/PRNewswire / -- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Deputy Assistant Director Julie Torres signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that will provide eTrace, an electronic system used to trace illicit firearms, to several Caribbean Community (CARICOM) police commissioners from Antigua; Barbuda; Barbados; Dominica; St. Kitts and Nevis; St. Vincent; the Grenadines; Aruba; Curacao; Grenada; and Anguilla. This is an ongoing effort to combat firearms trafficking in the region consistent with the December 2007 joint CARICOM-U.S. Initiative on Combating the Illicit Trafficking in Small Arms and Light Weapons and Ammunition. (For additional information see: http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/120209.htm.) The signing took place today in Bridgetown at the U.S. Embassy.
The MOU establishes conditions of the partnership between ATF and those countries regarding policy and procedures for the access and use of eTrace services made available to law enforcement agencies.
eTrace is a paperless firearm trace submission system that is accessible through a secure connection to the World Wide Web. This Internet application provides the necessary utilities for submitting, retrieving, storing and querying firearms trace-related information allowing for the systematic tracing of firearms recovered from crime scenes. Analysis of firearms trace data can assist in the identification of firearms trafficking patterns and geographic profiling for criminal hot spots and possible sources of illicit firearms.
ATF processed more than 300,000 crime-gun trace requests in fiscal year 2008, including traces from 58 countries. The other countries in the region that have eTrace capabilities include the Bahamas, Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Panama and Mexico. The seven Central American states recently signed the same MOU in December 2008. (For additional information see: http://www.state.gov/p/wha/hs/c29261.htm.)
Showing posts with label firearms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label firearms. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
U.S. Gun Industry Feeds Gun Violence on U.S./Mexico Border, Violence Policy Center Analyst Tells Congress
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Weak regulation of the U.S. civilian gun market and the gun industry's focus on increasingly lethal military-style firearms have combined to fuel the drug war in Mexico and violence in the United States, Violence Policy Center (VPC) Senior Policy Analyst Tom Diaz told a Congressional subcommittee today. For a copy of Diaz's testimony, please see http://www.vpc.org/diaztestify.pdf.
"If one wanted to design a system to pour military-style guns into criminal hands, it would be hard to find a better one than the U.S. civilian gun market," Diaz testified before the Subcommittee on National Security & Foreign Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "The only 'better' way would be openly selling guns to criminals from the loading docks of manufacturers and importers."
Diaz pointed out that officials of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) have stated that Mexican drug lords increasingly seek military-style weapons easily available on the U.S. civilian market. These include: the Barrett 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifle capable of piercing armor plate from a mile and a half; semiautomatic assault rifles, including variants of the Colt AR-15 and the Kalashnikov AK-47; and, the "vest-busting" anti-armor handgun the FN Herstal Five-seveN 5.7mm pistol, known as the "cop killer" in Mexico.
The VPC has issued numerous studies on the increasing military-bred lethality of civilian firearms in the United States and on the lax regulation of the U.S. gun market. These are available at the website www.vpc.org.
"The U.S. gun market doesn't just make gun trafficking in military-style weapons to drug cartels and their criminal associates in the United States easy," said Diaz, "it practically compels that traffic. Lax regulation of the U.S. gun market and the gun industry's ruthless design choices fit like gloves on the bloody hands of the drug lords and their criminal gang associates."
Diaz told the subcommittee that President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder could immediately direct ATF to strictly exercise its statutory authority to stop the importation of all semiautomatic assault rifles as "non-sporting" weapons under existing provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act.
"If one wanted to design a system to pour military-style guns into criminal hands, it would be hard to find a better one than the U.S. civilian gun market," Diaz testified before the Subcommittee on National Security & Foreign Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "The only 'better' way would be openly selling guns to criminals from the loading docks of manufacturers and importers."
Diaz pointed out that officials of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) have stated that Mexican drug lords increasingly seek military-style weapons easily available on the U.S. civilian market. These include: the Barrett 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifle capable of piercing armor plate from a mile and a half; semiautomatic assault rifles, including variants of the Colt AR-15 and the Kalashnikov AK-47; and, the "vest-busting" anti-armor handgun the FN Herstal Five-seveN 5.7mm pistol, known as the "cop killer" in Mexico.
The VPC has issued numerous studies on the increasing military-bred lethality of civilian firearms in the United States and on the lax regulation of the U.S. gun market. These are available at the website www.vpc.org.
"The U.S. gun market doesn't just make gun trafficking in military-style weapons to drug cartels and their criminal associates in the United States easy," said Diaz, "it practically compels that traffic. Lax regulation of the U.S. gun market and the gun industry's ruthless design choices fit like gloves on the bloody hands of the drug lords and their criminal gang associates."
Diaz told the subcommittee that President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder could immediately direct ATF to strictly exercise its statutory authority to stop the importation of all semiautomatic assault rifles as "non-sporting" weapons under existing provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Employers Unnerved by Ruling Upholding the Legality of Guns in Workplace Parking Lots
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new ruling by a federal appeals court means managers in a growing number of states must accept what, for many, is a troubling reality -- their employees have the legal right to keep guns in their cars at work, even with layoffs on the rise and economic tensions running high, said attorney James P. Anelli, an attorney in LeClairRyan's Labor and Employment Group.
On February 19, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a District Court ruling, thereby upholding an Oklahoma law that gave workers the right to keep guns in their locked vehicles. "This unanimous and clearly worded ruling has broad implications for managers in the several states that have passed laws like Oklahoma's," said Anelli, who is based in the law firm's Newark, N.J. office. "It also could embolden pro-gun lawmakers around the country to draft similar measures."
The aim of the Oklahoma law, introduced with the support of the National Rifle Association, was to stop companies from banning guns in workplace parking lots. The rationale was that such prohibitions violated employees' constitutional rights to possess and carry firearms. In October 2007, however, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued an injunction against the enforcement of the state's legislation. The new law, he ruled, created an obstacle to employers charged with maintaining safe workplaces according to requirements issued by the U.S. Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA).
In its 3-0 ruling, the appeals court cited evidence that OSHA does not regard the Oklahoma law as being in conflict with its workplace safety provisions. "The court pointed specifically to a January 16 letter by an acting OSHA official that signified OSHA's neutrality on the matter," Anelli noted. "Essentially, this ruling amounted to a clear invitation to states that have passed these types of provisions to feel free to enforce them. For employers who had hoped to see these types of provisions thrown out in court, this is a dramatic development."
Indeed, several Oklahoma employers, including Weyerhaeuser Corp., Whirlpool Corp., and ConocoPhillips, had challenged the Oklahoma law out of safety concerns. In the wake of the appeals court ruling, Anelli said, human resources and legal teams in states where these pro-gun laws have passed may need to rewrite employee handbooks to include firearms policies specifically crafted to reflect the reality that guns could be present in the parking lot. States that have passed pro-gun laws similar to Oklahoma's include: Georgia, Florida, Alaska, Kentucky, Mississippi, Kansas and Minnesota. Similar measures are under consideration in the statehouses of Alabama, Louisiana, Montana, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia.
"I have never seen an employee handbook that had a firearms policy," said Anelli, who has 20 years of experience representing management in employment discrimination and labor litigation. "It is more than prudent to adopt policies on how firearms should be handled and to explicitly state, for example, that guns must stay locked in vehicles and cannot be brought into the workplace."
Even as they draft such policies, however, employers must still provide a safe workplace and intervene where appropriate. For example, if an employee exhibits violent behavior there may still be a basis to take appropriate action to ensure that the workplace remains safe. In fact, some states allow employers to obtain court orders limiting the possession of firearms in parking lots even when the local law allows them if there is an indication of potential violence.
Still, Anelli said, company executives in states that have passed such laws should remember that they have not been relieved of their obligation to keep the workplace, including its parking lot, safe. It is their responsibility to work with security professionals, attorneys and local law enforcement officials to defuse situations involving potential violence and the possible use of firearms. They can also take other steps to protect both their companies and employees. Some types of businesses, for example, may have been legally exempted from the applicable law and can therefore continue to enforce gun bans. Others might be able to carve out "secured parking areas" that are gun-free but still in compliance with their states' laws.
Importantly, the Court also rejected the employers' arguments that, as a "property owner," they could regulate if firearms were stored in employee vehicles. The appeals court ruled, however, that the Oklahoma law could most accurately be "characterized as a restriction on Plaintiff's use of their property." In short, the appeals court ruled that the employer's property could be regulated in this manner and withstand constitutional "taking" arguments. Part of the ruling is based on the notion Oklahoma was expanding the rights of its citizens, as citizens, to store firearms in their vehicles as opposed to regulating employers or addressing employment, per se.
Anelli added that if OSHA were to reverse course and declare such laws in conflict with its existing safety provisions -- perhaps after a policy review by the Obama administration -- or if other appellate panels were to issue conflicting rulings on the legality of firearms in workplace parking lots, the U.S. Supreme Court might take up the matter.
On February 19, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a District Court ruling, thereby upholding an Oklahoma law that gave workers the right to keep guns in their locked vehicles. "This unanimous and clearly worded ruling has broad implications for managers in the several states that have passed laws like Oklahoma's," said Anelli, who is based in the law firm's Newark, N.J. office. "It also could embolden pro-gun lawmakers around the country to draft similar measures."
The aim of the Oklahoma law, introduced with the support of the National Rifle Association, was to stop companies from banning guns in workplace parking lots. The rationale was that such prohibitions violated employees' constitutional rights to possess and carry firearms. In October 2007, however, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued an injunction against the enforcement of the state's legislation. The new law, he ruled, created an obstacle to employers charged with maintaining safe workplaces according to requirements issued by the U.S. Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA).
In its 3-0 ruling, the appeals court cited evidence that OSHA does not regard the Oklahoma law as being in conflict with its workplace safety provisions. "The court pointed specifically to a January 16 letter by an acting OSHA official that signified OSHA's neutrality on the matter," Anelli noted. "Essentially, this ruling amounted to a clear invitation to states that have passed these types of provisions to feel free to enforce them. For employers who had hoped to see these types of provisions thrown out in court, this is a dramatic development."
Indeed, several Oklahoma employers, including Weyerhaeuser Corp., Whirlpool Corp., and ConocoPhillips, had challenged the Oklahoma law out of safety concerns. In the wake of the appeals court ruling, Anelli said, human resources and legal teams in states where these pro-gun laws have passed may need to rewrite employee handbooks to include firearms policies specifically crafted to reflect the reality that guns could be present in the parking lot. States that have passed pro-gun laws similar to Oklahoma's include: Georgia, Florida, Alaska, Kentucky, Mississippi, Kansas and Minnesota. Similar measures are under consideration in the statehouses of Alabama, Louisiana, Montana, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia.
"I have never seen an employee handbook that had a firearms policy," said Anelli, who has 20 years of experience representing management in employment discrimination and labor litigation. "It is more than prudent to adopt policies on how firearms should be handled and to explicitly state, for example, that guns must stay locked in vehicles and cannot be brought into the workplace."
Even as they draft such policies, however, employers must still provide a safe workplace and intervene where appropriate. For example, if an employee exhibits violent behavior there may still be a basis to take appropriate action to ensure that the workplace remains safe. In fact, some states allow employers to obtain court orders limiting the possession of firearms in parking lots even when the local law allows them if there is an indication of potential violence.
Still, Anelli said, company executives in states that have passed such laws should remember that they have not been relieved of their obligation to keep the workplace, including its parking lot, safe. It is their responsibility to work with security professionals, attorneys and local law enforcement officials to defuse situations involving potential violence and the possible use of firearms. They can also take other steps to protect both their companies and employees. Some types of businesses, for example, may have been legally exempted from the applicable law and can therefore continue to enforce gun bans. Others might be able to carve out "secured parking areas" that are gun-free but still in compliance with their states' laws.
Importantly, the Court also rejected the employers' arguments that, as a "property owner," they could regulate if firearms were stored in employee vehicles. The appeals court ruled, however, that the Oklahoma law could most accurately be "characterized as a restriction on Plaintiff's use of their property." In short, the appeals court ruled that the employer's property could be regulated in this manner and withstand constitutional "taking" arguments. Part of the ruling is based on the notion Oklahoma was expanding the rights of its citizens, as citizens, to store firearms in their vehicles as opposed to regulating employers or addressing employment, per se.
Anelli added that if OSHA were to reverse course and declare such laws in conflict with its existing safety provisions -- perhaps after a policy review by the Obama administration -- or if other appellate panels were to issue conflicting rulings on the legality of firearms in workplace parking lots, the U.S. Supreme Court might take up the matter.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Obama Lied to Gun Owners, Says CCRKBA; Attack Plan Revealed by Holder
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama deliberately and repeatedly lied to America's 90 million gun owners across the country when he insisted that he would not try to take away anyone's firearms, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, reacting to yesterday's remarks by Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder that the president will seek to reinstate the ban on semi-automatic firearms, said Obama "knew he was lying to the nation because his own Web site touted his plan to revive the gun ban and make it permanent."
"We warned America that Obama's 'support' for the Second Amendment was empty rhetoric," he stated, "and now Holder's disclosure has confirmed it. Obama was lying, and now gun rights may be dying."
Several times on the campaign trail, Obama told voters "I'm not going to take your guns away." He said it at rallies in Duryea, Pennsylvania and in Boise, Idaho. He also told a news conference that "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear... I think people can take me at my word."
"Right now," said Gottlieb, "I wouldn't take Obama's word if he said it rains a lot in Seattle. Apparently, law-abiding gun owners have nothing to fear unless they own sport-utility rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, handguns and any other firearm that Obama and his anti-gun attorney general don't like."
"Thanks to Eric Holder, who has been far more honest than his boss about his anti-gun philosophy, it is now clear that the new president doesn't support the Second Amendment at all," he observed. "American gun owners should remind Democrats in Congress that the Second Amendment means what it says, especially when the president doesn't."
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.
CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, reacting to yesterday's remarks by Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder that the president will seek to reinstate the ban on semi-automatic firearms, said Obama "knew he was lying to the nation because his own Web site touted his plan to revive the gun ban and make it permanent."
"We warned America that Obama's 'support' for the Second Amendment was empty rhetoric," he stated, "and now Holder's disclosure has confirmed it. Obama was lying, and now gun rights may be dying."
Several times on the campaign trail, Obama told voters "I'm not going to take your guns away." He said it at rallies in Duryea, Pennsylvania and in Boise, Idaho. He also told a news conference that "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear... I think people can take me at my word."
"Right now," said Gottlieb, "I wouldn't take Obama's word if he said it rains a lot in Seattle. Apparently, law-abiding gun owners have nothing to fear unless they own sport-utility rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, handguns and any other firearm that Obama and his anti-gun attorney general don't like."
"Thanks to Eric Holder, who has been far more honest than his boss about his anti-gun philosophy, it is now clear that the new president doesn't support the Second Amendment at all," he observed. "American gun owners should remind Democrats in Congress that the Second Amendment means what it says, especially when the president doesn't."
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
National Network to End Domestic Violence Praises Landmark Supreme Court Decision
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Advocates against domestic violence today applauded the U.S. Supreme Court's 7-2 decision to uphold the federal Lautenberg Amendment that bans convicted domestic violence abusers from possessing firearms. The United States v. Hayes ruling reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that would have posed a serious danger to victims of domestic violence by allowing convicted abusers to maintain firearms.
"We are delighted with the Court's decision to uphold reasonable limits on the possession of firearms," said Sue Else, President of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV). "Batterers should not have access to guns. This decision is a major victory for victims of domestic violence and their families."
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), a leader in the fight to reduce gun violence and the author of the domestic violence gun ban, said, "Since it was enacted, my domestic violence gun ban has kept more than 150,000 guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. We know a gun in the home makes it much more likely that domestic abuse results in death and today's decision means we can continue keeping guns out of dangerous hands and saving innocent lives."
The case originated in West Virginia, and the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence (WVCADV) is also celebrating today's victory. "The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling aligns the Fourth Circuit with the rest of the country; confirms the intention of Congress in responding to the seriousness of domestic violence; and affirms levying real and long term consequences on people who use violence. WVCADV is pleased with the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices," said Sue Julian and Tonia Thomas, Team Coordinators for WVCADV.
NNEDV, joined by the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project (DV LEAP) at George Washington University Law School, filed a brief supporting the sensible ban on gun possession by all offenders convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. The Court cited the brief in its decision.
Joan Meier, DV LEAP's Director, said, "It is gratifying to see a strong majority of the Court reject the cramped and frankly illogical reading of the statute put forward by the Fourth Circuit and instead endorse the clear purpose of the legislature, not to mention common sense."
"Arming the people who brutally beat their spouses or partners is a recipe for disaster," Else said. "The Supreme Court made the right decision by upholding the domestic violence gun ban, keeping guns out of the hands of batterers and helping victims recovering from abuse to stay safe."
The National Network to End Domestic Violence Fund (NNEDV) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to providing public education, training and technical assistance to maintain and develop the professional expertise of advocates working to end domestic violence. NNEDV strives to strengthen advocates as organizers and activists in the tradition of social change movements. For more information, please visit www.nnedv.org.
"We are delighted with the Court's decision to uphold reasonable limits on the possession of firearms," said Sue Else, President of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV). "Batterers should not have access to guns. This decision is a major victory for victims of domestic violence and their families."
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), a leader in the fight to reduce gun violence and the author of the domestic violence gun ban, said, "Since it was enacted, my domestic violence gun ban has kept more than 150,000 guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. We know a gun in the home makes it much more likely that domestic abuse results in death and today's decision means we can continue keeping guns out of dangerous hands and saving innocent lives."
The case originated in West Virginia, and the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence (WVCADV) is also celebrating today's victory. "The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling aligns the Fourth Circuit with the rest of the country; confirms the intention of Congress in responding to the seriousness of domestic violence; and affirms levying real and long term consequences on people who use violence. WVCADV is pleased with the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices," said Sue Julian and Tonia Thomas, Team Coordinators for WVCADV.
NNEDV, joined by the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project (DV LEAP) at George Washington University Law School, filed a brief supporting the sensible ban on gun possession by all offenders convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. The Court cited the brief in its decision.
Joan Meier, DV LEAP's Director, said, "It is gratifying to see a strong majority of the Court reject the cramped and frankly illogical reading of the statute put forward by the Fourth Circuit and instead endorse the clear purpose of the legislature, not to mention common sense."
"Arming the people who brutally beat their spouses or partners is a recipe for disaster," Else said. "The Supreme Court made the right decision by upholding the domestic violence gun ban, keeping guns out of the hands of batterers and helping victims recovering from abuse to stay safe."
The National Network to End Domestic Violence Fund (NNEDV) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to providing public education, training and technical assistance to maintain and develop the professional expertise of advocates working to end domestic violence. NNEDV strives to strengthen advocates as organizers and activists in the tradition of social change movements. For more information, please visit www.nnedv.org.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Obama Policy Threatens House Democrats, says Washington Senior Rights Activist
/PRNewswire/ -- "President Obama is asking congressional Democrats to do what President Clinton recognized was an action that cost Democrats their majority 15 years ago after controlling the House of Representatives for several decades," John M. Snyder said here today.
"Over the weekend," noted Snyder, "Amy Brundage of the White House said Obama supports reviving the ban on certain firearms passed in 1994 and even expanding it, reported the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. This is the ban Clinton implied led to the Democrats' defeat in the 1994 mid-term elections. He indicated this in his 1995 State of the Union speech and later in his autobiography. Even though the White House referred to 'assault weapons,' the law actually banned semiautomatic firearms used by millions of law-abiding American citizens. The ban expired five years ago.
"Obama is giving Republicans a big stick with which to beat his fellow Democrats. Obama may not realize that, as philosopher George Santayana did, 'those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.' The next mid-term congressional elections come just 21 months from now."
Named recently the senior rights activist in Washington by Shotgun News, Snyder, a former National Rifle Association magazine editor, is Manager of Telum Associates, Public Affairs Director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and Treasurer of the Second Amendment Foundation.
"Over the weekend," noted Snyder, "Amy Brundage of the White House said Obama supports reviving the ban on certain firearms passed in 1994 and even expanding it, reported the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. This is the ban Clinton implied led to the Democrats' defeat in the 1994 mid-term elections. He indicated this in his 1995 State of the Union speech and later in his autobiography. Even though the White House referred to 'assault weapons,' the law actually banned semiautomatic firearms used by millions of law-abiding American citizens. The ban expired five years ago.
"Obama is giving Republicans a big stick with which to beat his fellow Democrats. Obama may not realize that, as philosopher George Santayana did, 'those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.' The next mid-term congressional elections come just 21 months from now."
Named recently the senior rights activist in Washington by Shotgun News, Snyder, a former National Rifle Association magazine editor, is Manager of Telum Associates, Public Affairs Director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and Treasurer of the Second Amendment Foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
