August 13, 2011 Del. to receive WWII-era gun barrel 66-foot long, 135-ton piece will be moved to Cape Henlopen State Park By Jon Bleiweis Staff Writer LEWES -- With the help of the Fort Miles Historical Association, the state is hoping to move a World War II-era gun barrel, currently located at the St. Julien's Annex of Norfolk Naval Base, to Battery 519 in the Cape Henlopen State Park. Gary Wray, president of the FMHA, said the 16-inch barrel was the middle barrel of the first turret of the American battleship USS Missouri when the Japanese surrendered the war on the deck of the battleship on Sept. 2, 1945. "Little Lewes is gonna get a piece from that big event," he said. "I'm proud that our state is getting this barrel donated to us by the Navy. It's a real catch for the state of Delaware." Jim Hall, chief of cultural resources for Delaware State Parks, said bringing the 66-foot long, 135-ton barrel to Delaware is a big project that his agency will be taking on. Transporting the barrel, preparing it for display and lproviding for ong-term maintenance are all key parts of the timeline, with the goal of having a safe, accessible plan in place to maintain the piece for future generations. Hall said he submitted an application to the U.S. Navy's surplus department approximately two weeks ago in the hope of acquiring the gun barrel and was told that as long as there is a strong and logical transport plan, the barrel could be theirs. There is currently no set timeline to get the gun to the park, but Hall has asked the Navy for one year to gather the funds necessary to transport the barrel via rail and rail barge to Delaware. "It's quite a production just to transport (the barrel) to the site," he said. "It's not a slam-dunk proposition. The Navy wants to see a strong transportation plan, which we have. What we need to do now is lock up funds." Wray said it will cost approximately $100,000 to transport the barrel. The FMHA has about half that amount already, and a fundraising committee has been established to collect the rest. Nick Carter, a Realtor who lives in Lewes, is a 1970 Naval Academy graduate who served in the U.S. Navy for two tours in Vietnam and was the founder of the Delaware chapter of the Naval Academy Alumni Association. He said he will be involved with the FMHA's fundraising efforts. "I think it's really exciting," he said. "To have the barrel at Fort Miles is a unique opportunity and I'm glad to be a part of it." After the barrel arrives, Hall said it could be a year or two before it's displayed. It will join eight other guns currently located at Fort Miles.http://www.delmarvanow.com/print/article/20110813/NEWS01/108130334/Del-receive-WWII-era-gun-barrel |
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
August 9, 2011States Pitch a Lifestyle to Lure Gun Makers From Their Longtime Homes
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
But recently, states like Idaho, Alabama and Montana have presented a novel argument as part of an effort to lure the firearms industry’s high-paying jobs south and west: Gun makers would be happier and more successful among citizens who regularly use firearms than they would be remaining in states trying to limit gun rights.
The approach is the latest twist in the interstate competition for scarce jobs, with hard-pressed states supplementing or even bypassing traditional enticements like tax breaks in favor of pitches that sell a lifestyle: greater personal freedom, low or no state taxes, minimal regulation, the absence of troublesome unions and of course, the unfettered right to bear arms.
“When we approach gun makers, we first make the cultural argument,” said Gov. Dennis Daugaard of South Dakota, a hunter who recruits firearms makers at gun shows.
“People in business want to feel their business is wanted and welcome in the communities where they are located. In South Dakota, the culture is there. We don’t regulate firearms businesses out of existence.”
Irv Stone, owner of Bar-Sto Precision Machine, which makes competition pistols, moved to Sturgis, S.D., from California last year because he said he found it increasingly difficult to operate in an environment where guns are shunned.
“The cultural thing is like night and day,” he said. “I felt like the bastard child in California. It is not a firearms culture. In California, it was like: ‘Eww, firearms. Really?’ Here, on the other hand, you are looked at kind of weird: ‘Oh, you don’t shoot or fish? What do you do?’ ”
The nation’s $3.8 billion firearms industry, which includes more than a thousand small companies as well as the famous brands, is not huge in terms of jobs. But because it employs 90,000 people amid the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, competition for those jobs has become fierce.
For the past several months, states vying for gun manufacturers have been making hay of legislation in Massachusetts, where some 10 percent of the nation’s small arms makers are based, that would limit the number of guns people can buy and require “micro-stamping” (placing a mark on the firing pins of handguns that could allow casings to be identified). And in Illinois, home to several large firearms manufacturers, a law would ban assault rifles and would prohibit manufacturers from selling guns to state residents.
“They are pitched by places like South Dakota, Alabama and Montana, and undoubtedly part of the sales pitch is: ‘We have a better environment. Our Legislature respects the Second Amendment,’ ” said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the industry’s trade group.
Gun manufacturers say proposed micro-stamping laws could drive Colt out of Connecticut and Remington out of New York, which are among more than half a dozen states where the legislation has been introduced. California, which employs more firearms industry workers than any other state, has already approved a micro-stamping law that is pending.
Carlton S. Chen, a vice president at Colt, said the company would have few qualms about leaving Connecticut if micro-stamping became law.
“At that point, we and other firearms manufacturers doing business in Connecticut would need to seriously consider whether we should completely move ourselves out of Connecticut and relocate to a friendlier state,” Mr. Chen said in written testimony to a state legislative committee in 2008. “The upshot would be a loss of thousands of jobs.”
In the South and the West, several states have recently sought to burnish their gun-friendly images by approving largely symbolic measures, like designating an official state firearm. Some states have also declared themselves exempt from federal gun policy by passing Firearms Freedom Acts, which maintain that guns made and kept within a state are not subject to the authority of Congress.
Last November, when the Olin Corporation announced that it would move an ammunition facility and 1,000 jobs to Mississippi from Illinois, it said it decided to do so because the company had failed to reach a deal with its main union and had received $25 million in incentives.
But an official in Mississippi said that what helped sway the company was most likely the state’s right-to-work culture and that unlike Illinois, it has no pending legislation that would require micro-stamping.
“They understood the culture, the work force, and the surroundings,” said Christy Knapp, an executive vice president of the Oxford-Lafayette County Economic Development Foundation in Mississippi.
Oklahoma, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, among others, have also advanced the cultural argument.
“There’s no question that the culture in states like Montana, where people are comfortable with firearms, gives a comfort level to manufacturers in other states who are assaulted with anti-gun forces,” said Evan Barrett, chief business development officer for Montana.
But the attempted poaching of its gun makers is not being taken lightly in Massachusetts, which is home to Smith & Wesson, the nation’s largest handgun manufacturer (founded in 1852) and the Savage Arms Company (1894), or in neighboring Connecticut, where Colt (1836), the Marlin Firearms Company (1870) and O. F. Mossberg & Sons (1919) are located.
In 2005, this small region produced 1.8 million firearms, according to the Western Massachusetts Economic Development Council, about one-third of all firearms made in the country.
Pushing back, Massachusetts has published a brochure promoting its firearms makers that traces the state’s gun culture back to 1777, when George Washington chose Springfield as the site of the country’s first arsenal.
And last year, when Massachusetts sought to ensure that Smith & Wesson stayed in Springfield, the state gave the company $6 million in tax credits to relocate one of its New Hampshire factories there. While the factory employs a modest 225 people, Massachusetts wanted to make sure the company would not start shifting operations elsewhere.
“Although several states and cities have approached us to entice expansion into their locations,” Massachusetts had demonstrated “the commitment of both the commonwealth and the city to not only Smith & Wesson, but to our employees, the local community, and to manufacturing in Massachusetts,” the company said in a statement.
The quest for firearms jobs has made for some unexpected partnerships.
In New York, Senator Charles E. Schumer issued a news release in May praising Remington after it agreed to move a factory from Maine, bringing with it 40 to 50 jobs.
The release made no mention of Senator Schumer’s record supporting gun control.
Instead, it said Mr. Schumer had “led the effort in Congress to repeal the law that limited competition for small arms contracts, so that Remington can now compete for small arms contracts with the Department of Defense.”
But as an indication of how surreptitious some of the interstate recruitment has been, officials in Illinois, whose firearms businesses appear to be among the most sought after by other states, say they know of no attempts to lure their gun makers away.
In recent years, Illinois has lost Les Baer Custom Inc., a small company that moved to Iowa, as well as 1,000 Winchester jobs.
Marcelyn Love, spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity wrote in an e-mail, “I am not aware of an increased effort by other states to lure specific manufacturing sectors from Illinois.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/us/10guns.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Gun Query Off Limits for Doctors in Florida
Do you wear your seat belt? How much alcohol do you usually drink? Do you use recreational drugs? Have you ever injected yourself with anything? Do you have sexual relations, and if so, with men, women or both?
Questions like these have long been a standard part of medical interviewing, and for good reason. The answers may reveal clues about a person’s symptoms or physical findings on exam. If a person says he or she drinks heavily or has used intravenous drugs, I may be more alert to signs of liver problems when doing the physical exam and more inclined to order certain blood tests. The answers also help me know if the patient is at greater risk for common, yet preventable, causes of death, like H.I.V., car accidents and heart disease, so that I can counsel him or her.
There’s one customary question, though, that I’m no longer allowed to ask. In June, Gov. Rick Scott signed a law barring Florida doctors from routinely asking patients if they own a gun. The law also authorizes patients to report doctors for “unnecessarily harassing” them about gun ownership and makes it illegal to routinely document firearm ownership information in a patient’s medical record. Other state legislatures have considered similar proposals, but Florida is the first to enact such a law.
The law provides an exemption if the question is “relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety,” though it doesn’t specify what would qualify as relevant. Penalties for violating the law include disciplinary action by the Florida Board of Medicine, which could include citations, fines and “remedial education.”
The measure was introduced in the state Legislature after a pediatrician in Central Florida dismissed a mother from his practice when she angrily refused to answer a routine question about whether she kept a gun in her house. The doctor, Chris Okonkwo, said at the time that he asked so he could offer appropriate safety advice, just as he customarily asks parents if they have a swimming pool and teenagers if they use their cellphones when they drive. He said that he dismissed the mother because he felt they could not establish a trusting doctor-patient relationship.
Advocates of gun rights argue that routine questions about firearms violate their privacy, make them vulnerable to discrimination by insurance companies and the government, and “offend common decency,” as Marion Hammer, a former president of the National Rifle Association who lobbied for passage of the bill, put it in letters to N.R.A. members. Ms. Hammer said that gun-owning parents had complained to her for many years about pediatricians’ inquiries, which she believes are ineffective at preventing gun injuries.
She contends that such inquiries are part of a political antigun agenda by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
“You don’t go to a doctor to be interrogated or intimidated,” she said. “There’s a clear line between violating privacy rights and imparting safety information.”
The A. A. P. takes the position that guns are a public health issue and that pediatricians have a duty to ask about ownership because firearm injuries affect a large number of their patients. According to the group, firearms account for a third of all deaths from injury among teenagers and more than one in five deaths from injury among people ages 1 to 19.
The academy recommends that parents not have a gun in the home. When guns are present, it suggests they be kept unloaded, in a secure, locked place, with the bullets stored separately.
“There’s no political agenda — we’re talking about the safety of children,” said Dr. Lisa A. Cosgrove, president of the group’s Florida chapter. “The best way to protect them is to teach the parents how to protect them.”
Because the new law directly conflicts with accepted medical practices, some of my pediatrician colleagues have told me privately that they worry that not asking about firearms could put them at risk of a malpractice claim if the patient subsequently dies of or is injured by a gunshot. Psychiatrists routinely inquire about guns, too, and the law’s requirements potentially place them in a legal predicament.
As a general internist in South Florida, I often see the effects of gun violence. Many of my patients have been injured or disabled by a gunshot, or had a family member shot and killed. Shortly after the new law went into effect, local television stations broadcast a story about a 4-year-old in Miami who was accidentally shot by his 17-year-old half brother, who was playing with a .22-caliber rifle.
The Florida chapters of the A. A. P., the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians have filed a suit contesting the law as a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech. (Disclosure: I am a member of the A. C. P., the major professional organization for internists, but am not involved with the litigation.) The suit, which calls the gun inquiry rule a “gag law,” contends that prevention is a cornerstone of medical practice and that free discussions are key to the doctor-patient relationship and are protected by federal privacy rules.
At the moment, however, those of us working in a clinic or hospital will have to imagine we live in a place where gun injuries aren’t a public health issue and forget some of the questions we learned to ask in medical school. In doctors’ offices in Florida, prevention has its limits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/health/policy/09guns.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
August 8, 2011
By ERIN N. MARCUS, M.D.
Do you wear your seat belt? How much alcohol do you usually drink? Do you use recreational drugs? Have you ever injected yourself with anything? Do you have sexual relations, and if so, with men, women or both?
Questions like these have long been a standard part of medical interviewing, and for good reason. The answers may reveal clues about a person’s symptoms or physical findings on exam. If a person says he or she drinks heavily or has used intravenous drugs, I may be more alert to signs of liver problems when doing the physical exam and more inclined to order certain blood tests. The answers also help me know if the patient is at greater risk for common, yet preventable, causes of death, like H.I.V., car accidents and heart disease, so that I can counsel him or her.
There’s one customary question, though, that I’m no longer allowed to ask. In June, Gov. Rick Scott signed a law barring Florida doctors from routinely asking patients if they own a gun. The law also authorizes patients to report doctors for “unnecessarily harassing” them about gun ownership and makes it illegal to routinely document firearm ownership information in a patient’s medical record. Other state legislatures have considered similar proposals, but Florida is the first to enact such a law.
The law provides an exemption if the question is “relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety,” though it doesn’t specify what would qualify as relevant. Penalties for violating the law include disciplinary action by the Florida Board of Medicine, which could include citations, fines and “remedial education.”
The measure was introduced in the state Legislature after a pediatrician in Central Florida dismissed a mother from his practice when she angrily refused to answer a routine question about whether she kept a gun in her house. The doctor, Chris Okonkwo, said at the time that he asked so he could offer appropriate safety advice, just as he customarily asks parents if they have a swimming pool and teenagers if they use their cellphones when they drive. He said that he dismissed the mother because he felt they could not establish a trusting doctor-patient relationship.
Advocates of gun rights argue that routine questions about firearms violate their privacy, make them vulnerable to discrimination by insurance companies and the government, and “offend common decency,” as Marion Hammer, a former president of the National Rifle Association who lobbied for passage of the bill, put it in letters to N.R.A. members. Ms. Hammer said that gun-owning parents had complained to her for many years about pediatricians’ inquiries, which she believes are ineffective at preventing gun injuries.
She contends that such inquiries are part of a political antigun agenda by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
“You don’t go to a doctor to be interrogated or intimidated,” she said. “There’s a clear line between violating privacy rights and imparting safety information.”
The A. A. P. takes the position that guns are a public health issue and that pediatricians have a duty to ask about ownership because firearm injuries affect a large number of their patients. According to the group, firearms account for a third of all deaths from injury among teenagers and more than one in five deaths from injury among people ages 1 to 19.
The academy recommends that parents not have a gun in the home. When guns are present, it suggests they be kept unloaded, in a secure, locked place, with the bullets stored separately.
“There’s no political agenda — we’re talking about the safety of children,” said Dr. Lisa A. Cosgrove, president of the group’s Florida chapter. “The best way to protect them is to teach the parents how to protect them.”
Because the new law directly conflicts with accepted medical practices, some of my pediatrician colleagues have told me privately that they worry that not asking about firearms could put them at risk of a malpractice claim if the patient subsequently dies of or is injured by a gunshot. Psychiatrists routinely inquire about guns, too, and the law’s requirements potentially place them in a legal predicament.
As a general internist in South Florida, I often see the effects of gun violence. Many of my patients have been injured or disabled by a gunshot, or had a family member shot and killed. Shortly after the new law went into effect, local television stations broadcast a story about a 4-year-old in Miami who was accidentally shot by his 17-year-old half brother, who was playing with a .22-caliber rifle.
The Florida chapters of the A. A. P., the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians have filed a suit contesting the law as a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech. (Disclosure: I am a member of the A. C. P., the major professional organization for internists, but am not involved with the litigation.) The suit, which calls the gun inquiry rule a “gag law,” contends that prevention is a cornerstone of medical practice and that free discussions are key to the doctor-patient relationship and are protected by federal privacy rules.
At the moment, however, those of us working in a clinic or hospital will have to imagine we live in a place where gun injuries aren’t a public health issue and forget some of the questions we learned to ask in medical school. In doctors’ offices in Florida, prevention has its limits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/health/policy/09guns.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
Monday, August 8, 2011
Albuquerque gun store owner challenging ATF rule
Posted: 08/06/2011 11:12:14 AM PDT
Updated: 08/06/2011 11:37:42 AM PDT
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—An Albuquerque gun store has sued over a federal requirement that weapons dealers in four border states must report multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles.
Ron Peterson Firearms was among more than 8,000 gun dealers in New Mexico, Texas, Arizona and California that were ordered last month to report multiple sales of such weapons to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Peterson filed a lawsuit Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, asking a judge to prevent the order from taking effect Aug. 14. It is the third such lawsuit filed this week, all contending that ATF lacks authority from Congress to require the reporting. The suits do not seek money, only a stop to enforcement of the new requirement.
The requirement follows a controversial 2009 law enforcement operation in Arizona known as "Fast and Furious" that resulted in more than 2,000 high-powered weapons making their way to Mexico as authorities went after people directing gun buys on behalf of cartels.
The operation has been the subject of recent congressional hearings in which the ATF acknowledged making mistakes. Of the 2,000 guns that got into Mexico, only about one-fourth have been recovered, meaning the rest could still in the hands of drug smugglers.
Two of the recovered guns were found at the scene where Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot to death in southern Arizona on Dec. 14, although it's unclear whether the fatal
bullet came from one of those weapons or another gun.
Peterson's attorney, Richard Gardiner, told The Albuquerque Journal ( http://bit.ly/ng5NLC) that the intent of the rule doesn't justify the fact ATF exceeded its authority. Peterson's lawsuit contends that the requirement will damage his business by requiring him to "devote employee time to preparing the reports."
Two other lawsuits challenging the order were filed this week in a federal court in Washington, D.C. One was filed by Gardiner on behalf of two Arizona firearms dealers. The other was filed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents the firearms industry.
An ATF letter dated July 17 said weapons dealers must report sales of two or more semi-automatic rifles to a single buyer within five business days. Weapons must be reported if they are larger than .22 caliber and if they can be fitted with detachable magazines.
Tom Mangan, an ATF special agent in Phoenix, said high-powered rifles, AK-47- and M-16-type weapons are included.
"We're seeing a greater use of that type of gun by the criminal element in Mexico," Mangan said.
The ATF plans to use the reported information to identify people who are filling a "shopping list" by purchasing weapons at several stores for shipment to Mexico.
Peterson's lawsuit claimed the rule would result in a "loss of business from both in-state and out-of-state potential purchasers" who will avoid buying rifles "because they wish to protect their privacy rights."
Mangan said the rule is simply an "administrative requirement" and doesn't prevent individuals from buying any number of semi-automatic weapons.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18630531
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)