china, india, california

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/total-ban-fails-to-stop-chinese-gun-trade

Total ban fails to stop Chinese gun trade
August 18th, 2010 8:39 am
."A clandestine market for unregistered weapons still exists despite crackdown," reporter Hu Yinan of China Daily informs us.

Illegal traders advertise with graffiti on walls, despite China's near total ban on private gun ownership. To what effect has the black market succeeded?

"In 2007, a study by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies estimated the total number of guns held by civilians in China at 40 million, third only to the United States and India."

The government, of course, disputes this. In truth, they don't know. No one does.

But despite seizures and destruction of confiscated firearms, the trade continues. It's too profitable not to, despite severe penalties for those caught in violation of Chinese citizen disarmament laws.

From a 2007 China Daily report by Zhu Zhe:

"High profits are deemed the biggest attraction for people who trade illegal guns, although those found guilty of selling guns or explosives face punishment ranging from three years in jail to the death penalty."

Welcome to Sarah Brady Paradise. China has every law--and then some--advocated by our domestic gun grabbers, and I'm talking pre-Heller/McDonald, when they were still going for total bans, as opposed to the so-called "reasonable common sense restrictions" they say they'll settle for, at least until a 5 to 4 Supreme Court ratio for an individual right shifts in their direction.

The photo of the task force officer examining a handmade pistol in "Writing on the Wall for Guns" says it all. As does this admission:

"'In two to three days, these gun traders make more money than we do in a month,' joked a gun taskforce member who did not want to be identified."

The paradox and unintended consequence for the gun banners is, the more they make owning a gun difficult, the more innovative and unregulated the market becomes. They create conditions where the real world outcome is exactly the opposite of what they say they want.

There's a lesson in there somewhere for all of us, and it's about a lot more than just guns.

------------

Speaking of McDonald...

The same day that decision took place, my editor at GUNS Magazine told me he could replace my scheduled "Rights Watch" column with a summary of the case if I could turn something out quickly. While magazines are generally poor places to report news due to the layout/publishing/distribution lag between article submission and the time they hit the stands, the story was too important not to cover.

The October 2010 issue is now out, and my column "Second Amendment Ruled Applicable To States" is in it.

Click here to read it. And click here to read other features, including a complete digital edition of this issue.

------------

A snitch in time

What's the downside to anonymous tip line programs, where you can report people illegally possessing guns to the police? What about so-called "buyback" programs?

I'll be discussing this and more with host James B. Towle today at Noon PST on Trigger Sports Live!

Click here to join us at the appointed hour. Or later. This program will continue running until replaced by next Wednesday's show.


===


http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Digvijay-meets-PM-opposes-Chidambarams-plan-to-change-gun-laws/articleshow/6334006.cms

Digvijay meets PM, opposes Chidambaram’s plan to change gun laws
Story
Comments Post a commentEmail this articleMail This Article
Print this articleSave this articleMy Saved articlesReduce font sizeIncrease font sizeShare on HotklixShare on FacebookShare on Yahoo Buzz!Share on Twitter
Hotklix Digg
Google Bookmarks StumbleUpon
Reddit Newsvine
Live Bookmarks Technorati
Yahoo Bookmarks Blogmarks
Del.icio.us Facebook
Topics »manmohan singh|digvijay singh|congress|chidambaramNEW DELHI: The Obama administration’s assault on the Second Amendment rights in the US — the amendment that protects citizens’ personal rights to keep and bear firearms, albeit for lawful purposes and primarily for self-defence in their homes — and the public anger against it has a desi version. A group of influential politicians led by Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh on Wednesday unleashed an offensive against home minister P Chidambaram for seeking changes in the country’s gun laws.

Mr Singh, who is the patron-in-chief of the National Association for Gun Rights India, led a delegation of MPs belonging to Congress, BJP and SP, to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to oppose changes in the gun laws. In a memorandum to the prime minister, the group alleged that in the guise of moving a minor amendment to the Arms Act, ostensibly to make police verification mandatory and creating a database, the home ministry was planning changes on other important aspects of the law with the “goal of undermining every citizen’s legal right to keep and bear arms”.

The group said the very basis of the new arms policy is the flawed assumption that “the proliferation of arms, whether licensed or illegal, vitiates the law and order situation”. Ridiculing this claim of the home ministry a member of the delegation said that it was naive to believe that problems would end with gun control.

“The home ministry cannot understand that criminals don’t really care about laws and if they don’t care about such laws as murder, robbery, assault, and others, what makes the gun control crowd in the North Block think the criminals care about gun control laws,” asked a member of the delegation that met the prime minister.

“In fact, the ministry has admitted in Parliament that it has conducted no study/assessment linking firearms to rise in crime rate. Such statements are also a direct insult to lakhs of honest law-abiding citizens who keep and bear arms responsibly, by equating them to common criminals,” the memorandum submitted to the prime minister said.

Criticising other changes brought in the law, the delegation said the new arms policy requires a citizen to prove grave and imminent threat to life prior to the grant of an arms license. “It is an attempt to illegally amend the relevant sections of the Arms Act which clearly outline conditions under which arms license applications are to be approved or denied,” the delegation said.

“Proving grave and imminent threat will make it impossible for an ordinary citizen and will lead to large-scale corruption and deny honest middle class citizens the only means with which to protect themselves,” it said.
The memorandum was also critical of the changes for issuing all-India validity arms license. Earlier, it was the respective state government who was the licence issuing authority and now the MHA will issue licenses in all (non-VIP) cases.

The delegation led by Mr Singh included Mr Jaswant Singh and S S Ahluwalia (BJP), Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh (SP), Naveen Jindal, Anil Lad, Sanjay Singh, Fransisco Sardinhia, Manish Tewari and Rakesh Singh (Congress). “The proposed changes are too far-reaching and repressive to become law. The rights of gun owners should not be denigrated and destroyed,” said a member after the meeting with the PM.

==

California - Democrat gun ban vote postponed - AB1934
August 18th, 2010 9:17 pm
.
Saldana wearing bullet proof vest
Photo: photo AP Rich Pedroncelli
AB 1934 would ban the Open Carry of unloaded handguns throughout the State of California. Although the handgun must be unloaded it is legal to carry ammunition with you and, with a little practice, have the gun loaded and aimed in less than two seconds. There are some restrictions however. It is illegal to walk along a public sidewalk or across a public street within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a K-12 public or private school. It is legal to openly carry at a business, residence or private property (so long as the private property doesn't have a sidewalk with a public easement). Step one foot onto the public sidewalk, or any government property, and you face serious jail time.

Since most urban Sheriff's and Police departments do not issue licenses to the general public to carry a firearm concealed, Open Carry is the only means of self-defense available to Californians. If AB1934 passes, they will have none.

A funny thing happened on the way to the vote today in the California Senate. Reliable sources inform me that the legislative aide assigned to the bill quit. But that's not the half of it.

There are only seven official opposition groups recognized by the California Senate. Most of the opposition groups were deliberately left off the final bill analysis. One of the groups that was "accidently" dropped of the "final" bill analysis for AB 1934 is the Responsible Citizens of California (RCC). Not wanting to be inadvertently dropped off again, they requested a copy of the bill analysis from Lori Saldana's office, the author of AB1934.

When the RCC turned the bill over, what did they see printed on the back? "...sensitive personal information of several private citizens including Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, birthdates, and spouse’s names..." Lori Saldana, the author of the bill committed a very serious faux pas. Not only are social security and drivers license numbers private, they belonged to City Council members!

What was Lori Saldana doing with this information in the first place? A little opposition research perhaps? Or something worse? Hopefully the Feds and police will let us know.

The word is the bill has been pulled from the Senate schedule for tomorrow (Thursday) and won't be voted on until Friday at the earliest. Time enough for you to contact your State Senator and let him know how you feel about self-defense becoming a crime in the state of California should AB1934 pass.

Following is a Press Release just issued from the Responsible Citizens of California:

Press Release

Sacramento – Wednesday, August 18, 2010

In another erroneous action, Assemblymember Lori Saldana’s office has released sensitive personal information, including driver’s license data, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, spouse’s names, employment history and other data that is protected under Article I, Section 1 of the California State Constitution.

The Information Practices Act of 1977 states:
The Legislature declares that the right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution of California and by the United States Constitution and that all individuals have a right of privacy in information pertaining to them. The Legislature further makes the following findings: (a) The right to privacy is being threatened by the indiscriminate collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information and the lack of effective laws and legal remedies. (b) The increasing use of computers and other sophisticated information technology has greatly magnified the potential risk to individual privacy that can occur from the maintenance of personal information. (c) In order to protect the privacy of individuals, it is necessary that the maintenance and dissemination of personal information be subject to strict limits.
Personal information is further protected under CIVIL CODE SECTION 1798.14-1798.23 and CA Senate Bill 1386 (Chaptered 2002)

We should hold our elected officials to the highest standards when entrusted with our private information. Documentation received on August 17, 2010 by individuals lobbying against AB 1934 included personal information on a number of citizens that is ordinarily protected under both State and Federal law.

This error is but the latest gaffe in a continuing pattern of carelessness in the handling of official State legislative documentation. Recently, when Assemblymember Lori Saldana’s office had misplaced a number of official opposition letters written on letterhead relating to AB 1934, many political opposition groups throughout California had to scramble to recompile these letters to be included in an amended version of the most current floor analysis. Her office’s handling of official legislative documentation is clearly not in compliance with the strict codes for custody and care required to handle such sensitive information.

The Responsible Citizens of California would recommend that a full and comprehensive investigation be conducted by appropriate State and Federal agencies to review the official documentation processes and practices that take place in Assemblymember Lori Saldana’s office.

Contact: Yih-Chau Chang at ycc@.............................