Ill. lawmakers say gun-permit holder names private

(AP) – 18 hours ago

CHICAGO (AP) — Illinois lawmakers voted overwhelming Friday to bar the public from knowing who holds a firearm owner identification card, a victory for gun owners who say they have a right to privacy over open-government advocates who say such records should not be secret.

In a 42-1 vote, the Senate passed a measure overturning a ruling by Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office that said the names are public under the state's open records law. It now goes to Gov. Pat Quinn, who said he agrees the information should remain confidential and will "act accordingly" after reviewing the legislation.

Madigan's office issued the decree earlier this year after the Illinois State Police refused to release to The Associated Press the names of 1.3 million people who are registered to own firearms. The AP's request set off howls of protests from gun owners and the state police, who said they feared criminals would use the information to steal guns or target those who aren't armed.

"We've always felt that the intent of the FOID law was to keep everything private," said Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. "We have (privacy laws) for medical records ... anything that could be used to do harm to the public should be kept secure."

Madigan's office said the State Police had given no proof to back up claims that releasing the names would endanger gun owners, and said the opinion applied only to permit holders' names and the expiration dates on their permits; addresses and phone numbers would remain private. The AP did not ask for cardholders' addresses.

The AP sought the records to, among other things, review governmental action.

"These records and open access to government officials help shine a light into the dark places where wrongdoing can occur, and historically always has," said Michael Oreskes, the AP's senior managing editor for U.S. news. "The actions of government should be transparent to all, which is why we sought the FOID cards and will continue to seek other government records in the future."

By prohibiting the names' release, Illinois would follow the lead of Florida and Tennessee, which shut off access to information about people with permits to carry concealed firearms after newspapers revealed significant lapses.

A newspaper investigation in south Florida published in 2007 found that 1,400 people given concealed-carry licenses in the first half of 2006 had earlier pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies. In Memphis, Tenn., a newspaper found at least 70 people in the metropolitan area with carry permits despite violent histories.

It was unclear Friday whether a lawsuit brought by the Illinois State Rifle Association against the state police and the AP to block release of the names would continue. AP attorney Don Craven said the lawsuit "was clearly an effort" by the rifle association and state police, which agreed with the rifle association's position, to avoid the ruling by the attorney general's office.

The Illinois State Police referred questions to the governor's office, while the attorney general's office did not respond immediately Friday to a request for comment.

Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said if cardholders' names are shielded from public scrutiny, "there needs to be assurances by government officials that they will audit the system to make sure it's working as intended."

"What is the mechanism, then, for Illinois state government to ensure the citizens that the permitting system is working as intended and that people aren't slipping through the cracks?" Malte said.

Todd Vandermyde, the Illinois lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, said neither the media nor the general public has right to information on gun owners and suggested lawmakers should not even have required FOID cards.

"It's nobody's business what I keep in my home," he said. "It's not my fault the state of Illinois requires me to get a license to exercise a constitutional right. Just because I choose to exercise it is no reason for the news or anyone else to be prodding around in my rights."

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said if government thinks it's important enough to regulate an activity, "then the fact of who they are regulating and how they are regulating them should be public."

"If Illinois wants to run the state of Illinois like the Wild, Wild West and not have any gun regulations whatsoever under any circumstances, (then) there's no right to get any information," she said. "But since Illinois has decided to get into the business of somehow regulating who has guns and who doesn't, the public should have access to that information."

The bill is HB3500.

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jwCKZmrvv-I1XkUcsx51HCpxCyJg?docId=386243d20dad4936b0c4008a522d6aee

Ted Nugent: ‘Guns deter crime’

Rocker and activist Ted Nugent has spoken passionately about gun possession in the U.S., insisting it is his right to bear arms because pistols "equal less crime."
The outspoken musician is an avid gun fan and is open about his ownership of firearms.

And Nugent is adamant guns have a place in American society because statistics allegedly prove crime rates are lower in areas where residents are armed.

Speaking to CNN host Piers Morgan, he rants, "Anybody that wants to disarm me can drop dead. Anybody that wants to make me unarmed and helpless, people that want to literally create the proven places where more innocents are killed called gun-free zones, we're going to beat you. We're going to vote you out of office or suck on my machine gun."

But when Morgan told him that 80 people across America die each day from a gunshot wound, Nugent argued back, "...78 of those 80 are let out of their cages by corrupt judges and prosecutors who know the recidivism is out of control, know that they'll commit the crimes again, and they let them walk through plea bargaining, early release, and programs. Kiss my ass. Where you have the most armed citizens in America, you have the lowest violent crime rate. Where you have the worst gun control, you have the highest crime rate... More guns equals less crime. Period."

http://blog.seattlepi.com/people/2011/05/19/ted-nugent-guns-deter-crime/

Area gun owner defends bill to carry guns in bars

By Kareem Elgazzar, Staff Writer

Updated 10:03 PM Wednesday, May 18, 2011

 

For the approximately 250,000 licensed concealed carry gun-holders in Ohio, the pending House Bill 45 provides them with more options of where to spend their money, one proponent of the legislation said.

Joe Eaton, the Southwest Ohio regional chair of the Buckeye Firearms Association, said the main sentiment behind the bill is to allow for more choice.

“Everyone will agree that guns and alcohol don’t mix, but the fact they don’t mix is a nonstarter because the bill does not allow that at all,” Eaton said.

House Bill 45 would allow citizens with concealed carry permits to legally take their guns into bars or restaurants that serve alcohol but they cannot consume it. Current law prohibits a person from possessing a firearm in any room of an establishment that has been issued a D liquor permit, according to the Ohio Legislative Commission Service.

D liquor permits apply to “community entertainment” establishments, such as retail carryouts, bars, restaurants and enclosed shopping malls, according to the legislative commission service.

“There are more than 40 states that have similar laws,” said Eaton, who has had a conceal carry weapon license since 2004. “I don’t know why Ohio citizens are thought to be any different than other citizens in other states.”

Eaton said it’s up to the CCW holder to obey the law, comparing it to how people obey drunken driving laws.

Private businesses still will retain the right to post signs declaring their properties off limits to guns as they do under current law, Eaton said.

But the Ohio Restaurant Association says there is nothing wrong with current law.
“Our board opposed the legislation because the laws that are in place don’t seem to be broken,” said spokesman Jarrod Clabaugh.

Last year was the first year issuance of CCW permits fell in Ohio over a five-year span, according to the state attorney general’s 2010 Concealed Carry Annual Report. In 2010, 47,337 permits were issued compared to 56,691 in 2009.

From a law enforcement perspective, allowing guns into bars and restaurants adds yet another hazardous element police have to be mindful of, said Middletown police Maj. David VanArsdale.

“When you mix weapons and alcohol, that is never a good thing,” VanArsdale said. “When you can possibly face an armed individual in a situation, it’s always alarming.”
http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/area-gun-owner-defends-bill-to-carry-guns-in-bars-1163467.html

Judge allows lawsuit against Badger Guns to proceed

By John Diedrich of the Journal Sentinel

May 17, 2011 |(13) Comments

Two Milwaukee police officers wounded with a gun sold by Badger Guns won a victory in court Tuesday when a Milwaukee County judge rejected a motion to dismiss their lawsuit against the West Milwaukee gun dealer.

Circuit Judge Timothy Dugan said that at this early stage of the negligence and public nuisance case, he is required to accept facts in the officers' lawsuit as accurate.

The case is just getting started, and the decision does not necessarily indicate where the case is going.

But Dugan's ruling is important for the officers because it allows their attorneys to begin the process of discovery - gathering of evidence including depositions.

"This case can take a whole different turn at discovery," said Dugan, who may move off the case when judges rotate in August.

James Vogts, attorney for Badger Guns, argued that a federal law forbids such lawsuits and the case should have been dismissed.

"Badger Guns is extremely disappointed in the court's ruling," he said afterward. "This is the first skirmish in a long battle."

The officers' attorneys contended the federal law allows their suit and say the gun store engaged in "illegal and negligent conduct."

"We're happy police officers will have their day in court," said attorney Jonathan Lowy with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is representing the officers.

The lawsuit was filed in October on behalf of officer Jose Lopez III and former officer Alejandro Arce, two of six Milwaukee police officers injured over a 20-month period with guns sold by Badger Guns or its predecessor, Badger Outdoors.

A separate suit was filed in December by officers Bryan Norberg and Graham Kunisch, who were injured in June 2009 by a man using a gun purchased a month earlier at Badger Guns. A motion to dismiss that case is set for hearing next month.

Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors have been the top sellers of crime guns recovered by Milwaukee police for at least the past decade, according to records obtained last year by the Journal Sentinel.

In 2005, Badger Outdoors was the top seller of crime guns in the nation with 537 such weapons. In other years, data shows, the store was among the largest sellers of crime guns. Such data has not been released in recent years because of a secrecy measure passed by Congress.

In 2006, investigators with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives recommended revoking Badger Outdoors' license. There was no revocation, and the store remains open, operating as Badger Guns.

Federal records show the license recommended for revocation was relinquished voluntarily, the players took on new roles, and a new license was issued to Adam Allan, the son of former owner Walter Allan, creating what one federal official called a "clean slate," a 2010 Journal Sentinel investigation found.

Mick Beatovic, also a former owner of Badger Outdoors, has said he knew nothing about the recommended revocation, and he already had decided to turn in the license and retire. Adam Allan, the current owner of Badger Guns, has declined to comment.

Dugan dismissed Badger Outdoors and its owners, Beatovic and Walter Allan, from four counts of the lawsuit. They remain in three other counts.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/122068059.html

Assembly passes crackdown on carrying unloaded handguns in public

jsanders@sacbee.com

Published Tuesday, May. 17, 2011

Saying you don't need a gun to order a cheeseburger, a California lawmaker Monday pushed through the Assembly a crackdown on carrying unloaded handguns in public places.

Assemblyman Anthony Portantino's legislation takes aim at a movement that encourages people to show up at public places with unloaded handguns strapped to their side.

"Our families deserve to feel safe in our parks and coffee shops," said Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge. 

"You don't need a handgun to order a cheeseburger," he said. "You don't need a handgun to order a cup of coffee."

The "open carry" movement created shock waves in 2009 when about a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, stood outside an Arizona convention center where President Barack Obama was speaking.

Sacramento was the site of a demonstration involving protesters with unloaded guns last year, and Portantino said a group of gun-wearing people rode a light-rail train into Pasadena and rallied near his office recently.

Portantino's Assembly Bill 144 would make it a misdemeanor to display an unloaded handgun in a public place or on a public street in a city or in prohibited areas of unincorporated county land.

Violators would be subject to a maximum fine of $1,000 and six months in jail.
The crackdown contains numerous exceptions, including unloaded handguns displayed by peace officers and authorized gun owners, or for the purpose of parades, hunting, sales, motion picture production or while attempting to make an arrest.

Public display of rifles is not banned under the bill.

AB 144 is hotly contested by the GOP. A similar bill died in the Assembly when it was shelved in the final hours of last year's legislative session.

Monday's Assembly vote was 46-29, with no GOP support. The measure now goes to the Senate. Gov. Jerry Brown has not yet announced a position.

Opponents argue that AB 144 tramples on the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.

"You are disarming our citizens while doing nothing whatsoever to keep criminals from committing carnage in our streets," said Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber.

Assemblyman Steve Knight, R-Palmdale, said cities have the authority to pass ordinances banning "open carry" if they desire. There is no need for statewide legislation affecting rural areas that do not object to the practice, he said.

"This is going down that slippery slope that we always talk about," Knight said.
Supporters countered that openly displaying handguns can startle onlookers, scare children and provoke violence, and that it sparks phone calls requiring police to monitor the situation, thus wasting valuable resources in a year of layoffs and cutbacks.

"The last thing we need on our streets is more guns," said Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco.

In lengthy debate Monday, opponents of AB 144 argued that "open carry" is the peaceful exercise of a civil liberty that doesn't harm anybody.

Supporters of Portantino's bill countered that some of the gun-wielding participants carry ammunition strapped to their belt, too, making it readily accessible for loading.
"Do any of us in this room want to bring our families to an event where people are carrying exposed weapons?" asked Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles. "In my view, this is a public safety measure."

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/17/v-print/3631817/assembly-passes-crackdown-on-carrying.html

R.I. judge upholds gun rights of medical-pot growers By Katie Mulvaney Journal Staff Writer
 
PROVIDENCE — A recent Cranston case that tested the state’s medical-marijuana law raises a question about whether people with the right to grow or possess marijuana to treat illnesses risk being jailed for owning a gun, even if they own it lawfully.
 
The issue grew from Dean Derobbio’s arrest in January 2010 for allegedly conspiring with his roommate to possess marijuana with the intent to sell it. He was also charged with carrying a dangerous weapon while committing a crime of violence. The crime of violence was growing marijuana, according to prosecutors and the police, and the charge carries a mandatory three years in prison for a defendant convicted of a first offense.
 
The police charged Derobbio’s roommate, Joseph Joubert, with conspiracy and possessing marijuana with the intent to deliver.
 
Derobbio held a patient card issued by the state Department of Health to use marijuana to treat severe pain caused by ruptured disks in his back, and he legally owned a 9mm pistol he kept in his nightstand, according to his lawyer, Michael F. Campopiano. Joubert had a primary-caregiver card, allowing him under the state’s medical-marijuana act passed by lawmakers in 2006 to grow marijuana for Derobbio.
 
The law spells out how much marijuana a person can grow and possess, but says nothing about guns. It, too, does not specify whether a patient can have two caregivers growing marijuana for him, as Derobbio did.
 
Superior Court Judge Robert D. Krause seized upon those omissions in tossing out the charges earlier in May.
 
“In my opinion,” Krause said, “this is a poorly drafted statute, and I don’t think ... a defendant ought to be criminally liable for inartful draftsmanship.”
 
He rejected the state’s argument that Derobbio could be pursued on the gun charge even if the court found he had the right to possess the marijuana and the pistol.
 
“If I were to find that there was nothing unlawful about what these defendants had done by way of the medical-marijuana statute, and that they were within the framework of the statute, and did not exceed the amount of plants that are authorized, would you still pursue the prosecution [of the gun charge]?” Krause asked Special Assistant Attorney General Michael McCarthy at the May 4 hearing.
 
“With all due respect, your honor, I would,” McCarthy said. He explained that he would prosecute it under a law that says you cannot legally grow marijuana while being in possession of a firearm.
 
“And, your honor, if you are cultivating marijuana, and if you are in possession of a firearm, even though [the medical-marijuana act] has stated you can grow marijuana, it is silent as to whether or not you can possess a firearm,” McCarthy said, according to a transcript of the hearing.
 
Krause continued, “If you meet the requirements, if you have possession of plants that are within the legal limit under this marijuana act, and if you have a firearm at home, and you’re not a convicted felon, both of these are legal, yes?”
 
“Yes,” McCarthy said.
 
“But, nonetheless, you claim it’s criminal conduct.” Krause said.
 
“As is being intoxicated in possession of a firearm,” McCarthy said.
 
In the end, Krause found that the 33 mature plants being grown at the 101 Marlow St. house by Joubert and his mother, Marie Joubert, fell within the legal limits of the medical-marijuana law since caregivers can have 24 plants apiece.
 
The Jouberts were both caregivers to Derobbio, though the police said Marie had never been in the house, and she could not identify which plants were hers.
 
“The statute doesn’t make it unlawful for two caregivers to have the same patient, does it?” Krause said, adding “What a wonderfully drafted statute we have. I don’t know who drafted this thing.”
 
Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin’s office plans to appeal Krause’s ruling with regard to the number of plants allowed at the house under the law, according to Stacey P. Veroni, criminal division chief. “Nobody can have collectively, or otherwise, more than 24 plants,” Veroni said.
 
Asked whether McCarthy’s position on Derobbio’s gun charge indicated the state’s stance, Kilmartin’s spokeswoman Amy Kempe said the appellate division was reviewing the matter.
 
To Campopiano, one can infer the state’s position from McCarthy’s comments. “It’s what they said, and I find it shocking,” he said.
 
“It appears that the state is trying to circumvent the legislation’s intent,” he said. As written, the law protects qualified patients and caregivers from arrest and criminal prosecution as long as they are abiding by the medical-marijuana law. Today, there are just over 3,400 licensed patients in Rhode Island, and 2,200 licensed caregivers.
“Judge Krause is absolutely interpreting it right,” he said.
 
Kilmartin, who voted in favor of the medical-marijuana bill as a state lawmaker, plans to introduce legislation to tighten up the medical-marijuana laws. Senior lawyers there were working on modifications. “This collective-grow issue is an issue,” Veroni has said.
kmulvane@projo.com

01:00 AM EDT on Monday, May 16, 2011

Gun-carry backers sue Illinois

State lawmakers recently rejected concealed-carry law

By Bruce Vielmetti of the Journal Sentinel May 14, 2011 |

As Wisconsin lawmakers consider allowing residents to carry concealed guns, the only other state that currently prohibits the practice - and recently rejected a bill to allow it - now faces a federal lawsuit over its ban.

The Bellevue, Wash., Second Amendment Foundation and two Illinois residents last week asked a federal court to declare unconstitutional Illinois' ban on both concealed and open carry of firearms for protection.

"Other states impose various conditions and regulations on the carry of firearms - such as background requirements, license requirements, training and qualification standards, and requirements that firearms be carried in particular manners - but they all make some provision that allows law-abiding citizens to carry guns," the lawsuit states.

"In Illinois, only private citizens who can afford licensed private security details may have the benefit of an armed defense."

The individual plaintiffs are Michael Moore, a 60-year-old Champaign grandfather of four and a jail superintendent, and Charles Hooks, a 62-year-old farmer from Percy. Each has a valid Firearm Owners Identification Card, a requirement for gun owners in Illinois. Each contends he would carry handguns in public for self-defense, if Illinois laws allowed it.

Named as defendants in the suit are Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Illinois State Police Superintendent Patrick Keen.

A proposed concealed carry law failed in the Illinois House of Representatives earlier this month over regional, not partisan, differences. Chicago lawmakers generally opposed it, downstate members supported it and a split among suburban representatives prevented the bill from getting the necessary supermajority it needed to pass.

In a news release announcing the lawsuit, Second Amendment Foundation Vice President Alan Gottlieb noted that, "Even in Wisconsin, where there is no concealed carry statute, the state attorney general has recognized that open carry is legal."

Many expect that concealed carry soon will also be legal in Wisconsin. One proposal here would require residents to get a permit; another would require someone to carry proof of two hours of training in firearm safety to legally conceal a gun; and a third would allow anyone who could legally own a gun to carry it concealed, without any kind of permit process or training.

Many gun rights activists prefer the last option, which they call constitutional carry. Other people said they could support concealed carry only if it were more regulated.

Still others oppose the concept of concealed carry.

Public hearings were held last week in Madison and Wausau and drew much support, but lawmakers also heard from opponents who said they couldn't back any bill that might introduce more guns to the streets, even if carried by law-abiding citizens.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/121842219.html