NEWTOWN, Conn. - The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) — the trade association of the firearms industry — applauded the decision by the United States Supreme Court to determine authoritatively whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted a review of a decision from March by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia (Circuit docket 04-7041) — a case that upheld the striking down of the District’s ban on private ownership of handguns while asserting that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms. The case is now known as District of Columbia v. Heller. The mayor of Washington, D.C., Adrian M. Fenty, filed the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for the high court to rule. According to FBI statistics, Washington D.C., with its gun ban, ranks as one of the most dangerous cities in the United States and maintains one of the highest per-capita murder rates in the country.

“The firearms industry looks forward to the Supreme Court putting to rest the specious argument that the Second Amendment is not an individual right,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “This intellectually bankrupt and feeble argument has been used by gun control advocates to justify laws and regulations that deny Americans their civil right to own and lawfully use firearms for protection, hunting, sports shooting and other lawful purposes.

“The firearms and ammunition industry is unique in that our products are the means through which the Second Amendment right is realized,” continued Keane. “If there were no firearms and ammunition manufacturers, then the Second Amendment becomes an illusory right.”

While the Heller case will be the first time since 1939 that the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment (U.S. v. Miller), the nation’s leading historians, legal scholars and constitutional experts are on record as having concluded that the Second Amendment provides an individual right. Such renowned scholars as Lawrence Tribe of Harvard, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale, William Van Alstyne of Duke and Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas have been vocal in their assertion that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms.

“The government has powers, not rights,” added Keane. “The contention that the Second Amendment is a collective right of the government is completely without merit.”

BACKGROUND:
In March, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in striking down the District’s gun ban, held in Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia that “The phrase ‘the right of the people’ . . . leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.” This was the second time in recent history that a federal circuit court upheld the longstanding belief that the Second Amendment was an individual right. In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the case of U.S. v. Emerson that “All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.”

Legislation has been introduced in Ohio that will stop anyone under the age of 21 from hunting or shooting without supervision.

House Bill 354, sponsored by Rep. Barbara Boyd, D-Cleveland Heights, and Sandra Williams, D-Cleveland, prohibits anyone under 21-years-old from possessing a firearm. Under the bill, if an adult or youth who does not meet the age requirement plans to handle a firearm, he or she must do so in the presence of someone 21 or over. Licensed hunters who now take to the woods solo will have to bring a supervisor if the bill passes.

“If passed, this bill would have a devastating effect on efforts to attract new hunters and recreational shooters,” said Rob Sexton, USSA vice president for government affairs. “It is inconceivable that the government would send people between the ages of 18 and 21 to war, but prohibit them from hunting or target shooting.”

Bill sponsors claim that the legislation is aimed at preventing gun violence and accidents; however, hunters and recreational shooters promote safe handling of firearms. Accident rates among hunters and shooters are at historic lows.

For those under eighteen, parents are best equipped to make this decision, not the government,” said Sexton.  “The proposal will not stop criminals from using firearms, but it will stop hunters from passing on our traditions to the next generation.”

House Bill 354 has been referred to the House Criminal Justice Committee.

Take Action! Ohio sportsmen should ask state representatives to reject HB 354. Let them know that you oppose unnecessary restrictions on youth hunting. To find your representative, call (800) 282-0253 or use the Legislative Action Center at www.ussportsmen.org.

Yesterday, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a ruling that will allow the city of Gary, Indiana’s lawsuit against sixteen firearms manufacturers to proceed. The suit was originally filed in 1999 against Smith & Wesson, Colt, Browning, Sturm, Ruger and Co and Beretta, despite the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act - a federal law that was validated by the same lawsuit the Court of Appeals is allowing to continue.

It wasn’t unexpected by Indiana legal observers, but was both disappointing and infuriating to the firearms industry. Not just because it continues what was always a nuisance lawsuit, but because of the Appeals Court’s complete dismissal of federal law.

“Gary’s frivolous lawsuit is the poster child for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” says Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). “Gary’s lawsuit seeks to blame manufacturers for the actions of criminals who misuse firearms. It is like blaming car makers for drunk driving accidents. Congress understood that lawsuits like Gary’s defy logic and common sense. During Congressional debate, the city of Gary’s case was cited as an example of precisely the sort of frivolous lawsuit that the bill was intended to stop.”

Keane added, “Gary’s lawsuit if filed today would be barred by an Indiana state law passed in 2001 after the city of Gary’s case was originally filed in 1999.” Indiana is one of 36 states that have laws barring public nuisance lawsuits against gun makers and served as a catalyst for Congress’ passage in 2005 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

“We look forward to the Indiana Supreme Court reviewing this case, so it can correct the lower court’s error,” Keane said.

In early 2006, firearm manufacturers had moved to have the city’s lawsuit against them, originally filed in 1999, dismissed based on the federal Act. In 2006, a Lake County, Indiana, Superior Court judge ruled the federal Act does apply to Gary’s lawsuit, but declared it unconstitutional.

Yesterday, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and ruled the statute does not apply and Gary’s case could go forward. The court did not address the constitutional claims.

As if that wasn’t enough headaches for the firearms industry, Arizona animal advocates are now pushing the Arizona Game and Fish Commission to issue a ban on lead ammo. The Center for Biological Diversity, now says with the California law on the books, Arizona becomes “the next step in our campaign.”

Arizona officials haven’t responded, and one source says they don’t plan to. In response, Sandy Bahr, the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon chapter spokesperson, told the Arizona Republic the Sierra Club will formally petition the commissioner by early November if they don’t get a response. Bahr also says they have not ruled out litigation.

In the meanwhile, Arizona isn’t ignoring lead ammunition. The state issues coupons lead-free ammunition for those hunting in condor territory, and continues an education program to educate hunters of the threat lead poses to condors.

We’ll keep you posted.

Legendary hunting writer Jim Zumbo has incurred the wrath of thousands of shooting enthusiasts with a weekend posting on his now-suspended blog for Outdoor Life magazine.
In the posting, Zumbo said “assault rifles” had “no place” among “our hunting community.” Adding that in his “humble opinion these things have no place in hunting” because “We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern.”
Zumbo went on to say “game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.”
That kicked off a firestorm among owners of so-called “black rifles”. Within hours, internet sites had reproduced the offending blog, kicking off thousands of angry emails and internet postings.
Subsequently, in what may one day be classified as the worst apology ever written Zumbo attempted to soothe readers, attributing his remarks to being tired following a long day of hunting coyotes in extreme weather conditions.
He went on recount his 40 years of NRA membership and the United States Sportsmen’s Alliance, an organization, which, he wrote, “actively fights anti-hunters and animal rights groups for hunter’s rights.” He also told readers he had plans to go hunting with an AR-style rifle to give them a try.
At that point, however, there was little, if anything, that would assuage an angry horde of electronically mobilized AR fans. They considered Zumbo’s remarks as being tantamount to a sellout, with Zumbo offering up “black rifles” as a sacrificial lamb for anti-gun forces.
In an appearance on Tom Gresham’s national radio show “Gun Talk” Sunday afternoon, Zumbo attempted to apologize, but listeners didn’t seem to be buying his verbal apology. If anything, any attempt to assuage them only fanned the flames of outrage.
Over the course of the afternoon and evening, various executives associated with Zumbo posted their own comments on his blog site, attempting to deflect the anger at directed at Zumbo away from their companies.
It didn’t work.
Instead, they found themselves under attack with angry feedback calling for everything from a boycott of all Remington products to cancellation of Outdoor Life magazine subscriptions and campaigns against all companies with connections to Zumbo.
Yesterday morning, responding to an onslaught of negative publicity, Remington CEO and President Tommy Millner released a statement severing “all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo, effective immediately.”
Zumbo was entitled to his opinion, Millner wrote, but the inflammatory comments were solely his and did not reflect the views of Remington.
“Remington has spent tens of millions of dollars defending our Second Amendment rights to privately own and possess firearms, ” wrote Millner, “and we will continue to vigorously fight to protect these rights. As hunters and shooters of all interest levels, we should strive to utilize this unfortunate occurrence to unite as a whole in support of our Second Amendment rights.”
In conclusion, Millner expressed regret at the termination of a long-standing relationship with a “well-respected writer and life-long hunter.”
Outdoor Life announced they were discontinuing the “Hunting With Zumbo” blog “for the time being” due to the “controversy surrounding Jim Zumbo’s latest postings.”
Their notice went on to remind readers “Outdoor Life has always been, and will always be, a steadfast supporter of our Second Amendment rights which do not make distinctions based on the looks of the firearms we choose to own, shoot and take hunting.”
Yesterday, anyone who didn’t comment risked being lumped in with anti-gun forces. Any voices calling for reason and tolerance found themselves shouted down. And those writers professing support for Mr. Zumbo privately certainly weren’t willing to go on the record with that support.
Additionally, Cabela’s has not yet dropped their sponsorship of the Jim Zumbo Outdoors television show, Cabela’s Frank Ross is being quoted as having said their legal department is “currently reviewing contractual obligations and commitments regarding our sponsorship of the Jim Zumbo Outdoors television show. ”
“Jim’s comments are as unfortunate as they are inappropriate,” said National Shooting Sports Foundation president Doug Painter. “No one should divide firearms into good-gun, bad-gun categories.”
Zumbo’s ill-considered blog may not have been intended to create good-gun, bad-gun categories, but it has certainly raised firebrand rhetoric to an art form. Rather than hunters being supported by recreational and competitive shooting enthusiasts, they have now become “Fudds” to shooters who feel they have been labeled “terrorists” by a “hard-core hunter.”
It’s truly not a pretty picture, but may observers say it accurately reflects a widening gap between “traditional” and “non-traditional” shooting enthusiasts.
With Congress reconsidering the Assault Weapon Ban and Connecticut and New Jersey considering legislation that would limit handgun purchases to one per month, this latest schism is already being used as further evidence of the “need” to regulate firearms -all firearms - more stringently.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans residents were forced to hand over their firearms to authorities. The Second Amendment Foundation announced Friday that the city will begin returning seized firearms to residents this week. Residents whose guns were taken should call the New Orleans Police at 504-658-5503 or go in person to the Police Property and Evidence facility, at 400 North Jefferson Davis Parkway.
Gun owners will have to provide proof of ownership, which could include a bill of sale, a description of the firearm including brand and model and the serial number or a notarized affidavit that describes the firearm. Citizens claiming their firearms will need proper identification, such as a driver’s license. Before firearms are returned, New Orleans police will conduct a background check.
Meanwhile, Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, and Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, will be holding a Town Hall-type of meeting at the New Orleans Marriott Hotel on Tuesday, April 18, at 7 p.m., to discuss firearms confiscation in the Katrina aftermath. NRA news footage showing abuses to Second Amendment rights will premier.
The occurrences in New Orleans have raised an awareness that has led to proposed legislation in states and on the federal level to help prevent illegal firearm confiscations in the future.

Sportsmen’s organizations from around the Keystone State will hold a “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” press conference Tues., March 14, from 9 to 11 a.m. on the steps of the Capitol Building in Harrisburg. The event will launch the introduction of several pro-gun measures.
The NRA reports that several Pennsylvania groups helped organize the event. Among them are the Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League, the Pennsylvania Sportsmen’s Association and the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs. For information, contact Kim Stolfer, 414-221-3346, e-mail activist@fyi.net.