Introducing Texas Law Shield

Are you concerned about the legal consequences of carrying even in your own home? In today’s sue happy world, who wouldn’t be? The law is clear regarding where and when you may use deadly force, or even display your weapon for defensive purposes. However even following the letter of the law can mean legal bills that are hard or impossible to deal with. ConcealedCarryAustin is now associated with Texas Law Shield to bring you assistance  and peace of mind when carrying. Texas Law Shield is not insurance, but an attorney on retainer that is paid for by a small membership fee. When you sign up through your premium is just $10.95 per month and a one time $19.95 administration fee, your membership fee will never increase, nor can you be canceled. When you pay annually, you will receive 2 months of coverage at no additional cost. Unlike insurance, there is no deductible or out of pocket requirements this is an attorney on retainer, who will represent you no matter how long it takes at no additional cost. Texas Law Shield will not cover such thing as court costs, but will cover the attorney’s fees arising out of any legal use or carrying of your weapon. Please click here for application and instructions…



Senators Lautenberg, Schumer and the Usual Suspects Call for Magazine Ban


The U.S. Senate will take up the “Cybersecurity Act” starting Monday, July 30, but a group of Democrat Senators lead by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are looking to add an anti-gun amendment to the bill.  Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), joined in the effort to resurrect the failed 1994 magazine ban.

A day after President Obama indicated his willingness to look at new gun laws, this group of reliably anti-gun Senators is hoping to take advantage of the environment to advance their political agenda.

The  magazine ban was a failed idea from the Clinton era, and will have no impact on criminal misuse of firearms, now, or in the future.  It only serves to limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. NRA strongly opposes this amendment.  We will work with our allies to defeat this anti-freedom proposal, and will track any vote on the amendment if it is allowed under Senate rules.

Please contact your U.S. Senators and urge them to oppose this amendment.  202-224-3121


NRA Will Appeal Texas Concealed Handgun Case

NRA will appeal yesterday’s decision by a federal court in Texas, which held that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect any right to keep or bear arms outside the home.

The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings of the Northern District of Texas, came in the case of Jennings v. McCraw, in which a group of law-abiding 18- to 20-year old adults challenged the state law prohibiting issuance of concealed handgun licenses to persons under 21, who are treated as adults for virtually every other purpose under the law.  (NRA is also a party on behalf of its members in this age group.)  Judge Cummings ruled that it was unnecessary to address the state’s discrimination against young adults because “the right to carry a handgun outside of the home … seems to be beyond the scope of the core Second Amendment concern articulated in Heller [v. District of Columbia].”


Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission to Consider Rule Change to Allow Hunting with Suppressors

Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission to Consider Rule Change to Allow Hunting with Suppressors
At its next meeting on Wednesday, January 25, the Regulations Committee of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission will present proposed amendments to the 2012-2013 Statewide Hunting Proclamation. It will seek permission for them to be published in the Texas Register for public comment. These amendments include a regulatory change that would expand the use of lawfully-possessed suppressors on firearms while hunting non-nuisance species. This common sense reform will help prevent hearing loss and mitigate noise complaints against sportsmen in the Lone Star State.


U.S. House Passes NRA-backed National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation

U.S. House Passes NRA-backed

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation


The U.S. House of Representatives has passed an important self-defense measure that would enable millions of Right-to-Carry permit holders across the country to carry concealed firearms while traveling outside their home states. H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, passed by a majority bipartisan vote of 272 to 154. All amendments aimed to weaken or damage the integrity of this bill were defeated.

“NRA has made the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act a priority because it enhances the fundamental right to self-defense guaranteed to all law-abiding people,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “People are not immune from crime when they cross state lines. That is why it is vital for them to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones should the need arise.”

H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), allows any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes.

This bill does not affect existing state laws. State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within each state’s borders. H.R. 822 does not create a federal licensing system or impose federal standards on state permits; rather, it requires the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

As of today, 49 states have laws in place that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some form. Only Illinois and the District of Columbia deny its residents the right to carry concealed firearms outside their homes or businesses for self-defense.

“We are grateful for the support of Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Majority Whip McCarthy, Judiciary Chairman Smith and primary sponsors Congressmen Stearns and Shuler for their steadfast support of H.R. 822. Thanks to the persistence of millions of American gun owners and NRA members, Congress has moved one step closer to improving crucial self-defense laws in this country,” concluded Cox.



NRA-ILA Legal Update October 2011


NRA Files Appeal of Ruling on Handgun Sales Age Limits
On Sept. 29, a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas decided in favor of the federal government in a case brought by the NRA challenging the federal restriction on the purchase of handguns by 18-20 year old adults. The case is far from over, as the NRA has already filed an appeal.

In the case, Jennings v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the NRA and a group of responsible young adults argued that since 18-20 year olds are considered adults for virtually every other purpose, such as voting and military service, adults in this age group should also be able to purchase handguns from licensed dealers.

In the ruling, Judge Samuel Cummings wrote “the Court is of the opinion that the ban does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the Constitution,” and wrongly equated law-abiding 20-year-olds with criminals, stating that “the right to bear arms is enjoyed only by those not disqualified from the exercise of the Second Amendment rights.”

“We strongly disagree with this ruling,” said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. “As we said when we filed this case, adults 18 and up have fought and died for American freedom throughout our country’s history. They are adults for virtually every legal purpose under federal and state law, and that should include the ability to buy handguns from licensed dealers to defend themselves, their homes and their families. Our fellow plaintiffs in this case are law-abiding and responsible young adults. We plan to defend their rights to the very end.”

A similar case, in which many of the same plaintiffs challenge the state of Texas’ ban on issuance of Right-to-Carry permits to adults under 21, remains pending in the same court.  That case is Jennings v. McCraw.


NRA Victory in Arizona Battle Over Use of Lead Ammunition
In a major legal victory, a federal judge has ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association and the federal Bureau of Land Management, throwing a lawsuit filed by an environmental group, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), out of U.S. District Court in Phoenix, Ariz. The case is Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Safari Club International had joined the case as a “friend of the court” and assisted NRA with its successful efforts.

CBD’s lawsuit, filed on Jan. 27, 2009, alleged that the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were illegally mismanaging federal lands in Arizona. The lawsuit challenged the allowance of off road vehicles, construction of roads, inadequate protection of desert tortoises, and inadequate protection of California condors. Among other things, the suit sought to force BLM to ban the use of lead ammunition for hunting in the Arizona Strip, a rugged area in the northwest corner of the state renowned for great hunting. CBD contended California condors in Arizona and elsewhere were being poisoned from scavenging game that was shot by hunters using lead shot or bullets. But the record plainly shows that California condors were reintroduced to this area of Arizona based on express promises by FWS and other agencies that the reintroduction would not affect hunting.

Among other things, the Court ruled that CBD had waived its claims concerning BLM’s failure to assess the alleged impact of lead ammunition on condors because “[i]t did not argue that BLM was required to include the potential effects of lead ammunition in [BLM’s] analysis of environmental impacts.”

Even before the ruling, NRA’s intervention in the case on behalf of its members had already resulted in several legal victories. A Jan. 13, 2010 court ruling granting NRA’s motion to intervene was recently published in the official Federal Rules Decision Reporter. The Federal Rules Decisions Reporter is a compendium of selected United States district court rulings that specifically interpret and apply the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure. Publication of this court ruling is important to hunters and NRA members because it sets legal precedent by confirming that there is a “significantly protectable interest” in hunting that can justify intervention by hunter’s rights groups like NRA in the increasing number of lawsuits filed by so-called environmental groups against state and federal natural resource, game and land management agencies.

To see key documents filed in this case, visit


Court Denies Injunction on BATFE Long Gun Sales Reporting
Following the Obama Administration’s move to require federal firearms licensees in the border states to report multiple sales of certain rifles, the NRA immediately began supporting litigation to enjoin this illegal action by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Unfortunately, on Sept. 9, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied NRA’s motion for a temporary injunction, but set an expedited schedule to bring the case before the court for a final ruling with argument set for Oct. 25.

The three suits (J&G Sales, Ltd. v. Melson; Ron Peterson Firearms, LLC v. Melson; and 10 Ring Precision, Inc. v. Melson) each argue that the BATFE has no legal authority to require multiple sales reporting of long gun sales and must stop trying to do so. When Congress authorized the reporting of multiple sales of handguns in the 1968 Gun Control Act, it did not empower any federal agency to require similar reports for long guns. Therefore, this recent action by the BATFE not only exceeds the Bureau’s legal authority, but also circumvents the will of Congress.



Appeals Court Rules Against D.C. Gun Owners in Heller II
In a split ruling in an ongoing NRA-supported case challenging the restrictive gun laws established by the Washington D.C. government in defiance of the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has upheld a number of highly restrictive gun laws.

Unfortunately, the court ruled that the District’s general handgun registration requirement is constitutional.  However, the court reached that conclusion by misreading the Supreme Court’s Heller decision as presuming that any type of “longstanding” restriction is constitutional, so it only upheld the more traditional aspects of the registration system, such as the requirements that the registrant provide his or her name and address, a description of the firearm and certain other basic information.

By contrast, the court found that other D.C. requirements, such as fingerprints, a vision requirement, ballistics tests and mandatory training, were “novel” and therefore need to be reviewed again by a lower court under a tighter standard of scrutiny. Similarly, the court found that long gun registration is “novel” in the U.S. and returned that issue to the lower court as well.

D.C. laws banning “assault weapons” and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition were also wrongly found to be constitutional. The Supreme Court said in Heller that “arms” are protected under the Constitution if they are “in common use,” and the D.C. Circuit found it “clear enough in the record that semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds are indeed in ‘common use,'” based on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives production statistics showing that “1.6 million AR-15s alone have been manufactured since 1986,” and that the banned magazines are even more prevalent.

But the court also found — based largely on the testimony of a Brady Campaign lawyer to the District of Columbia Council — that “the District ha[d] carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime.”

Fortunately, in a long and well reasoned dissenting opinion that may provide a road map for other courts, Judge Brett Kavanaugh rejected the majority’s reasoning.  Rather than the “intermediate scrutiny” employed by the majority or any other “balancing test,” Judge Kavanaugh would have applied a standard based on “text, history, and tradition.”  Under that standard, he argued that “it would strain logic and common sense to conclude that the Second Amendment protects semi-automatic handguns but does not protect semi-automatic rifles,” which “have not traditionally been banned and are in common use today.”  Judge Kavanaugh also would have rejected the entire registration system, arguing that D.C.’s type of total gun registration system is not “traditional” and “remains highly unusual today.”

The NRA strongly disagrees with the outcome, and is reviewing the decision and considering all options. “When it comes to self-defense, semi-automatic firearms of all types are an increasingly popular choice for most Americans, and the court itself admitted that semi-automatics are in common use, with millions of these guns sold in recent years,” said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. “Law abiding residents of the District should have the same access to these tools as residents of nearly all of the 50 states.”


NRA Files “Friend of the Court” Briefs in Two Right-To-Carry Cases
NRA has filed friend of the court briefs in two separate cases involving the right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense.

In Shepard v. Madigan, currently pending in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, the lead plaintiff is church treasurer Mary Shepard, who, along with an elderly co-worker, was severely beaten at her workplace by an attacker with a criminal record. Mrs. Shepard has carry permits issued by two other states, but was left unarmed and defenseless by Illinois’ law. Her challenge — in which the Illinois State Rifle Association, NRA’s state affiliate, also joins as a plaintiff — contends that Illinois’ carry ban cannot stand in light of the Heller and McDonald decisions.

In Richards v. Prieto, currently pending in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in California, plaintiffs brought suit against Yolo County, Calif. Sheriff Ed Prieto for his refusal to issue carry permits to law-abiding applicants. The case was first heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, where the court ruled for the sheriff.

In both cases, the NRA, as the leading organization in the nation advocating for gun owners’ rights and specifically in advocating for the passage of right-to-carry laws in the states, has lent its expertise on the issue by filing briefs in strong support of the right to carry.

The briefs stress that the right to carry is an important part of the fundamental right of self-defense. Additionally, the briefs counter the arguments that permit holders are a public safety threat. Specifically, the brief responds to Brady Campaign claims that passage of right-to-carry laws lead to increases in crime. In fact, the briefs show not only that crime does not increase in right-to-carry states, but that right-to-carry laws contribute to a reduction in crime.


NRA-Backed Challenge to San Francisco Laws Moves Ahead
On Sept. 27, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court, Northern District of California, let plaintiffs move ahead with a case challenging San Francisco’s enactment and enforcement of three city ordinances requiring firearms be disabled by a trigger lock or stored in a locked container, banning the sale of ammunition that “serves no sporting purpose,” and prohibiting firearm discharges with no self-defense exception unduly burdens the right to self-defense.

The case of Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, fully funded by the NRA and the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation, can now move forward on its merits. The case has already been successful in forcing the City to amend its discharge ban, a law that has been in place for some 73 years, to allow for discharges in self-defense, defense of others, and all other circumstances allowed for under state and federal law.

In February of this year, the City of San Francisco filed a motion claiming that plaintiffs had no standing (that is, no right to bring the suit) because the city did not enforce the laws in question.  Therefore, claimed the city, the plaintiffs have no legitimate fear of prosecution and suffer no injury by complying with the law.

In his ruling, Judge Seeborg rejected the city’s effort to have the case thrown out, ruling that the plaintiffs have “adequately alleged an intent and desire to engage in conduct that is prohibited by the ordinances but which they contend is constitutionally protected.”

The full text of the court’s order can be viewed here at

NRA, CRPA Open New Front with Challenge to California Gun Sale Fees
The National Rifle Association and the California Rifle & Pistol Association Foundation have filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California challenging the Dealer Record of Sales (DROS) fees charged by the California Department of Justice on gun sales on the grounds the fees are being misused.

The funds were originally established to pay for the administrative process to complete background checks. This year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB 819, which authorizes the funds to be used to pay for the enforcement of California’s growing number of anti-gun laws.

NRA and CRPA fought against passage of SB 819 because it places the financial burden for enforcing California’s unfair gun laws on the backs of law-abiding gun owners. The result will almost certainly be a depletion of DROS funds, leading to additional increases in the fees gun buyers will be forced to pay.

The suit filed by NRA and CRPA, Bauer v. Harris, challenges the DROS fees as an unconstitutional infringement on the exercise of rights protected under the Second Amendment. If successful, the suit will reverse the damage done by the passage of SB 819 by limiting the fees or eliminating them.


Court Blocks Enforcement of Florida Law Restricting Patient Harassment by Doctors
Earlier this year, the Florida Legislature passed, and Gov. Rick Scott signed, a law designed to stop anti-gun activism from interfering with proper medical care and patient privacy.  The law prohibits health care practitioners from asking questions or recording information about patients’ gun ownership when the information is not necessary for the patient’s medical care or the safety of others. It also prohibits practitioners from discriminating against gun-owning patients and from unnecessarily harassing patients about gun ownership.

Anti-gun doctors, along with the Florida chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians, with legal assistance from the Brady Campaign, challenged the law in federal court within days of its signing.  The doctors petitioned the court to declare the law unconstitutional and asked for an injunction against the enforcement of the law pending that decision.  (The case is Wollschlaeger v. Farmer.)

The NRA petitioned the court to intervene in the case, which would have allowed us to be a full participant in the legal proceedings. Plaintiffs opposed the NRA’s participation, and U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke denied the petition.  The NRA was still able to weigh in with a “friend of the court” brief arguing that the plaintiffs had misread the law, which is much less restrictive than the plaintiffs claim.

Unfortunately, Judge Cooke read the law in a much more restrictive manner, and on Sept. 14 issued a preliminary ruling that the law improperly restricts the free speech rights of doctors. She also found that questions by a doctor regarding gun ownership do not interfere with Second Amendment rights. The judge issued a temporary injunction against the enforcement of the law, but clearly indicated her final decision would make that injunction permanent.

The state is expected to appeal the ruling when it becomes final.


NRA Supports Illinois Gun Owners in Cook County “Assault Weapon” Case
The case of Wilson v. Cook County, now pending before the Illinois Supreme Court, challenges Cook County’s ultra-broad ban on semi-automatic firearms. The case is an important test of what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, challenging the constitutionality of a county ban on possession of “assault weapons.” The Cook County ban criteria are even stricter than those used in the California ban on which the Cook County law was based.

The suit was originally brought by the Illinois State Rifle Association before the McDonald decision. The Illinois Supreme Court held the petition pending the outcome in McDonald, then sent the case back to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of McDonald. NRA provided assistance at that point by providing nationally recognized counsel to the plaintiffs.

When the lower courts stuck to their prior rulings almost without change, the Supreme Court granted review. NRA took additional steps by coordinating the filing of five separate “friend of the court” briefs. The case continues to be briefed and argument has not been set.


SKS Rifle Owner Prevails in Chicago “Assault Weapon” Case
In a case supported by the NRA, David Lawson, who had previously been a plaintiff in McDonald v. Chicago, challenged the decision by the City of Chicago not to allow him to register two normal SKS rifles with fixed ten-round magazines. Although the rifles do not meet Chicago’s definition of an “assault weapon,” Chicago refused registration because they were “convertible” into “assault weapons.”  The city denied the registration in spite of the fact Chicago has a separate provision for dealing with registered rifles that are converted into “assault rifles” after registration.

Following an initial rejection and preliminary appeal before a hearing examiner, the case was appealed to the City Court. The judge ruled the hearing examiner had to take evidence as to whether the guns were actually capable of accepting a detachable magazine, which is one of the criteria to define a rifle as an “assault weapon,” and sent the case back to the hearing examiner.

At the hearing, Mr. Lawson and his counsel presented the SKS rifles for examination by the court, but the two “expert witnesses” for the City, both police officers, refused to even touch them. The judge ruled in favor of Mr. Lawson and ordered the rifles to be accepted for registration.

This case shows how far the city will go to deny law-abiding citizens their Second Amendment rights, refusing to abide by its own regulations until forced by the court.


Cases Still Pending
For more detail concerning these cases go to

California – Challenge to “May Issue” Carry Law
Peruta v. County of San Diego, (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) — challenges San Diego County Sheriff William Gore’s refusal to issue carry permits to qualified applicants.

California – Ban on Online Ammunition Sales
Parker v. California (Fresno Superior Court) – challenges a ban on direct mail order and online purchases of ammunition. The state of California has filed an appeal to the permanent injunction on the enforcement of the law which was issued in January.

Delaware – Second Amendment Rights in Public Housing
Doe v. Wilmington Public Housing Authority – challenges restrictions on firearm ownership for residents of public housing.

Illinois – Ban on Gun Stores in Chicago
Benson v. City of Chicago (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois) challenges the ban on gun stores in the city of Chicago.

New York — Handguns for Part-Time Residents
Osterweil v. Bartlett (Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals) — challenges New York state law that prevents part-time residents from getting permits to possess handguns in their homes.

Washington, D.C. – Second Amendment Rights in Public Housing
Scott v. District of Columbia Housing Authority  – challenges restrictions on firearm ownership for residents of public housing.



Texas Employee/Parking Lot Protection Bill Takes Effect September 1!



NRA-backed Senate Bill 321 takes effect this Thursday, September 1.  This measure, authored by state Senator Glenn Hegar (R-Katy) & state Representative Tim Kleinschmidt (R-Lexington), and signed into law by Governor Rick Perry, prohibits most employers from enacting and enforcing bans on employees transporting and storing firearms in their locked, private motor vehicles while parked at work.  This important new law recognizes that hard-working Texans’ right to self-defense does not end when they drive onto their employers property, and it honors the strong sporting culture of the Lone Star State where employees often hunt or visit the local gun club before or after work.


SB 321 applies to both public and private employers, as well as all lawfully-owned firearms – not just firearms in the possession of Concealed Handgun Licensees.  However, SB 321 does not authorize an employee to possess firearms on any property where such possession is prohibited by state or federal law, and the provisions of the bill do not apply to the following:

  • Vehicles owned or leased by the employer and used by the employee for work purposes;
  • School districts, open enrollment charter schools, and private schools as defined in Section 22.081, Education Code;
  • Property owned or controlled by a person, other than an employer, that is subject to a valid, unexpired oil, gas, or other mineral lease that contains a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms on the property; or
  • Property owned or leased by a chemical manufacturer or oil and gas refiner permitted by TCEQ and on which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage or transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials; however, employees at  these facilities who are CHLs may store firearms (including rifles or shotguns) in their private motor vehicles in parking areas located outside of secured and restricted areas which contain the physical plant, are not open to the public and which are constantly monitored by security personnel.

Police urge holster use after man shoots his own penis

From USA Today


CHANDLER, Ariz. — As Joshua Seto, 27, and his fiance, Cara Christopher, walked to a local grocery store last week for refreshments, he tried securing her pink handgun in the front waistband of his pants.

The gun fired, striking Seto’s penis and continuing through his left thigh. The bleeding started immediately and was heavy, according to police dispatch recordings released Sunday.

“He is still conscious, there is just a lot of blood,” Christopher, 26, told 911 operators and dispatchers when the accidental shooting occurred Tuesday.

One operator told Christopher to apply direct pressure to the wound with a dry towel or T-shirt, but to avoid looking at the wound.

“I did look at it,” Christopher said. “It’s pretty bad.”

When the emergency call first went through, Chrisopher was asked if they needed paramedics, she said yes.

“He’s still coherent and everything but he’s bleeding quite a lot,” she said.

In the wake the accident, police are warning armed residents to use holsters, not waistbands.

The movies and TV shows, like Sons of Anarchy, that show tough guys with guns shoved into their jeans are not realistic, Chandler Police Detective Seth Tyler said Sunday.

The cops and robbers of the silver screen most likely use rubber weapons, which weigh far less than the real things, Tyler said.

“Whenever you handle a firearm, whether you are a novice or experienced, always treat firearms as though they are loaded,” said Tyler, a spokesman for the department. “If you are going to carry a handgun on your person, use a holster, not your waistband.”

Meanwhile, it is not clear if Seto has been released from the hospital or suffered any permanent damage, Tyler said.

“He is recovering,” Tyler said.

He may possibly face charges, too, Tyler said Sunday.

Tyler was unsure of the type of gun, or whether it had a safety that was off.


NRA Supports Lawsuit Challenging the Obama Administration’s Multiple Sales Reporting Requirement


The National Rifle Association is fully funding and supporting a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s demand that Federal Firearms License holders report multiple sales of long guns in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. The lawsuits filed assert that the ATF lacks statutory authority to demand these reports.

NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris W. Cox has long expressed skepticism for the motivation and the timing of this ATF effort. “This is a bait-and-switch scheme by an administration and a bureau frantically trying to distract lawmakers and the general public from the deadly ‘Fast and Furious’ debacle. This is a serious problem with deadly consequences, yet the Obama administration wants you to believe it can deter $40 billion transnational criminal enterprises by imposing paperwork requirements on honest American firearms dealers. This scheme will unjustly burden law-abiding retailers in these four border states. It will not affect drug cartels and it won’t prevent violence along our borders. It will only divert scarce law enforcement resources from legitimate criminal investigations and squander them on policing law-abiding retailers.”

In a time when every federal agency is under intense budget pressure, the ATF estimates that this new reporting requirement will force it to review more than 18,000 additional documents annually. That’s in addition to dealers’ real-time reports of suspicious transactions-which the ATF, in the “Fast and Furious” operation, handled by telling dealers to proceed with the sales.

FFLs in these four border states began receiving tersely worded demand letters from the ATF that read:

You must submit to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) reports of multiple sales or other dispositions whenever, at one time or during any five consecutive business days, you sell or otherwise dispose of two or more semi-automatic rifles capable of accepting a detachable magazine and with a caliber greater that .22 (including .223/5.56 caliber) to an unlicensed person. You are required to report all such sales that occur on or after August 14, 2011. You must continue reporting multiple sales for the rifles subject to this demand letter until we provide written notice to stop.

The NRA filed separate complaints in the District of Columbia, New Mexico and Texas challenging the administration’s demands. Continue reading…


Grassley vows to block nominees until he gets answers on gun sales

By Jordy Yager, The Hill

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is vowing to block President Obama’s nominations until he gets detailed answers on a controversial program that resulted in drug cartels acquiring more than 1,300 firearms from the U.S.

Grassley is pressing the Department of Justice (DOJ) on who initiated the “Gun Runner” program that authorized the sale of guns to people acting as straw purchasers for drug cartels in Mexico. Gun Runner might have contributed to the death of at least one federal agent.

As the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Grassley has been working closely with House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) for the past several months, gathering documents and conducting interviews with DOJ officials and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents in an attempt to find out who gave the order for the operation. 

Sources note that unlike Grassley, Issa has subpoena power.

Gun Runner and another operation called Fast and Furious were designed to dismantle the gun-smuggling routes that drug cartels use to ferry high-powered assault rifles from the U.S. into Mexico. By allowing people to illegally purchase large quantities of the weapons from gun dealers, officials hoped to trace the firearms to the drug cartel members and prosecute them. But ATF whistleblowers allege that officials lost track of the guns.

Two of the guns from the operation were found at the scene of an Arizona gun battle in December between U.S. law enforcement and members of a drug gang. The firefight killed Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, but officials have not revealed whether the bullet that struck him came from the guns the ATF was supposed to be tracking.

Attorney General Eric Holder has denied knowing of Gun Runner and launched an Inspector General (IG) investigation into the matter earlier this year.

Obama, in an interview with the Spanish-language television network Univision in March, said that neither he nor Holder had any knowledge of the program’s existence before allegations arose from whistleblowers within the ATF.

Grassley told The Hill that the DOJ officials have not been forthcoming on his requests for documents. If they continue to be unresponsive, Grassley said, he will hold Obama’s judicial nominations hostage.

“We’re just getting stonewalled,” Grassley said in an interview. “The next step is we’re going to hold up nominations until we get their attention.”

Grassley, who has irritated Democratic and Republican administrations with his aggressive oversight, did not specify which Obama nominations he is targeting.

Grassley and Issa separately grilled Holder earlier this month before their respective committees.

“At best, the ATF was careless in authorizing the sale of thousands of guns to straw purchasers,” said Grassley. “At worst, our own government knowingly participated in arming criminals, drug cartels and those who later killed federal agents.”

Holder stressed the seriousness with which the DOJ was treating the issue, noting the IG investigation.

Issa told The Hill recently that he was not satisfied with Holder’s testimony before his panel.

“They stonewalled us on a subpoena,” Issa said, claiming that documents shown to his committee were heavily redacted. “So they’ve made no sufficient response to our subpoena. We consider that it continues to be a cover-up at the highest level of Justice.”

A Republican aide on Issa’s committee this week said DOJ has since increased its level of assistance and has been more accommodating to the panel’s requests for documents and interviews with DOJ and ATF officials.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said. “We want to be sure that whatever investigation there is, is thorough, but that it does not interfere with Justice’s investigations.

“I think Justice has made reasonable efforts to extend themselves to us and ask us to work with them so that we can still get the information we want and at the same time they can protect their witnesses. I think the problem here is, is the question … How deeply is Justice itself implicated?” he added.

Asked why the department was not providing more information to Congress, a DOJ spokeswoman referred The Hill to separate letters Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich sent to Grassley and Issa at the beginning of this month.

In the letters, Weich said that the DOJ could not deliver the entirety of the information Issa requested because of “pending criminal investigations and the prosecution of 20 individuals” relating to Project Gun Runner and Operation Fast and Furious. The requested information could jeopardize the prosecution, he said.

Weich added that “the executive branch over many administrations has taken the position that only a chairman can speak for a committee when conducting oversight.”

Grassley objected and pointed to a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from 1979, which found that the White House has no authority to restrict Congress’s requests for information.

The Iowa Republican has been able to get some of his requested DOJ documents through Issa, who subpoenaed the ATF for records in April.