NEWTOWN, Conn

The Fish and Game Commission announced its intention to expand the ban on traditional ammunition containing lead components even though the state’s Department of Fish & Game does not support this expansion and despite the fact there is no scientific evidence that shows condors are at risk of ingesting ammunition fragments by feeding on small game because these are not the condor’s traditional food source.

The commission’s action is in response to a lawsuit settlement between the state and plaintiffs the Natural Resources Defense Council and Center for Biological Diversity that stipulates the commission will consider amending regulations requiring alternative ammunition for taking small game within condor range.

In opposing this unfounded expansion of the ban, the Department of Fish & Game noted that almost all small game is recovered in the field by hunters and that it would be unlikely that a condor could even find a small-game animal or bird that was not recovered.

“Hunting has already declined in the region where traditional ammunition was recently banned for taking big game, potentially costing California millions of dollars for wildlife conservation,” said Steve Sanetti, NSSF president and CEO. “The decision to expand the ban on traditional ammunition for hunting upland and small game without any scientific basis will further reduce hunting in the state and the economic and social benefits that hunting provides.”

License fees and excise taxes on the firearms and ammunition purchased by hunters are the largest single source of wildlife conservation funding. More than 295,000 hunters purchased licenses in 2008 in California, and according to the Fish & Game Department, an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 hunters are affected by the ban on traditional ammunition, primarily hunters of deer, wild pig and non-game species such as coyote.

Even though no conclusive scientific evidence supported claims that some condors had higher elevated blood lead levels from ingesting ammunition fragments while scavenging entrails from hunter-harvested big game, the state last year imposed a ban on traditional ammunition for big-game hunting in designated condor ranges.

In signing the ban into law on July 1, 2008, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ignored requests from the executive committee of the Condor Recovery Team, NSSF, sportsmen’s groups and individual hunters to support voluntary, non-ban measures such as burying game entrails that would interrupt the potential pathways for condors ingesting spent ammunition fragments.

It is not surprising that hunting has fallen off in areas where traditional ammunition is banned, as a pre-ban survey predicted and 2008 deer and pig tag sales confirmed, given that alternative ammunition is significantly more expensive than traditional ammunition and not available in all hunting calibers. Hunters prefer traditional ammunition not only because it is less expensive but because they are more familiar with its performance.

A pre-ban survey of hunters by Responsive Management Company indicated that 25 percent of California hunters would either quit big game hunting or hunt less if a ban was adopted, with 15 percent indicating they would hunt in another state. “If hunters indicated the ammunition ban for big game would cause them not to hunt or hunt outside the Golden State, it follows that a ban related to upland and small game will raise another hurdle to hunters and further erode hunting in California,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.

Public comment is scheduled for June 25 on the Fish and Game Commission’s intent to impose a ban on traditional ammunition for upland and small game. NSSF will submit testimony opposing the ban and also encourages hunters to contact their state legislators to oppose expanding the ban.

NSSF supports science-based policy related to the use of traditional ammunition and urges lawmakers to strongly question the motivations of groups advocating banning traditional ammunition and, by extension, hunting.

For more information about traditional ammunition and how it relates to the California condor, see http://www.nssf.org/media/FactSheets/Lead_Ammunition.cfm.

See the original post:
Anti-Gun Groups Launch Campaign Against Important Gun Reform in Illinois

See the rest here:
Attack on the Second Amendment Defeated in Louisiana!

(We are pleased to post the following press release from Freedom States Alliance affiliate, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence).

For Immediate Release

Contact: Thom Mannard (312) 341-0939

Definitive Ruling Holds that Gun Violence Prevention Laws Do Not Violate the Second Amendment; Decision Is Major Setback To Gun Lobby’s Radical Agenda To Eradicate Nation’s Gun Laws

(June 3, 2009, Chicago) – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Chicago and Oak Park handgun bans by a 3-0 decision. The 7th Circuit said that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller that stripped D.C. of its handgun ban only applies to the federal government. Chicago enacted its handgun ban in 1982.

The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV) praised the ruling.

“The 7th Circuit arrived at the correct decision. This ruling saved lives,” said Thom Mannard, Executive Director of ICHV. “The debate over Chicago’s handgun ban is not an abstract legal argument, but about the right of governments to enact sensible policies to keep deadly guns out of our communities. It’s time that more judges, lawyers and legal scholars understood that these important decisions are more than just legal theories, but about preventing gun deaths and injuries.”

Gun violence prevention advocates expect the gun lobby to continue to press its case all the way to the Supreme Court. U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook, joined by Circuit Court Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer, said they were bound to follow the precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court in its ruling on the Second Amendment not applying to states. All three federal judges were GOP appointees.

The case is National Rifle Association of America v. City of Chicago, 08-4241, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago).

“If Chicago’s handgun ban is ever overturned by the Supreme Court, it would open the floodgates to challenge every gun control measure in the country. Even more ominous, those facing criminal charges or even those convicted of gun violations could now challenge their status on Constitutional grounds,” said Chester Kulis, a retired federal law enforcement officer, attorney and current board member of ICHV.

The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence said that the Court’s ruling made crystal clear that sensible gun laws are Constitutional. ICHV pressed state lawmakers to continue to pass stronger gun laws to save lives, such as requiring common sense background checks on all gun sales to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of drug dealers, gun traffickers, domestic abusers, and mentally unstable individuals.

Relative to the rest of the country, Illinois has enacted a host of gun violence prevention policies. Illinois mandates that residents apply for a Firearm Owner Identification Card (FOID) to possess a firearm and ammunition. In addition, state law does not preempt local municipalities and communities to enact their own gun laws; and Illinois is one of only two states, along with Wisconsin, that prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons in public.

– END –

Read this article:
Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence Praises Appellate Court Ruling Protecting Chicago’s ‘Life-Saving’ Handgun Ban

Un-”wise” analysis

Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor has drawn criticism for saying in an October 2001 speech, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
I wonder why so little of the [...]

See the rest here:
Random Observations On The Sotomayor Nomination

“It is every American’s constitutional right to bear arms and that right should not stop at the edge of college campuses,” said Texas Governor Perry. “I fully support efforts of all, like Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, who continue to pursue extending this right within our places of higher education.”

More guns is not a problem if those guns are in the hands of law-abiding citizens and taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens only stacks the odds in favor of dangerous criminals, providing criminals a government guarantee that their intended victims will be incapable of defending themselves.

Eleven U.S. universities (all nine public colleges in Utah, Colorado State University and Blue Ridge Community College in Weyers Cave, VA) currently allow concealed carry on campus, and have done so for a combined total of over seventy semesters, without any resulting incidents of gun violence, gun accidents or gun theft. Just as these universities haven’t seen an increase in problems resulting from concealed carry on campus, no other type of location that currently allows concealed carry has seen an increased rate of violent crime since the legalization of concealed carry in these respective places.

Proponents of concealed carry on college campuses may be mistaken for being paranoid of mass shootings but opponents must understand this is not simply about preventing mass shootings of college students but also about deterring rapes and other violent crimes that happen on college campuses everyday.

Critics of concealed carry on campus will argue the general public does not favor this idea. This is what is called argumentum ad populum, a false argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it.

Critics will also argue that lower crime rates on college campuses can be attributed to the strict gun control laws college campuses have. To assume a cause and effect relationship between the unenforceable gun control regulations on college campuses and the relative safe environment of college campuses constitutes astoundingly naïve leap in logic. A comparable discrepancy can be found between the relatively low crime rates in affluent neighborhoods and the higher crime rates in the cities in which those neighborhoods exist. After all, what are college campuses but, essentially, large, affluent neighborhoods? Methods of gun control, such as declaring a “gun-free zone,” only serve to disarm those law-abiding citizens while giving criminals a government guarantee that their intended victims will be incapable of defending themselves.

A 1997 FBI study concludes that most shootouts last less than ten seconds and the fact that the rate of concealed carry among individuals in their twenties is typically about one half of one percent.

How can nine seconds of exchanged gunfire between two armed individuals possibly lead to a greater loss of life than a nine-minute, uncontested execution-style massacre, such as the one that occurred at Virginia Tech? Likewise, how can one of these brief shootouts lead to multiple students drawing their weapons and losing track of the shooter, when statistically speaking, only about one out of every 200 students would be armed. Given the fact that even a huge 400-seat lecture hall would statistically contain only two students with concealed handgun licenses, the chance of one of those armed students losing track of the actual shooter during a few seconds of exchanged gunfire is highly unlikely.

The same gun-free policies critics claim to be working at their respective colleges and universities are the same gun-free policies that have failed at Virginia Tech. Since the year 2000, they have also failed at the University of Arkansas, Northern Illinois University, Miles College, Louisiana Technical College, Louisiana State University, University of Memphis, Delaware State University, University of Washington, Duquesne University, Shepherd University, University of Cincinnati, Butler University, Benedictine University, Case Western Reserve University, Farleigh Dickinson University, Arizona Nursing College, Appalachian School of Law, Pacific Lutheran University, University of Arkansas and the University of Washington, resulting in 68 dead and 56 wounded individuals.

Should Ersland be charged with murder or was this a case of self-defense?

Go here to see the original:
Governor Vetoes Tennessee Restaurant Carry Bill!

Read the rest here:
Vote on Two Anti-Gun Bills Could Come Next Week in California!