Back after summer

It has been a short hot summer, and I have not kept up with this, so I hope to have more info and insights in the near future.

Gun Buy Back-  Like this is going to make a difference in the crime rate in Lansing.   As I stated to the reporter that came to discuss this, this is like trying to stop a hemorrhage
with a band-aid!

Polls: No Concealed Gun Expansion

Michigan House Passes Taser Law

Gun law author: Gun owners must act responsibly

Updated 02:57 p.m., Sunday, September 25, 2011

EVANSVILLE, Ind. (AP) — The lawmaker who wrote Indiana's new prohibition on most local gun restrictions says it wasn't designed to protect gun owners such as the one who is suing the city of Evansville after being evicted from a zoo, but he sees no need to change the statute.

Sen. Jim Tomes, R-Wadeville, said he was "furious" when a man refused to conceal a handgun holstered at his hip while at the Mesker Park Zoo earlier this month. Police said they escorted the man out of the zoo because he "started causing a scene."

"A responsible person doesn't do that," Tomes told the Evansville Courier & Press for a story Sunday (http://bit.ly/nhkjrK ). "We have our rights. We hear a lot about that. But we also have obligations and responsibilities, and that requires us to conduct ourselves in a manner that would not generate alarm out in public."

The man escorted from the zoo, Benjamin A. Magenheimer of Evansville, has sued the city, claiming police violated the new state law. He is seeking financial damages, a court declaration finding that the city's actions were illegal, and an injunction preventing future such actions by the city.

The law, which took effect July 1, prohibits local ordinances that ban firearms from most locations, such as libraries and parks. It exempts schools, public hospitals, buildings that house courts and those that have metal detectors and security officers at every entrance.

Tomes said he didn't intend for the law to increase the number of guns in public, but to allow gun owners to keep their firearms nearby without worrying whether they were breaking local laws.

"It's not that they want it in the zoo; it's that they want it with them when they travel. It's not that they need it in a city park or that they need it in the library; it's that they want it on their person when they're out and about," he said.

Rep. Gail Riecken, a Democrat who formerly served as Evansville's parks director, voted against the new law. She said the zoo incident did not surprise her.

"This is really going to come to bear on the community of people that enjoy firearms to make sure that they can educate people — to say that, 'Look, you have a duty and a responsibility to behave appropriately,'" she said.

She said if situations similar to the one that occurred in the zoo happen again, the new law could cause confusion for police officers who respond to an incident and can't tell "who's the good guy and who's the bad guy."

"I respect the rights of gun owners, but at some point you've got to respect the other people that are in the room," Riecken said. "The rest of us have rights, too. I think we have a right to feel safe and secure in our environment, especially when our children are around, and this law takes that away."

___

Information from: Evansville Courier & Press, http://www.courierpress.com

Think a gun makes you safer around Alaska bears? Think again.

Craig Medred | Sep 24, 2011

Think you're safer with a gun around bears, as many Alaskans do? Maybe you'd better think again.

The news out of Montana on Friday was that 39-year-old Steve Stevenson of Winnemucca, Nev., was not killed by the grizzly bear that attacked him near the Montana-Idaho border on Sept. 16. He died,  authorities say, from a single gunshot to the chest.

An autopsy discovered the bullet, fired by a hunting companion who was trying to save Stevenson from the bear.

How well do your friends shoot? Better yet, how well do your friends shoot in stressful, combat-type situations?

Stevenson's hunting companion was a 20-year-old friend from Winnemucca. I don't know that I've met many 20-year-olds to whom I'd trust my life in a situation like this, and I say that -- let it be clear -- as someone who was attacked by a grizzly bear, clawed in the face and bitten in the leg, and who in the end shot the bear off his leg. I might be a whole lot uglier than I am now if not for a gun.
I might even be dead.

I am not embarrassed to say I like guns, either. Earlier this summer, I went to check on the remains of a full-grown moose that grizzly bears had killed up the valley from my Anchorage home. The bears were camped out in the middle of a trail and I packed a short-barreled shotgun with an extended magazine stuffed with slugs.
It is a weapon well designed for killing bears.

I have no doubts about the dangers bears can pose, or what it takes to kill one that's all pumped up on adrenaline. Neither do I have much doubt about my shooting skills. I grew up with firearms. I shot them regularly and still do, especially the shotgun, especially this time of year.

While tromping through the marsh the other day, I got to contemplating just what a great fall it has been. I've hit about 90 percent of all the waterfowl I've shot at, and most of the missed shots were difficult shots, sometimes very difficult shots at range.

Am I confident I could shoot a bear off a friend if I had to do so without hitting him or her? Yes. Am I confident all of my friends are capable of this? No. A couple, yes. Most of them, no.

Shooting is like any other skill. You've got to do a lot of it to get good at it, and it's best if you start young because if you start late you need to practice even more. Most of the people I know either didn't start young or didn't, and don't, practice enough.

They never quite got to that point where they act as if the gun was an extension of their body, and if you're going to be using a firearm in stressful situations -- any stressful situations -- this is the skill level you want and need. You ought to be as comfortable with your weapon as a four-star chef is with a frying pan.

If this is not the case, you might want to leave the gun at home. If this is not the case for your friends, you might want to tell them to leave the gun home, or bring some pepper spray in case they need to try to get a bear off you.

Pepper spray has a good track record for driving off bears. No one has, as yet, been killed using it. And it's unlikely you could kill someone else by using it.

Guns are wonderful tools, but only in the hands of people well-schooled in their use. In the hands of the unschooled, they are as dangerous as a chainsaw run by a fool. They can kill or maim the user or those around the user. The death of Stevenson ought to make everyone Alaskan stop and think seriously.

Guns aren't foolproof protection. Another Alaskan, 65-year-old Donald "Skip" Sanford of Anchorage, was mauled by a bear just this week. He had a gun. It didn't help.

There are a couple things worth noting about the attack: Though Sanford managed to shoot the bear, it still mauled him. He survived only because the bear later cut off the attack.

Most bears do. Scientist Tom Smith documented 515 bear attacks in Alaska involving brown/grizzly, black and polar bears between 1900 and 2004. Ninety-five percent of the people involved survived.

Smith, like other wildlife biologists, has noted the danger of using firearms in defense of others attacked by bears. He has also studied the effectiveness of bear spray. (The study is attached at the bottom of this story.)

Or you can indulge a lengthy analysis of bears, guns and spray written by Rick Sinnott, retired Anchorage-area wildlife biologist for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, who entered the discussion after a group of students from the National Outdoor Leadership School were attacked by a bear in Alaska this summer.

Two of the students were seriously mauled. Many Alaskans thought afterward that the kids might have been better off with a gun. They might have been, or they might have been dead, like Steve Stevenson, instead of seriously injured.

Alaska Dispatch encourages a diversity of opinion and community perspectives. The opinions expressed herein are those of the contributor and are not necessarily endorsed or condoned by Alaska Dispatch. Contact Craig Medred at craig(at)alaskadispatch.com
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/think-gun-makes-you-safer-around-alaska-bears-think-again?page=full&print=yes

Gun Collections Pose Special Estate Problems

Peter J Reilly, Contributor Forbes 9/22/11
Taxes are a heavy component of estate planning, but it is important to be alert for other issues.  Even though much of my practice is in a right-to-carry state (Florida), it hadn’t ever crossed my mind that guns require special attention in estate plans until I received a heads up from Allen J. Margulis of Total Counsel Law Group.  I asked Attorney Margulis if he would like to do a guest post on the subject of gun trusts and he was gracious enough to provide the following:

People may collect guns for self‐defense, target shooting or hunting. Guns may be investments or heirlooms. Many gun owners want their guns to be used responsibly and be passed on to those who appreciate them. Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 is known as the National Firearms Act or NFA. It regulates short‐barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, machine guns, weird contraptions (AOWs), and DDs (explosives). Certain firearms and accessories are federally restricted. A state may restrict them further. For example, short‐barreled rifles, automatic weapons, silencers and other such items, require a federal tax stamp to acquire as well as the approval of the local Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO.) There are many regulations and issues surrounding passing guns down to one’s heirs that are not present with a bank account, chair, picture or other type of property. We must consider not only where the beneficiary lives, the laws of that state, the laws of the state where the items are located, the eligibility of the beneficiary to be in possession, but also:

(1) Is it a good idea to put a weapon in the hands of the beneficiary? Are they mature and responsible enough?

(2) If not, what will we do?

A Gun Trust is a special purpose revocable living trust. A Gun Trust is written to hold only firearms. The owner of the gun is the trustee and the beneficiary. The owner appoints successor trustees and lifetime and remainder beneficiaries. The trust can be amended or revoked at any time and the owner can name and remove beneficiaries. In the past, Gun Trusts were created primarily for NFA restricted firearms (Title II items ‐ silencers, short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and machine guns) but lately they have attracted the attention of those who own “assault weapons” (being redefined by the current legislation as anything with a removable cartridge).

Gun Trusts are used for two main reasons. The first is to expedite a transfer of a National Firearms Act firearm. Using a trust means you do not have to obtain the approval of your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) and the application can be sent directly to BATF. This saves a lot of time. Registration of a NFA firearm to an individual or corporation takes approximately one to three months to complete. The firearm cannot be handled or transported by any other private individual unless the firearm’s registered owner is present. However, NFA items owned by properly drafted trusts may be legally possessed by any Trustee and a beneficiary may use the item in the presence or under the authority of the Trustee. The second reason is to provide detailed instructions over disposition of one’s gun collection.

Many gun dealers make trust forms available. The problem is that they are usually just standard revocable living trusts, not specifically written about firearms ownership. They typically do not provide guidance or limitations for the Trustee who may find him or herself committing a felony in the way the items are used, held, transferred or sold. Some people cannot legally possess firearms. Some transfers are illegal. A properly written “Gun Trust” for NFA purposes is far more than a form. It helps the decedent’s loved ones deal with items that are problematic at best under both state law and federal law. Improper administration of regulated firearms can result in a criminal conviction and fines. Certain conduct constitutes a criminal offense, including receiving or possessing a firearm transferred to oneself in violation of the NFA; receiving or possessing a firearm made in violation of the NFA; receiving or possessing a firearm not registered to oneself in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record; transferring or making a firearm in violation of the NFA; or obliterating, removing, changing, or altering the serial number of the firearm. Penalties can include up to ten years in federal prison; forfeiture of all devices or firearms in violation, forfeiture of all rights to own or possess firearms in the future and a penalty of $10,000 for certain violations.