|
 |
 Copyright ©2003-2008 Anthony Canales |
|
 Anthony Canales is the President of the San Fernando Valley NRA Member’s Council. He works as a Quality Control Manager in Glendale, California. He is married with one son. The opinions expressed in 'News Briefs' belong soley to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Rifle Association of America or the NRA Members' Councils of California. |
|
Home
03-20-2008
12-31-2007 |
|
June 4, 2004
".....Section 922. Unlawful acts
(a) It shall be unlawful-
(1) for any person-
(A) except a licensed importer,
licensed manufacturer, or
licensed dealer, to engage in the
business of importing,
manufacturing, or dealing in
firearms, or in the course of
such business to ship, transport, or
receive any firearm in
interstate or foreign commerce;
or......
(2) for any importer, manufacturer,
dealer, or collector
licensed under the provisions of
this chapter to ship or
transport in interstate or foreign
commerce any firearm
to any person other than a licensed
importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or
licensed collector,
except that-....
(3) for any person, other than a
licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or
licensed collector to
transport into or receive in the
State where he resides (or
if the person is a corporation or
other business entity, the
State where it maintains a place of
business) any firearm
purchased or otherwise obtained by
such person outside
that State...
(6) for any person in connection
with the acquisition or
attempted acquisition of any firearm
or ammunition from a
licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer,
or licensed collector, knowingly to
make false or fictitious
oral or written statement or to
furnish or exhibit any false,
fictitious, or misrepresented
identification, intended or
likely to decieve such importer,
manufacturer, dealer, or
collector with respect to any fact
material to the lawfulness
of the sale or other disposition of
such firearm or
ammunition under the provisions of
this chapter...
(b) It shall be
unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed
dealer, or licensed collector to
sell or deliver-......
(2)
any firearm to any person in any State where the
purchase or possession by such
person of such firearm
would be in violation of any State
law or any published
ordinance applicable at the place
of sale, delivery, or
other disposition, unless the
licensee knows or has
reasonable cause to believe that
the purchase or
possession would not be in
violation of such State law
or such published ordinance.......
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person
to sell or otherwise
dispose of any firearm or
ammunition to any person
knowing or having reasonable cause
to believe that such
person-
(1) is under indictment for, or has
been convicted in any
court of, a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or
addicted to any controlled
substance (as defined in section
102 of the Controlled
Substances Act [21 U.S.C. 802 ] );
(4) has been adjudicated as a
mental defective or has
been committed to any mental
institution;
(5) who, being an alien-
(A) is illegally or unlawfully
in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in
subsection (y) (2), has
been admitted to the
United States under a
nonimmigrant visa (as
that term is defined in
section 101 (a) (26) of
the Immigration and
Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C.
1101 {a} {26} ); .......
(t)... (6)
Neither a local government nor an employee of the
Federal Government or of any State
or local government,
responsible for providing
information to the national instant
criminal backround check system
shall be liable in an
action at law for damages-
(A) for
failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to
a person whose receipt or possession
of the firearm is
unlawful under this section; or
(B) for preventing such a sale or
transfer to a person who
may lawfully receive or possess a
firearm.....
-Various
sections from the "Federal
Firearms
Regulations Reference Guide",
ATP P 53000.4, Year
2000 Revision
To All,
Given that Federal Firearms Regulations exempt
local government bureaucrats from certain liabilities involving the transfer
of firearms to prohibited persons, it should be no surprise that public
servants in general are clueless as to how lawful firearms transfers are
regulated:
Ignorance of The Law Is....:
With the recent
upholding by the full appellate court of a Ninth Circuit en banc ruling, which
overturned a lower court dismissal of Ileto v. Glock et al, a review
of certain aspects of the August 1999 North Hills Jewish Community Center
Shooting seems to be in order. In turn, said review should demonstrate that
Judge Richard Paez and the majority that voted with him are engaged in a
willful disregard of the degree in which the various levels of government
regulate, or even directly control, firearms sales in the United States. What
is more, based upon the current plethora of firearms regulations on the books,
one could suggest that government activities are of more significance than any
purported "marketing schemes" that firearms manufacturers could be accused of.
A review of the particulars involve the case
of Buford Furrow, who previously had long term involvement with the Neo-Nazi
movement in Idaho and Washington state. Furrow had also been a federal
firearms licensee through the 1993-1995 time period, though public accounts
vary as to when his licensee status was revoked by the BATF under the Clinton
Administration. But despite the revocation of his federal license, Furrow did
not become a "prohibited person" for firearms purposes until his conviction
for assault in December of 1998. Upon his early release in May of 1999, for
good behavior, he apparently stayed with family until departing in August of
1999 to perpetrate the North Hills Jewish Community Center Shooting and the
murder of a U.S. Postal worker.
One item of interest involves a divergence
with the representation by Judge Paez in the circuit court decision. It
appears that the Glock pistol and the Norinco semiautomatic were obtained by
Furrow prior to his December 1998 conviction (Furrow had pawned the Glock in
1998, but according to news reports had recollected it from the broker prior
to the assault conviction). While Furrow's possession of the firearms at the
time of the North Hills shooting is without a doubt illegal, it would appear
from a closer study of the timeline is that the private party transfers of the
actual murder weapons were prior to his indictment and conviction. Thus said
transfers prior to his conviction would appear to be legal under both
Washington state and Federal law.
This point in itself is important in that
Judge Paez and the "Ninth Circus" are declaring in their opinion that Glock,
Norinco, and RSR (the manufacturers and distributors of the actual murder
weapons) have created a "marketing scheme" (sounds like these guys commune
with Algore) that encourages an illegal secondary market. But if Furrow's
possession of the actual murder weapons was legal at the time of the private
party transfer, this would contradict the basic premise of the Ninth's ruling.
As is well known to firearms activists,
Federal and State authorities play a key role in the transfer of new firearms
to lawful citizens. Firearms manufacturers, such as Glock or Bushmaster, sell
firearms to licensed wholesalers or individual dealers who are otherwise
regulated by the ATF and the various state authorities. What is more, national
ad campaigns designed with the preponderance of "shall-issue, concealed
carry" states in mind are still subject to the restrictions inherent within
Federal and State laws. As such, Judge Paez would be hard-put to prove that
said manufacturers were engaged in the direct sale of firearms to any
individual market consisting solely of prohibited persons (One would think
that the firearms manufacturers would be happily involved in the sale of
firearms to those licensed wholesalers and dealers dedicated to the servicing
of the millions of potential lawful customers in the domestic/civilian
market.).
In comparison, secondary markets involving
used firearms (in the case of the Glock, the murder weapon had been a
relatively new police "trade-in" that had been transferred lawfully into the
civilian market prior to Furrow's private party purchase.) can lawfully
involve transfers not subject to Federal backround checks in certain states.
Specifically in Furrow's case, a firearm transferred "anonymously" at a
Spokane gun show actually came back into the system by way of the pawnbroker
that Furrow eventually recovered the firearm from (In a real sense, the system
was able to "reacquire" the whereabouts and ownership of a concealable firearm
that had otherwise "disappeared" into the private market.). In essence, the
"system" worked as the authors of the 1968 Gun Control Act had originally
envisioned. Thus it would seem that the only way for Glock et al to satisfy
the Judge Paez and the majority of the Ninth Circus is a) be able to predict
future actions by individuals, a la the Tom Cruz thriller "Minority Report";
or b) cease and desist supplying firearms to anyone as long as the status quo
remains in Federal and State firearms laws.
A second aspect of potential controversy seems
to revolve around whether the court actually understands key facts of the
case, along with the understanding as to whether Furrow's initial purchases of
the murder weapons were likely lawful. Judge Paez notes on Pages 16440-41 of
his November 2003 decision-
"...On August 10,
1999, Furrow approached the North Valley
JCC in Granada Hills, California, carrying
firearms manufac-
tured, marketed, imported, distributed,
and/or sold by the
defendants named in this case. When Furrow
purchased these
guns and at the time of the shooting,
federal law prohibited him
from possessing, purchasing, or using any
firearm.
Furrow allegedly had at least the
following guns in his
possession: Glock Inc.'s ("Glock's") model
26, a 9mm
handgun; China North Industries Corp.'s ("Norinco's")
Model 320, a 9 mm short-barreled rifle;
Maadi's model
RML, a 7.62 caliber automatic rifle;
Bushmaster's model
XM15-E25, a .223 caliber rifle; two of
Imbel's model
L1A1, a .308 caliber rifle; and Davis
Industries' model
D-22, a .22 caliber handgun.
Furrow entered the JCC with this arsenal
and proceeded to
shoot and injure three young children, one
teenager, and
one adult with his Glock gun.....
Furrow then fled the JCC with the
firearms, and came upon
Ileto, a United States Postal Service
worker, who was
delivering mail in Chatsworth, California.
Furrow shot and
killed Ileto with his Norinco gun. Nine
millimeter casings
were recovered at both crime scenes. The
Norinco and Glock
guns in Furrow's possession were chambered
for 9mm
ammunition..."
But Judge Paez then notes on Page 16444 of his
opinion the
following:
"...The gun that Furrow used to shoot and
kill Ileto was pur-
chased originally by a police department
in the state of
Washington. The plaintiff's allege that
Glock and its
distributor, RSR Seattle, arranged for
the sale of the gun
to the police department and its
subsequent sale to gun
dealers to facilitate the creation of an
illegal secondary
gun market. The gun was initially shipped
to the
Cosmopolis Police Department in
Washington State along
with another gun of the same model.
Within one week, the
police department determined that the
guns were too small
to fit into a large person's hand and
decided to exchange
the guns for another Glock model. The
Cosmopolis Police
Department contacted a former Police
reserve officer,
Don Dineen ("Dineen"), who had a gun
store in Cosmopolis,
to complete the exchange. Dineen
contacted RSR Seattle,
a Glock distributor, to request two new
Glock guns for trade
with the Cosmopolis Police Department.
RSR shipped the
two new guns to Dineen and agreed that
payment did not
have to be made for the new guns until
Dineen was able to
sell the former police guns. In a
transaction with the police
department, Dineen exchanged the two new
Glock guns for
the two Glock guns rejected by the
Department at not cost
to the Department. Dineen then was able
to sell one of the
former Police Department Glock guns at a
reduced price
to David Wright, a man who claimed to be
a gun collector.
Dineen had introduced Wright to
another "gun collector"
named Andrew Palmer, knowing that
neither Wright nor
Palmer had firearms licenses, and
therefore that they did not
have to obtain backround checks on their
purchasers.
Dineen also knew that Wright and Palmer
frequently sold
and traded guns at gun shows in Spokane,
Washington,
which is near Hayden Lake, Idaho, the
home of the Aryan
Nations and the Neo-Nazi group of which
Furrow was a
member. Indeed, Wright sold the Glock
gun to Palmer
at a gun show in Spokane, Washington; at
this same gun
show, it is alleged that Furrow
purchased the Glock gun
used in the JCC shootings from
Palmer...".
It is clear from the above excerpts
that Judge Paez cannot keep his guns straight (What is one to expect from a
judge endorsed by LULAC? If only Orrin Hatch had dealt with Judge Paez's
nomination in the 106th Congress as Tom Daschle has dealt with certain
nominations of late, this legal opinion may have never happened). Were the
victims in the Community Center shot by Furrow using the Norinco (as reported
in various news reports), or with the Glock? Was Ileto shot and killed by
Furrow using the Norinco, or with the Glock (again as reported in various news
reports)? Did Furrow carry all of his firearms into the Community Center, or
did he only carry one or two while the rest were left in the van? It is hard
to imagine that this opinion is worth the "Charmin" that it is printed on if
such key facts cannot be kept in order by the court.
In addition, for Judge Paez' legal theory of
marketing and distribution to illegal secondary markets to have any validity,
he would in essence be alleging that Glock, RSR, the Cosmopolis PD, and
Messr's Dineen, Wright, and Palmer would all be able to predict in 1996 that
Furrow would use the Model 26 criminally some three years later in August in
1999. Given this latest legal requirement of prescience, Judge Paez'
assertions amount to the accusation that all of the above parties are involved
in what amounts to modern day gun-running, in significant violation of Federal
law This is a ludicrous assertion on its face, especially given that Judge
Paez and the majority of the Circuit Court acknowledge that not all secondary
markets are illegal ones.
Further review of Ileto may turn up
additional facets of judicial wisdom (this year's latest oxymoron). Lines of
inquiry may include the Circuit Court's decision to "interpret" or rule on
California State liability law in the absence of a ruling by the California
State Supreme Court (an admittedly unfriendly venue where firearms rights are
concerned), as to actions related to Washington state laws regarding firearms
transfers (Bumper pool, anyone?). But absent convictions of the various
parties involved in the firearms chain, from Glock through the private parties
regarding violations of Federal and State law, it may be that said maligned
parties could have a libel case on their hands. Given the fast and loose
manner in which Judge Paez and the Circuit Court have pontificated this time
around, The Federal Supreme Court had better consider authoring one heck of a
nastygram taking the Ninth Circuit to task.
Story resources may be found at:
Driver's License Loophole Update:
It looks like the
early depature of the Sacramento Kings from the NBA Championship hunt has put
the Inmates of Cowbell Town in a bit of a royal snit.
The current tantrum revolves around the
introduction of SB 1160, the latest attempt by State Senator Gil Cedillo to
authorize illegal/undocumented residents to be able to obtain "official"
California State Driver's licenses and State Identifcation Cards.
In contrast to Senator Cedillo's urgency bill,
comes the statement from Governor Schwarzennegger's office that any driver's
license bill involving licenses for illegal/undocumented residents would have
to include a visible-on-the-face-of-the-card identification mark. While said
identification marks would make it easy for licensed firearms dealers to
distinguish those prohibited persons who were honest enough to partake of the
change in the law from those who are not prohibited, said identification mark
would have to be established in such a manner as to be applied fairly to all
foreign visitors of any residency status so as to avoid unnecessary social
stigma or possible 5th Amendment concerns.
Oddly enough, Senator Cedillo's answer to the
identification needs of firearms licensees is to have the Department of Motor
Vehicles "consult" and possibly even furnish that information "relevant" to
lawful firearms acquisition and possession to the Department of Justice. Given
that illegal/undocumented resident-rights activists have a major concern with
any databases that could track illegal resident status, this last one seems to
be a poison pill conveniently furnished by the author himself, no less.
It is eminently clear from polling results
that the driver's license for undocumented residents issue is a "loser", no
matter how practical the need to track and regulate foreigner's ability to
access the streets and highways may be. But without additional change in the
public's attitude, the result is more likely to be a political meeting
engagement than a realistic solution to the problem of undocumented drivers on
the state's highways. Absent real leadership on the issue, the song is likely
to remain the same.
Story basis may be had at:
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
SFVMC-NRA
Copyright 2004 Anthony Canales
All rights reserved.
|
|
