30-06 cartridge was not developed for hunting, but you knew that, right?

The reaction was swift — and brutal. The NRA whipped up a frenzy on the blogosphere, where a rabid fringe element of the hunting community denounced Zumbo in the harshest terms, even attacking his patriotism. Bowing to the intense pressure, Outdoor Life magazine fired Zumbo from his writing job, where he had won a huge following. The gun-company sponsors of Zumbo’s highly rated weekly television show promptly pulled their support, thus killing the program. The NRA very publicly suspended all ties with Zumbo and cited the incident as a warning to anyone — “even fellow gun owners” — who might cross its powerful lobby.

Again Ray, that’s just not true. As previously stated, the NRA didn’t get it’s butt into gear until six days had passed and they knew which way the wind was blowing. Blaming Zumbo’s undoing on a “rabid fringe element” is just being divisive, but you already knew that, didn’t you. In matter of fact, since hunters only make up 18 million out of 80 million gun owners in The United States, which group are you calling a “fringe” anyway? Your illogical and false attack on the gun owners and the NRA is showing your true colors. Be careful Ray, your bias is showing.

This incident is regrettable not only because it publicly humiliated an honorable sportsman, but also because it suggests that hunters and shooters are vindictive, close-minded zealots. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hunters and shooters are passionate about the Second Amendment, but we are not fascists. We recognize that reasonable people can disagree on reasonable issues.

For instance, in a 2003 hunters poll by Field & Stream, the majority of hunters (67 percent) considered assault-styled rifles as not legitimate sporting arms. The NRA knows this, which is why it moved so quickly to preempt any debate — and threaten any sportsman who dared express another opinion.

Yes people have the right to disagree, but Zumbo didn’t just say that he didn’t like AR15 type rifles. He called them “terrorist rifles” and called for their “banning”. Maybe you’re different Ray, but if someone called me a terrorist and called for the banning of a legally owned firearm, based on it’s LOOKS alone, yeah, I’d be pretty pissed. Face it, the only real difference between an AR15 and a sniper, sorry, “hunting” rifle, is the looks and what material it’s made of. A semi-automatic firearm functions the same no matter the cosmetics. That poll you site by Field & Stream lists 67% of Field & Stream subscribers considered “assault-styled” (you even admit it) rifles as not legitimate sporting arms. According to Field & Stream, their current readership is 9,991,000. So, 67% of 9,991,000 is 6,693,970 subscribers, or an estimated 8.37% of American gun owners. That leaves 91.63% of American gun owners, hardly a fringe element.

When the NRA can destroy a man like Zumbo for making a single observation that is actually embraced by a majority of sportsmen, it’s time for all genuine sportsmen and women to ask a few basic questions:

If the NRA’s leaders can turn on a hunting legend like Zumbo simply for engaging in a reasonable and rational discussion of a growing issue, what can they do to you and me? Is this the type of organization sportsmen should look to for leadership? Is this the organization political candidates should cozy up to?

Hunters and shooters stand for the freedoms on which this country was built — freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to own a gun. We do not need a new brand of NRA “McCarthyism,” or a loyalty oath for those involved in the outdoor world.

What do you consider a “genuine” sportsman or sportswoman? Are they as close minded as you? Are they those 8.37% of American gun owners who “considered assault-styled rifles as not legitimate sporting arms”? I don’t know if you’re aware of it Ray, but Zumbo has made a 180 and freely admits the ignorance and prejudice he had. He even goes on to dedicate his influence in the hunting community to education about these “assault-style” rifles, and support for the second amendment. The second amendment, by the way, doesn’t mention hunting at all, but it does mention the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. I suggest you read it, and the whole bill of rights, if you have the time. …and again Ray, it wasn’t the NRA who went after Zumbo, it was outraged gun owners whom he had called “terrorists”. In actuality, since it wasn’t the NRA who brought down Zumbo, the whole basis for your essay is invalid. Let me ask you something Ray, if hunters stand for the freedoms on which this country was built, do you support someones right to own an “assault-style” rifle and hunt with it if they want to? Think before you answer that question. Remember, that sweet scoped Remington 700 bolt action in .30-06 propped up in your gun safe was once a “sniper” rifle.

We need more freedom, not less. We need to unite behind what binds us together — not demonize anyone who offers a different viewpoint. As we fight to defend the Second Amendment, we also need to fight for access to and conservation of public lands.

The NRA has turned its back on these goals — and on basic matters of public safety. Along with the right of gun ownership comes a basic civic responsibility to support law enforcement and keep our communities safe. Criminals and terrorists do not have a constitutional right to own a gun, but you would never know that listening to today’s NRA leadership.

There is common ground to be found among those of us who are staunch defenders of the Second Amendment and policy makers and police chiefs who seek to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Although we will disagree on some issues, unlike the NRA’s leaders, most hunters and shooters are not afraid of the dialogue; we believe in the First Amendment as well as the Second.

I agree, we need more freedom, not less. So why are you demonizing the NRA, and people who own “assault-style” rifles, based solely on their looks? Why would you throw one group of gun owners out of the life raft in the hopes that the sharks will eat you last? United we stand Ray, divided we fall. I submit Ray, that it is you who have turned your back on the second amendment and not the NRA. I have never once heard the NRA not support law enforcement and work to keep our communities safe. It was the NRA after all who devised most of today’s training for law enforcement and ironically, hunter education. It was the NRA who developed the Eddie Eagle child gun education/safety course that has educated and made safe millions of American children. And Ray, as much as you’d like to believe so, the NRA doesn’t support the right of criminals or terrorists to own guns. Hyperbole doesn’t make it so. I, and every gun owner I know believes in not only the first and second amendments, but the entire bill of rights. There is common ground here, but no room for prejudice and bigotry. There is an opportunity for a dialog here, but leave your baggage at the door.

The character assassination of Jim Zumbo — whether you agree or disagree with him — is an outrage. The attacks on his patriotism were un-American. And the silencing of legitimate debate is the latest evidence that the NRA puts its own political power over the interests of its members.

Hunters and shooters don’t like to be bullied, silenced or sold out. But that’s what has happened. We cannot let it pass. The Zumbo case is a call to arms for every hunter and outdoorsman. Let’s raise our rifles in defense of our freedoms, and speak out against any body — whether government or the NRA — that stifles honest discussion

Jim Zumbo did it to himself. To quote Tamara, “On Friday evening, a gun writer who was apparently tired of his 42-year career put his word processor in his mouth and pulled the trigger.” Remember Ray, everyone has the freedom of speech, but no one has the guarantee of an audience. …and again (I’m tiring of reminding you now.) the NRA was the last one to the party. By the time the NRA issued their statement severing all ties with Jim Zumbo, it was already all over for him. Gun owners don’t like to be bullied, silenced or sold out. Perhaps that is why they reacted as angrily as they did? I agree, we cannot let this pass. You would see everyone except you disarmed to save your precious sniper, “hunting” rifles and shotguns. A shotgun, by the way, as witnessed by the Utah Trolley Square Mall and Seattle Capitol Hill massacre, is much more effective at killing people than any so called “assault-weapon” could ever be. Guess what, after they come for us, they’re coming for you.

Just as the founding fathers guaranteed our right to keep and bear arms, against all enemies, foreign or domestic, we will raise our arms in defense of all those who would see us stripped of our God given rights.
-Yuri

Share/Save