FW: Gun Law Update
Date: Jul 25, 2006 9:28 PM

>From: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Gun Law Update
>Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:51:39 -0400
>
>Gun Law Update
>July 24, 2006
>
>by Alan Korwin, Co-Author
>The Texas Gun Owner’s Guide
>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>
>Texas First
>Texas First
>
>A whopping 83 changes to Texas gun law have been uncovered in the upcoming
>6th edition of The Texas Gun Owner?s Guide, due for release this summer.
>Many of the main ones have been described already in updates released by
>Bloomfield Press and posted at gunlaws.com, but most were only found using
>the official ?statutes affected? lists issued by the state.
>http://www.gunlaws.com/updates.htm
>
>?Texas gun law grew by more than 13%,? notes Alan Korwin, co-author of the
>book. ?This is similar to the growth rate we are seeing in other states we
>track, and if it doesn?t stop soon, no one will be able to comply with the
>gun laws just based on sheer size.? Advance orders are being taken for an
>expected ship date in August, with autographed copies available on request.
>The new cover is posted here: http://www.gunlaws.com/tgog.htm
>
>News from insiders in Texas confirms that in the 2007 legislature, numerous
>changes are planned. The earliest effective date will be about one year
>from now. Chief among these is fixing the ?traveling? law, which continues
>to put honest Texans at risk of arrest for possession of a sidearm without
>a government-issued license.
>
>Even after extensive fixes in ’03 and ’05, some authorities still act
as if
>the law says, “handgun = detain suspect,” and let you resolve
it in court.
>Everyone on our email list will of course get notices if and when things
>change. To help get this and other important changes made, join the Texas
>State Rifle Association: http://www.tsra.org.
>
>
>
>
>United Nations Gun Summit Successful
>United Nations Gun Summit Successful
>
>Reuters and other news outlets reported that the U.N. conference to control
>illicit trade in small arms ended in failure, with no consensus reached, no
>document produced, and the nations placing blame for the failure on a
>myriad of causes.
>
>The truth is that the U.N. conference on small arms was a success for
>people everywhere who cherish freedom, and recognize that power in the
>hands of the people is the only place power can safely rest.
>
>The U.N. effort to place control of small arms solely in the hands of
>government officials, and leave entire populations defenseless against a
>myriad of aggressors ended without ceding control of small arms to the
>one-world body. But they?ll be back.
>
>The largest source of genocidal activity is and has always been governments
>against their own people, and disarmament is the standard warm-up for
>genocide. Researchers at the University of Hawaii have labeled it
>?democide,? responsible for 180 million people?s deaths worldwide in the
>last century alone — the largest single cause of untimely death in the
>world. The places are familiar: Stalin?s Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist
>China, Uganda, Rwanda, Cambodia, Armenia, Sudan, Bosnia and many more.
>
>Guns don?t kill people, governments kill people. With many of the attending
>nations guilty themselves of outrageous human rights abuse, the failure to
>reach consensus on public disarmament was heralded by true human rights
>organizations everywhere.
>
>The U.N. itself has disarmed vulnerable groups engaged in conflict, and
>then left them dangling in the wind for various reasons, including budget
>shortfalls, internal disagreements, changed priorities and dissolved
>coalitions. The then defenseless populations remained to be slaughtered by
>their enemies. The U.N.?s record on precipitating massacres is horrific.
>
>Dave Kopel, co-author with me of ?Supreme Court Gun Cases,? describes how
>U.N.-backed gun confiscation programs in Kenya and Uganda lead to torture,
>murder and arson, and turned tens of thousands into starving refugees.
>http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/kenya-uganda.pdf. He has also
>documented the human rights atrocities of United Nations gun confiscations
>in East Africa. Other scholars have loaded the web with conference reports.
>Here?s a good one:
>http://volokh.com/posts/1152314168.shtml
>
>Rick Patterson, managing director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition
>Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), which represented the firearms industry at
>the conference, said, “Had the conference maintained a focus on fully
>automatic military weapons they may have been able to implement an
>effective global strategy. Issues related to sporting firearms and private
>ownership are too complex for global strategies.” Ouch.
>
>CBS called the effort a failure, noting that Cuba, India, Iran, and
>Pakistan were among those resisting proposals from non-government groups
>who were numerous and adamant in their demands for influencing national
>sovereignty.
>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/08/ap/world/mainD8INH5K80.shtml.
>Mexico, Colombia, and Canada lead the effort to introduce U.N. regulation
>of civilian firearms, which repeatedly came up, but was successfully
>defeated.
>
>Ironically, the U.N. conference on government control of firearms took
>place in the United States over its Independence Day weekend, while
>Americans celebrated the establishment of the linchpin of freedom on earth,
>which was won with the use of privately held firearms, which government
>sought to confiscate. The delegates took the 4th of July off, hampering
>efforts to reach agreement.
>
>Although the U.N. made some pronouncements that its goal was not to disarm
>the public, every action it took contradicted that position, and it has
>NEVER armed victims of atrocities, preferring to send in heavily armed,
>centrally controlled, battle-ready temporary ?peace keepers? instead.
>
>Indonesia’s representative made the real agenda clear on the first day:
“We
>believe that no armed group outside of the State should be allowed to bear
>weapons… the issue of ammunition should also be addressed in the context
>of the Programme of Action because in the absence of ammunition, small arms
>and light weapons pose no danger.”
>
>The United States opposed most attacks on Second Amendment freedoms,
>including 1 – a ban on sales of weapons to ?non-state actors? (meaning
>people, including populations resisting tyrants); 2 – inclusion of
>ammunition; 3 – references to civilian possession, and 4 – a mandatory
>follow-up in hopes that a future U.S. administration would be more
>supportive of civilian disarmament — perhaps the most dangerous of the
>strategies tried. The Associated Press and other news organizations failed
>to point this out in calling the conference a failure.
>
>Danger Still Lurks
>
>According to the AP, ?Despite the failure, delegates planned to raise many
>of the same issues in the U.N. disarmament committee — where consensus is
>not needed for agreement — to begin preparing a treaty that would make law
>out of many of the global principles supported by non-governmental groups
>(NGOs).”
>
>In other words, the effort to destroy the right to keep and bear arms is
>proceeding unabated, with less control, and less public scrutiny, by
>unelected foreigners working to change U.S. laws. Most NGOs leaned toward
>the utopian peace model, imagining government power and enforced
>disarmament would stop aggressors. The NRA, also a participating NGO, had
>released daily reports while the conference was underway. The hubris of the
>utopian global power mongers was chilling.
>
>?Safe and Efficient Small Arms Collection and Destruction Programmes: A
>Proposal for Practical Technical Measures,? the paper from the 2001
>conference contains a detailed plan for disarming everyone but ?officials.?
>It says, among other things, ?Small arms are fundamentally dangerous and
>their removal from the equation either by control, neutralisation or
>removal is essential. The first step is to gain information on their
>numbers and whereabouts.?
>
>The reason for disclaiming an intent to disarm civilians is also found in
>the document. ?Insensitive removal of weapons may have cultural and social
>implications, and indeed may inspire an unexpected political backlash.?
>
>The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights contains no right to arms.
>
>Thanks to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership for background
>used in this report.
>http://www.jpfo.org
>
>
>
>Check out my new blog on news media accuracy:
>http://www.PageNine.org
>Sign up for automatic RSS feeds!
>
>
>
>Contact:
>Alan Korwin
>Bloomfield Press
>”We publish the gun laws.”
>4718 E. Cactus #440
>Phoenix, AZ 85032
>602-996-4020 Phone
>602-494-0679 Fax
>1-800-707-4020 Orders
>http://www.gunlaws.com
>[email protected]
>Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog
>
>If you can read this, thank a teacher.
>If you’re reading this in English, thank a veteran.