Whether you want to admit it or not........

Weather you want to acknowledge it or not the anti hunter and anti gun organizations have the same ultimate goal... Destruction of Freedom. The premise is that by the anti gun factions getting there way, there is no justification for hunting. The same holds true for the anti hunting factions, if no hunting then there is no justification for firearms ownership.

Like it or not the "hunters" and "shooters" are locked in the same battle, what affects one will affect the other. So even if you care not to partake in a particular aspect of the shooting sports, you damn well better care to know the facts and how they will affect you down the road. Don't relish the thought of killing an animal? Don't, but on the same token know that any money you give to HSUS or PETA does directly affect you in the future. Don't care to own or shoot a so called EBR(Evil Black Rifle)? Don't, but you damn well better care that the NRA, GOA, Second Amendment foundation et al. are defending your right to own your precious 30-06 while at the same time defending my right to own an AR 15.

I would encourage all to really look into where the founders and executive officers of the American Hunters and Shooters Association come from before supporting them in any way. The marketing campaigns of the antis are effective and proactive, we need to be the same way, sooner than they are. If you are not engaging all who you come across on a daily basis, you lead the apathy that will destroy the sport.

Playground Uses Big-Boy Toys

	Posted on Mon, Jun. 18, 2007 Akron Beacon Journal
	Playground uses big-boy toys 1,500-acre plot in northeast corner of Portage County is home to Hummers, hunting, guns By Rick Armon Beacon Journal staff writer Ron Gregg, behind the wheel of a canary yellow Hummer, turns down a non-descript dirt road deep in the northeast corner of Portage County. There is no sign, just a well-worn yellow metal fence pulled to the side and a half-dirt, half-gravel road heading into the bushes and trees. Across the street, there's a similar fence. Both lead to a sportsman's paradise -- about 1,500 acres of off-road trails, streams, lakes, a campground and a large, open-air shooting range. Property owner Dale Soinski and Gregg, who manages the land, have turned the former sand quarry into a giant playground for adults and their grown-up toys, whether they be Hummers, Argos, ATVs, sniper rifles or the .50-caliber M2 Heavy Barrel machine gun that Soinski has mounted on top of his former military-owned Hummer. ``It's a raw diamond,'' Gregg says, standing on top of a 40-foot hill that overlooks the shooting range. Marketing the property After years of building trails, fighting court battles over the shooting range and extending utilities far into some areas, Soinski and Gregg are now trying to better market the property -- called the Southington Hunt Club -- and attract more sportsmen for special outings and corporate events. The shooting range already is used for training by police departments and Integrated Tactical Training Systems, a company run by University Heights police Sgt. James Holden that trains both law enforcement and civilians. And a gun manufacturer from Geauga County comes to test its weapons there. Amazed by the variety of off-road conditions -- steep hills, deep streams, sand and mud -- Central Hummer East in Beachwood also has been holding its ``Hummer Happenings'' there for years. During the events, Hummer owners descend on the property and learn how to drive their expensive status symbols up and down hills, through streams and mud, and around sand dunes. ``That piece of property has everything,'' dealership sales manager John Pituch said. Soinski, 59, a commercial roofing contractor and builder, bought the property in 1997. It's so expansive, it stretches across two counties, Portage and Trumbull. ``I've always bought all the land I could get. Bought and sold. Bought and sold,'' Soinski said during a recent visit to the the 100-yard shooting range. There's also a 350-yard range. ``I had a dream of getting over 1,000 acres. That was my goal. ``I can work in the city, but if I don't have to be next to somebody, I don't want to be next to somebody.'' Man behind the land Soinski, a Hiram resident whom his friends describe as eccentric, is building an energy-efficient house on the property, too. The home is being built into the ground, bunker-style, with a 40-foot lighthouse on top. It overlooks a man-made 40-acre lake stocked with fish. Why a lighthouse? ``It's a nice marriage between the house and the lake,'' Soinski said. Besides being an avid hunter, Soinski, whose skin is tanned from years working outside as a contractor, is a gun enthusiast and collector of all types of all-terrain vehicles. (He owns a former military armored personnel carrier used in the Vietnam War.) Guns are a special passion. He's not sure how many weapons he has. ``That's classified,'' Gregg said, laughing. When Soinski bought the property, it had been targeted as a possible landfill. It also had been the site of illegal dumping for years. He cleaned it up, hauling out trash and developing wetlands. He also started landscaping the area with 18 miles of trails. He's getting ready to construct a restroom and bathhouse near the campground. As he looked over the property initially, one spot jumped out as a perfect setting for a shooting range. The backstop is an 80-foot-high quarry wall, created over the years as the former quarry business dug down into the earth. The wall is to the north -- ideal because the sun doesn't interfere with the shooters. A pavilion with electricity was built for gatherings. Two giant mounds of earth were landscaped on both sides to prevent ricochets. Safety considered ``We tried to make the range the safest in the state,'' Soinski said. Then there is his .50-caliber machine gun, which lets off booming noises when shot and kicks up dusts of sand as bullets hit the quarry wall. The weapon is his favorite to shoot among his collection because ``it gives you the biggest bang for the buck.'' ``There was no place around here to shoot something like that safely,'' he said, pointing to the weapon. That didn't stop neighbors in the rural area from objecting, though, for safety and noise reasons. He estimates the legal fight lasted six years before he was finally victorious. ``This is a very safe environment to shoot,'' said Holden, a police officer, certified trainer and firearms dealer. It's also a great place to train. Need to shoot from your butt, go ahead. Need to shoot from a car, go ahead. Need to shoot from a bicycle, go ahead. You can't do that at indoor ranges, which also frown on automatic weapons, Holden said. ``We like to do realistic training,'' he said. Then there's the occasional car that they blow up. The range isn't open to just anybody. People who want to shoot there must know Soinski and make arrangements in advance. As he attempts to promote the range more, he said he's more interested in attracting law enforcement officials -- the safest shooters -- and not weekend cowboys. On a recent day, Soinski, Holden and friends set up bowling pins on the range and they neatly knocked them down with single shots. ``This is a dream,'' Soinski said. Rick Armon can be reached at 330-996-3569 or rarmon@thebeaconjournal.com.

Greater rights proposed for self-defense shootings

Full Story Here

DEADLY FORCE

Greater rights proposed for self-defense shootings

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:15 PM

Associated Press

Trying to build on success that began in Florida and spread to 17 other states, the National Rifle Association started a push in Ohio today that would give people more authority to use deadly force to defend themselves both in and outside their homes.

People who injure or kill an attacker in self defense no longer would shoulder the burden to prove their actions were justifiable under a bill introduced by Republican lawmakers. The proposal also would protect people who justifiably kill someone in self defense from civil lawsuits that could require them to pay damages.

The first similar law passed in Florida in 2005, and Ohio is one of 16 states where the NRA is currently pushing the legislation. The NRA also was responsible for pushing an Ohio law that enabled concealed carry permits for guns.

The influential gun-rights organization is methodically changing what it sees as laws that give undeserved protection to criminals and place the burden of proof on innocent victims.

Gun-control advocates argue the bill proposes a solution for a nonexistent problem. And they have said the laws hinge on a subjective interpretation of when a person may feel threatened, potentially leading to overreactions and fatal escalations to conflicts that could be defused by retreating.

The NRA-driven change — which was introduced with roughly 50 co-sponsors in the House and Senate, including some Democrats — provides the presumption that a person "acted properly in self defense" if the person "was suffering or was about to suffer an offense of violence that was a felony."

"At the end of the day what we're trying to do is make sure that people feel safer in their home, safer in their community, and take the affirmative steps necessary to protect themselves and their families," said sponsoring Sen. Steve Buehrer, a Republican from Delta.

Buehrer presented the bill saying it would only make changes to self-defense law for those protecting their home, which he said was his primary concern. But the NRA said language in the bill would also apply outside the home.

"Whether that ought to apply in other physical places is something we ought to debate," Buehrer said.

Supporters of the bill provide anecdotes illustrating the need for the change, but mainly argue that it doesn't make sense to place the burden of proof on people trying to defend themselves.

In a case "where a guy purely, clearly has the right to use self defense, we've had judges say, ‘No, the guy with a broken leg should have jumped out the second-story window,"' said Jim Irvine, chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association.

NRA regional lobbyist John Hohenwarter predicted the issue will pass easily in the GOP-controlled Legislature.

"You don't have to be 100 percent on NRA issues to agree that people have a right to defend themselves," he said.

Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland supports the legislation.

"The governor is a strong defender of Second Amendment rights and he supports the rights of individuals to defend themselves," spokesman Keith Dailey said.

Supporters believe the change would enable people to better make decisions about how to respond in a dangerous situation, free of fear they will be prosecuted.

But a problem with the bill is that people in disputes can "take the law into their own hands," said Toby Hoover, director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence.

"The big fear is that people with deadly weapons will now assume they are capable of making a decision of when that can be used, wherever they are," Hoover said.

Hohenwarter said gun-control advocates sounded the same alarm when concealed carry permits became law in many states. The "Wild West" prediction never materialized, he said.

Just before a 2005 Florida law went into effect to remove residents' duty to retreat from conflict in public places, a group that supports restrictions on guns handed out fliers in Florida airports warning tourists not to argue with locals because of what they called the "Shoot First" law.

Under the Florida law protecting people who are attacked, no one has used the new defense successfully to have murder charges dropped or to win acquittal from a jury. However, charges often are not filed in such self-defense cases.

Run-in changes lawmaker's stance

Article Here

Run-in changes lawmaker's stance
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Phillip Morris
Plain Dealer Columnist

It's funny how a gun can in stantly change your perspec tive on things, make you wish you could rewrite history.

State Rep. Michael DeBose, a southside Cleveland Democrat, discovered this lesson the night of May 1, when he thought he was going to die. That's the night he wished he had that gun vote back.

DeBose, who had just returned from Columbus, where he had spent the day in committee hearings, decided to take a short walk up Holly Hill, the street where he has lived with his wife for the past 27 years.

It was late, but DeBose, 51, was restless. The ordained Baptist minister knew his Lee-Harvard neighborhood was changing, but he wasn't scared. The idle, young men who sometimes hang out on his and adjacent streets didn't threaten him.

He is a big man and, besides, he had run the same streets before he found Jesus - and a wife. That night, he just needed a walk.

The loud muffler on a car that slowly passed as he was finishing the walk caught his attention, though. When the car stopped directly in front of his house - three houses from where he stood - he knew there was going to be a problem.

"There was a tall one and a short one," DeBose said, sipping on a McDonald's milkshake and recounting the experience Friday.

"The tall one reached in his pocket and pulled out a silver gun. And they both started running towards me."

"At first I just backed up, but then I turned around and started running and screaming."

"When I started running, the short boy stopped chasing and went back to the car. But the tall boy with the gun kept following me. I ran to the corner house and started banging on Mrs. Jones' door."
It was at that point that the would-be robbers realized that their prey wasn't worth the trouble. Besides, Cheryl, DeBose's wife, and a daughter had heard his screams and had raced out to investigate. Other porch lights began to flicker on.

The loud muffler sped off, and DeBose started rethinking his gun vote.

DeBose twice voted against a measure to allow Ohioans to carry concealed weapons. It became law in 2004.

DeBose voted his conscience. He feared that CCW permits would lead to a massive influx of new guns in the streets and a jump in gun violence. He feared that Cleveland would become the O.K. Corral, patrolled by legions of freshly minted permit holders.

"I was wrong," he said Friday.

"I'm going to get a permit and so is my wife.

"I've changed my mind. You need a way to protect yourself and your family.

"I don't want to hurt anyone. But I never again want to be in the position where I'm approached by someone with a gun and I don't have one."

DeBose said he knows that a gun doesn't solve Cleveland's violence problem; it's merely a street equalizer.

"There are too many people who are just evil and mean-spirited. They will hurt you for no reason. If more people were packing guns, it might serve as a deterrent.

"But there obviously are far deeper problems that we need to address," he added, as he suddenly seemed to realize he sounded like a gun enthusiast.

They say the definition of a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. DeBose's CCW application will bear some witness to that notion.

To reach Phillip Morris:

pfmorris@plaind.com, 216-999-5086

Previous columns online:

cleveland.com/columns

A united front against lawlessness

Plain Dealer Article Here

Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap.

Consider this a standing ovation.

Steve Loomis, Zack Reed and George Forbes deserve applause for presenting a united front.

Black and white; police, politician and NAACP.

The police union leader, the councilman and the NAACP president are all going to spend the night in the home where Damon Wells lived before vandals shattered the windows.

Talk about your strange bedfellows.

This is big.

HUGE.

The timing makes it even more incredible: The three men announced their unique slumber party the day after Cleveland police shot and killed a black man who had a gun and resisted arrest.

Weeks ago that shooting would have prompted protests.
After two teens tried to rob Wells at gunpoint and he killed 15-year-old Arthur Buford in self-defense, the tide shifted. For the first time, it wasn't just about race.

Why?

Wells is a black man who legally defended himself against two black teens who were on probation for aggravated robbery.

People of all races are fed up with thug behavior. In the last two weeks, I've heard from more than 1,000 readers who said it's time for a change.

This isn't a black problem. It isn't a Cleveland problem. It's everyone's problem - and it's moving to a suburb near you.

The shooting by Wells gave everyone pause. Few see Buford as the victim in this.

Both white and black people can relate to Wells, who is black. They see him solely as a man protecting his life and his home. Race isn't an issue.

We all can relate to Wells. We all want the right to feel safe in our homes, our yards, our neighborhoods.

It's time for anyone on the fence to choose a side. There are only two choices, and there isn't a black side or a white side.

The options are right or wrong. Law and order or lawlessness and chaos.
n the Mount Pleasant area near Wells' home, one out of 100 residents have been robbed or seriously assaulted. Old folks are packing guns for protection.

The leading cause of death for black men 15 to 35 is homicide. Most of them by black males.

In Tuesday's shooting, a dozen witnesses saw the man refuse numerous police orders and struggle. The man had a gun in the car. Some would call that suicide by cop.

A sidewalk shrine is already growing for him. Someone left two Care Bears there.

Care Bears?

Zack Reed has the start of a plan to take back the community. Make the Wells home safe. Get churches to sponsor kids for summer jobs. Set up a hot line to report crimes, which means leaders need to emphasize that callers aren't snitches. They are guardians of the 'hood.

Dozens want to help Damon Wells. A fund was set up at Charter One Bank, 16622 Harvard Ave., Cleveland, OH 44128 for Damon and for Jestina Berry, who leases the home.

Reed, Forbes and Loomis are taking action. What's next?

You tell me.

What steps do we take now?

This is the new civil rights movement. Who's up for it?

Join Regina Brett at 9 a.m. on WCPN FM/90.3, where she hosts "The Sound of Ideas" on Fridays.

To reach Regina Brett:

rbrett@plaind.com, 216-999-6328

Moment Called for Sympathy, Not an Agenda . . .

Article Here

By DAVID ADAMS
TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST


As the events of April 16, 2007 unfolded, Virginians and indeed the world watched as the best and the worst of human nature were presented for all to see. We saw Virginians from all walks of life and all backgrounds come together and declare that we all became "Hokies" on that fateful day.

Without question, the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, showed us the darkest side of human nature as he took the lives of 32 fellow students as well as his own. The more we learned about what happened in those early morning hours the more it became clear that Cho was a very troubled individual.

Unfortunately, others exhibited behavior that reflects poorly on human nature. Some individuals and groups with political agendas wasted no time in making their voices heard, even before all of the families of the victims had been notified that their loved one was among the dead.

Less than 24 hours after the shootings, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence issued an e-mail, complete with a fundraising graphic linked back to the organization's Web site, that asked supporters to contact President Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and tell them "It is much too easy for the wrong people to get deadly weapons in this country. It is time for you to take steps to end gun violence to prevent tragedies like the one at Virginia Tech."

Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence was quoted in the press the day after the shootings, calling for the introduction of new gun control laws, saying it was much to easy to get a gun in this country.

Not to be outdone, an editorial in The New York Times the day after the incident called for " . . . stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss."

THE MAJOR television networks kept asking the question whether the shootings would spur renewed calls for new gun laws, which the gun-control groups and some politicians were all too eager to answer.

It could be said that much of this was driven by the 24-hour news cycle in which we live, where the media are constantly replaying the same footage over and over and seeking comment to fill air time. While this may be true, it is not an excuse. Such an event should not be used to advance a political agenda. We saw this all too often in the '90s. It was unseemly then and it is no more acceptable now.

Contrast the statements of those pushing their gun-control beliefs with the statement of the National Rifle Association (NRA). On the afternoon of the shootings, the NRA issued a statement that simply said "The National Rifle Association joins the entire country in expressing our deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech and everyone else affected by this horrible tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families. We will not have further comment until all the facts are known." The Virginia Shooting Sports Association (VSSA), the state NRA affiliate association, issued a similar statement expressing sympathy and prayers for the families and stating that it wanted to know all of the facts before stating what if anything could have prevented the shootings. Both groups refused to answer policy questions in the days immediately following the shootings.

I rarely agree with Gov. Timothy Kaine, but he handled the tragedy with dignity and class. At a news conference on the day after the shooting, Kaine was asked a question about those using the shootings to advance their agenda. The governor responded passionately: "I think that people who want to take this within 24 hours of the event and make it their political hobby horse to ride . . . I've got nothing but loathing for them. To those who want to try to make this into some little crusade, I say take that elsewhere." Well said, Governor.

PRESIDENT BUSH echoed those sentiments when he said now was the time to help people get over their grieving, not a time for a policy debate.

All of this raises a good question. Every time the issue of gun control is mentioned, groups like the Brady Campaign and their followers in Congress call the NRA extreme for their opposition to gun control. After comparing the statements and actions of the Brady Campaign and the NRA immediately following the shootings, which group appears to be the more extreme?
David Adams, president of the Virginia Shooting Sports Association, served as Gov. Jim Gilmore's assistant secretary of education and deputy secretary for higher education.

Gun Control: Worth it or Not?

Article Here

Gun control: Worthwhile or not?

By Elizabeth Johnston / A View from the Valley

In the wake of the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech, gun rights have been a point of contention. Some think stricter gun control laws would have prevented the massacre; others believe if the laws were less strict, the deaths could have been cut down.

If anything, the fact Seung-Hui Cho had mental problems, which contributed to his eventual mass murders, should make states re-evaluate the way they treat people with mental health struggles, especially ones who, like Cho, show violent tendencies and obviously need treatment.

Another important consideration is that while liberals often fervently oppose gun rights, many discourage efforts to control the amount of violence shown in movies and video games. When children grow up having no contact with guns except to watch actors pretend to shoot others down, they will not have a realistic view of weapons. The role of a gun goes from being a tool used for hunting, or more importantly, self-defense, to a way to plug your enemies.

First and most importantly, the Constitution as it stands does not allow the federal government to pass gun control laws, period. The statement in the Second Amendment that “... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is rather clear.

Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment declares, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

In other words, even if the Second Amendment did not exist, it would still be illegal for the government of the United States to pass gun control laws since the Constitution does not delegate it that right. That right would belong to the states. However, the Second Amendment does not differentiate between the states and the federal government in its stipulation.

Gun control advocates commonly assume the removal of guns from society will remove the desire of some people to hurt others. This is actually an assumption about human nature. Since humans are supposedly good, bad actions have to be blamed on something — society, in general. Not that society doesn’t have an effect on people, but there is a major difference between saying violent video games encourage crime and trying to pin all the blame for a crime on a certain object.

Blaming crime on guns is like blaming a hole dug by a little boy in someone’s flowers on the shovel he used. The little boy only uses the shovel because he wants to dig a hole. A criminal only uses a gun because he or she wants to hurt or kill someone. An inanimate object is not the source of evil desires.

Would restricting guns prevent criminals from being able to carry out crime? Frankly, no. What happened when strongly addictive drugs were made illegal? (Note to all Journal Junction loyalists: I am not advocating legalization.) Do we lack in illegal drugs today? As soon as a gun ban would be enacted, criminals could begin sneaking guns into the country just as drugs are trafficked in now.

Morton Grove, Ill., banned anyone other than police officers from owning guns. The result? Crime immediately increased by 15.7 percent, though the county’s crime rate rose by only 3 percent. The city’s population has shrunk slightly.

In response, the small town of Kennesaw, Ga., enacted its own regulation. The head of each household was to own and maintain a gun. Kennesaw was mocked for its decision and talk of Wild West-type shootouts as well as more realistic concerns of increased crime and gun accidents characterized nationwide reactions to the regulation.

However, Kennesaw’s crime rate, which had formerly been above the national average, went down, and 2005 statistics reported the rate to be well under the national average. Although the town has more than tripled in size, 25 years have passed since the decision and no Kennesaw residents have been involved in a fatal shooting in any way.

The decrease in violence makes sense. People who intend to hurt others don’t want to be faced with a weapon. Cho was in a gun-free zone at Virginia Tech, and he knew it. People rarely try to commit massacres where they know there will be weapons. And if they would make the attempt, it wouldn’t last very long.

While I would not personally advocate requiring families to own guns, we do need to be aware that it is every person’s duty to protect his or herself. Banning guns deprives American citizens of that ancient right.



— Community columnist Elizabeth Johnston is a native of the lower Shenandoah Valley and lives in Martinsburg. She can be reached at murm@access.mountain.net

* The views of columnists do not necessarily reflect the views of The Journal.

MEETING FOR PA FOLKS RE: PHILLY AND THEIR ACTIONS

Meeting Location

Saturday May 5 2007 at 9PM EDT

Thank you all who are interested in attending and we will do our Best to accomodate all in attendance.

Feeling Safe Isn't Safe: US NEWS and WORLD REPORT ARTICLE

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070429/7barone.htm


Feeling Safe Isn't Safe
By Michael Barone
Posted 4/29/07

The murders two weeks ago at Virginia Tech naturally set off a cry in the usual quarters-the New York Times, the London-based Economist-for stricter gun control laws. Democratic officeholders didn't chime in, primarily because they believe they were hurt by the issue in 2000 and 2004, but most privately agree.

What most discussions of this issue tend to ignore is that we have two tracks of political debate and two sets of laws on gun control. At the federal level there has been a push for more gun control laws since John Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and some modest restrictions have been passed. At the state level something entirely different has taken place. In 1987 Florida passed a law allowing citizens who could demonstrate that they were law-abiding and had sufficient training to obtain permits on demand to own and carry concealed weapons. In the succeeding 20 years many other states have passed such laws, so that today you can, if you meet the qualifications, carry concealed weapons in 40 states with 67 percent of the nation's population (including Vermont, with no gun restrictions at all).

When Florida passed its concealed-weapons law, I thought it was a terrible idea. People would start shooting each other over traffic altercations; parking lots would turn into shooting galleries. Not so, it turned out. Only a very, very few concealed-weapons permits have been revoked. There are only rare incidents in which people with concealed-weapons permits have used them unlawfully. Ordinary law-abiding people, it turns out, are pretty trustworthy.

Unfounded fears. I'm not the only one to draw such a conclusion. When she was Michigan's attorney general, Democrat Jennifer Granholm opposed the state's concealed-weapons law, which took effect in 2001. But now, as governor, she's not seeking its repeal. She says that her fears-like those I had about Florida's law 20 years ago-proved to be unfounded. So far as I know, there are no politically serious moves to repeal any state's concealed-weapons laws. In most of the United States, as you go to work, shop at the mall, go to restaurants, and walk around your neighborhood, you do so knowing that some of the people you pass by may be carrying a gun. You may not even think about it. But that's all right. Experience has shown that these people aren't threats.

Virginia has a concealed-weapons law. But Virginia Tech was, by the decree of its administrators, a "gun-free zone." Those with concealed-weapons permits were not allowed to take their guns on campus and were disciplined when they did. A bill was introduced in the House of Delegates to allow permit holders to carry guns on campus. When it was sidetracked, a Virginia Tech administrator hailed the action and said that students, professors, and visitors would now "feel safe" on campus. Tragically, they weren't safe. Virginia Tech's "gun-free zone" was not gun free. In contrast, killers on other campuses were stopped by faculty or bystanders who had concealed-weapons permits and brandished their guns to stop the killing.

We may hear more about gun control at the national level. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment's right "to keep and bear arms." Judge Laurence Silberman's strong opinion argues that this is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in a 1939 case upholding a federal law banning sawed-off shotguns; limited regulation is allowed, Silberman wrote, but not a total ban. Somewhere on the road between a law banning possession of nuclear weapons and banning all guns the Second Amendment stands in the way. This is the view as well of the liberal constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe. The Supreme Court may take the case, which is in conflict with other circuits' rulings.

If it upholds the D.C. decision, there is still room for reasonable gun regulation. The mental health ruling on the Virginia Tech killer surely should have been entered into the instant check database to prevent him from buying guns. The National Rifle Association is working with gun control advocate Rep. Carolyn McCarthy to improve that database. But even as we fine-tune laws to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, maybe the opinion elites will realize that in places where gun ownership is widespread, we're safer than in a "gun-free zone."

This story appears in the May 7, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.

Write Mr Barone and thank him for the excellent article.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/infomain.htm

Local Station Won't Run Misleading Ad!

NYC mayor's gun ad is shot down in Kansas

By SARA KUGLER



The CBS affiliate station in Wichita, Kan., is refusing to air a television advertisement that is part of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun control campaign, saying the spot is misleading.

Bloomberg's administration shot back, questioning the station's objectivity.

The advertisement, which debuted Sunday, urges the repeal of a piece of congressional legislation preventing federal authorities from sharing gun trace data with cities and local law enforcement.

The measure, known as the Tiahrt Amendment, is attached to appropriations bills and essentially must be redone each year. The National Rifle Association says it protects the privacy of gun owners, but Bloomberg argues that it hampers the ability of law enforcement authorities to trace illegal guns and arrest weapons traffickers.

The spot urging its repeal is airing in the congressional districts of the Democrat and the Republican who lead the House subcommittee considering the amendment. It was set to appear on a CBS affiliate in the Kansas district of Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt, who authored the measure.

Tiahrt supports some changes to the language and is working with the Bloomberg administration to get that done, a spokesman for the congressman said.

The ad debuted during Sunday's political talk shows on NBC, ABC and CBS and later on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News Channel. The CBS affiliate in Wichita chose not to air it, according to KWCH director of programming Laverne E. Goering.

"This is issue advertising, where the station is responsible for the truth or fairness of the ad, unlike political advertising, where the politicians can pretty much say what they want," Goering said.

The spot features the Chaska, Minn., chief of police, Scott Knight, who says that the federal legislation prevents him from being able to adequately fight gun violence.

"Where are the guns coming from, who's buying them, how are they getting into my city -- the information is there," he says. "We're not allowed to have it."

KWCH said the ad is misleading because the amendment allows law enforcement to have specific gun data for criminal investigations or prosecution.

The Bloomberg administration does not dispute that, but it wants access to aggregate data that might help officials understand trends or see gun trafficking patterns across jurisdictions.

The ad buy is part of a campaign launched by Bloomberg's nationwide coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler said Monday that the station's decision "raises real questions about the objectivity of this news organization that they would deprive their viewers from hearing from over 200 mayors and dozens of American law enforcement organizations."

Let KWCH in Wichita, KS know they did the right thing!!

E-Mail KWCH
feedback@kwch.com

Common Sense Thoughts re: VT Shootings

This is a good editorial in the Daily Nebraskan re: Virginia Tech.

Guest Editorial:
People, Not External Causes, Can Stop Tragedies
by Amy Thompson
Over the next days, weeks and months, experts and laymen will try to make some sort of sense out of the largest massacre in U.S. history. One cable newsman said Monday that it happened in a place that one would never expect.

It's something people seem to automatically say after such tragedies, but it allows people in beautiful, peaceful, quiet towns everywhere to return to a false sense of security when the story falls out of media headlines. The underlying message of this innocent statement is that it is rare to happen in a beautiful, peaceful town.

So go back to your class, your job, your family. Forget the ugliness you saw, the grief you feel. It probably won't happen here.

There's nothing really wrong with that. It is human nature to grieve and then go on. It is human nature to walk through our lives as though in an impregnable bubble until the sharpened dart of someone else's pain or anger or depression or hatred or obsession or evil breaks through once again.

And then the bubble is reborn to be torn again, always unwittingly and always with the same questions.

Why me?

Why here?

Why didn't we see this coming?

How can we prevent this from happening again?

These horrendous tragedies would not be solved if everyone found religion. While some may argue that it would, godly people sometimes do bad things as well.

Gun control would not have stopped the deaths of more than 30 people. "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." Of course it is cliché, but that makes it no less true. A gun is but a lump of metal without a purposeful digit at the trigger. This fact will not cause gun control advocates a moment's pause over the coming weeks.

Last week, CBS's "The Unit" was called in to help control a hostage situation at a prominent Virginia school. That television show did not cause Monday's mass murder. A human, who may or may not have seen that show, perpetrated a crime out of whatever emotion he may have been having. Filling television screens with "The Cosby Show" and "7th Heaven" would not end mass murder.

So why do these terrible things keep happening?

The only answer is a simple answer: people.

People are fallible and unpredictable. Some people are evil. Some people snap.

So where do we go from here?

The first lesson we must know today is that it can happen again: anywhere and at any time. Pain, anger, depression, hatred, obsession and evil exist anywhere people do. No, this does not mean you should walk around in fear with bulletproof notebooks. It just means you should be aware of your surroundings, your friends and your family. When your gut tells you something may be a warning sign, don't squash the feeling; explore it within yourself or with a professional to determine whether there is reason to be concerned.

The second lesson is that the assigning of external causes is frivolous and irresponsible. The blame lies with the individual, though some may be shared with friends, family or associates who may come forward and say, "I knew he was depressed (or angry or obsessed) but I didn't know it was this bad."

Therein lies the third lesson. We must inform ourselves as to what might signal danger in the people we know. Mood swings, changing habits, all of these will come forward in articles written by smarter people than I in the coming weeks. Read them, learn them and recognize the signs in others.

When necessary, talk to those people you are concerned about. If you feel uncomfortable confronting people about their issues, do whatever you can to find someone who might help them.

No offense to Capt. Carl Oestmann of the University Police Department, whom I've heard commented that the University of Nebraska-Lincoln has an emergency plan in place for such events. Monday's shooter apparently had two handguns that could release dozens of shots in mere seconds and then be reloaded with dozens more in just two seconds more. There is no plan in the world that can prevent such mass harm when the mind behind it is intent.

So what can we do then?

Sadly, there is little to do but attempt to identify those who may perpetrate such heinous acts and then attempt to "fix" them. This is a terrifically difficult task in that many times, such events as we saw this week are planned and carried out in short periods of time and well before friends or relatives or coworkers can intervene.

It is a sad truth that with all the discussions that will be had in the coming weeks to try and answer the same questions we asked after Columbine just eight years ago this week, we will not find any new answers. The responsibility will still lie with the individual.

And, thus, the final lesson will hopefully reach a young man or woman reading this piece who may be experiencing a pain, depression, obsession or any other passionate, overwhelming emotion that they feel is controlling them: There is no shame in getting help.

Let them know we agree with her comments regarding gun control!
Comment Here!

Virginia Tech Our Prayers are with you

Today at Virginia Tech 32 people lost their lives. To the victims, their families and friends we offer our prayers and deepest condolences.

The Positive Influence of Hunting, Part II

In the last installment of this series, we explored the story of Todd C. from Ontario, Canada and his plunge into hunting in his 30’s. The goal in this series is to explore the positive effect of hunting on the hunter. When a person takes up hunting, it can be a life changing experience, as Todd showed us.

This time around, we’re going to get to know Dillon W. Growing up in the suburbs of New Jersey, and without a formal introduction to hunting in his youth, Dillon took it up on his own at the age of 37.

According to Dillon, “I believe many Americans take up hunting and discover the outdoors late in life, for a wide variety of reasons, but many more are too intimidated to ever take the first step.”

Growing up he had an affinity for the outdoors, as many children living in the suburbs do.

“When I was in grade school, I read My Side of the Mountain, by Jean George, and regularly watched Grizzly Adams on TV. As a boy I dreamed about the wilderness and what it took to survive in the outdoors. I spent countless hours in a small strip of woods in a local park, imaging myself in the harsh wilderness away from all human contact.”

Perhaps he might have taken up hunting in his youth, but tragic circumstances intervened.

“Sadly, the dreams and imaginings of my youth were the extent of my outdoor expertise as a boy. At the age of 11 my father, who was largely absent because of his job as a merchant seaman, had a massive heart attack and died between sea voyages. Two years later my grandfather also died. The result of this was devastating – at the onset of my adolescence I was left totally without a male role model. The chances of fulfilling my dream of experiencing the outdoors had vanished in two short years.”

After some time spent serving in the Navy, he came home after Operation Desert storm and his life strayed off course a bit.

“Upon separating from the Navy, I found myself without many options living at home with my mother and working part time jobs. In the Navy, firearms were a mundane part of everyday life, in my mother’s house they were the ultimate taboo. I grew my hair long and decided to try all the things that my schoolmates had done in college. I started playing in a rock band, experimenting with drugs and sleeping the daylight away. I learned that drugs weren’t my thing, but I was attracted to the attention I got from the hippies I was running with. A long haired war veteran who played rock and roll was quite a conversation piece, and I was a big hit at parties. Six or seven years went by in a blur of heavy drinking and darkness. And then a wonderful thing happened – I met the woman I would raise a family with. We got married and began our new life together as a family in less than a year. My whole life changed.”

Once his life began to get back on track, he and his wife moved into an old farmhouse that they rented. Finally the hunting seed would be planted. According to Dillon, “I was fascinated with having livestock all around me and took every chance to help the farmer with his work. Finally, I was getting close to the land and learning skills that were commonplace 100 years ago.” He goes on to add, “It was during this time that I met my first hunter and had my first taste of venison. The seed had been planted, but it still needed time to grow. We found a house in the NJ Highlands, surrounded by State Park lands and lakes. Our new neighbors on both sides were hunters. The seed soon began to sprout.”

It was during that time that Dillon and his wife became close with their neighbors and often received various game meats as gifts. At a barbeque next door, he got his first taste of back strap and decided then and there that it was time to learn how to hunt. Soon after that, he got a gun and a hunting license and was preparing for spring turkey season.

“The day of my first hunt arrived and I couldn’t sleep the night before. I had scouted a good spot and knew there was at least one gobbler in the spot I was heading for. As the glow of first light hit the chilly woods I began to hear the sounds of the woods waking up. Pileated woodpeckers, crows, squirrels and birds whose calls I have yet to identify began chattering all around me,” Dillon says.

He was already gaining a heightened sense of awareness.

He continues, “I made my first tentative yelp with my box call and was immediately answered by gobbles from 2 directions. Two of them! The hair on the back of my next stood straight up and my body went into survival mode as the adrenalin started to pump. I kept up the conversation for a few minutes with both toms getting closer to me. Then disaster struck – the birds were getting farther away.”

“Noon came, and I went home with an empty game bag that day. But my brain was full. I had gotten the equivalent of a college education on a single chilly spring morning in the woods. The seed had grown and was in full bloom. Every detail of that day is burned indelibly in my mind from the smell and sounds of the predawn woods to the primal adrenalin ride of that first gobble.”

His first hunt may not have resulted in a meal, but it started to produce a much more meaningful change in Dillon.

“After several days of hunting, I began to notice things that had never drawn my attention before. I walked differently than I did on a sidewalk – each step carefully considered and placed. I took notice of things like deer sign and easy paths to water and clearings. Most significantly, I realized that no one had ever taught me to do these things – I simply did them instinctively,” he says.

He goes on to say, “As I walked through the woods I was aware that I was using all of my senses simultaneously: I noticed signs of the presence of wildlife that I didn’t know to look for, I heard bird calls that I have heard all my life and never distinguished from the noises of the world, I smelled running water and felt the changes in the terrain under my feet. I felt more alive than I had ever felt in my life. I learned that the harvest is not the only reward of the hunt.”

Overall, his first season was a success with 1 turkey hen, 32 pheasants, 12 chukars, 36 squirrels and two rabbits in his freezer, and one unsuccessful encounter with a wily, eight-point buck. Even though he didn’t get the buck, it still added to what had become a completely life-changing experience. According to Dillon, “I had already begun to sense that I was becoming a different person as a result of my journey.”

So what now? Now that he has embarked on the spiritual journey of hunting, what’s the next step? Surely the next logical step is the same that any father would take.

“My daughter, thus far our only child, is now four years old. She looks forward with great excitement to this spring, when I have promised her that I would take her scouting for turkey”, Dillon says.

He adds, “Hunting has given me the tools to raise my children with opportunities and experiences I never had. This makes me mourn the absence of hunting heritage in my own childhood, but appreciate and celebrate it even more with my own child. That doing so will ensure that future generations continue to carry on the hunting heritage gives me a sense of immense pride in having made the world better and more perfect place. Being a parent is the most important job anyone can undertake. It’s been said that children are the future. I go further than that – parents are the future, and children are the bricks we’ll use to build it. I have a clear picture of the world I want my children to raise their own children in, and hunting, fishing and trapping are the tools I will use.”

For countless centuries, the traditions and skills of hunting, fishing, trapping, and the outdoors have been passed from generation to generation. Dillon had no one to show him the way, yet he found the desire and determination to embark on that journey alone. He learned the skills necessary to become a successful hunter, and he continues to engage in the learning process. His spiritual growth and new-found connection to the wild are undeniable, and he has already chosen to pass that on to his young child. Hunting has given him a key to a door that once opened, changed his life forever. He’ll pass that gift to his daughter and thus a new hunting-aware lineage will be started, equipping subsequent generations of Dillon’s family with the skills, desire, and appreciation for hunting that will have the same positive effect on their lives that it has had on his own.

Thank You Sheriff, from the law abiding citizens of PA

This is unusal in that I would like to ask our readers to thank the Sheriff for his stand with the law abiding citizens of PA.

Story Here


Sheriff against effort to limit handgun sales

Barry J. Jozwiak tells lawmakers that people should be able to buy as many pistols as they want, and shouldn’t be punished for failing to report gun thefts and losses.

By Kori Walter
Reading Eagle


Reading, PA - Berks County Sheriff Barry J. Jozwiak asked a panel of state lawmakers in Reading on Thursday to shoot down any legislation that would limit handgun purchases, claiming it would not curb crime or gun violence.

Jozwiak’s testimony before the state House Judiciary Committee in City Council chambers put him at odds with Reading Mayor Tom McMahon, Philadelphia lawmakers and others calling for tougher handgun laws in response to a rash of shootings and murders in Pennsylvania cities.

Jozwiak, a Republican, said he opposed a bill that would limit people to buying one handgun per month.

Instead of passing new gun laws, Jozwiak said, police and judges should enforce existing laws.

“Gun control does not reduce crime,” Jozwiak said. “In fact, criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed.”

Jozwiak even criticized a proposal that would require gun owners to notify police if their handguns were lost or stolen.

Supporters believe that would reduce instances of people buying guns, turning them over to criminals and then claiming that the gun was lost or stolen.

Jozwiak said such a law would punish honest, law-abiding gun owners who didn’t realize that their guns were missing.

“I don’t think anyone who has guns checks on a daily basis to make sure that it (a gun) is there,” said Jozwiak, whose office is in charge of issuing gun permits.

State Rep. Jewell Williams, a Philadelphia Democrat, said he was frustrated by the influence the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates exert in blocking efforts to get guns off the streets.

“People are dying in Pennsylvania,” Williams said. “Your kids ... are being shot, robbed and murdered with illegal guns. It’s almost like people don’t care anymore. It’s like special-interest groups are controlling people’s lives.”

State Rep. Harold James, also a Philadelphia Democrat, suggested a summit with gun-rights advocates might help both sides come up with solutions to soaring murder rates.

“We have an emergency, an epidemic problem in Philadelphia as it relates to gun crime and gun violence,” James said. “We’re here to reach out to say we have a problem and we want help.”

The judiciary committee is holding hearings throughout the state on crime and violence.

Committee Chairman Thomas R. Caltagirone, a Reading Democrat, said he hopes the hearings will help lawmakers reach a consensus on dealing with the issue.

State Rep. Jim Cox, a Spring Township Republican, said he would not support the one-handgun-per-month legislation because it chips away at gun owners’ rights and could lead to more drastic restrictions.

“I want people to have the sheer, unadulterated ability to defend themselves,” Cox said. “If they want to go out and buy 20 weapons to protect themselves because there has been a crime wave in their neighborhood, I don’t want to restrict them.”

•Contact reporter Kori Walter at 610-371-5022 or kwalter@readingeagle.com.

Jim Zumbo's Open Letter to Congress

JIM ZUMBO
PO Box 2390
Cody, WY 82414

March 28, 2007
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

ZUMBO VOWS TO LEAD

Gun Week Column HERE

Gun Week Exclusive
Zumbo ‘Proud’ of Gunowners, 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 gunowners 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.”

This article is provided free by GunWeek.com.
For more great gun news, subscribe to our print edition.

What I have learned

Well, as many of you may know I was a speaker at a public informational hearing on gun violence. I had a good experience, despite some stubbles in the speech and being cut off due to what was called a time constraint to get Public responses. Much of what was discussed did not even focus on guns. The Community resources and 501c orgs, mostly discussed money and the need to fund programs to keep kids active and off the street. This was a good thing to discover, They want the tools but funds are not there. I am now beginning to make contacts to help implement a NASP or NASP like program into the community resources that are available for our inner city kids.

Since I was under the impression this meeting was going to deal with guns, I prepared based on guns. Out of curiosity and feeling a need to bullet proof my arguments, I pulled up a copy of the Constitution of Pennsylvania. To my pro gun, pleasent suprise The Commonweath Constitution spells out very clearly, in my opinion, what my rights concerning arms are. Article I was a fascinating read and I realized that arguing the 2nd amendment without including these provisions in the Commonwealth Constitution, was doing a disservice to the 2nd Amendment.

I would like to encourage all our readers to familiarize themselves with their State Constitutions and their provisions for arms, life and liberty. I will wager that far too many are unaware of what their State Constitutions secure to the individual. This is a shortcoming that the antis will exploit to no end.

Educate yourself to formulate the best counter to the antis possible, using rights secured by both Federal and State Constitutions.

NASP getting press around the country

Sorry this is so long but there are 2 GREAT articles on NASP that need a thank you and a shout out.

Article Here

Local archers take aim and fire at state tourney
By Nathan Blackford - Warrick Publishing Online

Archers from Boonville Junior High and Castle High School shot their way to state championships on March 9 at Kokomo in Indiana’s first National Archery in the Schools Program (NASP) state tournament.

So far, about 30 schools in the state participate in the NASP, though only eight of those competed at the state meet.

The tournament was divided into elementary, middle and high school categories.

Boonville Junior High won the middle school division with 2,817 team points, defeating Roosevelt Middle School, which finished with 2,698 points.

Castle won the high school division with 2,981 points, while Borden was second and Boonville was third.

Boonville Junior High coach Rick Whitney has held an after-school archery club for years, and when he found out about the state NASP program, he decided to get involved.

Along with two other teachers at the school — Chris Hillenbrand and Brooke Hart — Whitney helped raise the funds to get things started.

The school needed a kit containing 11 bows, five targets, 60 arrows, a repair kit and a bow rack.

“The kit cost $2,500, so we had fundraisers, got grants and found sponsors,” said Whitney. “I think this will just grow now. This (the NASP) started in Kentucky, and now it has grown into just about all states, and even into Australia. It helps students that do not normally get to participate in sports.”

Boonville Junior High has 20 members on its team, most of them recruited after each student in the school went through the archery program in physical education class.

“It was nice, because every student in our school got a chance to do this,” said Whitney. “Some of them on our team had never shot before they got on this program. Others of them had shot with me before.”

The competition is fairly simple. Each archer gets three rounds of five arrows each at 10 meters, then another three rounds at 15 meters. The top possible individual score is 300. To compile a team score, at least four members of each gender must be included.

State champions in each division qualify for the national NASP competition in Louisville on June 9. The top five individuals in each division also qualify for the national tournament.

Castle senior Kate Whitacre was the top female scorer at the high school level, with a score of 262. Fellow Knight Melissa Wagner was just two points behind, with a 260.

The top male archer for the high school division was Borden’s Chris Howlett with a 269. Brian Hatfield of Castle was second at 268, while Boonville’s Tyler Belcher was third with a score of 266.

At the middle school level, Boonville’s Matthew Porter shot a 268, followed by teammate Zach Henderson with a 255. The Panthers also swept the top four places for the girls middle school division, led by Taylor Gentry with 252 and Katie Powell with 225.

Supported as a joint venture between school corporations throughout Indiana and the Department of Natural Resources, NASP supports student education and participation in the lifelong sport of archery. The program provides international target archery training in Indiana's physical educational classes, grades K-12. Tournament team competitors are limited to NASP participants.

NASP is found in nearly every state. In Indiana, more than 30 elementary, middle and high schools participate. NASP started in Kentucky in 2002, with 39 educators in 22 middle schools. Currently, it is offered in nearly one in four Kentucky schools as part of the educational curriculum.

The program is supported and often funded through local school corporations, the Indiana Hunter Education Association, individual donations, conservation organizations and corporate sponsors such as the National Wild Turkey Federation.

Whitney said that Boonville Junior High will probably go looking for more sponsors before next year’s state tournament.

“If anybody is interested in donating money to the BJHS archery fund, that would be great,” said Whitney. “We already need more equipment. If we want to do a team for the seventh grade and another team for the eighth grade, we’ll need another $2,500 kit. And I have already had some people donate money, including one teacher here at the school.”



Article Here

Students take aim at archery
By PAT ROBERTSON
patrob@upthecreek.net

AT SOME POINT almost every youngster ties a string to a bent limb, sharpens a slender stick to make an arrow and tries to emulate Robin Hood, an Olympic archer or his bowhunting father.

Nearly 350 young archers will get the chance to draw the string on a bow in the National Archery in Schools Program state competition Friday during the first day of the 23rd annual Palmetto Sportsmen’s Classic at the S.C. State Fairgrounds.

“We had 176 students in the competition last year, and we already have 346 signed up for this year’s tournament,” said DNR First Sgt. Dennetta Dawson, who spearheaded the Archery in the Schools Program in South Carolina and has served as its coordinator.

The tournament, with competitors from fourth through 12th grade from schools across the state, features individual and team competition, shooting Olympic-style targets. Midlands schools fielding teams include Mid-Carolina High School, Lexington High School and Pine Ridge Middle School.

Participants will shoot 15 arrows at 10 meters and another 15 at 15 meters, aiming for a possible score of 300. Winners will receive medals and trophies, and the top individual boy and girl archer will win a Genesis Bow.

Two-time national intermediate champion Tom Jeffery, who operates Jeffery Archery in Columbia, will be field judge for the event.

Dawson, honored last year as South Carolina’s conservation officer of the year and last month as South Carolina’s top wildlife officer at the annual convention of the National Wild Turkey Federation in Nashville, said archery is a fast-growing activity in state schools.

“What makes it so wonderful is that teachers can do it within the school system. This program is very organized with all the materials they need academically and all the equipment they need for shooting,” she said “The training is very good, and it is easy for a teacher to pick it up.”

Started in Kentucky in 2002, NASP promotes student education and participation in shooting sports. Each year more than half a million students learn archery skills during school hours in 42 states and Australia.

For information on how a school can participate in the Archery in the Schools Program in South Carolina, call Sgt. Jim Wagers, DNR Hunting and Boating education coordinator, at (803) 734-3999, or e-mail him at wagersj@dnr.sc.gov. You can get details at www.dnr.sc.gov/hunting/archery/index.html.

Unalarming, impeccable ruling: Wash Times Article

Read Article Here


Unalarming, impeccable ruling

By Bruce Fein
March 20, 2007

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a constitutional right of individuals to keep handguns suitable for militia duty in the home under the Second Amendment in Parker v. District of Columbia (March 9, 2007). Writing for a 2-1 panel majority, Judge Laurence Silberman convincingly demonstrated that any other conclusion would require flouting language carefully chosen by the Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment's self-defense purposes. His opinion sets a standard of constitutional interpretation to which the wise and honest may repair.
The usual suspects raced to insinuate Parker would fuel more inner-city violence and would hamstring legislatures in fashioning effective gun control measures. But the alarmists are wrong. A Kalishnikoff or AK-47 culture is not on the horizon. Judge Silberman left ample room for reasonable handgun regulation in the name of public safety, for example, prohibiting ownership by felons or the carrying of firearms concealed or in public places.
D.C. residents brought suit to challenge the constitutionality of D.C. Code provisions that prohibited handguns in the home and required all lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. The plaintiffs desired handguns for self-defense. The Parker ruling sustained their Second Amendment claim.
The amendment declares: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It was ratified in part to answer Antifederalist critics of the Constitution who worried over the absence of an express enumeration of individual rights. That had been a venerated British tradition. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 was emblematic. Among other things, it stipulated "[t]hat the Subjects, which are Protestants, may have Arms for their Defense, suitable to their conditions, as allowed by law."
Every provision of the Bill of Rights (but the tautological Tenth Amendment's demarcation between state and federal power) protects individual rights. The First Amendment, for example, guarantees an individual right to free speech. The Fourth Amendment safeguards an individual right against unreasonable searches and seizures. It would confound the manifest intent of the Bill of Rights to exclude an individual right to possess arms for private use from the Second Amendment's ambit. That conclusion is confirmed by its purposes: namely, to enable private defense against lawless individuals and to resist a tyrannical government.
The District of Columbia maintained that the amendment should protect only organized state militias of the Founding era from congressional encroachments and a right to bear arms in connection with performing militia service. Since state militias are now defunct, the District in essence argued that the Second Amendment is obsolete and places no limitations on banning firearms.
But as Judge Silberman underscored, if that were the intent of the Framers, the Second Amendment would have been rewritten to provide: "Congress shall make no law disarming state militias" or "States have a right to a well-regulated militia." Further, the right to "keep" arms celebrated in the amendment is distinct from the right to "bear" arms in conjunction with militia service. The Framers were not clumsy or inarticulate writers.
In addition, the Second Amendment broadly conceived the term "militia" to include all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense and who were enrolled for military discipline. Protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms suitable for militia service harmonizes with ensuring that the militia could serve when summoned to duty. In other words, the individual right complements the collective right of state governments to preserve and arm their militias.
All constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, are subject to reasonable restrictions. The First Amendment, for instance, tolerates time, place and manner restrictions on protected expression. Obscenity, child pornography and fighting words may be punished.
The Second Amendment is no different. Nothing in Parker casts a cloud over prohibiting firearms in churches, schools, workplaces or public places to promote the government's interest in domestic tranquility. Neither does the precedent undercut laws requiring proficiency testing or forbidding firearms to criminals, the insane, the inebriated or the mentally unstable.
The District of Columbia's undiscriminating prohibition of handguns, however, was a prohibition, not a balanced regulation that gave breathing space to the Second Amendment. If Parker garners review in the United States Supreme Court, the odds would highly favor its affirmation. But the vast majority of gun control laws would remain undisturbed.

Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer and international consultant with Bruce Fein & Associates and the Lichfield Group.


Submit Positive comments here

Second Amendment article appears in Chigago Trib.

Read Article Here

Signs of life stir in 2nd Amendment
Steve Chapman

March 18, 2007

For nearly 70 years, the 2nd Amendment has been the Jimmy Hoffa of constitutional provisions--missing, its whereabouts unknown, and presumed dead. The right to keep and bear arms, though treasured by many Americans, was a complete stranger to the Supreme Court. But recently, a federal appeals court did something no federal court had ever done before: It struck down a gun-control law as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The District of Columbia statute in question is one of the most stringent in the country. It bans the ownership of handguns except those registered before 1976, and it requires rifles or shotguns to be not only registered but kept unloaded and equipped with a trigger lock. Such tight restrictions, the appeals court said, can't be reconciled with the Bill of Rights.

The decision does not prove that the 2nd Amendment is alive and well. But it does mean that, finally, we are likely to get an answer from the Supreme Court on a question that has generated endless debate: Is the 2nd Amendment a meaningless anachronism, or a live guarantee? The court will be confronting the issue at a time when legal scholarship is increasingly inclined to say there is indeed a right to keep and bear arms.

The full text of the provision is: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In its last significant 2nd Amendment case, in 1939, the court didn't exactly say there was no individual right. Instead, it said the firearm at issue, a sawed-off shotgun, would not be of use to someone serving in a militia. The question of an individual right was left unresolved.

The amendment is a puzzle because of those two separate clauses, one about militias and one about gun rights. Gun-control supporters generally read the first to nullify the second, while gun-control opponents do just the opposite. And trying to determine what the framers meant is hard because they barely discussed the right and what it might entail.

Second Amendment skeptics think any right is a collective one related to militias that no longer exist. But just because the colonial Minutemen have vanished doesn't mean they took the rest of the 2nd Amendment with them. It's hard to know exactly what the text means by a right to keep and bear arms, but it must mean something.

Even some liberal constitutional experts now agree that gun ownership enjoys constitutional protection. The most notable is Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, who once subscribed to the collective-rights theory. The amendment, he writes, recognizes "a right [admittedly of uncertain scope] on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in defense of themselves and their homes." The appeals court agreed, striking down Washington's prohibition of handguns in the home as well as the regulations on other guns.

It would be a stunning turnabout if the Supreme Court adopts that view. It would remove some of the most extreme laws from the books--such as the near-total ban on handguns in Chicago and some suburban communities. Gun rights would feel sweet vindication.

But there is consolation for the other side as well. The appeals court made clear that a host of other limits on firearms possession are constitutionally permissible. States, it said, could forbid the carrying of concealed handguns, require registration of firearms and mandate training for gun owners.

So if this decision is upheld, it will not change our treatment of guns very much. Complete bans would be off-limits, but they are already rarer than white buffaloes. Most other gun-control laws would remain on the books, and anti-gun groups would be free to press for additional ones.

The only obstacle would be the one that has stymied them in the past: insufficient public support. It wasn't the constitutional right to keep and bear arms that induced Congress to let the federal ban on "assault weapons" expire, or persuaded 40 states to allow the carrying of concealed handguns. Those choices were the product of sentiment among citizens and legislators who see most restrictions on firearms as futile at best and dangerous at worst.

The bad news for gun-control advocates is that the Supreme Court may adopt an expansive view of the 2nd Amendment. The worse news is that's the least of their troubles.

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. E-mail: schapman@tribune.com
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune


Write to Mr Chapman and thank him for his positive article