Sunday, February 27, 2011

Obama and Mexico vs Arizona

We don't need immigration reform. We need policy reform -- to change the policy from allowing unfettered invasion to enforcement of existing immigration law and federal protection of the States from foreign invasion as required by the US Constitution!

Monday, February 21, 2011

The ATF continutes out of control!

Hundreds of guns were allowed to be purchased along the US-Mexico border by alleged straw buyers, while ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) looked the other way and did nothing. ATF's own agents say that sometime in late 2009 or early 2010, the Phoenix office of ATF began to implement a policy of "walking" semi-automatic rifles south of the border.

One agent says, "The agency was not only looking the other way but actually facilitating trafficking, threatening and punishing agents who voiced objections, covering up trace information, the truth about the gun that killed Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, what ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) knew, it goes on and on."

The accusations against ATF, DHS (Department of Homeland Security) and DOJ (Department of Justice) officials include:
• They intentionally allowed as many as 3,000 firearms to be "walked" across the US border into Mexico.
• They directed US gun dealers to proceed with questionable and illegal sales of firearms to suspected gunrunners.
• They intentionally withheld information about US-sanctioned gun smuggling from the Mexican government.
• One of the guns ATF allowed or helped to be smuggled into Mexico was involved in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

While all this was going on, government officials, including the President, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General had the reckless gall to blame law-abiding gun owners and dealers for criminal activity in the US and Mexico in order to advance their anti-Constitution, gun-control agenda using false statistics!

Why would the ATF participate in smuggling guns from the US into Mexico? My guess is to boost the already false statistics they need to justify shutting down gun ownership in the US as if we responsible gun owners and dealers are the cause of violence in Mexico!

There has been one pro-liberty side-effect of this scandal: The ATF scheme to register multiple sales of guns has reportedly been placed on the back burner due to apparent embarrassment over this outrageous scandal.

I urge every member of Congress and every news reporter to immediately join Senator Charles Grassley's courageous investigation into the ATF's "Project Gunrunner."

ATF, DHS, and DOJ leadership all the way up to Attorney General Eric "My People" Holder and Secretary Janet "The System Worked" Napolitano (perhaps even the acting president) must be held accountable to include removal from office and prison. Better yet, extradite to Mexico everyone who authorized or knew about "walking" guns to Mexico and let the Mexican Federales deal with those miscreants in their own special way.

Congress must cut all funding to the ATF. The ATF has long been a rogue out-of-control anti-Constitution agency and must be dismantled immediately. Most, if not all, of the laws it enforces are unconstitutional anyway.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

The unaccountable Federal Reserve

No government grants for a farmers' market!

The best and most efficient government is that which is closest to the people. We will never regain control of the runaway bloated and intrusive federal government as long as cities, counties, states, and individuals keep accepting "free" money from the federal government. That federal money is used to extort unconstitutional power and control over us. We are selling our souls and freedom to the feds for a bowl of pottage!

It should be obvious to everyone by now that we cannot expect Congress, the President, or even the federal courts to comply with or enforce the US Constitution on their own initiative. We, the people, and our local and State representatives are a vital part of the separation of powers that the nation's founders wisely established to protect liberty and enforce the Constitution. That is, in part, why the founders included a provision that requires even city council members and mayors to swear an oath to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The Cedar City Council (Utah) is entertaining the idea of a federal grant to subsidize a farmers' market in Cedar City.

I am opposed to this move for the following reasons:

• No government entity has any business competing with private enterprise in any way whatsoever. A farmers' market would compete with existing food retailers. That competition is good -- if it happens without government subsidies.
• Any commercial enterprise (whether it be a farmers' market or car manufacturers or corn or solar energy or mass transit or milk or electric cars or wind turbines or sugar) that cannot succeed in a free market, must be allowed to fail. It should never be subsidized by the government!
• When government subsidizes anything, it tends to be much more expensive than necessary and often becomes too expensive for the community to maintain in the long run (the new Aquatics Center seems to be an example).
• The federal government has no business funding local and state projects unless specifically in compliance with the powers specifically enumerated in Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution and further limited by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constiution.
• Local and state governments have no business seeking or accepting "free" federal money for projects they should be funding themselves -- especailly when considering the strings that always come attached to federal funds.
• If local politicians think a farmers' market is a good idea, they should invest their own personal money in the project -- not the taxpayers'.
• The only appropriate government role in a farmers' market or any other aspect of commerce is the protection of public safety and individual rights.

Our local and State governments are not functionaries of the federal government and must stop acting as such! Every local and state politician must take a stand and tell the federal government that the feds have no business funding, subsidizing, or otherwise meddling in local and State projects and affairs.

I am unalterably opposed to any taxpayer funding or subsidization of a commercial enterprise whether it is local, state, or federal tax dollars. The City Council, as well as the county, state and federal legislative bodies, must reject all projects that involve using public money to force any commercial enterprise (ie a farmer's market) into a market where it can't survive on its own. The federal government must stop funding all local and state projects and agencies and eliminate the related federal agencies.

If a business or collection of businesses (ie a farmer's market) can't succeed in a free market, it must be allowed to fail!

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

The States' role in saving the Republic

I have long seen the nation's desperate need for a full legislative audit of all federal laws, regulations, policies, agencies, and judicial rulings to identify and eliminate everything the federal government does that exceeds the Constitutional limits placed on it. Considering myself a pessimistic, yet pragmatic person, I don't see Congress or the President or the Federal Courts accepting that obligation any time soon.

It is obvious that few politicians at the federal level have any understanding of, or any intention to live up to, their sworn duty to support and defend the US Constitution:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Fortunately, the nation’s founders wisely provided the nation with an additional form of separation of powers: the sovereign States.

James Madison said, "The State Legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty."

After decades of slumber, it appears that the legislatures of several of the States, including Utah, are finally awakening to their vital role in protecting the People from an oppressive central government and to their oath to also to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." Part of this movement is Utah HB 76, the “Federal Law Evaluation and Response Act."

HB 76 will define "federal law" as all federal legislation; presidential executive orders; and agency action, regulations or policies and establish a standard and process for review and evaluation of all federal law in for compliance with the powers specifically enumerated in Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution and further limited by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constiution.

The nation, the State, and the People desperately need all State legislators in every State to stand up to the federal government. Every Utah legislator must support and vote for HB 76.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

What kind of person wants gun control?

I was shocked by the apparent violent tendencies of the first person interviewed in the following video. As with this "man," anti-gun people sometimes reveal their deep-rooted, yet repressed, tendency toward extreme violence toward people they don't like.

A common statement I hear from anti-gun people regarding our alleged weak gun laws (see below) is, "What's to stop me from going down and buying a gun and then shooting up a school?" Now, good people simply don't think like that. Good people think about buying a gun for hunting, fun, competition, or self defense. Good people never entertain the thought of shooting up a school. Only inherently violent people think that way and they assume that everyone is similarly defective. Psychologists call call it projection. They demand extreme gun-control measures because they don't trust themselves and their own repressed violent urges.

Now, regarding our alleged weak gun laws: I have a book on Utah's gun laws. Utah has far less gun regulation than many other States. Yet, this book on Utah's gun laws is nearly an inch thick and has 370 pages! Similar volumes are available for other States. We already have far too many laws regulating the inanimate objects known as firearms! And, since when did criminals begin obeying any law, much less a gun law? This cry for ever more gun laws is based on the false and dangerous belief that disarming innocent people will somehow disarm criminals.

Among the question posed in this video are related to police carrying guns. The interviewees respond that the police have been trained. Well, so have a very large portion of civilians! The question I'd like to have heard in this video is, "Why do the police carry guns"? The answer is simple, but rarely addresses. They will, like an armed civilian use that gun to protect an innocent person or to stop a forcible felony. But the primary reason cops carry guns is to protect themselves. What makes a police officer so special that must civilians be denied the most effective means of self defense?

So, given that there are an extimated 300 million guns (most of which never hurt anyone) in the hands of an estimated 90 million gun owners (most of whom never hurt anyone), how do gun control advocates expect to confiscate all those guns? Any person that wants to "rid the world of guns," must accept the likelihood that violence/death will be brought on millions of responsible, law-abiding people to accomplish that end. If they aren't willing to perpetrate that violence or commission others (most likely) to do so they should abandon the idea that others should be defenseless.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Personal responsibility and guns

Yesterday, 12 February, marked the 4th anniversary of a tragic mass-shooting in Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City.

On that night, the mall had signs banning weapons, criminal activity, and disorderly conduct. Nevertheless, Sulejman Talovic (It is not politically-correct to comment on his religious background.), 18, methodically killed five people and wounded four. Total time spent from the start of his shooting spree until he was killed by police – 7 minutes. All victims were shot in the first one minute – before anyone could call 911! Ironically, the man who stopped Talovic was also violating the Mall’s gun/violence ban because he was an off-duty cop out of his jurisdiction. The first official police response came 3 minutes after the first 911 call -- an excellent response time, but too late for 9 victims.

Talovic had a shotgun and a revolver with a bag full of ammo. He was prepared to do considerable harm to the mall’s shoppers that night and mentally prepared to die doing so.

The finger-pointing still continues today. Some even blame the licensed dealer that sold Talovic his shotgun. According to the Deseret news (which seems to prefer to blame guns, not criminals),
"Tuft’s attorney, Mark Williams, and attorneys from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, say federal law prohibits the sale of pistol-grip guns like the one Talovic bought to anyone under 21."
To put that gun sale into perspective, before 1968, anyone of any age with the money could walk into a hardware store or gas station and buy any gun on the shelf with no questions asked and no forms to fill. No merchant in the nation needed federal permission (a license) to sell guns. Back then, we didn't have anyone shooting up malls, schools, and churches. Nobody argued whether a shotgun with a pistol grip really was a shotgun because politicians hadn't yet started imposing confused and contradictory terminology. But, parents raised their own children.

The difference between the times before the Gun-Control Act of 1968 and today is not guns or the pawn shops that sell them. The problem is a society where few people learn good judgment or a sense of responsibility and accountability or even logic. Instead, we blame someone else (or something) for our problems and mistakes and we blindly give the government the power to fix everything for us. We farm out our children to someone else (day care) to raise so we can live life in our own selfish way. We think that making more laws and putting up more prohibitory signs inspire bad people to behave themselves.

It is this collection of naive attitudes that creates the conditions that people like Talovic will continue to exploit. We need to grow up!

And, we need to understand that any place that bans the most effective means of self-defense -- a gun -- without also providing absolute security can be a very dangerous place. Don't go there!

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Wal-Mart and guns

Wal-Mart prohibits its employees from possessing firearms while at work. The following are what I expect are Wal-Mart's flawed assumptions in making this silly prohibition:
• A disgruntled employee who wants to harm fellow employees would surely not use a gun, knowing that the store bans them in the hands of employees.
• An employee will never face a life-threatening situation while at work.
• Wal-Mart employees are not smart enough to carry a firearm safely.
• Always listen to sissy lawyers who are more concerned about liability and political correctness than about safety.

I have always considered Wal-Mart's ban on employees possessing self-defense firearms while on the property to be juvenile and a slap in the face for the employees. But, Wal-Mart isn't alone. Other businesses, including Home Depot think their employees and even customers don't deserve to live and cannot be trusted with the means to do so.

In the news today is a story about four unarmed Wal-Mart employees who courageously disarmed a shoplifter who threatened them with a gun. The shoplifter is reported to be a felon who is prohibited by law from even touching a gun or ammunition.

Some coward in Wal-mart management decided that its four heroes should be fired for taking steps to protect themselves agains this felon. The heroes probably prevented the shoplifter from getting into a gunfight with police -- with the strong possibility of harm to innocent persons and damage to property.

I am done shopping at Wal-Mart until:
• These heroes are compensated extremely well for this indignity. ($1 million each would be a good start.)
• The entire Wal-Mart system drops its stupid ban on employees carrying arms where allowed by law
• Wal-Mart changes it's stupid policy that prohibits employees from using good judgment when faced with a threat to their lives.
• Wal-Mart drops out of it's egregious deal with the Devil (New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg).
• The person(s) who made the decision to fire these 4 men is fired.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

God and Dog

Advice from a parent to an adult child on debt

As a caring parent, I am willing to help you make the payments on all your debts that I or your mother are co-signers on until you and your wife are in a position to do it on time yourselves.

I will agree to this under these conditions:
• You pay a full tithe.
• You live a thrifty lifestyle.
• You work on finishing your formal education.
• You completely reject incurring new debt on new or existing accounts including pre-paid credit cards.
• You pay all your current debts and obligations that have no cosigner.
• You send me what you can after paying your normal living expenses and making payments on debts that I and your mother are not a cosigner on.
• The word "you" includes each member of your family.

If you agree to these conditions, make up the difference to ensure the debts which we co-signed are paid on time.

I hope you understand that you are in your current financial situation primarily because you have used debt to live a lifestyle far beyond your income. Just like the government's wild spending, it is not sustainable and the debt always catches up and overwhelms. Blaming your situation on the lenders or on the economy will never solve your problem. Taking ownership of the problem is the first step in fixing it.

In the past, we have repeatedly helped you consolidate and pay your bills only to see you pile up new debt. For your family's own welfare, that cycle needs to stop. You have reached a condition similar to what is called critical mass in nuclear physics -- when sufficient uranium or plutonium (ie debt) is accumulated to result in uncontrolled fission and a nuclear detonation.

I will soon retire and my income will drop precipitously. Your mother and I are struggling to be debt-free ourselves by then so we can live on the reduced income. We will no longer have the resources to bail you out.

But, more importantly, you need to become independent and self-reliant. We'll help you as much as we can if we can see that our help is getting you to the point of independence. That's our job -- up to a point. But, as long as you are dependent on anyone other than God, especially on parents or the government, you give up your sovereignty to that person or entity (meaning you are not self-governing and that person or entity has power over you).

When you become sovereign, nobody needs to nag you about your decisions nor do they have the right to do so. Your older brother, for example, has been sovereign since he left home to serve a mission. We will always give him advice when asked (that will always be the role of a parent -- including our Heavenly Father, but in his case, it's very rare he asks us for counsel). We see no need to give him unsolicited counsel because we see him consistently make good decisions on his own. The sooner you get there, the happier and freer you and and your wife will be.

Church leaders consistently urge us to get out of debt and stay out of debt. That is what I'm working to do. If family members will use some good judgement regarding debt so that we don't have to constantly bail them out, our entire family will be fine no matter how bad the economy gets. It is debt -- not the ups and downs of the economy -- that destroys our resilience and self-reliance.

Provident Living

Christian Financial Concepts

Clark Howard Financial Tips

Dave Ramsey Financial Counseling

Suze Orman on Managing Debt

Cost of Paying the Minimum

Stop arbitrary gun bans near schools

Utah Representative Curt Oda has introduced HB 75 which would remove some of the more egregious restrictions on the responsible possession of firearms near schools and similar facilities.

Utah's current definition of "on or about school premises" is far too broad. Under the current definition, most gun owners have probably unintentionally violated Utah's gun-free school-zone act many times. The federal law is limited to K-12 schools, but Utah law adds day-care centers, pre-schools and vocational schools. Utah law includes a 1,000-foot "gun free zone" around each of these "schools." Thus, for example, under state law you're on "school premises" if you get within 1,000 feet of a day-care center that's operating inside a private residence, or a small cosmetology school located in a strip mall or a museum where a school class is having a field trip or even if he carries an unloaded firearm in a locked case into his own home from a car parked on the street within 1,000 feet of a daycare center. Such a bizarre law does not belong on the books anywhere.

Natural law gives us sufficient guidance as to what is inherently right and wrong. We simply do not need arbitrary laws that regulate the responsible possession and use of inanimate objects such as firearms. All such restrictions must be eliminated.

Since violent criminals have shown that they do not respect gun-free zones anyway, I would prefer that the entire law regulating guns in or near "school premises" be repealed. Failing that, HB 75 is necessary to clean up the convoluted and nonsensical definition of "school premises" that exists in the current Utah Code and to stop making criminals of innocent gun owners.

Monday, February 7, 2011

Uniform weapons laws in Utah

Both the US and the Utah Constitutions protect the citizens' right to posses and use "arms." When we think of "arms," we usually think about firearms. However, many other tools can be considered "arms." Among these are batons, knives, nunchucks, and swords.

A few months ago, I wrote to my legislators to suggest that Utah Section 53-5a-102 (Uniform firearm laws) be amended to change the word "firearms" to the word "arms" to reflect the intent of both Constitutions to guarantee the right to "arms." Section 53-5a-102 would also be amended to define "arms" to include firearms, batons, knives, nunchucks, swords, and other weapons that a person could reasonably own and use and which the legislature might find necessary to regulate or protect.

It would be unfortunate and unjust for a person to be charged and convicted of a crime for possessing a particular style of pocket knife while crossing an invisible political boundary. The change I suggest would ensure that any restrictions on all weapons would be uniform throughout the State just as it is now for for firearms.

I have learned that Utah State Representative Ryan Wilcox has introduced HB 271 which would prohibit a municipality, county, or local district from regulating the use of a knife unless specifically authorized. This would accomplish the same thing as my suggestion above -- but only for knives.

I believe that amending 53-5a-102 is a better way of achieving Representative Wilcox's objective than his effort to amend 17B-1-103 and enact 10-8-47.5 and 17-50-332.

I urge every Utah legislator to work with Representative Wilcox to ensure that the best possible legislation be passed this year to achieve his objective of protecting our right to arms. The other 49 States would do well to also ensure uniformity and constitutionality of arms laws.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Reject any effort to restrict firearm capability

Carolyn McCarthy and other anti-gun activists believe that crippling firearm magazine capacity to some arbitrary number of rounds somehow stops crime. This issue resurfaced along with irrational hysteria related to the recent Tucson shooting. They seem to ignore that fact that the last such ban had no effect on crime.

Hoping to limit murderers by limiting magazines is irrational and hoplophobic. Why have people like McCarthy picked a ten-round limit? Are they saying it's OK to only kill ten people? That makes no sense to me. Are they saying that responsible Americans should not have have firepower at least comparable to the criminals who are, be definition, not deterred by gun (or any) laws? That also makes no sense. Is McCarthy saying that her husband was wise and correct in not having had a gun with a magazine holding more than 10 rounds to protect himself on the evening he was murdered? She can speak for herself and her dead husband, but she has no right or authority to deny the rest of us the most effective means to defend ourselves and loved ones from the likes of Colin Ferguson -- a gun with full-capacity magazines.

During the 10-year full-capacity magazine ban included in Bill Clinton's '94 Gun Ban, only law enforcement could get full-capacity magazines (holding more than 10 rounds). (Even the NY Times admitted the ban failed to achieve its objective.) The public faces the same criminals police do! Since the public (crime victims) is almost always first at the scene of any crime, any restrictions for the public must always at least match what police can use. If lawmaker's can't justify impeding the police with ammunition limits, they cannot legitimately justify impeding the public that way.

Criminals are already prohibited from having a magazine of any size. A law restricting size for the rest of us adds nothing to safety. What we really need to stop shooting rampages is not another feel-good law written on a mere piece of paper. What we need is removal of all restrictions on responsible armed people who can respond.

"A well regulated militia" is a stated intent of the Second Amendment. At Virginia's US Constitution ratification convention in 1788, George Mason expressed the founders' understanding of the militia when he said, "I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officials." (See also 10 USC Sec. 311)

Clearly, the Second Amendment is only partially about "sporting" guns or hunting ducks as implied in the unconstitutional Gun Control Act of 1968 and current unconstitutional ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) rules. The Amendment protects our right to own any arm, especially militia arms. Forcing the citizens and the militia to cope with crippled magazines or firearms is an unreasonable infringement of the Second Amendment. Limiting full-capacity guns and magazines and militia-type arms to the government and its agents is elitist and extremely dangerous to life, liberty, and happiness. Such a shameful move only panders to those without the capacity or initiative to reason (the preferred constituency of most politicians).

Natural law gives us sufficient restrictions on mala en se crimes -- those acts which are inherently wrong or evil such as assault, murder, and infringing liberty. We do not need more mala prohibita laws -- crimes (such as the responsible possession and use of effective firearms) that are often arbitrarily created just because some bully (ie McCarthy) wants to.

I have learned that an amendment to ban magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds may be snuck into law as an amendment to legislation unrelated to crime. (This reminds me of the nation's desperate need for's "One Subject at a Time Act".)

If legislation really could stop criminals there wouldn't be any. Congress and the Whitehouse must oppose and repeal any amendment or legislation with any infringement on Second Amendment rights.

Gary Kreep on Obama's eligibility to serve as US president

United States Justice Foundation

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

What Mubarak's riots should mean to Americans

Riots in Egypt are the news of the day. Egyptians are fed up with their oppressive government run by president-for-life Hosni Mubarak.

What few seem to understand is that we in the United States have our own Mubarak. Most of us argue that we have a democracy or that we we have a republic. We have neither. We have a Mubarak (um government) run by an unaccountable bureaucracy. Our Mubarak is that entire federal bureaucratic government that operates autonomously and mostly outside the bounds and authority of the Constitution.

Elections change nothing. Whoever is president is merely a figurehead. Neither Congress nor the courts have the will or integrity to bring the bureaucratic government under control.

Federal workers (mostly unaccountable bureaucrats) in 2009 made an average of $123,049 in salary and benefits. Local, state and federal employees comprise approximately 10% of the workforce. Supporting that huge Mubarak (um government) hogs 25% of our Gross Domestic Product.

We Americans are in two groups -- those who pay for this giant bureaucracy, and those who demand more from the welfare/police state it runs. Far to many of us are in both of those groups.

There is much dissatisfaction in this nation and it won't take much for this general dissatisfaction to be released in widespread uncontrollable violence. Martial law will be imposed, but will be unable to control the chaos and panic.

The only action that can stop the violence is to prevent it by bringing the government in to full compliance with the US Constitution. Doing so will give free men and women the liberty that our forefathers fought for. Having their right to property restored, these free men and women must once again voluntarily use their wealth to lift up their neighbors. Charity -- not government-imposed social justice -- is how we truly help others. As a nation, we must repent and restore our sense of charity and our Christian understanding of right and wrong. We must again be responsible for ourselves, our families, and our neighbors -- not dependent on an intrusive government.

John Adams, the second president of the United States, once made the following statement:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.
Our present bureaucratic government is antithetical to the human character expected by God and by Adams and his fellow founders.

Protect the right to own and use imported military-type shotguns

Passed during a period of national hysteria following some high-profile shootings in the '60s, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) generally prohibits the importation of firearms into the United States. The statute exempts four narrow categories of firearms including those that are "generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes."

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has announced a study to establish criteria that its bureaucrats will use to determine the importability of certain shotguns under these provisions of the GCA.

A similar 1989 study concluded that a broad interpretation of "sporting purpose" would render the GCA meaningless. The study therefore arbitrarily concluded that neither plinking nor “police/combat-type” competitions would be considered "sporting" activities under the statute. Yet, these activities are very popular among gun owners and they help maintain "a well regulated militia" -- a stated intent of the Second Amendment.

The 1989 study concluded that semiautomatic so-called assault rifles were “designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications.” With this, the study determined that they were not suitable for sporting purposes and should not be authorized for importation. I see the possibility that the new study could result in a similar ruling for military-style shotguns. Again, what is the "militia" clause of the Second Amendment about, if not for military-type arms?

The Second Amendment is only partially about "sporting" guns or hunting ducks as implied in the GCA and current ATF rules. It protects our right to own any arm, especially militia arms.

Detachable magazine shotguns such as the Saiga 12 are indeed popular for sporting shotgun “police/combat-type” competition such as "Three Gun Match" events. The popularity of this type of competition is growing rapidly nationwide and internationally.

Magazines holding over 5 rounds and drum magazines are also very popular in this type of competition.

Pistol grips and folding, telescoping, and collapsible stocks are also popular for shotgun competition and to enable a single firearm to readily fit persons of different sizes.

Forward pistol grips and other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand are also popular for shotgun competition because they improve control over, and safety of, shotgun handling during the stress and speed of competition.

Other military firearm features such as bayonet lugs, grenade launcher mounts, integrated rails, and flash supressors clearly have no "sporting purpose." But, like all the above-mentioned features, they do serve Constitutionally-protected "militia" and self-defense purposes.

I accept the reality that there are some people and organizations that have an irrational fear of firearms, especially those with any or all of these features. The simple fact is that a shotgun blast can be deadly whether it comes from a fine $2,500 walnut-stocked gold-engraved double-barreled Browning Citori or a crude-looking imported Saiga 12 shotgun with a black plastic stock. Both are perfectly safe when used wisely. Their availability must be determined only by demand in a free market -- not by political or bureaucratic edict and especially not by hysteria.

I urge Congress, the Whitehouse, and the ATF to fully protect the right of all responsible Americans to own and use any Constitutionally-protected domestic or imported firearm -- no matter how ugly or menacing it may appear to be. The "sporting use" test and restrictions on imports are only a couple of restrictions that must be removed from federal law in order to bring the law into compliance with the US Constitution.

Note: Interested persons may submit comments on this study. Comments may be submitted by e-mail to or by fax to (202)648-9601. All comments must include name and mailing address. ATF encourages submission of comments no later than May 1, 2011.