Mountain State Gun News

Buying Pro-Gun Media to Shut It Down?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 23:33:00 +0000

It looks like an Obama supporter who owns Intermedia Partners is (and has been) purchasing pro-gun magazines and television stations under their subsidiary, Intermedia Outdoors, Inc. Leo Hindrey, Jr. was once considered for Secretary of Commerce by the current administration. Now as a owner of Intermedia Partners, he controls such publications as Guns & Ammo, Handguns, and Shooting Times. On top of that, they also own The Sportsman Channel. If approved by the SEC and the FCC, they will soon be acquiring The Outdoor Channel too. This would give them 16 hunting, fishing and shooting magazines and two of the largest outdoor sports cable channels. However, after Intermedia Outdoors' downsizing of employees and facilities, some of the remaining employees are growing concerned. According to The Daily Caller...

InterMedia employees believe that Hindery... is in the process of consolidating all of America’s leading gun-culture media outlets and stripping them down to virtual destruction.

“There’s nothing there but one intern slash production assistant and one administrative type. All the production people are gone. It’s a shell,” according to the employee.

“Now that Hindery has the Outdoor Channel, he’s in a position to consolidate all of the major pro-Second Amendment media titles in this country, strip them down, and destroy them, like venture capitalists do sometimes,” the employee said.

I hope that this is just a case of some venture capitalists restructuring failing media outlets. However, given Mr. Hindrey's political connections and the administration's current gun policy positions, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a political motivation with these acquisitions. Then again, they haven't shuttered any of their current holdings...yet. I'll stay optimistic for now and assume they are just capitalists trying to make money with these properties.

Lawmaker Invites Magpul to WV

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 21:07:00 +0000

I somehow missed the news a few weeks ago that relates to my last post about WV lawmakers urging Beretta to move to West Virginia. Apparently Delegate Joshua Nelson from Boone County wrote a letter to the management at Magpul Industries in Colorado when they threatened to leave that state if a law restricting magazine capacity was enacted. While I would hate to see the good folks currently working at Magpul potentially loose their jobs, I understand the company's stance. If they don't take stands against these laws, there could end up being no states left that they could sell their products in.

WV Rolls Out the Welcome Mat for Beretta USA

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 17:07:00 +0000

On Thursday, Richard Thompson, West Virginia's Speaker of the House of Delegates, announced that he had contacted Beretta USA's Executive VP, Franco Beretta, about moving their manufacturing operations to the Mountain State.

“With available space and an available educated workforce in all areas of our state, you would have a wealth of opportunity to expand and grow your business here, where the people understand and care about your industry,” Speaker Thompson wrote in a letter...
“If you are seriously considering moving your headquarters to another location, it would be in your best interest to take a look at West Virginia.”
"...the state’s long support of the Second Amendment and our close proximity to your current headquarters, makes us an excellent choice for Beretta USA in your relocation efforts.”

The Speaker also told Mr. Beretta West Virginia would not support a law such as the one the Maryland General Assembly is about to pass.

The Speaker's letter was sent after the Maryland Senate passed a very restrictive gun control bill this week. I feel for our friends in Maryland, but if Beretta follows through with their threat to leave that state if they enact this assault weapons ban, I hope they pick West Virginia. The first firearm that I ever bought was a Beretta 92FS Inox. I would love to buy another one in the future that's stamped West Virginia instead of Accokeek, MD.

Firearms Forum at Marshall University

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 02:51:00 +0000

Let your pro-gun voice be heard tomorrow, February 26th at 6:30pm in room BE5 in the basement of the Memorial Student Center. There will be state, local and university leaders in attendance. We need to have a professional and respectful pro-Second Amendment presence. Currently, they are only expecting about 100 people. Let's fill the room to its capacity of 285 with our supporters!

Visit the Facebook event page if you need more info.

From The Parthenon student newspaper...

Robert Bookwalter, dean of the college of education, will lead the panel discussion about recent crimes in the area, police response, current gun regulations and the history of gun rights in America. The panel members will consist of Huntington Mayor Steve Williams, Chief of Campus Police Jim Terry, Marshall University Faculty and members of the State Legislature.

Adam Fridley, the SGA chief of staff, said there would be a question and answer session for students and members of the audience to ask questions or give general feedback after the panel discussion.

Gun Rights Bill Moves Through the Legislature

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 02:21:00 +0000

A much-needed bill is on it's way to being law. According to The State Journal...

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, police officers confiscated hundreds of firearms. The West Virginia House of Delegates has taken a major step in ensuring something similar doesn't happen here.
House Bill 2471 passed the House unanimously Feb. 22. The bill, introduced by Speaker Rick Thompson, D-Wayne, would prohibit the restriction on lawful use of firearms and ammunition during a declared state of emergency.

See the WVCDL's Legislative Tracking webpage for the status of important firearm legislation in West Virginia for 2013.

Give a Big 'Thank You' to the WV Attorney General

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 02:13:00 +0000

According to a Valentine's Day press release from West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, he has filed an amicus brief in the Kachalsky v. Cacace case, which challenges a New York law that requires a person to show a particular need to obtain a permit to carry a firearm outside the home.

As I mentioned in my very first post on this blog, the Heller ruling pretty much strikes down the ability of a government to arbitrarily issue permits. It took a few more years than I thought it would, but there has now been a petition for a writ of certiorari filed in this case. West Virginia, along with 19 other states and constitutional rights groups like the Cato Institute, are supporting this petition with amicus briefs. If the Supreme Court grants the petition, this should lead to a ruling that strikes down 'May Issue' permit laws around the country. So, given that a federal appeals court recently ruled that Illinois has to offer some type of legal carry, 'Shall Issue' may soon be the law in all the states.

For the General Welfare?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 01:10:00 +0000

Senator Feinstein has decided that the Second Amendment should take a back seat to the Preamble to the Constitution. Never mind the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the clause "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments." (Jacobson v. Massachusetts)
So now she is laughingly framing her anti-gun argument as personal pleasure vs. the general welfare. Apparently, she doesn't see a reason to own firearms except for the entertainment value. Personal protection is such an alien concept to her that it doesn't even cross her mind. Maybe she should watch this video of a citizen using an AR-15 to defend the lives of others in Detroit.

Manchin Selling Out WV to Gun-Grabbers

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:11:00 +0000

A group of four Senators, including Sen. Joe Manchin (WV) , are negotiating a bill that would require background checks for all private transfers of firearms. The main issue with this bill would be enforcement. In order to know if background checks are being performed, the government would have to have a record of who owns the gun in question. 'Universal Background Checks' quickly become a national gun registry. You can find a memo from Obama's Justice Department that comes to the same conclusion here (pdf).
Many gun control advocates will say it's not a big deal because no one wants to confiscate your guns. There are politicians from the local to the federal levels that want nothing less than confiscation. Take this example of a Pennsylvania politician from Bitter over at Shall Not Be Questioned.

On top of the de facto gun registry issue, there is also the question of efficacy.

1) Aurora, Colorado Shooter - passed a background check.
2) Tucson, Arizona Shooter - passed a background check.
3) Virginia Tech Shooter - passed a background check.
4) LAPD Cop Rampage Shooter - passed a background check.
5) Family Council Shooter - passed a background check.

And finally, the incident that was the catalyst for the government's renewed interest in infringing Second Ammendment rights...

6) Newtown, Connecticut - The shooter was actually denied by a background check. Instead the shooter murdered someone who he knew owned firearms, stole the firearms belonging to the victim, and went on to kill over 25 others.

None of these firearms were purchased through some imaginary "loophole" for private transfers.

Let Senator Manchin know that background checks on private transfers will do nothing but infringe on the rights of Americans by contacting him directly.

2013 WVCDL Legislative Tracking

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:31:00 +0000

The WVCDL has released its 2013 West Virginia Legislative Tracking webpage. Here is a list of bills that the organization is currently supporting, in order of importance:

HB2558 - Strengthen preemption to strip old gun bans from various cities (WVCDL bill) - strongly support
HB2572 - hunting cleanup, loaded magazines in vehicles allowed, open carry in the woods and in a car allowed. (WVCDL bill) - strongly support
HB2560 - School carry for all CCW (WVCDL bill) - strongly support
HB2561 - Waiver of CCW fees for veterans - strongly support
HB2465 - Strengthen preemption (Weaker and more complex than WVCDL bill) - Strongly Support
HB2471 - Prohibits confiscation and restriction during state of emergency. (Speaker Thompson's bill, this will pass the house with strong WVCDL support)
HB2502 - Prohibits doctors from asking questions about firearms - strongly support
HB2135 - Allows weapons securely stored in vehicles on state capitol complex. - support
HB2294 - Allows firearms in parking lots of companies that prohibit firearms, school pickup/drop-off - support
HB2390 - Teachers CCW on school property with Board of Ed approval - support
HB2427 - States that firearms manufactured in-state are not subject to federal regulation - support
HB2431 - Allowing recovery of rights for people with expunged convictions and judicial review - support
HB2437 - Exempt handgun training from sales tax - support
HB2459 - Allow carry with additional fees and background checks on capitol complex - support
HB2504 - Nullification act for federal laws - support

The WVCDL is asking that residents contact their state legislators and voice their support. You can find your representative here.

Courts Actually Use Existing Laws

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:13:00 +0000

One of the biggest problems in our justice system is that the courts rarely enforce the laws that would put criminals in jail for a significant sentence. Plea bargains and prosecutors who pad their records by filing 'lesser charges' are mostly to blame for these light sentences. In an effort to crack down on the drugs and violence in the city of Huntington, local prosecutors teamed up with the Feds to make sure that a drug dealer serves the maximum time possible:

Ambrea Virginia Ragland, 23, of Huntington, pleaded guilty Tuesday before United States District Judge Robert C. Chambers to carrying a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.
... officers seized crack cocaine, heroin, ecstacy, marijuana, hydrocodone, oxycodone and a fully loaded .22 caliber revolver ...
Ragland is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 6. She faces up to life in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Herald Dispatch, 7-10-2008

Now if only more communities would enforce existing gun laws, we could start to make a dent. But instead, I'm sure politicians will continue to push for more gun laws instead of using the thousands that are already on the books. After all, a lot of them only know how to propose redundant 'feel-good' legislation & help out their political friends. But really, what are they gonna do? Get honest jobs?

Ranson Withdrawals Illegal Ordinance

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:45:00 +0000

There was an attempt to pass an illegal city ordinance in the eastern-panhandle city of Ranson late last month. Basically, The Ranson City Council proposed an ordinance on June 17th that would have made it illegal for anyone (even those with a valid CPL) to carry a firearm onto any city property. According to The Journal (Martinsburg):

“A fellow showed up at a recreational event and apparently he or she had a gun and frankly we did not have the means by which to, no law saying they couldn’t have a gun,” Mayor A. David Hamill said.
The man did have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but agreed to remove the gun from the public field. The council now wants to enact an ordinance that would allow the city to prohibit people from carrying firearms on public property owned by the city.
...“The state code allows you to pass an ordinance like this but you have to have an ordinance in order to enforce it,” said city attorney Andy Blake, who drafted the proposed ordinance.

Well, the problem with that is WV Code § 8-12-5a (1999) preempts county and local governments from making firearms laws that are more restrictive then the WV State Code. Since WV laws only specify a few government buildings (like courthouses) as gun-free zones, the city of Ranson has no legal right to further restrict the carrying of firearms.
After pressure from the West Virginia Citizens Defence League, the city of Ranson dropped the proposed ordinance from their agenda. WVCDL president Jim Mullins and other gun rights supports attended the next city council meeting on July 1st to express their thanks for the city dropping the ordinance.
But this may just be the tip of the iceberg. According to the WVCDL:

In the course of investigating this issue, we have found that several other cities may be violating the preemption law, emboldened, in part, by the poor drafting our current preemption law contains. For the last two years, WVCDL has had bills introduced in the Legislature (2007 SB 715 & 2008 SB 732) to substantially strengthen the preemption law and bring all state & local government agencies under its coverage.

According to the same story in The Journal cited above:

"(Ranson's ordinance was) the same type of ordinance that (city attorney Andy) Blake wrote for the city of Martinsburg that is now enforced. The ordinance itself uses the same exact language as the state code but the phrase 'government entities' was replaced with the 'city of Ranson'."

While no reports of actual enforcement of the Martinsburg ordinance have been found through an Internet search, it is obvious that just the existence of this ordinance is in violation of the state code.

The Heller Ruling

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:44:00 +0000

I thought an appropriate first blog would be something that not only effected the citizens of West Virginia, but all American citizens as well. On June 26th, 2008 history was made: SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment was indeed an individual right (which 73% of Americans already knew). It was disappointing that it was only a 5-4 decision against the District of Columbia's draconian gun ban, but it was very reassuring that all nine justices, even those in dissent, recognized that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual, not collective, right to bear arms. No longer can the argument be made that the Second Amendment only applies to the National Guard (which is not a true militia anyway - at least not the type meant by the authors of the Constitution).

The majority opinion also noted several other positive rulings. The first is that the government cannot ban an "entire class" of arms. This should end Chicago's handgun ban when it is challenged in the courts. There is also a likelihood that a ban on so-called 'assault weapons' would no longer pass muster. Some have even suggested this ruling negates the GCA of 1986 that no longer allows registering of select-fire weapons which have been manufactured since it was signed into law. It appears the GCA of 1936 will remain intact though since it is a tax - though requiring the local law enforcement to make an arbitrary decision on whether to sign-off on a Class III firearm could probably be challenged successfully. State prohibitions on Class III weapons may be vulnerable to repeal as well, as well as the .50 cal bans that exist in several states.

Second, while the ruling allows for some forms of licensing and registration, the process cannot be arbitrary. In other words, there must be plain, reasonable requirements spelled out for the licensing procedure, and those that meet the requirements must be issued a license. This most likely dooms a number of the gun control measures in places like NYC.

Third, the majority also recognized that the right can be restricted, but they didn't expand upon the restrictions that are already in place. For instance, they agreed that those adjudicated as mentally ill and convicted felons may be excluded from firearm ownership, and that government buildings, such as court houses or your local FBI field office, can forbid weapons on their premises.

Finally, one of the most legally relevant, and widely overlooked, parts of the this decision is pointed out by Alan Korwin over at the Buckeye Firearms Association:

The core issue of "judicial scrutiny" is now established -- better than we had dreamed -- in what will be known as Famous Footnote #27 (p56). Laws impinging on the Second Amendment can receive no lower level of review than any other "specific enumerated right" such as free speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy or the right to counsel (the Court's list of examples).
**See the complete ruling here**

Law suits were filed in San Francisco, Chicago, and several Chicago suburbs within hours of the decision. Now only time will tell how many of these unconstitutional restrictions on law-abiding citizens will be overturned.