Shall Not Be Questioned – Page 1005 – The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …

Gun Rights Advancing in Delaware

New Castle County is considering a Katrina bill, and it goes to show how it doesn’t take much to make a change to government at the local level:

Tansey is not a gun owner himself, but says he was approached by Brandt Farley, a constituent active in the National Rifle Association who pointed out what he believes are shortcomings in the county code.

Farley, who also owns First State Firearms, said language that gives the county executive the right to place “limitations upon the carrying or stockpiling of firearms, weapons or ammunition” is out of step with state and federal statutes.

“Delaware state law prevents other municipalities from passing patchwork gun laws,”Â Farley said.

“The concern is that what happened during [Hurricane] Katrina in New Orleans, where Louisiana passed a law that prohibited the accumulation of guns, doesn’t happen here,” Tansey said.

One guy, and they are looking to change the law. I hope we see more of this, particularly with the Bloomberg mayors.

Scranton Looks to Challenge State Preemption Laws

It looks like the Scranton City Council wants to hop on board with the effort to end Pennsylvania’s preemption on local gun laws with a lost and stolen requirement. What’s different about this case is that it would be the first city with a mayor who is not in Bloomberg’s anti-gun coalition to pass this illegal law. Of the nine cities that have passed it and the one that passed a resolution in support of it, all have mayors who are supporters of Mike Bloomberg’s initiatives.

With the mayor of Scranton running for Governor, this may not be the kind of attention he wants for the town. It would be wise for gun owners in the city to get him on their side, as well as call all of the Council members listed in the ILA alert.

Colosimo’s Closing Up Shop

His attorney says he’s going to close. ATF is planning to revoke his FFL, and he does not plan to contest it. He’s still apparently debating whether he’s going to fight the criminal charge against his corporation.

Federal authorities began investigating Colosimo’s after the protests, and the ATF since has filed a notice to revoke his federal license to sell firearms, said Colosimo’s attorney, Joe Canuso.

So ATF didn’t inspect this guy until after the protests? That must be how he kept the FFL for so long. If ATF is doing a retrospective paperwork inspection, how are they determining that the sale was to a straw buyer, and that it was willful? It would be one thing if they conducted a sting, but if ATF is just now looking through his paperwork, how is intent being determined? Is it similar to ATFs traditional approach, which is if it was an error in paperwork, it clearly had to have been willful? How often does ATF find paperwork problems at other FFLs it inspects that don’t end up facing charges? These aren’t just semantics. The section of the United States Code the corporation is charged under is Title 18, Chapter 44, 922(m):

It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector knowingly to make any false entry in, to fail to make appropriate entry in, or to fail to properly maintain, any record which he is required to keep pursuant to sectionÂ 923 of this chapter or regulations promulgated thereunder.

The statute requires intention to violate, so the United States would need to have evidence that that there was intent to commit a violation. What’s the evidence of that? These are questions that deserve an answer, but we will never find out of Mr. Colosimo doesn’t contest the charges against his company. If the charges are true, fine, plead guilty, by all means. But if they are false, the federal government should be forced to meet its burden before a judge and jury.

Prosecution by Information

The US Attorneys have released the information associated with the prosecution of Colosimo’s gun shop. Â They have also issued a press release as well. What strikes me is the complaint against them doesn’t really offer any evidence that his paperwork was a willful violation, it just states that is the case. Paperwork errors are not that uncommon in a high volume gun business. Few FFLs can get everything right 100% of the time. The question still remains why ATF allowed him to keep operating all these years if he was engaging in willful violations of the condition of his license. When was the last time ATF inspected the records of Colosimos? Â What violations were found? These are key questions in this case, that I think the public ought to know.

But the fact is, if this is a deal where Colosimo’s Inc. is going to plead guilty, the District Attorney doesn’t need to bring forth detailed evidence, since the defendant will admit he is guilty . He will not force the state to meet its burden, and so it won’t bother.

I can’t say I would entirely blame James Colosimo, at age 77, if he agreed to plead guilty rather than risk financial and personal ruin trying to fight charges in front of a jury. But it should be understood that by admitting to such actions, he will not get to enter retirement with his dignity, and in the right. He will have admitted his shop was engaged in criminal activity, and that’s not something I’m going to support. Everything the anti-gun folks have said about Colosimo’s will have be admitted to as true. Whether that’s just a matter of legal fact, rather than actual fact, I don’t think is important. Colosimos will be a criminal gun shop, and that’s how it will be remembered. James Colosimo might get to retire in peace, but that will be little comfort for the next gun shop that ends up in the crosshairs.

This is one of those businesses, when you get too tired to cross every ‘t’ and dot every ‘i’, and even more importantly, when you lose interest in standing up for what’s right, it’s time to give up the FFL, close up shop, and get out of the business.

It’s Hard to Take This Kind of Thinking Seriously

Our token anti-gunner makes a classic cognitive error when it comes to politics:

Why do you think there are such great differences between Republicans and Democrats. My own idea, very unscientific and totally without proof, is that among the Republicans you’ve got the mindless close-minded masses who cannot think outside their pre-conceived notions of how things should be. These are the millions who listen to Beck and Limbaugh and O’reilly for their inspiration. Among the Democrats, on the other hand, you’ve got the open-minded, the seekers, the idealists, folks who are generally better educated and better able to distinguish right from wrong.

Either that, or people who are into hunting, shooting, or who have a gun for self-defense, very strongly value that right and identify more with the party who has a stronger reputation for defending it. It’s always tempting to think of the other side as marching lemmings, and your side as enlightened thinking individuals, but down that rabbit hole lies madness. There’s plenty of political ignorance on both sides of the spectrum, and plenty of places you can find echo chambers, and opportunists telling people what they want to hear. It might not take the same form on both sides of the aisle, but any serious engagement in political discourse reveals MikeB’s assertion to be nonsense.

Paranoid Gun Owners

We’re always told we’re paranoid when we suggest that the end game of the gun control movement is door to door Â confiscation. I mean, drag that kind of theory out, you might as well just fit yourself for a tin foil hat now and put on your wookie suit. Right? Maybe not:

Complicated amnesty laws around gun legislation have many owners confused. Now the city’s Guns and Gangs unit is going door to door setting people straight.

“If you have to ask the question if you are licensed… I can pretty much guarantee you are not in compliance,” said Superintendent Greg Getty, who works with the Organized Crime Enforcement unit.

So Getty and his team are going through tens of thousands of old gun registry documents to try and locate weapons where registration may have expired.

Well, you see, the registration didn’t expire. They still have it, obviously, they are just using the registry to locate the gun owners that have turned into criminals by letting a date on a piece of paper pass without jumping through the hoops to get another piece of paper with a different date. This article has even more details.

“We cannot leave those firearms in that person’s possession,” he said.

Those who “are less vigilant in maintaining proper licensing … may be equally lax in maintaining the safety and security of their weapons,” Blair said.

“Now that there are 400 fewer guns that can be stolen and put into the hands of criminals, I think we’ve created a safer situation,” he said. “This is very much an anti-violence measure.”

Canadian gun owners apparently weren’t paranoid enough. I’ll offer credit to Canadian authorities for not prosecuting these individuals, and giving them the opportunity to comply with the law, rather than just destroying their guns, but I have to wonder how much more effective it would be if police resources were dedicated to catching actual criminals rather than chasing around people who’s papers are not in order. But I suppose the latter is a much safer way to make it look like the authorities are doing something about the crime problem. Real criminals shoot back.

Nordyke Up for Hearing Tomorrow

The en banc hearing is up tomorrow for Nordyke vs. King. Â Go read the article. They talk about how former California Governor and now Attorney General Jerry Brown hasn’t been much of a crusader against the Second Amendment, and has not filed a brief in Nordyke. I don’t know if we’ll ever classify Jerry Brown as a friend, but it’s hard to say he’s been an enemy. Even if Jerry Brown is just keeping the heat off, I appreciate that. I’ve heard from someone close to the case that:

[T]he first time the 9th heard the case, California gun owners packed the courtroom (actually we packed 3 courtrooms). We think that our presence reminded the Judges that gun rights are not just about guns, but they’re about people. We intend to do it again on Thursday.

You can find more information on that here. I’d stop by if I were close, but I’m on the other side of the country. Let’s hope this all turns out well for us. We really need to get incorporation.

You Know How Those Gun Bloggers Are

Reno dealers are reporting that the ammunition shortage appears to be easing. I guess we did more shooting at GBR than I thought :)

Heeding God’s Call Feeling Vindicated

One of the members of the group that protested outside of Colosimo’s is feeling vindicated with the arrival of federal charges:

Little did we know that while we were meeting the U.S. Attorney’s office was charging Mr. Colism with falsifying statements and failing to keep accurate records. On a practical level, it appears that our activities may have called attention to this particularly notorious gun dealer, and moved the process along in bringing him to justice. On another level, today feels like a vindication of our efforts, and an affirmation that God is indeed working in and through our efforts.

Is he being brought to justice though? I’ll one up you, Professor. I’m going to suggest the US Attorney is going easy on this guy rather than throwing the book at him. I would like to understand why. The accusation is that he knowingly sold a firearm to a person he knew not to be the actual buyer of the firearm, and that those firearms were later recovered from criminals. In the reports, he’s accused of doing this not once, but ten times over the course of five years. Yet the US Attorney’s office isn’t pressing charges against Mr. Colosimo himself, but rather against Colosimo, Inc, the corporate entity. This basically puts the maximum penalty at a fine and probation for the corporation, which means a judge gets to oversee the operation of the corporate entity. Â There’s no jail time involved. I would argue that if Mr. Colosimo knowingly sold firearms to straw purchasers, he ought to be facing charges himself.

The US Attorneys office seems to be proceeding with a Prosecution by Information, which means that Colosimo’s has waived its right to have the evidence in the case presented to a Grand Jury. Usually a defendant will not do this unless they intend to plead guilty to the charge. This leads me to believe the US Attorney likely cut a deal with Colosimo, either because they didn’t see any use in prosecuting an old man, or because they weren’t confident in taking a case forward against Colosimo himself, and cut a deal where the corporate entity agreed to plead guilty.

But I don’t just meant to question the US Attorney’s office over why they are going after the company and not the man, I also think the ATF needs to explain, if the US Attorney has had evidence that Colosimos was knowingly selling to straw buyers, why it allowed Colosimos to continue operating? I would assume ATF has inspected this dealer in the past? What did they find? If it warranted charges, why was his FFL not revoked?

Lots of questions still in this case. Hopefully we’ll get answers as more information comes to light.