Posts Tagged ‘Gun Rights’
Italian IAPCAR member group FISAT, has sent an important call to action.
Attempts are underway by the European Union to further restrict the right of civilians to have certain firearms.
It is vitally important to the firearms rights community stand together internationally.
There are three important things we can each do:
1. Read the alert from FISAT below and follow the instructions to participate in the EU survey.
2. Post this alert on your website and send it to all of your members and supporters.
3. Ask all your supporters to send this call to action to all of their friends.
I personally want to thank all of you for your unwavering support of civilian arms rights. It is a privilege to work with you.
- Philip Watson, IAPCAR Executive Director
[Important Message Below Via FISAT President Simone Ciucchi]
Dear friends and gun rights activists,
Joining the call of British Shooting Sports Council we ask to IAPCAR and all gun rights association in its organization, to participate to the online survey organized by European Union Commissioner, Cecilia Malmstrom.
The menace to semiautomatic firearms in private hands is IMMINENT, as the online survey maliciously suggests a possible link between private possession of firearms and their use for criminal or terrorist purposes, being nothing else than another attempt to disarm honest citizens for the sake of added “firearms security”.
The questions are utterly misleading.
Question C.2 suggests that the list of prohibited firearms should be extended (it is understood that the Commission is referring to semiautomatic rifles and possibly also to semiautomatic shotguns and handguns).
Question C.4 pursues the mandatory use of locking devices in firearms (imagine the impact if this was made retrospective).
Question C.7 would provide a justification to introduce compulsory mental health tests and suppress the current derogation that allows people under the age of 18 to hunt and sport-shoot if they have parental permission or guidance.
We can expect for sure that the various anti-gun EU associations will take action to orchestrate a deliberate number of answers resulting in a public call for tighter gun control.
Deadline for participation is June 17th 2013.
This can’t happen and we ask you to take part to the online survey in the following steps:
Please follow the following steps:
- Go to: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=ReduceFirearmsRisk
- Choose your language in the icon that is in the upper right part of the screen.
- Indicate your country, whether you are an individual or an organization and your name or the name of your organization.
- Answer the questions by clicking on option “1” for each one of them. You do not need to answer the optional questions that request additional comments (questions B.4, C.11, D.5 and E.6).
- After having answered the questions, as a security measure to avoid computer-generated replies, you will have to type in the numbers and/or letters that will be displayed in your screen and validate them.
- Your answers will have been submitted by then. You can view them and/or save them as a PDF.
All of the European associations, especially Swedish ones, can contact the proposer of this survey in the person of European Commissioner Ms. Cecilia Malmstrom which can be contacted at these sites, possibly to explain her that firearms of private honest citizens are not to be confused with the ones of criminals and terrorists:
Swedish citizens in particular can also contact her party, Folkpartiet liberalerna (Liberal People’s Party), to let them know what you think, at the following site and email:
While EU citiziens can contact Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (A.L.D.E.):
Asking their respective national parties NOT to support Maelmstrom initiatives, you can find various parties members of ALDE at the following page:
We thank you for your help, immediate action is necessary for the protection of our common gun rights.
Simone Ciucchi – FISAT President
—Additional Message Below Via BSSC President David Penn—
EU Public Consultation on firearms
This EU Consultation Document on a common approach to reducing the harm caused by criminal use of firearms in the EU can be found on http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=ReduceFirearmsRisk
It is one part of a number of EU firearms-related initiatives, including the ratification by the EU of the UN Vienna Firearms Protocol, the much-publicised comments by EU Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström suggesting a link between legal ownership of firearms and illicit trafficking, the preparation of a report by the Commission on possible further amendments to the EU Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons and of course the EU’s active role in the UN’s recent adoption of a text for an Conventional Arms Trade Treaty.
The intention of this consultation is to obtain some appearance of legitimacy for further restrictions on the legal ownership, use and acquisition of firearms by civilians. We may anticipate that organisations opposed to recreational firearms use, hunting or gun collecting will orchestrate large numbers of replies. It is therefore essential that shooting organisations and their individual members complete and submit responses to provide an effective counter-argument and counter-weight. If the majority of responses are supportive of our interests, it would be difficult for the Commission to use public opinion as a reason for seeking further restrictions.
The deadline for replies is the 17th June 2013.
All the questions have at least some relevance to legal ownership. Most of the questions are biased and are written in a way that seeks to pre-determine the response and push the respondent into agreeing that some EU action is needed even though national legislation on all issues addressed in the questions already exists.
Question C.2 suggests that the list of prohibited firearms should be extended (it is understood that the Commission is referring to semiautomatic rifles and possibly also to semiautomatic shotguns and handguns).
Question C.4 pursues the mandatory use of locking devices in firearms. Imagine the impact if this was made retrospective.
Question C.7 would provide a justification to introduce compulsory mental health tests and suppress the current derogation that allows people under the age of 18 to hunt and sport-shoot if they have parental permission or guidance. This derogation was hard-won with Britain taking a leading role in negotiating it. If this were lost it would be a severe blow to the future of our sport.
Question C.8 aims at requiring that all firearms and ammunition be subject to authorisation, which would have negative implications not only in countries where there is a formal distinction between authorisation and declaration of firearms but also in countries where there are flexible arrangements for certain hunting firearms. In Britain, it could result in the introduction of tighter controls on shotguns and shotgun cartridges.
Question D.2 could result in a general requirement to store firearms in an approved safe. What would happen if the EU specification for a gun cabinet exceeded the British Standard currently the norm in Britain?
It is not necessary to answer the optional questions that request additional free-text comments (questions B.4, C.11, D.5 and E.6). It is necessary to click on Option 1 in response to all the multiple choice questions. While this may seem extreme in some instances, the questions are biased and are designed to elicit your agreement that action by the EU is necessary.
If you do decide to make further comments, you may wish to consider referring to the EU principle of ‘subsidiarity’, enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. This is the principle whereby the Union does not take action (except in the areas that fall within its exclusive competence), unless it is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level. Civilian firearms control is most appropriately dealt with at national level, given the variety of shooting and hunting traditions among the member states.
Please follow the following steps:
2.Choose your language in the icon that is in the upper right part of the screen.
3. Indicate your country, whether you are an individual or an organisation and your name or the name of your organisation.
4. Answer the questions by clicking on option “1” for each one of them. You do not need to answer the optional questions that request additional comments (questions B.4, C.11, D.5 and E.6).
5. After having answered the questions, as a security measure to avoid computer-generated replies, you will have to type in the numbers and/or letters that will be displayed in your screen and validate them.
6. Your answers will have been submitted by then. You can view them and/or save them as a PDF.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to this consultation.
Secretary, British Shooting Sports Council
The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) global map of homicide rate shows lower rates in countries with higher gun ownership.
The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) announced today that Brazilian gun rights group Movimento Viva Brasil has joined the international coalition of 25 groups in 16 different countries dedicated to the preservation and defense of civilian firearms rights.
“Our international alliance of like-minded civilian arms rights groups has a strong representation in Brazil now,” IAPCAR’s Executive Director Philip Watson said. “Movimento Viva Brasil brings another voice to the movement for civilian arms rights.”
Movimento Viva Brasil was involved in the coalition that defeated the nation-wide gun control referendum in 2005 with 64% of the voters casting their ballot against the measure.
Bene Barbosa, president of Movimento Viva Brasil, stated that their organization wants to help “visualize the true and utter failure of the gun-control measures enforced in Brazil, as well as contribute to the strengthening of a worldwide effort to protect civilian gun-rights.”
IAPCAR co-founder Julianne Versnel praised IAPCAR’s newest group for their accomplishments and hard work. “Their record speaks for itself. They’ve been effective and unwavering in defending the rights of Brazilians to defend themselves.”
As a representative to the United Nations, Versnel, who is also the Second Amendment Foundation’s Director of Operations, submitted testimony to the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) meeting in March objecting to the exclusion of civilian arms rights from the ATT. “Nothing that is in an Arms Trade Treaty should affect a woman’s right to defend herself,” Versnel told the delegates.
The IAPCAR gun rights coalition is focused on opposition to the ATT, which has passed the UN General Assembly and will be available for countries to sign on June 3. The ATT does not acknowledge or protect civilian arms rights or recognize the right to self-defense in its enforceable language.v
Movimento Viva Brazil may be accessed on the Internet via: (www.mvb.org.br/)
The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (www.iapcar.com) is the only worldwide political action group focusing on the human right to keep and bear arms. Founded in 2010, IAPCAR has grown to 25 major gun-rights organizations and conducts campaigns designed to inform the public and promote the right of self-defense and gun-ownership.
The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) expressed concern about the passage of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (UN ATT) after its approval on April 2, 2013 in the UN General Assembly. This is not the path that the ATT should have taken. The Treaty had not been able to reach consensus, where all parties agreed, and it was hurried to the General Assembly. There were 154 votes in favor, 3 against and 23 abstentions.
Philip Watson, IAPCAR’s executive director, stated, “An ATT without any provision protecting civilian use of firearms for the purpose of self-defense is unacceptable. While the preamble makes vague reference to civilian arms, there is nothing acknowledging the right in the operative language of the treaty.”
IAPCAR co-founder Julianne Versnel addressed the global body at the ATT conference on March 27 along with other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) and defended the use of firearms in self-defense. “Almost half of the handguns in the US are owned by women. They are used daily for self-defense. I fully endorse, as should every person in this room, the idea that women must have the means to defend themselves. Nothing that is in an Arms Trade Treaty should affect a woman’s right to defend herself,” she told the delegates.
Pro-civilian rights supporters, collectors, industry and other participated in the process; however, were given less than half the time allotted to the self-titled ‘arms control’ groups in testimony to the global body.
The ATT will be open for signature on June 3 and will enter into force 90 days after the 50th signatory ratifies it.
The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (http://iapcar.org/) is the only worldwide political action group focusing on the human right to keep and bear arms. Founded in 2010, IAPCAR has grown to 24 major gun-rights organizations and conducts operations designed to inform the public and promote the right of self-defense and gun-ownership.
Original Story Via: TheGunMag.com
New York, NY—The UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was discussed at length with testimony from both pro and anti-gun groups during the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly’s 67th session.
On Nov. 7, a resolution was passed for a second ATT conference beginning March 18. The UN already spent 11 weeks in meetings for the ATT with four Preparatory Committee meetings leading toward the final failed ATT conference last July. The General Assembly will consider the resolution; it’s likely that it will be approved.
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) were scheduled for Oct. 29; however, the UN was closed due to Hurricane Sandy. Statements for all NGOs were delivered in written form to the delegates. The NGO statements to the UN against guns were juxtaposed against looting in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, with many local New York and New Jersey citizens unable to protect themselves due to some of the most strict gun laws in the country. TheGunMag.com (TGM) outlined the tragic irony of the situation here: SAF: Post-Storm Brooklyn Looting Shows Importance of Gun Rights.
The Second Amendment Foundation delivered its remarks to the UN with other groups as detailed in a previous TGM stories here: SAF, others weigh in on new round of UN gun control talks, and SAF Statement to UN Stopped by Storm, Still Carries Powerful Message. SAF also addressed the UN’s Programme of Action in August defending the human right of self-defense.
At the first committee meetings, the right to keep and bear arms in self-defense was not discussed. Canada reaffirmed the right of its citizens to own and use firearms for sporting purposes. The delegates focused primarily on consensus, negotiation, and implementation. The case was made for expansion of the scope and parameters of the ATT document from July 2012. Of particular note were points made about registration, tracing, and tracking of guns and ammunition. An official version of the meeting is available here.
The draft ATT in July didn’t win any acclaim from any Second Amendment or self-defense rights groups. That’s not stopping NGO’s like Control Arms from claiming the July draft of the ATT was “missing pieces.”
The following are statements from the Defense Small Arms Advisory Council (DSAAC), the World Forum on Shooting Activities (WFSA), the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI), the Manufacturers Advisory Group to the World Forum on Shooting Activities, and the International Committee of Museums and Collections of Arms and Military History.
TheGunMag and IAPCAR were among the first to make the July 24 initial draft and final UN ATT proposal publicly available. More information about the ATT will be reported as it becomes available on TheGunMag.com, SAF.org, and IAPCAR.org.
Statement of the Defense Small Arms Advisory Council
First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly
29 October 2012
Thank you, Mister President, for the opportunity to offer remarks from the perspective of an industry that manufactures military small arms and light weapons to enable states to meet their legitimate national security and law enforcement requirements and does so in strict compliance with the most demanding and rigorous export licensing system in the world. We believe that a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty that subjects all military arms manufacturers and exporters world-wide to a similar level of regulation can be of benefit in combating the armed violence caused by the absence of common standards governing the international trade in military weapons. It is difficult to ignore the fact that the vast majority of states currently lack even the most rudimentary export licensing systems, much less comprehensive ones with correspondingly effective enforcement mechanisms. The ATT was, we thought, to begin addressing that lack.
From our perspective as observers of the negotiations conference in July, it appears that the chief obstacle to achieving consensus on an effective treaty text was the insistence by some on creating an overly broad document, one that went well beyond the committee’s mandate, irrespective of the fact that such language was unlikely to ever be agreed and, even if agreed, effectively carried into force. A treaty can be likened to a vessel: it can carry only so much freight and attempting to overload it with too many things that, although desirable to some are objectionable to others, poses the risk of sinking it. In July, the vessel was overloaded and nearly sank; fortunately, it was still tied to the pier and may yet set sail, once the excess weight is removed.
It is our understanding that the sole purpose of the ATT is to legally compel state-parties to adopt procedures for determining if a proposed export of military arms meets basic, internationally agreed standards. Treaty language that is narrowly focused on achieving that single purpose is, we believe, well worth working for and still well within reach. It is to be hoped that future negotiations retain that focus and that the perfect—in the eyes of some—does not once again become the enemy of the good.
Statement From: Manufacturers Advisory Group
Ted Rowe, Chairman
I am Ted Rowe, Chairman of the Manufacturers Advisory Group to the World Forum on Shooting Activities (WFSA). Speaking on behalf of the world’s leading manufacturers of civilian firearms and ammunition, we must insist on the recognition of civilian possession and ownership of firearms and ammunition in accordance with national law.
Unless and until the United Nations in its various proposals recognizes the right of lawful civilian ownership and possession of firearms, we will continue to use all efforts necessary to have civilian ownership recognized by the United Nations, and we will continue to oppose those proposals that do not recognize this right.
The Arms Trade Treaty to be negotiated in March of 2013 should clearly indicate that the small arms included are for military use and that civilian firearms are to be excluded.
The Program of Action as it evolves should also recognize the legitimate, legal use of firearms by civilians as well as their right to own and possess firearms within their national laws.
It is interesting to note that each and every member state of the United Nations is a legitimate importer of civilian firearms and ammunition. These imports are not for the military! These imports should not be subject to or included within an Arms Trade Treaty.
Civilian use of firearms is seen internationally in Olympic Games, in hunting around the world, in sport shooting and in recreational use.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is the human right of self-protection and self-defense and the need and use of firearms to fulfill that right. This right is indisputable and is documented throughout history.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman
Statement from World Forum on Shooting Activities (WFSA)
UN General Assembly First Committee
October 29, 2012
Mr. Chairman, I am Herbert Keusgen, the President of the World Forum on Shooting Activities. We represent the hundreds of millions of hunters, sport shooters and civilian firearms owners throughout the world. The WFSA is an ECOSOC NGO and has participated in UN meetings relating to small arms and light weapons for fifteen years.
Today I would like to make three brief comments, reflecting the views the civilian firearms community, on the Programme of Action, the possible Arms Trade Treaty and ISACS.
On the Programme of Action, Mr. Chairman, we continue to remain disappointed that the POA has failed to recognize the legitimacy and utility of civilian firearms ownership. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a continuing misconception on the part of the UN and supporters of the POA, that civilian firearms are a bad thing. Sixty percent of the small arms in the world are legally owned by civilians. These arms are not a problem. The problem lies with inadequate control of military arms.
Mr. Chairman, let’s say something positive. At the last week’s UN meeting on the UN Firearms Protocol in Vienna there was an acknowledgment of the legitimacy of civilian firearms use. This was a positive step and we commend this action.
Mr. Chairman, in regard to a possible Arms Trade Treaty, we continue to be told that the intent of an ATT is only to control military small arms. Therefore, we request the UN to state this in such an ATT in clear and unmistakable language. For example, it could use the definition of SALW used by Germany, and I quote:
Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), are weapons and weapon systems which were originally manufactured or which were rebuilt according to military standards and requirements for use as war matériel.
This would clearly exclude civilian firearms from the scope of the ATT.
Mr. Chairman, the ATT has been extremely politicized in one particular jurisdiction. This is a question of perception, Mr. Chairman. As long as the ATT is perceived, let me underline perceived, as affecting civilian firearms, it will not be accepted or ratified in that jurisdiction. This situation can be changed by the specific exclusion of civilian firearms that we have suggested.
Mr. Chairman, let me briefly comment on International Small Arms Control Standards or ISACS. We are extremely disappointed in the ISACS process. If the POA has had a bias against civilian firearms, ISACS has been almost overtly anti-civilian firearms. The ISACS process has failed to respond appropriately to the legitimate concerns and requirements of the civilian user community and the firearms manufacturers. This must change, Mr. Chairman.
Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that notwithstanding our criticisms today we remain willing to cooperate on all fronts and venues whether it be the POA, the Firearms Protocol, the ATT or ISACS. We can be a valuable ally to efforts that address the problems of misuse or a steadfast opponent of any effort that restrict the lawful use of civilian firearms.
For further information contact Thomas Mason at +1 503 998 0555 or firstname.lastname@example.org .
United Nations General Assembly, 67th Session
New York, 1 November, 2012
Statement by Richard Patterson, Managing Director
Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, Inc
Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Richard Patterson. I’m the managing director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute–also known as SAAMI. Since 1926 we have created the safety and reliability standards for the design, manufacture, transportation, storage and use of firearms, ammunition and components. We are an accredited standards-setting organization. Whether you realize it or not, every country in this room benefits from our standards. Firearms and ammunition that follow SAAMI standards are being used in every corner of the world to promote peace, enhance economic stability, responsibly manage wildlife populations, provide recreation, teach life-skills, promote the camaraderie of sporting competition, and protect lives.
The small arms issue is complex, since small arms are tools that can be used for the greater good of humanity, and misused by those who choose to commit acts of violence. Because of this duality, uninformed decisions can cause more harm than good.
SAAMI has at its disposal many of the world’s leading ballisticians, structural engineers, chemists, statisticians, logistics experts, and metallurgists specializing in firearms and ammunition. We are in the unique position of providing valuable technical, factual, and science-based input into the small arms discussion and debate. We also have access to the real-world practical knowledge of the major manufacturers of firearms, ammunition and components, meaning we can add a practical perspective to the debate.
We welcome the opportunity to share our expertise and experience. We would like to participate in any discussions resulting from the PoA call for a technical and industry working group and—for that matter—in any other discussions on this important issue.
Statement From: The International Committee of Museums and Collections of Arms and Military History (ICOMAM)
I am Ken Smith-Christmas, representing ICOMAM, The International Committee of Museums and Collections of Arms and Military History. ICOMAM is an organization with approximately 260 institutional and individual members in some 50 countries, and includes such museums as the Royal Armouries in England, the Royal Dutch Army Museum, the Royal Belgian Army Museum, and the Smithsonian Institution. For the past fifty-five years, we have served as the advocate for museums around the world that specialize in arms and military history. We are an international committee of ICOM, the International Council of Museums, which works closely with UNESCO.
Nearly every history museum on earth has firearms in its collections. Most of these arms are antique, or, by their historical association, are considered to be curios. Many of them are inoperable relics, due to their physical condition. Some are excavated, archaeological, material. The ability to acquire and exchange them is essential to the scientific, cultural, and economic functioning of our museums. We are concerned that the provisions of the Arms Trade Treaty will affect these types of firearms. For instance, under proposals currently being reviewed, a museum would have to seek the permission of the exporting country, the importing country, and the transit countries to acquire and transport an antique arm or weapon, even for a temporary loan or a research project.
We submit that antique arms and museum weapons pose no threat to anyone. Rather, they are part of our common cultural heritage and current regulatory structures are adequate to control them. Additionally, in today’s climate of constrained budgets, it is an unnecessary financial burden on museums and governments to require stringent controls over the antiques, curios, and relic arms commonly found in museums.
In short, we believe that there is simply no need for antique and museum arms and weapons to be included within the scope of an Arms Trade Treaty. We therefore request that they be exempted from the scope of any Treaty.
Original Story Via: TheGunMag.com
The 2012 Gun Rights Policy Conference was held in Orlando, Florida and jointly hosted by the Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org). Follow news related to the UN ATT at IAPCAR.org.
“Global Gun Control, Down But Not Out”
Gary Burres of LSSA (00.00-06.05)
Sheldon Clare of NFA (06.06-13.14)
Gen. Allen Youngman of DSAAC (13.15-23.52)
Published Monday, Oct. 22, 2012 2:40PM CST
Last Updated Monday, Oct. 22, 2012 5:28PM CST
OTTAWA — Seven months after the federal long gun registry was repealed in every province but Quebec, a small but vocal faction of gun owners is feeling deeply betrayed by the Conservative government.
A registry of gun owners — if not their specific weapons — remains in force under federal licensing provisions that were part of the same 1995 Liberal gun control bill so loathed by the gun lobby. It’s a reality to which some sport shooting enthusiasts are just waking up.
Lloyd, a retiree in Uxbridge, Ont., said he was shocked to find a licence renewal form in his mail this summer after celebrating the official April 6 end of the federal registry.
He’s written to a Conservative MP and a cabinet minister seeking an explanation, and so far is without a response.
“I’m not planning to renew it,” said Lloyd, who asked that his full name not be published because he’s about to become an unlicensed gun owner.
“As far as I’m concerned, it’s not the law right now…. I know I’m not alone.”
Lloyd is indeed not alone — so much so that he perhaps need not fear disclosing his full name.
A Saskatoon-based organization called the Canadian Unlicensed Firearms Owners Association has been taking the fight straight to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, whose portfolio includes the RCMP and the Canada Firearms Centre.
“Your duplicity in dealing with firearms owners seems to know no bounds,” Edward Hudson, the unlicensed group’s secretary, thundered in the opening line of a May 9 letter to Toews.
The letter, copied to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, ended several hundred words later with demands for Toews’s resignation.
Announcing oneself as a law-breaker while demanding the ouster of the public safety minister requires a certain chutzpah — especially since Toews was clearly on record describing the reality of the gun registry’s repeal.
“First and foremost, all individuals will still be required to be licensed to possess a firearm,” Toews told the House of Commons last Oct. 26 as the repeal bill was debated.
“We are committed to ensuring that only responsible and qualified individuals own firearms.”
His office did not respond to an interview request.
RCMP spokesman Sgt. Greg Cox confirmed in an email that “everyone who possesses or acquires a firearm must still be licensed to do so, whether the firearm falls into the non-restricted, restricted or prohibited class.”
“To be clear, licences for individuals must be renewed every five years, which requires that applicants for a new or renewed firearms licence be screened for criminal records, as well as provide personal references,” wrote Cox.
That information is then stored in a searchable database that police can use to help determine if weapons may be on a premise — one of many arguments used by police groups and the gun-control lobby to advocate for keeping the weapons-specific registry in place.
Gun owners must have a licence to legally buy ammunition, said Cox, and the Criminal Code includes a mandatory three-year minimum sentence for the “unlawful purchase” of ammunition.
As for any anti-licence protest movement by gun owners — whether wilfully or in the mistaken belief that licences have been repealed — Cox said there’s no evidence to date.
Citing 2011 figures, the RCMP put licence renewals at over 90 per cent “so the vast majority of firearms owners understand the difference between their firearms licence, which is a plastic photo ID card, and a registration certificate,” for firearms, said Cox.
In fact, it may still be too early to see what impact the gun registry’s repeal has had on licensing.
The most recent RCMP numbers available for this year — as of June — show 1,889,650 licensed gun owners in Canada.
That’s down more than 13,000 from December 2011, but it does not necessarily indicate a trend. In June 2011, for instance, there were 12,400 fewer licensed gun owners than in June 2012.
Gun enthusiasts complain they continue to get mixed messages from a Conservative government they’ve long felt was their champion.
Last month, Toews greeted a Quebec court ruling to preserve the registry information in Quebec with a blanket denunciation: “Our Conservative government will continue to fight against any measures that needlessly target law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters.”
And so gun lobby groups continue to push the Conservatives to fully gut the licensing provisions.
Earlier this month, Sheldon Clare, the president of the Edmonton-based Canada’s National Firearms Association, or NFA, wrote Toews to “strongly recommend the repeal of the requirement to hold a firearms licence merely to own one’s own property and that limiting of access be done to those specific individuals who have been convicted of violence.”
Coupled with the well-documented unhappiness of gun control advocates at the registry’s repeal, both sides of the rancorous gun debate appear to be deeply dismayed.
Into this atmosphere of suspicion and uncertainty, a federal government that has budgeted at least $64 million for government advertising this year has committed none of it towards informing Canadians about the current reality of gun legislation.
“The RCMP has no advertising budget for the changes brought about by the recent legislation; however the RCMP (Canadian Firearms Program) website and online fact sheets have been updated accordingly,” wrote Sgt. Cox.
Original Story Via: Forbes.com
A Canadian university has stopped a college game club from putting up posters that featured an image of a pistol. Except that the pistol in question wasn’t even real, but a Nintendo weapon from the 1980s.
A game club at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, decided to hold a “game-themed social event”, according to a local student newspaper. Naturally, because it was a gaming party, they drew up a poster with images of a Nintendo game controller and the Zapper, a gray-and-red electronic pistol that came with the 1985 Nintendo Entertainment System. But Saint Mary’s must have feared it was a call for armed insurrection; when the poster was submitted to the university for approval, the gamers were told to get rid of the gun, which they replaced with a graphic of a Nintendo Power Glove. Presumably because a toy pistol that pots virtual ducks sends a dangerous message, while punching out assorted lifeforms with a Power Glove does not.
I’m all for campus safety, including banning real firearms on campus. Even toy and replica weapons can be mistaken for real ones in some situations. But a crude drawing on a poster? Last week, a Maine political candidate was vilified by her opponents because she plays World of Warcraft. Now college game clubs can’t mention guns, because the mere sight of a video game weapon might induce crazoid gamers to disembowel their fellow students with plastic lightsabers. I’m sure the good citizens of Halifax will sleep better tonight, knowing that they’ve been saved from the Nintendo Apocalypse.
Original Story Via: INQUIRER.net
MANILA, Philippines – The Philippine National Police (PNP) has started planning and preparations to ensure a peaceful midterm elections in 2013, Interior Secretary Manuel Roxas II said.
“The PNP has begun formal planning for peaceful elections,” Roxas told reporters in a press briefing Tuesday.
“There will be strategic moves by the PNP now while it is still early and there will be tactical moves closer to elections so that there will less chances of violence come election,” Roxas said.
Among the innovations that Roxas wants to implement will be the consolidation and sharing of information between the many police forces. “For example, we want to provide the list of all those who have gun licenses and permits to carry in certain areas so that police [authorities on all levels] can identify the groups who are carrying guns,” Roxas said.
This will better prepare the police, especially in election hotspots, he added.
Roxas also said that they will also be doing intelligence gathering work as well as training and resource deployment. He said some localities have requested for V-150 armored vehicles because of anticipated election-related violence in the area.
“We shall be able to secure and mobilize these resources so that as election draws closer our police will be ready to respond to any need,” he said.
When asked that there might be a new PNP chief come the poll season, Roxas said assured that Director General Nicanor Bartolome, the PNP Chief, will still be on top of the preparations and planning even if his term ends before the elections.
“The more important thing is the planning for the election, planning for eight months away has begun and it has been formalized,” Roxas said.
He said that all the data and intelligence operations will be “integrated and consolidated” so that the PNP “will be more effective in ensuring peaceful elections.”
“We will ensure consolidated and integrated efforts of all units, particularly the home support units. All the data from firearms and explosives bureaus, as well as investigative units, will be consolidated so that the men on the ground will have all the data and support they need,” Roxas said.
Original Article Via: Court House News
By BONNIE BARRON
WASHINGTON (CN) – The government can prohibit sales of guns for self-defense to American citizens residing outside its borders, a federal judge ruled.
U.S. citizen Stephen Dearth lives in Canada and was unable to buy firearms in the U.S. on two occasions. Federal Form 4473 requires purchasers of firearms to provide their state of residence, preventing Dearth from legally completing the document.
Dearth and the Second Amendment Foundation, a nonprofit committed to the right to bear arms, sued Attorney General Eric
Holder for declaratory and injunctive relief in March 2009.
The District of Columbia District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. However, the D.C. Circuit Court reversed the dismissal and remanded Dearth’s claims in April 2011.
U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins granted the government’s motion for summary judgment on Thursday.
Wilkins found that none of the six counts alleged by Dearth amounted to constitutional violations.
The judge stated that, “an initial point of contention is how to construe the challenged laws. Are they restrictions on possession, or are they longstanding conditions and qualifications on commercial sale?
“The court concludes they are the latter,” Wilkins wrote.
Much like the state laws that have prevented non-residents from buying firearms for more than 100 years, the federal restrictions have a similar intent, the judge found.
“The effect of the federal statute is to require a firearm purchaser to be a state resident so that he or she submits to the jurisdiction and authority of some state – any state – so that the firearms purchase can be regulated by state law,” Wilkins wrote. “Thus, the federal statutes serve a similar purpose as the longstanding state statutes governing the commercial sale of firearms.”
Dearth argued that his inability to buy a gun for self-defense while visiting his friends and relatives in the U.S. violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
But Wilkins found that Dearth “…has the ability to bring his firearm from Canada with him when he visits the United States. Critically, Dearth concedes that ‘he would access [firearms] for lawful sporting purposes as well as for other purposes, including self-defense, while visiting the United States’…Thus, Dearth clearly has the ability to borrow or rent a firearm for lawful sporting purposes and then also use that firearm for self-defense. This would be a much different case if Dearth had none of those options.”
Dearth also failed to show that the gun restrictions infringe on the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by requiring him to give up his ability to buy firearms if he chooses to travel internationally.
“As the government correctly points out, these provisions do not prevent Dearth from travelling internationally and, therefore, they do not implicate any Fifth Amendment liberty interest in international travel,” Wilkins wrote. “There is nothing to suggest that the challenged statutes present either a direct or coincidental restriction on a U.S. citizen’s ability to travel internationally.
The statutes merely require that Dearth establish residency in a state in order to purchase or acquire additional firearms for purposes other than sporting purposes. The statutes place no direct restriction on Dearth’s ability to travel within the United States or internationally.”
Wilkins found that the restrictions were rationally based. “The provisions serve the substantial government interests of protecting public safety, combating violent crime, and controlling the flow of firearms across state and international borders,” Wilkins stated.
Sportlich-Praktischer Schützen Club Holding IAPCAR Charity Shoot Competition! Trophy and Cash Prizes! Saturday 13, October 2012Friday, September 14th, 2012
Courtesy of Sportlich-Praktischer Schützen Club (SPSC)
Location: Innviertler Schützenhof, Miinsteuer 8, 4980 Antiesenhofen (Schießstätte IHS – Innviertler Hofschützen)
Organizer: SPSC – Sporty and Practical Shooting Club
Date: Saturday 13, October 2012
Time: From 13:00 to 17:00 (close)
Entry fee: 20 – Eur. including state fee. The Excess of revenues competition our expenses we will give to IAPCAR – International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights http://iapcar.org/!
Weapons: Require approval from including automatic rifles Caliber .223 Rem up (eg Steyr AUG-Z, Oberland Arms Austria OA-15 / OA-10 Austria, Austria SG 550, HK SL-6)
Sights: Each optical sights or magnification allowed; also open sights!
Program: 100m sitting launched; SPSC pistol target, 5 shots for Sample – then 2x 10 shot score (maximum 220 points, timeout 5 minutes); trophy and cash prizes!
Important: Prior notification by e-mail are welcome! Weapons and Ammunition from the shooter bring your own! No lasers!
For more information please contact:
SPSC – Sportlich-Praktischer Schützen Club
Tel.: +43 660 733 5990
Original Story Via: LeadershipInstitute.org
Phil Watson of IAPCAR was featured this week as the Leadership Institute’s Graduate of the Week.
Article text below
Protecting and Defending: Second Amendment Liberty
These famous words in the Bill of Rights have stirred countless emotion and action for centuries: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The right to keep and bear arms is what Leadership Institute graduate Phil Watson has devoted his time and talent toward preserving.
“You are born sovereign with rights given by God, not government. The right of self-defense is one of those rights,” Phil told the Leadership Institute. “Gun rights groups are here to protect your human and civil rights. The police can’t be everywhere at once and are technically not even bound by law to protect you, so you have to take your Second Amendment rights seriously.”
Phil is the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) director of special projects, where he researches Second Amendment court litigation and news surrounding gun issues on a national and international scale.
“Keeping track of the dozens of current Second Amendment lawsuits and opposing the UN Arms Trade Treaty takes up a lot of my time,” Phil said. “Our network of member groups now extends to 23 groups in 15 different countries. Communicating with your base and your members in a timely manner is very important. I also assist in writing and editing various Second Amendment publications.”
Additionally, he’s executive director at the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arm Rights.
“The numbers don’t lie: gun-free zones suffer from high crime rates and only create more victims,” Phil said. “People who have a problem with self-defense usually have a problem with other freedoms and rights as well, which are historically why tyrannical governments like to disarm their people. We are here to stick up for your rights and speak out against those that would force others to be helpless.”
However, Phil hasn’t always been involved in public policy. It’s been a career in the making.
Phil was raised in a “minimum-wage-working world,” where he delivered newspapers to neighbors to earn an extra dime. He also remembers doing yard work and washing dishes at a local restaurant to collect some additional money.
“After I graduated high school, I entered the military and waited awhile to start college,” Phil said. “History, economics, and politics became my favorite subjects after trying most other classes. Later, I had the pleasure of graduating from the University of Washington with a B.A. in Political Economy.”
With a degree in hand, he met some political activists who were regular patrons at the large neighborhood convenience store where he worked.
After several long talks, one of the individuals invited him to work on his campaign.
“It sounded interesting, so I decided to give it a shot. Several people highly recommended the Leadership Institute, so I took the Campaign Management School and was off and running,” Phil shared.
In April 2010, Phil came to LI’s headquarters in Arlington, Virginia to attend the week-long Campaign Management School.
Shortly after, he was asked to be the deputy campaign manager for the 2010 WA-6 congressional race. The opponent was a 17-term incumbent, Rep. Norm Dicks, and while Phil’s candidate didn’t win, Phil valued the experience he gained.
After the election, Phil fought against Proposition 1 – a local sales tax increase. “We won with some creative campaigning and tactics I picked up from LI’s Campaign Management School,” Phil said. “We were outgunned on money by 95 percent, but ended up winning. We defeated the sales tax increase.”
After the campaign, Phil came to the Leadership Institute in the spring of 2011 to intern in the Grassroots department. He’s taken 16 LI trainings from Public Speaking, Campaign Management, New Media, High-Dollar Fundraising, Television Techniques, Youth Leadership, and Conservative Career workshops and schools.
“LI is a political boot camp in many ways,” Phil shared. “I jumped in the political world and was serious about learning how to be effective as an activist. The Leadership Institute taught me how to be effective within a political organization and I still talk with a lot of the people I met there. LI is a great place to learn and connect with other people on the same path.”
After LI’s internship, Phil received a press internship in the office of Congresswoman Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, vice chair of the House Republican Conference and highest ranking Republican woman in Congress.
Next, he trekked across America back to his home state of Washington to influence public policy and protect the right to keep and bear arms.
Read Phil’s interview with the Russian Legal Information Agency here.
His employer—the Second Amendment Foundation—has their 2012 Gun Rights Policy Conference in Orlando, Florida in a few weeks. To learn more, go here.
“LI trainings helped give me a good foundation for the journey ahead,” Phil said.
You too can build a good foundation for your public policy career. Register for one of LI’s upcoming trainings here.
Please welcome Phil Watson as LI’s Graduate of the Week.
Original Story Via: Russian Legal Information Agency
MOSCOW, August 30 – RAPSI, Ingrid Burke. The United Nations is currently hosting its second conference in as many months aimed at regulating illicit arms trafficking. July’s conference strived, albeit unsuccessfully, to reach consensus on a binding international treaty that would regulate the global arms trade as a whole. The conference currently underway aims only to review the progress made by UN member nations individually and the international community as a whole in terms of the implementation of an action plan adopted by consensus in 2001 in order to combat the illegal trade of small arms and light weapons.
Both conferences centered on documents- the first a working document that never earned its wings and the second a binding agreement. Both documents are rooted in concern over the illicit arms trade, but one reached consensus and has entered into force on national, regional, and global levels, and one provoked a heated public controversy that endured beyond the deadline for approval by consensus.
To get into the spirit of things, RAPSI has decided to compare and contrast the documents underlying and the controversies surrounding the two initiatives in an effort to better understand what caused the former to sink and the latter to swim.
The UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty
Between 2-27 July, representatives of all 193 member nations gathered at the UN headquarters in New York with the common goal of establishing: “a robust and legally binding arms trade treaty that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from the consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence,” in the words of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. Negotiations deteriorated in the last few days of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference as competing national interests gave way to stubborn resistance.
A draft of the treaty released shortly before the conference deadline was harshly criticized both by right-to-bear-arms activists and by their human rights/disarmament counterparts. The former took issue with what they perceived to be an overly broad range of arms and activities sought to be regulated. The latter took issue with what they perceived to be an insufficiently comprehensive document that left numerous gaping loopholes.
The document included among the list of arms sought to be regulated: battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons. This range of weapons has received criticism from both sides of the advocacy spectrum, for being both too broadly and too narrowly tailored.
The inclusion of small arms and light weapons came under fire by advocacy groups that support the right to bear arms. Speaking to this point, International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) Executive Director Philip Watson explained to RAPSI during the conference, “We are appalled they deemed it appropriate to place civilian firearms used for self-defense in a treaty with tanks, bombs, and attack helicopters. It is dangerous to include civilian self-defense weapons in such an international treaty that could curtail legitimate use or trade of small civilian weapons. Personal security and the defense of one’s home and family are values shared across international borders, regardless of an individual’s background or nationality.”
The opposite side of the spectrum was comprised of disarmament and human rights advocacy groups who argued that the list of arms and activities covered was too narrow. Toward this end, Amnesty International [AI] noted in a press release toward the end of the conference that, “Major loopholes in the draft text include ammunition not being subject to tight decision-making controls, an array of weapons, munitions and related equipment not being covered, as well as the treaty only applying to the international trade of conventional arms instead of all international transfers including gifts and aid.”
A similarly concerned Oxfam released a statement by head of its arms control unit Anna Macdonald around the same time urging that “[t]here are more holes in this draft treaty than in a leaky bucket and these must be urgently closed if we are going to stop weapons from flowing into the world`s worst conflict zones.”
As it became clear toward the end of the conference that hope was lost, some viewed the stalemate as the fault of the US. In a widely publicized move, 51 US senators pledged to vote against ratification of the treaty if it failed to protect the constitutional right of US citizens to bear arms. As US ratification of an international treaty requires the approval of two-thirds of the senate, these numbers were sufficient to ensure against US ratification of the bill.
The pledge came in the form of a letter addressed to the Obama administration. A press release issued shortly thereafter by Republican Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi quoted a portion of the letter that urged the Obama administration to break the conference’s required consensus if doing so was necessary to protect the right of US citizens to bear arms. The relevant passage stated: “As the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure – if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference – that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense. As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard.”
Later that day, the US State Department (USDOS) issued a statement acknowledging both the failure of the conference to produce tangible results and the refusal of the US to move to accept the treaty in its ultimate form. USDOS spokesperson Victoria Nuland stated, “we do not support a vote in the UNGA on the current text. The illicit trafficking of conventional arms is an important national security concern for the United States. While we sought to conclude this month’s negotiations with a Treaty, more time is a reasonable request for such a complex and critical issue. The current text reflects considerable positive progress, but it needs further review and refinement.”
Some US-based right-to-bear-arms advocacy groups attributed the stalemate to their own grassroots efforts. The most well-known such group, the National Rifle Association (NRA) took personal credit for the failure of the conference to produce results, stating on its website Friday: “The Conference on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has broken down and will not report a draft treaty to the member nations… This is a big victory for American gun owners, and the NRA is being widely credited for killing the [conference.]”
The conference’s launch was drenched with optimism. Prior to the start of negotiations, many lauded the potential of the conference to make the world a safer place through the regulation of the international arms trade. Ban expressed optimism in the face of the daunting task that lay ahead, noting, “It is ambitious, but I believe it is achievable.” During his opening statement, Ban urged the necessity of the conference’s success: “Every day, we at the United Nations see the human toll of an absence of regulations or lax controls on the arms trade. We see it in the suffering of civilian populations trapped by armed conflict or pervasive crime. We see it in the killing and wounding of civilians — including children, the most vulnerable of all. We see it in the massive displacement of people within and across borders. We see it through grave violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.”
As negotiations fizzled, he lamented, “The Conference’s inability to conclude its work on this much-awaited ATT, despite years of effort of Member States and civil society from many countries, is a setback.”
The Second UN Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects
The conference currently underway has been scheduled to run from 27 August to 7 September. A list of member nations in attendance has not yet been released, but a UN official speaking to RAPSI Thursday confirmed that at least 75-80% of UN states are represented.
The document at issue is the politically binding “Programme of action to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects,” (POA) which was adopted by consensus in 2001.
From the start, the UN has made clear its intention to refrain during the course of the conference from restricting firearm ownership rights. A UN press statement explained, “The Review Conference only reviews progress made in the implementation of the Programme of Action which was adopted in 2001 to combat the illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons… It is not about banning firearms or any other type of small arms or prohibiting people from owning legal weapons.”
The release emphasized the conference’s disinterest in imposing lofty regulations, stating: “Each sovereign State determines its own laws and regulations for the manufacture, sale and possession of firearms by its citizens. The United Nations has no jurisdiction over such matters.”
After denying rumors that the conference would essentially serve as a component part of a broader UN conspiracy—in connection with the Arms Trade Treaty—to prohibit civilian gun ownership, the release reiterated the recent failure of the ATT to come into existence: “The Arms Trade Treaty does not yet exist. It was discussed throughout July 2012 and focused on setting common standards for how States could regulate the international trade of all types of conventional arms. No consensus was achieved on a draft Treaty text. “
This conspiracy theory denial points to a critical difference between the conferences and the documents at their core. The ATT sought to regulate the international trade of all types of conventional arms. The POA sought to eliminate the illicit trade of small arms. The goals of the former were extraordinarily lofty; those of the latter, quite narrow.
The POA was born the successful outcome of a conference similar to that which failed to produce the ATT. UN members came together with the goal of combatting, preventing, and eradicating the small arms trade in July 2001, and reached a consensus on how to do so: by targeted, limited means.
Regardless of where one stands on the right to bear arms, it is worth noting the different reactions elicited from the two texts with similar goals but diametrically opposed scopes.
It should be noted that the POA has been criticized by its own implementation support system for lacking key mechanisms to ensure its implementation. It is possible that the inclusion of such mechanisms would have created obstacles to its approval similar to those faced by the ATT.
Original Story Via: The Express Tribune
KARACHI: Office-bearers of the Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) on Thursday said they would take up weapons to defend themselves if law enforcement agencies failed to end extortion, targeted killings and kidnappings for ransom.
Addressing the business community and media in the presence of Sindh Inspector General of Police Fayyaz Ahmed Leghari at KCCI, former KCCI president Siraj Kassam Teli said he would quit chamber politics for good if the poor law and order situation persisted after Eid.
“Enough is enough. We’ve lost patience with the government as well as the Sindh police,” said Teli, who is also the chairman of the Businessmen Group, whose favoured candidates have won KCCI elections unopposed for many years. KCCI is the largest chamber of commerce and industry in Pakistan with over 18,000 members.
Taking a cue perhaps from the influential gun lobby of the United States, Teli said he was going to ask every businessman to carry arms and be responsible for his own security. “I’m in favour of a free-for-all. A criminal wouldn’t have the courage to pull a gun in a crowded bazaar if no gun rules existed.”
Calling Interior Minister Rehman Malik a “liar,” Teli said the federal and provincial governments, along with the Sindh police, had shown little willingness to curb rising incidents of extortion so far.
Expressing his dismay over the frequent use of unregistered mobile phone SIMs to send death threats to the business community, he accused the federal government of criminal negligence and deliberate ineffectiveness.
Responding to the comments of Teli, Sindh IGP Leghari said the biggest challenge facing the provincial police was extortion. Kidnappings for ransom and street crimes are the next priorities of the police department, he said.
“I’ve proposed that neighbourhood committees should be formed in all markets where members of traders’ associations, in cooperation with police personnel, take care of law and order,” Leghari said.
Original Story Via: The Times of India
NEW DELHI: It could be a new measure of women’s emancipation or just a passing fad, but Delhi Police has been stumped by the huge number of working women seeking gun licences. The trend is partly a response to the city’s lawlessness but may also reflect the growing need of women to be in control, claim senior officers.
In the past two years, Delhi cops have received over 900 applications for guns from women. While year 2010 saw around 320 applications, the figure had grown to around 500 in 2011. But it’s not only the numbers that’s a break from the past. There’s a change as well in the reasons cited by women for bearing arms.
“Women earlier mostly cited the inheritance clause – saying their fathers or husbands had a licence which they want to continue holding. Many women applying under this clause were proxies for men who themselves would not have got a licence. But of late women are citing ‘self-defense’ to apply for a licence,” said an officer in the licencing department.
In general, 20-22% of all applicants are now women. The officer said 27 licences were issued to women in 2010. Of these, 17 were those who had applied under the inheritance clause. In 2011, 33 women were granted gun licences, 12 of whom had cited self-defense as a reason.
Till July this year, five women have been granted licences on the basis of personal threats and six on the inheritance clause. In 2010 and 2011, over 600 rejected applications were rejected as no “personal safety threat was assessed”.
Rajya Sabha MP Renuka Chaudhry, herself a gun licence holder, was recently quoted as saying that women need guns more than men “who flaunt the weapons at weddings”.
Mridula Nandy, who unsuccessfully attempted to get a license last year, expresses a similar view. “They kept on asking what do I have to fear. Well, I stay in a place where I am taunted on the roads. At night, I feel unsafe. I will not necessarily fire at someone but a gun boosts confidence,” she said.
Interestingly, even as Indian shooters are doing reasonably well at the Olympic Games bagging silver and a bronze, some women are also applying for gun licences to pursue sport. While two women were granted license under the sports quota, the number doubled in 2011. This year, three women have already been granted licences for pursuing shooting.
In general, police are accused of being too strict while granting women licenses, with the age old inheritance clause still being is the surest way of acquiring a licence. Some allege “a recommendation from a higher up” is crucial in securing a licence.
Cops deny the charges, claiming the criteria for both sexes remain the same. “We grant licenses on three accounts. We check whether the woman has to travel alone at night, whether she is being stalked or harassed or whether she visits a crime-prone area,” said a senior police officer.
He added, “India cannot be seen as a state that promotes guns, unlike some western nations. We will ask everyone to go through the necessary checks and balances.”
Original Story VIA: TheGunMag.com
BELLEVUE, WA – The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) added Russia’s The Right to Arms as its newest member working to protect and expand the right to keep and bear arms around the globe. Right to Arms joins a coalition of 20 other groups from 11 countries on five different continents that represent millions of firearm owners and citizens concerned about civilian arms rights.
“IAPCAR is quickly expanding as the premier international arms rights organization with groups like Right to Arms as new allies in securing the human right to keep and bear arms,” said IAPCAR executive director, Philip Watson.
“The push for civilian arms rights continues to grow at a fast pace as this week we’ve added ANARMA of Spain and now Right to Arms of Russia as new members.” Watson observed.
“It is a great honor for our group to join IAPCAR,” said Right to Arms chairman Maria Butina. As Russia’s highest profile gun rights advocacy organization, Right to Arms also runs the popular website (http://vooruzhen.ru/).
Julianne Versnel, director of operations for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Alan Gottlieb, Chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) established IAPCAR to serve as a vehicle to unify arms rights groups against international threats to the human right of self-defense and the legitimate use of guns.
“IAPCAR strongly opposes any U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that infringes on national sovereignty and civilian arms rights for self-defense,” said SAF’s Versnel.
CCRKBA’s Gottlieb added, “The growth of this international movement to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms is an unprecedented advancement for freedom.”
Newt Gingrich gave a rousing speech at the NRA Convention supporting international gun rights.