ALERT: ATF To “Demand” Rifle-Sale Records Aug 14

Posted on by Buckeye Firearms Association

by Alan Korwin

According to four BATFE agents familiar with the planned Fast and Furious gun-smuggling “fix,” the bureau plans to release a “demand letter” by the end of this week, insisting that gun dealers in the four Mexico-border states begin reporting multiple rifle sales to the bureau.

All multiple rifle sales made to the same buyer within a five-day period will have to be reported beginning on August 14, on a form to be announced, according to the agents. The order will exclude rifles in .22 caliber, and rifles without detachable magazines. The agents acknowledged that congressional action, lawsuits, an injunction or other court orders might forestall the implementation of the hastily concocted scheme. Such preventive measures are already underway.

The rumored executive order to require gun dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to begin reporting multiple rifle sales to BATFE will not be issued. A previous Page Nine report that referred to the expected EO now appears incorrect. It is possible that the uproar over the program caused the administration to change its approach, and put all the heat on BATFE to “enact” law without Congress. The EO was widely reported and anticipated.

An exhaustive examination of statutory authority under which BATFE is required to operate revealed no legitimate power to demand these records, though the agents claimed they do have authority (two younger ones said they have no control over the process, and were simply following along). When questioned if they would consider resigning if asked to implement an illegally introduced rule, the agents all either declined to answer or said no, they would not resign.

To the Editor: Bill gives upstanding folks a second chance

Posted on by Buckeye Firearms Association

The following letter to the editor was published recently in The Columbus Dispatch.

As reported in The Dispatch (“Bill can expunge gun-crime record,” June 17), the legislature recently gave a small and specific group of people the opportunity to clear their records of particular concealed-carry firearm violations. This is part of Senate Bill 17, which clarifies where and how Ohio’s concealed-carry permit holders can carry a licensed firearm.

The majority of states allow permit holders to carry concealed firearms in vehicles. Unlike most other states, Ohio’s concealed-carry law had a number of additional complex rules regarding how a weapon must be carried in a car. As a result, some law-abiding citizens unintentionally violated the law.

Senate Bill 17 represents an effort to repeal these unnecessary and complex requirements. Unfortunately, a simple repeal does little for those people who ended up with an offense on their record. For that reason, I sponsored an amendment that would allow those people to apply for expungement for certain car-carry violations.

To be clear, expungement is not automatic. The bill gives a judge the discretion to grant an expungement if, after consulting with the prosecutor and considering the specific facts of a case, the judge determines that it is warranted. If an applicant was engaged in other unlawful behavior at the time of the conviction, a judge can — and presumably would — deny the application. Furthermore, the provision is narrowly tailored to apply only to those convicted of violating the specific car-carry sections repealed by the bill.

This amendment received unanimous and bipartisan support in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. It was adopted by the committee by a vote of 9-0, and two of those votes were from senators who voted against the bill as a whole. Even though they opposed the underlying policies of Senate Bill 17, they recognized the importance of giving a second chance to people who never intended to violate the law.

STATE SEN. LARRY OBHOF
22nd District
Medina

Canton officer who threatened to execute concealed handgun license-holder now under investigation for ANOTHER violent outburst

Posted on by Buckeye Firearms Association

by Chad D. Baus

The Canton Repository is reporting that Officer Daniel Harless, who is currently under investigation for threatening to execute a concealed handgun license-holder during a traffic stop, is now also under investigation for a second incident.

From the article:

The circumstances of the incidents differ: One, from June, involves a driver with a license to carry a concealed gun. The other, from July of last year, concerns a backseat passenger without the legal right to be armed in a vehicle.

But they both include video of patrolman Daniel Harless using profanity and threats during an early morning traffic stop.

…The Repository requested police cruiser video of the July 29, 2010, incident on Friday. Internal affairs opened the second investigation around the same time.

Harless and his partner, patrolman Mark Diels, pulled over a pickup at Reed Court and Sixth Street NW around 2:30 a.m., according to court papers, police reports and the video.

After getting the driver, who was suspected of driving drunk, and the front passenger out of the car, Harless noticed a gun on the floor next to the foot of one of the rear passengers, according to the video and police reports.

Harless pulled his weapon and ordered — in profanity laced language — the man and woman in the back seat not to move or he would shoot.

“Don’t (expletive) move. Let me see your (expletive) hands,” Harless shouted. “I’ll kill every one of you (expletive). There’s a (expletive) gun in this car. You (expletive) move, I’ll shoot you in the head.”

Harless also threatened to send the suspects “to the grave” if they moved, adding, “I will shoot you in the face and I’ll go to sleep tonight.”

According to the article, police reports say the man and woman were eventually removed from the truck. The gun, a .25-caliber semi-automatic pistol, was found loaded with a round in the chamber.

WSJ: A Gun Activist Takes Aim at U.S. Regulatory Power

Posted on by Buckeye Firearms Association

by Jess Bravin

MISSOULA, Mont.— With a homemade .22-caliber rifle he calls the Montana Buckaroo, Gary Marbut dreams of taking down the federal regulatory state.

Montana passed a law that tries to exempt the state from federal gun regulation. But the law is now before the courts, in a test of states’ rights. WSJ’s Jess Bravin reports.

He’s not planning to fire his gun. Instead, he wants to sell it, free from federal laws requiring him to record transactions, pay license fees and open his business to government inspectors.

For years, Mr. Marbut argued that a wide range of federal laws, not just gun regulations, should be invalid because they were based on an erroneous interpretation of Congress’s constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. In his corner were a handful of conservative lawyers and academics. Now, with the rise of the tea-party movement, the self-employed shooting-range supplier finds himself leading a movement.

Eight states have adopted his Firearms Freedom Act, which Mr. Marbut conceived as a vehicle to undermine federal authority over commerce.

Ten state attorneys general, dozens of elected officials and an array of conservative groups are backing the legal challenge he engineered to get his constitutional theory before the Supreme Court. A federal appeals court in San Francisco is now considering his case.

Mr. Marbut isn’t basing his pro-gun effort on the Second Amendment, the one that talks about a right to bear arms, but on the 10th, which discusses the limits of federal power.

“This is really about states’ rights and federal power rather than gun control,” Mr. Marbut says. There is “an emerging awareness by the people of America that the federal government has gone too far,” he maintains, “and it’s dependent on a really weird interpretation.”

He is talking about the 1942 Supreme Court case of Wickard v. Filburn, which looms for him the way the Dred Scott decision denying rights to blacks did to antebellum abolitionists.

Victim zone robberies highlight fallacy of ‘no-guns’ signs; UDF finally sees the light, but other businesses still posting signs

Posted on by Buckeye Firearms Association

by Chad D. Baus

Since the day Ohio’s concealed carry law was passed in 2004, the battle to educate business owners about the fallacies of posting ‘no-guns’ signs has waged in earnest.

There have been many victories – some signs were taken down within days or even hours of being posted, after customers had informative conversations with business owners. Other ‘no-guns’ policies have persisted for years, despite many attempts by their customers to inform them of the truth, or even despite being given proof that criminals don’t care about the signs (i.e. armed robberies within their establishments.)

For example, it is the policy of Ohio-based Fifth Third Bank to post signs prohibiting guns in their Ohio branches. Yet we have documented so many armed robberies in Fifth Third branches that one could easily conclude the criminals know exactly where to go to avoid the potential of running into an armed citizen.

CCW laws “completely insane”: Canton City Council President rails against Americans upset about cop’s behavior on dash cam video

Posted on by Buckeye Firearms Association

by Chad D. Baus

Perhaps now we know why police officer Daniel Harless thought it was acceptable behavior to unleash his violent, profanity-laced tirade on a concealed handgun license-holder in Canton, Ohio, saying “People like you don’t deserve to @#$%#$ move throughout public. Period!” before threatening to murder the CHL-holder.

Canton City Council President Allen Schulman has unleashed his own version of that same tirade against law-abiding concealed handgun license-holders. After explaining that he would not be making any comments about the deplorable behavior of Harless, which were exposed on the dash cam video that has been seen across the country, Schulman said this:

“I did want to make a comment, uh, reflecting the out of town emails that we have all received from people who do not live in this community, do not know out police, do not know the firefighters, do not know our public servants, our employees, know nothing about the City of Canton. But because a video went viral on the Internet they’re excu – excoriating the City of Canton out of this particular incident. And they’re excoriating our police force, its conduct, and our city. I take very strong exception to what I’ve read, uh, what I’ve heard, from out-of-towners, uh, making comments about our city.

“This is, in my judgement, a symptom of this arming, literally the arming of our population, with handguns, and the flooding of handguns into our communities.”

Got that? Allen Schulman believes the violence and profanity-laced tirade from one of his city’s police officers, who told a CHL-holder he “shoulda taken two steps back, pulled my Glock 40, and just put ten bullets in your ass and let you drop” is the fault of the Second Amendment, and not the angry cop.

It goes downhill from there:

© 2002-2024 Buckeye Firearms Association