Guns at work could soon be law

By Elise Preston

NewsChannel 10
AMARILLO---Keeping a gun with your belongings, even when you are at work could soon be legal in Texas.

The Texas house and senate just passed their final versions of a bill which allows licensed carriers to keep guns locked in their cars while on the job. The proposed law would not apply to federal and school property.

Cowboy Gelato owner Jim Anderson tells NewsChannel 10, twice, he's had to pull out a gun for his protection and the safety of his employees at his shop on Sixth Street. One of the workers there is his 16 year old granddaughter.  That's why he's for the proposed law.

"We have had our share of problems from time to time with people, but once they understand, we aren't going to be threatened, they leave." said Jim Anderson
 His co-owner and wife, Ann, is not so sure. Even though the bill is for those who have gone through an extensive background check to carry, she's still apprehensive.

"I worry about the responsibility of other people to make sure nothing happens." said Ann Anderson.

Concealed gun license instructor, Ryan Neusch does have faith in those who are licensed and thinks the bill is vital to public safety.

"Those who would be keeping the guns inside their vehicles, there going to be your law abiding citizens." said Neusch.

A similar version of the bill failed to pass in the Texas house in 2007 and 2009.
State representative Warren Chisum of Pampa did not vote for the legislation in the past, but this year,he gave the bill a green light.  Telling NewsChannel 10, the second amendment allows residents to bear arms and there should be no reason to give up that right.

A right, Jim Anderson feels is pertinent.

"A cop is sometimes 10,15 minutes away, what's happening is now." said Anderson.
The bill now heads to Governor Rick Perry to be signed.
http://www.newschannel10.com/story/14743345/guns-at-work-could-soon-be-law?clienttype=printable

Utah market shows a boom in military-style guns

By Glen Warchol

The Salt Lake Tribune

First published 4 hours ago
Updated 4 hours ago Updated May 26, 2011 11:36PM

Hundreds of the weapons advertised on KSL.com classifieds are rapid-firing military weapons with pedigrees from around the world.

The proliferation of these weapons, based on military designs, including the ubiquitous AK-47 by Mikhail Kalashnikov, have become wildly popular among shooting enthusiasts. And that popularity is a grave concern to gun-control activists.

"I don’t know how anyone can justify having one of those weapons," says Steven Gunn, a spokesman for the Gun Violence Protection Center of Utah. "Except their usual explanation that it is to ‘resist tyrannical government.’ "

From a third to half of the rifles offered in recent weeks on KSL.com fell into the category of auto-loading weapons based on military designs. Rifles for sale included distinctive AK-47s made in Bulgaria and Romania ($490 to $925), variations on the U.S. military’s small arm AR-15s ($600 to $700) and obsolete Chinese and former Eastern Bloc SKS semiautomatics that have flooded the market ($275 to $325). Last week, two scoped .50-caliber sniper rifles were offered for sale, ranging in price from $2,000 to $4,900.

These highly portable rifles, which fire a .50-caliber-machine gun cartridge, are capable of shooting down an airplane from the end of a runway or punching through a railroad tank car at long distances, gun-control activists say.

"These are such fearsome weapons, I don’t understand why Congress lets them be sold to the general population," Gunn says. "When you question these folks [gun-rights advocates], they don’t have a good explanation, except: ‘It’s my right to do it.’ Their right trumps the right of other citizens to live in a safe society? It’s a very selfish view."

The military-style semiautomatic rifles and carbines are absolutely legal, says gun-rights lobbyist Clark Aposhian, who refers to the rifles as "sport-utility weapons."

"They are accurate, utterly dependable and you can use them for target shooting, home defense and hunting," says Aposhian, who owns many of the firearms that Gunn abhors.

These weapons may seem more at home on the battlefields of Afghanistan than on Utah’s gun ranges, but Aposhian says they are the fastest-growing firearms market in the country.

Rapid-firing military weapons constitute about 70 percent of the sales at Doug’s Shoot ‘n’ Sports in Midvale, says sales manager Mike Larsen.

He underscores their appeal: "They’re popular, they’re sexy, and they’re affordable," Larsen says. He’s also aware of the dread these firearms strike in the uninitiated: "It’s the black gun, the evil gun."

Aposhian shrugs off questions about the need for civilians to own weapons that at the top end include fully automatic submachine guns (for which an owner would need a federal license). Few of these military-type arms are involved in crimes, let alone used to shoot down civilian aircraft, he says.

"The Second Amendment is not about what I need," Aposhian says. "It’s about what I want — as long as I obey the law with it. If we start restricting everything to what we need, we are going to be a very boring society."

gwarchol@sltrib.com

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51875012-78/weapons-gun-says-military.html.csp

Don’t bring guns to airport checkpoints, official say

By Roxana ORellana

The Salt Lake Tribune

First published May 25 2011 11:11AM
Updated 4 hours ago Updated May 25, 2011 11:29PM

Don’t bring your loaded gun to the airport, say officials from the Salt Lake City International Airport.

Seven arrests involving firearms have been logged since January. And last year officials reported 20 firearm arrests and 35 arrests for possession of other weapons.

“This is an alarming pattern,” Airport Police Chief Steve Marlovits said in a news release Wednesday. “It has become a common event. The traveling public needs to focus on the fact that guns and weapons are not permitted beyond the security screening checkpoints.”

In many of the cases, the guns brought into the airport were loaded.

Last year a skycap was accidently shot and wounded when a loaded gun fell out of a bag in front of a terminal, Marlovits said.

Travelers may only transport unloaded firearms, ammunition and other weapons in checked bags and must declare the gun during check in. Bringing a weapon to a checkpoint can mean criminal charges and civil penalties of up to $10,000, even if the person has a permit.

For more information on firearm and ammunition rules go to http://www.tsa.gov/

rorellana@sltrib.com

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51882955-78/airport-guns-weapons-arrests.html.csp

INFLUENCE GAME: Colt aiming to keep rifle business

(AP) – 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — For nearly a decade, Colt Defense went without a lobbyist. The legendary gun maker based in West Hartford, Conn., had an exclusive deal to provide combat rifles to the U.S. military and didn't need a hired gun looking out for the company's interests in Washington.

Times have changed. After buying more than 700,000 Colt M4 carbines, the Defense Department has started a search for the rifle's successor, giving Colt's competitors the long-awaited chance to break the company's grip on the market. So Colt turned to Roger Smith, a former deputy assistant Navy secretary-turned-lobbyist, to be the company's voice in D.C. His fee is $120,000 a year.

The move highlights the importance of a contest that is the Super Bowl and World Series rolled into one for the small arms industry. The Pentagon may buy hundreds of thousands of the new carbine, which should be more accurate, lethal and reliable than the M4 used by troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. At stake is millions of dollars in business for the winner at a time when budgets are tightening and opportunities for long-term weapons contracts are dwindling.

There are major side benefits to being the primary rifle supplier. The American military's seal of approval paves the way for gun sales to U.S. allies. Colt has sold 100,000 M4s overseas, and millions of its M16s — a rifle first fielded during the Vietnam War — are used by armies and law enforcement agencies around the world.

Remington Arms and other gun makers already had lobbyists in place long before the Army announced it wanted a better combat rifle. Remington has spent nearly $500,000 on lobbyists over the last two years alone in a push to get more of its weapons into the hands of U.S. troops, according to lobbying records filed with Congress.

Remington, with its headquarters in Madison, N.C., and a manufacturing plant in upstate New York, is represented by the firms Winborn Solutions and Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough. Remington will offer its multicaliber Adaptive Combat Rifle.
"The biggest thing that Remington wants is the ability to compete for contracts," said Jason Schauble, vice president of Remington's military products division.

While the Pentagon makes decisions on what equipment to buy, Congress provides the money. And lawmakers can influence the decision-making process by inserting language into legislation that authorizes the military's annual budget.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, a member of the Democratic leadership, has been a strong supporter of Remington.

Smith, who runs RMax Technologies, a Washington consulting firm, registered as Colt's representative in April 2010, according to disclosure records. He knows how the process works. Before his six years as a senior Navy official, Smith was a staffer on the House Armed Services Committee and responsible for oversight of Army weapons programs.

"There's nothing nefarious about it," said James Battaglini, Colt's executive vice president. "We believe it is important to have a person in the Washington area that is available to speak on our behalf because we are in Connecticut."

Colt is losing a powerful proponent on Capitol Hill. Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, will not seek a fifth term. But members of the state's congressional delegation still hold influential positions.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat, sits on the House Appropriations Committee. Rep. John Larson is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, and Colt is in his district.
Colt won't say what weapon it plans to enter in the competition to replace its M4. But the betting is on the CM901, Colt's newly designed multicaliber rifle, which can switch barrels depending on the size of the round being fired.

Colt received a no-bid contract in 1994 for the M4, a shorter and lighter version of the M16. Colt has been the military's only source of M4s ever since. In the late 1990s, FNMI, the South Carolina-based subsidiary of Belgian armorer FN Herstal, challenged the exclusive arrangement in federal court but lost.

The Army, which serves as the military's principal buyer of firearms, took control of the M4 design rights from Colt nearly two years ago. In January, a draft solicitation was issued, formally kicking off the contest. At the same time, the Army is seeking bids for improvements to the M4s in its inventory.

FNMI sells a combat rifle called the SCAR to the U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla. The command has its own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the conventional military branches can't. FNMI also sells machine guns to the Army.

Fighting FNMI's battles inside Washington's Beltway is the American Business Development Group, a firm that boasts a roster of retired military officers who "provide strategic guidance and access" to the leadership at the Defense Department and other federal agencies. FN Herstal pays the firm $120,000 a year, according to disclosure records.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Republican congressman Joe Wilson sits on the House Armed Services Committee. FMNI, based in Columbia, S.C., is in Wilson's district.

Smith & Wesson, known more for handguns than military rifles, will also bid for the carbine work. The company, based in Springfield, Mass., pays the firm Greenberg Traurig $360,000 a year to be its Washington representative, disclosure records show.
Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts is the top Republican on the Armed Services subcommittee that oversees Army programs.

But not all prospective competitors think a lobbying firm is necessary — at least, not any longer. Heckler & Koch, a German firearms maker with affiliates in the U.S., parted ways with Greenberg Traurig in 2009 and another Washington firm, Mark Barnes and Associates, in early 2010.

The company had no comment on the reason for sidelining its lobbyists.
Wayne Weber, president of Heckler & Koch USA, said the company will submit its HK416 combat rifle as the replacement for the M4. The HK416 is used by U.S. special operations troops, including the Army's elite Delta Force.

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jaMPZuiOfhQHn6Q6vtIArHXMugfw?docId=598defc7e9ee44e4b0b27317973fd7ae

Guns Again: No License, Registration or Insurance Needed

Wyofile/RT Cox
Written by The Sage Grouse | Published on May 24, 2011 | Filed under: The Sage Grouse
Each of us must have a license to operate a car and a special one to operate a big truck. Doctors, lawyers, pilots, engineers, surveyors, dentists, real estate brokers and car salesmen must have licenses to ply their trades. CPAs must pass tests. Electricians must be certified. Plumbers must pass tests and get local licenses.

All of the above carry insurance, too. Hunters have been required to take safety training since the early 1960s.

Until this year, Wyoming had a minimally intrusive system for licensing people to carry concealed weapons. We were required to take some good, basic safety training and basic self-defense training. We had to pass a background check. We had to be willing to fill out a ton of paperwork, which would have discouraged the types of anti-authoritarian personalities who should not have carry permits. There was nothing wrong with this system. No one could legitimately complain. Compliance was a burden, but no more so than buying plates for my car or registering to vote.

Wait, don’t these gun-toting champions of our nation’s freedoms always talk about how liberty comes with some costs?

Some malcontents tried to sidestep this system by proposing in 2010 to allow any non-felon with functioning appendages, a belt or pocket and a heartbeat to carry concealed weapons. The Sage Grouse bravely beat back these initiatives: see Weird Anti-Obama Fallout: Guns; Gun Madness, Part Two; and Guns: Lots of Heat, Not Much Light. Like the little Dutch boy, he plugged the dike with a single wing, and it didn’t happen in 2010. But by golly it did happen this year.

Back to the 2011 session: the Legislature, in abject dereliction of any duty to think before jumping, held noses and closed eyes and voted to allow everyone and his dog to conceal weapons in their cars, jeans, coveralls and business suits, with almost no restrictions.

This capitulation to the NRA lobby simply passed the burden of drawing lines between open firing ranges and appropriate quiet zones for work and play to employers and government agencies. “Thanks a lot,” I am sure they are all saying.

OK, Bubba gets to pack iron when he comes to the shop. Never mind that a big old heater rubs a big sore on Bubba’s ass while running a scraper all day. Why the hell does Bubba need a .357 on his hip at work? Or grumpy malcontent Billy Joe carries his shiny big .44 magnum to the city council meeting. Why? To defend himself from being ignored by the mayor? Or to intimidate the communist local governments who are making people clean up their junkyards? Or to be prepared in case some other armed malcontent tries to jump him in the parking lot?

Allowing a militia to protect us against foreign armies or occupying governments probably does not mean that a bunch of angry people need to be packing iron at work, church, city hall, the courthouse or the sports bar.

Many in law enforcement opposed the legislation which has now eviscerated the concealed weapon carry permit system. Employers deplored the erosion of their rights to control what happens on their property. (Isn’t it interesting that ranchers uniformly demand that oil and gas employees are not allowed to carry firearms on their lands, yet their legislators legalize unpermitted carriage of concealed weapons by those very employees?)

What’s a city council to do? They are required, in today’s political climate, to give obeisance to the hallowed (mis)interpretations of the Second Amendment. But dang it, who wants to be worrying all through the meeting about some wacko lighting up the room over eminent domain or leash laws? In Gillette, the mayor and council are frustrated and confused. Wouldn’t it have been better if the Legislature, notwithstanding goading by the NRA and its ilk, had just said no?

My good friend Doug Dumbrill, a hunter, rancher, attorney, prosecutor and good writer has written a guest column on this matter. I can’t improve on his analysis. Doug points out that if he lived anywhere else, he would probably be regarded as a gun nut, but in Gillette his column drew a lot of fire.

Not everyone needs to carry a concealed weapon, but if one feels the need to do so, a background check and some safety training are not any sane person’s definition of an unreasonable regulation. Even if you have a gun in the home, some basic safety training should be required prior to purchase. Automobile drivers must pass a test. Most employers require backhoe and crane operators to demonstrate competence before they are given the keys. But guns — which allegedly don’t kill people any more than do cars and trucks — require no test, no training and no insurance to own, hide and operate.

And of course the consequences of unrestricted sale and ownership of firearms can be tragic. My first cousin and childhood best friend, Mary Della McIlhenny, has been dead for more than 30 years. Her birthday is (was) one week after mine; we were each born on a Sunday. Her husband, a sweet, devoted man, traveled a lot and worried about her safety. He bought a semi-automatic pistol from a gun store where he received no instructions about operation and safety. He brought it home to show Mary how to use it for defense. In the process, the gun discharged, shooting her in the forehead, leaving two young children without a mother. No one had explained to him how this gun worked; no safety training was required or even suggested. What an unimaginable horror. You cannot think about this without feeling bottomless sadness for this fine young man who fell victim to ill-advised suggestions about safety.

Instead of abolishing reasonable requirements, shouldn’t we instead require basic safety training and a background check for buyers of firearms?
Yes, there are outlaws who will evade these requirements, just as there are speeders on the highways. Some, maybe most, will be caught; some will not be. Is that a reason to abolish speed limits?

http://wyofile.com/2011/05/guns-again-no-license-registration-or-insurance-needed/

Clippers' Chris Kaman goes gun shopping before the Rapture

By Steve Coogan, USA TODAY

As our Faith & Reason blogger Cathy Lynn Grossman noted, Saturday's talk

Los Angeles Clippers center Chris Kaman, seen here during a March home game against the Houston Rockets, linked to photos of his gun purchases Twitter on Friday.

CAPTION

By Kirby Lee, US Presswire

of the end ofthe world turned into 'Apocalypse No' and a day of jokes as opposed to judgment.

But before we were all spared from the Rapture, Los Angeles Clippers center Chris Kaman told his Twitter followers on Friday he was going to be armed and dangerous saying, "Just incase anything fishy happens tomorrow I bought a few more guns." He even included links to three photos to prove he meant business.

Later, he responded to one his followers by saying the guns were for "home protection."

Turns out, Kaman was in on the joke too. On Saturday, he took to Twitter again saying "Ok, all kidding aside, no rapture is happening ..."

Perhaps he was just looking for a reason to add to his apparently impressive weapon and explosive device collection. Here's a 2009 video of Kaman firing shots from a large .50 caliber rifle at an old Ford Taurus.

A July 2010 video of Kaman lighting off $10,000 worth of fireworks in Michigan was taken down. But before that, the company that produced the video said "(Kaman is) basically the Ted Nugent of the NBA."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/05/clippers-chris-kaman-guns/1

Ohio poised to approve concealed-carry law allowing guns in bars, restaurants and stadiums

Published: Sunday, May 22, 2011, 5:55 AM

By Reginald Fields, The Plain Dealer The Plain Dealer

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio legislature is on the verge of approving one of the country's most wide-reaching bills allowing concealed firearms in places that serve alcohol, including bars and stadiums.

Lawmakers who support the measure argue that Ohio is merely catching up to 42 other states that already allow concealed carry permit holders to tote their firearms in booze-pouring establishments. But that's not the whole story.

No two state laws are the same. Some allow it in restaurants but not bars. Others prohibit guns in stadiums. Some block firearms in nightclubs. Some states have no law addressing the issue at all, making it legal by default. Ohio's proposed statute, meanwhile, would allow concealed firearms everywhere alcohol could be sold and consumed, including shopping malls and museums.

Only four other states have a concealed carry law as sweeping as what has been proposed here, observers say. The proposal has placed Ohio in the crosshairs of a national debate that has moved from state to state as lawmakers try to determine just how far gun rights should extend into the public domain

What has resulted is a mixed bag of agreements across the country juxtaposing the rights of those who wish to carry a gun for self-defense against the rights of those who, for example, wish to dine with their families or take in a ballgame without a firearm legally hidden on the hip of a person one seat over.

"What Ohio wants to do is totally different from what we're seeing elsewhere," said Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington.

"It definitely goes a lot further than other states," he said. "I would say it goes further also by including sport stadiums, which is a very radical idea."

But gun lobbying groups that helped write the bill said calling it a guns-in-bars proposal is a headline-grabbing catch phrase, but not at all what they ultimately intended.

"Saying that we are trying to authorize guns in bars is a complete misrepresentation," said Jeff Garvas of Ohioans for Concealed Carry. "We didn't go out and write a bill to say we need a bill that allows us to have a gun in bars. The whole purpose is to go to a restaurant which just happens to serve alcohol and not have to leave my gun in the car."

The proposal would allow concealed carry in all Class D licensed liquor establishments, which includes restaurants, bars, stadiums, carryouts, clubs and other similar places.
"The reason we can't get away from it is because a liquor license is a liquor license," Garvas said. "I can't differentiate between a restaurant and bar in Ohio."

Indeed, while some states try to stipulate what constitutes a bar compared to a restaurant according to how much the establishment makes in food vs. alcohol sales, Ohio does not.

The Ohio Senate first passed Senate Bill 17. Then the Ohio House approved a similar bill, House Bill 45. According to House Speaker William G. Batchelder, a Medina Republican, lawmakers were expected to move one of the bills this past week but that didn't happen. Lawmakers apparently are working on a compromise, trying to settle on one bill to forward to the governor.

Lawmakers generally do not like to move bills that might get swatted down by the governor and in this case, Gov. John Kasich and his office have given conflicting signals regarding the Republican leader's position.

Batchelder told reporters earlier this month after HB 45 was approved that he spoke to Kasich and was certain the governor would sign the legislation into law. A Kasich spokesman confirmed the governor was likely to sign the proposal. But Kasich himself is non-committal.

"Well, wait until it gets there, wait until it gets there," Kasich said on Tuesday following a speaking engagement in Columbus. "I have to see what it is. I'm a Second Amendment fan and I just got to see exactly when the bill gets here and what the heck is in."

The bill is part of a nationwide strategy by the National Rifle Association to expand concealed carry laws in every state. The NRA didn't consider Kasich a Second Amendment fan when it ripped his gun-rights record in Congress during last year's gubernatorial campaign. And locally, the Buckeye Firearms Association followed the NRA's lead by running ads against Kasich.

The powerful gun lobby's favorable rating and support of former Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland nearly cost Kasich the close election. Now Kasich finds himself being asked to support a bill backed by the gun lobby. If he does, it means turning his back on the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, and every other major law enforcement group in Ohio, as well as restaurant and bar owner groups who strongly oppose the legislation.

Supporters describe the bill as a personal safety measure, a "use-in-case-of-emergency" tool should they ever find themselves confronted by violence in a bar or restaurant by someone who is illegally carrying a gun.

They also note that the bill makes it clear that someone legally carrying a concealed weapon cannot also be drinking or already drunk. Violating that rule is a felony and likely would lead to the loss of gun carry privileges, a punishment no lawful gun owner would risk, supporters say.

Supporters also note that concealed carry in bars elsewhere has not conjured up scenes from the "Wild, Wild West." And they note that the measure would not override another state provision that gives any owner of a bar, restaurant, store or stadium the right to post signs stating that firearms are prohibited on their premises.

"The Browns and Cavs already have the ability to post their buildings with no firearms, that's not going to change," said Jim Irvine, of the Buckeye Firearms Association. "The big thing with this bill is get the government out of it. Let the individuals run their businesses the way they want."

Garvas, of Ohioans for Concealed Carry, said cops are acting like hypocrites because the current law allows off-duty police officers to carry concealed in bars and drink alcohol at the same time, especially in private clubs such as police lodges.

"Off-duty police officers can do what they want, yet they are opposed to our bill, which has safeguards built in," Garvas said. "That is very, very hypocritical to me."
Jay McDonald, president of the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, said it is ridiculous to compare a trained police officer to a regular citizen who happens have a concealed carry permit.

"We are required to meet a much higher level of training and re-training for how to properly handle our weapons and we are trained to know in which situations to shoot and not to shoot," McDonald said. "If they want to require the same level of training for CCW holders as I have to meet as a law enforcement officer, then we will drop our opposition."

Opponents argue the proposed law invites trouble, especially in urban areas where there are higher concentrations of bars and restaurants that draw higher pedestrian traffic and more late-night trouble.

And while the law would prohibit a gun owner from drinking, opponents ask how that provision can be enforced if the firearm is legally concealed on the patron. The only way to know is if the person happens to display or use the firearm, and by then it could be too late, they say.

Finally, they argue that bar owners who oppose the bill would be reluctant to post signs for fear of turning away business.

"We just don't think alcohol and guns mix," said Richard Mason, of the Ohio Restaurant Association. "We believe the current law is working just fine."

Sam Hoover, a staff attorney for the Legal Community Against Violence, a San Francisco-based national anti-gun group, said concealed carry laws are growing more permissive across the country and the least states should do is place limits on when and where gun owners can carry concealed.

"Weakening such laws by, among other things, allowing people to possess guns in locations that serve alcohol only makes the public less safe," Hoover said. "Indeed, allowing the open or concealed carry of guns wherever makes the public less safe."

Lawmakers came close to passing a similar bill last year under former Gov. Strickland, who indicated he would sign it into law. The bill cleared the Republican-controlled Senate but died in the Democratic-controlled House.

Both the House and Senate are now controlled by Republicans.

© 2011 cleveland.com. All rights reserved.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/05/ohio_poised_to_approve_far-rea.html