by Dave Workman
Shown at the Orlando GRPC awards ceremony are: Ambassador Donald A. Mahley, left, US negotiator at the United Nations who withdrew the US from the proposed drafted Arms Trade Treaty in July, who was presented with a Defender of the Constitution award by Alan M. Gottlieb (second from right), and with a special Colt 1911 by Maj. Gen. Gen. Allen Youngman (ret.), executive director of the Defense Small Arms Advisory Council (DSAAC), far right, who himself received a SAF Defender of Liberty award. Second from left is Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who was presented with a CCRKBA Lifetime Achievement Award. (TGM photo by Dave Workman)
Senior Editor
A big media turnout for a talk by George Zimmerman’s defense attorney, an honor for a Washington Times editor who walked readers through the labyrinth of District gun laws, and a jam-packed agenda with a record number of speakers made the 2012 Gun Rights Policy Conference a huge success.
That was the assessment of Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), which co-sponsored the event in Orlando, FL. He told TGM that having attorney Mark O’Mara make a presentation on self-defense was a big score, producing unprecedented press coverage at the 27-year-old conference.
Likewise, recognizing Washington Times Senior Editor Emily Miller for her continuing reportage about confusing and deliberately discouraging District of Columbia gun regulations earned the conference plenty of residual ink and Internet attention.
There was also a presentation by researcher John Lott regarding gun-free zones, a hard look at federal and state elections, a discussion about media bias and how to overcome it, and more about global gun control.
O’Mara’s appearance was the headliner, and with an audience consisting largely of Florida residents, his discussion about self-defense under that state’s law was well-received. He quickly made it clear to the audience that he was not going to discuss the Zimmerman case, however.
In Florida, and in many other states, a person is allowed to use deadly force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of grave bodily harm. O’Mara made it clear, though, that “in Florida, if you used a weapon…and you do so unreasonably, (you) get prosecuted.” He reiterated that point a couple of times.
“You are allowed to use force to react to force,” he said, “and that makes sense. If somebody punches you in the nose, you are allowed to punch them in the nose.”
As far as standing one’s ground is concerned, O’Mara noted that “The duty not to retreat has been around for hundreds of years.” He said the Supreme Court affirmed as recently as 1985 that people have a right to be secure in their homes.
But he continued to stress the notion of reasonableness.
Emily Miller recognized as Journalist of the Year
“Use a gun unreasonably,” he observed, “use it because you can, not because you have to, go to jail.”
O’Mara acknowledged that he has been criticized for suggesting that Zimmerman’s case is not about Stand Your Ground, while maintaining that it is a self-defense case. He said there will be an immunity hearing during which a judge will hear facts of the case and then make a determination whether Zimmerman may be immune from prosecution under Florida’s self-defense statute.
O’Mara supports that process.
He also suggested that the Second Amendment “has already been amended” in that there are now laws that require keeping guns away from children and felons, and he supports those prohibitions. As the population grows, he said “we need to be careful.”
The attorney also disdained the notion that the self-defense statute is a “right-to-kill” law.
“That’s absurd,” he said.
O’Mara also indicated that he supports the idea of compensation to citizens who are prosecuted but found not-guilty for having acted in self-defense.
“If a citizen is put to the task of proving that what they did was right,” he commented, “they should be compensated for that.”
‘Opening act’
O’Mara was preceded by a pair of other Florida attorneys who also detailed the state’s Stand-Your-Ground statute. It amounted to a full primer for the audience, and reporters covering the event, some from foreign countries.
Attorney Eric Friday, counsel for Florida Carry, noted that Stand Your Ground (SYG) was adopted in Florida by a 39-0 vote in the State Senate and 92-20 vote in the House. Governors across the nation, both Democrats and Republicans, have signed similar laws, he said. Currently, 31 states have SYG laws on the books.
Since the law was adopted in 2005, Friday said there have been 34 appellate court rulings on SYG, despite the claim that the state has had a tripling of self-defense cases.
He recalled all the typical arguments against SYG, including gun fights in the street, but he claimed the law is working.
Friday also noted that a committee appointed by Gov. Rick Scott has been looking at the statute to determine if it needs some amendment. He cited some “fixes” that might be applied to the law, including full appellate review, and he urged the audience to pay attention to the self-defense and SYG laws in their states.
Attorney Jon Gutmacher, a firearms instructor and author of a book on Florida firearms laws, reminded the audience that common law has long held that people have a right to stand their ground. He referred to cases dating back to 1895.
Gutmacher said SYG has been a key tenet of laws governing the use of deadly force. He also observed that running from assailants can have serious ramifications.
“You can’t outrun a bullet,” he said. “You can’t outrun someone stabbing you in the back. You can’t outrun someone clubbing you in the head.”
He also said people involved in life-threatening situations typically do not have time to analyze their situations; they only have time to react. The problems stemming from the law, he suggested, are the fault of Florida courts.
‘Dangerous election’
The conference opened with a presentation by Maria Heil, a member of the National Rifle Association’s Board of Directors. She warned the audience that the 2012 election is the “most dangerous election of our lifetime.”
She listed several troubling facts about President Obama, including his work for the anti-gun Joyce Foundation and his appointment of anti-gunners to positions in his administration. She raised the specter of Obama appointing possibly two or more new justices to the Supreme Court, because there are currently members on the court in their late 70s.
Heil cautioned gunowners that victories before the Supreme Court in 2008 and 2010 were on the thinnest of margins. Both 5-4 rulings on the Second Amendment could be reversed with a change on the high court to a liberal majority.
The “dangerous election” theme carried through on the first panel discussion about federal affairs. Mark Barnes, president of Mark Barnes and Associates, noted that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) “has been in turmoil” for the past few years. The lack of leadership in that agency is “one thing we will have to deal with,” and he dismissed any notion that the ATF will be dismantled.
Barnes said there will always be some form of gun regulation, and he warned that the “good people at ATF are disappearing.”
“You should be concerned about that,” he said, explaining that people who pushed back during the Clinton years and under Obama “are tired” and they are getting out.
He also called the Inspector General’s report on Operation Fast and Furious “very troubling.
and disturbing.”
“Certainly Fast and Furious significantly contributed to ATF’s troubles,” he remarked.
He said decentralizing policy making within ATF to the field division level would be a mistake.
Barnes was followed by Jeff Knox from the Firearms Coalition. He reminded the audience that “when the media talks about the gun lobby, they are talking about you.”
Knox said that while it is important who is in the White House, it will be even more important who is in the US Senate. That’s where nominations are confirmed.
“It is absolutely critical to get a pro-gun Senate,” he stressed.
Larry Pratt, head of Gun Owners of America, disagreed with Barnes about the ATF. He said the agency should be dissolved because it is unconstitutional and “it needs to go.” He also supported efforts to pass national reciprocity legislation.
Pratt is no fan of gun tracing because it does not solve crimes, and he would like to see legislation introduced that recognizes county sheriffs as the chief law enforcement officers in their counties. Pratt said county sheriffs have considerable authority, and he mentioned that some sheriffs have been exerting that authority against federal agencies.
“They really are our best defense against tyranny from Washington,” Pratt said.
CCRKBA Legislative Director Joe Waldron opened his remarks by observing that “Mr. Obama has demonstrated a tendency to ignore the constitution.”
Noting that Republicans have “let us down from time to time,” he told gunowners that it is up to them to determine the shape of their government.
“On the day after the election,” he counseled, “write a letter of congratulations to your legislator or congressman and ask their position on bills.”
Doing this will make lawmakers aware that you are watching them. He said decisions on gun issues should be made based on facts, not emotion.
Pratt lamented that Democrats take the black vote for granted and Republicans tend to take the gun vote for granted.
State Affairs
This year’s conference had two panels on state legislative affairs and both were informative.
Leading off, Republican State Sen. Sam Slom from Hawaii noted that after the Colorado Batman massacre, even lawmakers in the Aloha State wanted to pass tougher laws. The Hawaii Rifle Association stepped in to stop that.
He said that the real action is at the state legislative level.
“Do not feel that you are powerless,” he said. “You are powerful…Your legislators work for you. They are public servants and they have to be reminded from time to time.”
He advised those in attendance to make sure they meet people from other states and work together.
Richard Nascak, co-executive director of Florida Carry, described the Florida Legislature as a “jungle” with “tigers, sheep and RINOs,” the latter being a reference to liberals who are “Republican in Name Only.”
“The reason they are Republicans is simply to get elected,” he said. “It’s up to us to be able to identify these people.”
He said gunowners need to educate politicians, and this is a job that must be done at the local level. Nascak acknowledged that newspaper editorial writers frequently portray gunowners as redneck knuckle-draggers.
“We are fighting to regain rights we once had,” he said.
Patrick Shomo, president of Maryland Shall Issue, reported on the situation in that state. He noted that Maryland is the first state in which a federal judge has ruled that the state’s arbitrary mechanism for issuing carry permits must change. A lawsuit brought by the Second Amendment Foundation is challenging that system, and the ruling is now on appeal to the federal court of appeals. Meanwhile, the discretionary issue system remains in place.
He recalled that when Maryland lawmakers tried to enact a heavy training fee to get a carry permit, Maryland Carry activists “melted” the phone system at the capitol.
The judge’s ruling, however, did open some doors of communication with the state police, he said. His group is now working with the state police on possible legislation, and he is hopeful that it will not include a mandatory training provision.
Jim Irvine, president of the Buckeye Firearms Association, counseled gun activists to network with people in other states, because it can signal what may eventually happen in your state. He said that Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been busy working with local municipalities around the country, setting up draft gun control measures.
“Get to know what they’re doing in your state,” he advised. “When we force the anti-gun organizations to play defense, we keep them from playing offense.”
Irvine explained how his group was now getting more cooperation from Attorney General Mike DeWine, who had an anti-gun record in Congress, but now “has been very good in the attorney general’s office.”
He noted that the size of the conference audience was proof that gunowners have power when they can meet and coordinate. This, he said, is one reason that anti-gunners want to close down gun shows; to prevent gunowners from gathering.
Sandra Barreras, representing Damas de la Segunda Enmienda in Puerto Rico, was a first-time GRPC panelist, and she detailed the gun rights situation in that territory.
Acknowledging that she was attending to learn from the activists, she reported that nobody from the United States has really pitched in to help Puerto Ricans on the gun rights issue, with the exception of SAF’s Alan Gottlieb and Julianne Versnel.
Her organization wants to grow, Enmienda said, with paid members rather than followers. The goal is to fight gun laws in Puerto Rico.
“Gun laws don’t help against crime,” she said, “it nourishes it.”
Second State Panel
In the second panel on state affairs, Steve Aldstadt, president of the Shooters Committee on Political Education (SCOPE) in New York, reported the current situation in the Empire State. Acknowledging that the state legislature is dominated by “New York City liberals,” even though most of the state is “actually very rural and tends to be very conservative.”
The State Assembly is “overwhelmingly liberal and anti-gun” but gunowners have been able to hold them off in the state Senate. He also reported there are pro-gun Democrats and a rare anti-gun Republican. He said the election will be critical, because if Democrats take control, they have a laundry list of anti-gun bills they will try to pass.
He also warned that Gov. Andrew Cuomo has already made it clear that gun control is a legislative priority.
Thomas Bolioli with Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. in Massachusetts reported that gun owners are making some advances there, because “We think small.” Even getting a bill out of committee is a big success in that anti-gun state, he asserted.
His group and Gun Owners Action League have been able to push back against anti-gun legislation, including one-gun-per-month.
Don Moran, president of the Illinois State Rifle Association, talked about the legal cases going on now in the Prairie State. He explained how an effort by the Associated Press to get access to the names of Firearms Owner Identification card holders had been stopped in court.
Moran also revealed that there is legislation to create a concealed carry law with a shall-issue provision.
On the down side, a gubernatorial veto message turned an ammunition bill into a semi-auto ban measure.
In California, according to California Rifle & Pistol Association President Tony Montanarella, the legislature is “a completely dysfunctional organization.”
“What we need to do is reinforce pro-gun Democrats,” he said.
That’s because even some Republicans are anti-gun, and Republicans do not control anything in the Golden State. He said California Republicans are “not like Republicans in Texas” or other states, and they are “pretty much Republicans in name only.”
He said CRPA works with politicians who work with the organization, and unlike the situation with former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the group does have some access to Gov. Jerry Brown.
Philip Van Cleave with the Virginia Citizens Defense League, told the audience that no anti-gun legislation has been passed in the Old Dominion for some time. He confirmed that “Stand Your Ground” is recognized in common law in Virginia, and his group will continue to press for campus carry.
Global Gun Control
A panel on Global Gun Control alerted the audience that the effort may be “down but not out.” Gary Burris, founder of the Lone Star Shooting Association (LSSA), reported on how Europeans conduct competitions, and he detailed current gun rights activities in Europe.
He said the situation is “not bad,” and that gun laws are governed by the “EU Directives.” Gun registration is almost universally mandatory, and no full-auto firearms are allowed. It is allowed to buy, sell and even trade firearms provided a special license is obtained.
He has been asked by some people in Europe to help create a sport shooting association on the continent. LSSA is a Texas-based foundation that helps raise money for various groups, and he has helped gun organizations in Italy and elsewhere.
Sheldon Clare, president of the National Firearms Association of Canada, reported on activities north of the border. He said elections make a big difference in civil rights, noting that the last national election in Canada gave the conservatives a majority in Parliament.
The goal is to erase the old Trudeau liberal vision of Canada and replace it with a conservative vision, including rolling back gun laws. Canada ended its long gun registry and reversed other gun regulations that were never enforced, but he noted “there is so much more to do to repair our badly damaged firearms system in Canada.”
The country still has many anti-gunners, but they have lost traction. The nation has changed its position on global gun control, and he warned that “our opponents at the United Nations have not gone away.” He said the positions of conservatives remain unpopular with the liberal media and the entrenched liberal bureaucracy.
However, “we will continue to stand with our allies in defense of freedom,” he assured.
Retired Maj. Gen. Allen Youngman, executive director of the Defense Small Arms Advisory Council (DSAAC), gave an overview of the gun control activities in Africa and other regions around the globe. His group involves most of the US-based military small arms manufacturers.
Youngman said the arms trade treaty is being negotiated in the UN General Assembly, where this country does not have a veto. It is not a “small arms treaty” in concept, but in reality, instead of focusing on conventional weapons, it is focused on small arms.
He said the US Senate is important in the process because that body is “the last line of defense” where treaties must be ratified. There is going to be some kind of treaty, he insisted, but with US involvement, it could be acceptable.
“We may not like what comes out of the UN process,” he cautioned, “but you’re going to like it a whole lot less if we’re not involved.”
He explained what happened to the treaty earlier this year, noting that the US delegation stood up and said this country would not participate. It also helped that a majority of the Senate announced in advance that the treaty was a non-starter.
“It’s not over and probably never will be,” he said.
In the courts
Following the awards luncheon and keynote remarks by Congressman Joe Barton and former Ambassador Donald A. Mahley, the conference focus shifted to the courts. Attorney David Jensen, who has represented SAF in some gun rights cases, discussed his activities in New York, challenging expensive permitting.
It’s part of the process of “fine tuning arms rights in the courts.”
Jensen said right-to-carry cases will determine just how far the “right to bear” goes. However, the critical issue may not be the right to bear, but whether the state puts a high price tag on the ability to carry. The state, he noted, is not saying that someone can’t carry a gun, but might make it prohibitively expensive to process the carry permit.
“In my view, it is the right of the people to bear arms, not the right of the wealthy to bear arms,” he observed.
There is an issue in Massachusetts where a police agency can seize a gun, turn it over to a private party who can then charge an exorbitant fee to get the gun back.
“We can be so hamstrung with regulations and fees that the right to carry or the right to bear arms for that matter ceases to be a right at all,” he warned.
Attorney Don Kilmer of California noted that his state is a “target rich environment” with lots of local gun laws ripe for challenge. With support from SAF and Calguns Foundation, he said attorneys can go back and look at statutes and ordinances that were adopted under the presumption that the state need not recognize the right to keep and bear arms.
There is also the issue of gun rights restoration for people convicted of crimes. This would include restoring the rights of people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. There is a restoration procedure in California, but a few years ago, the federal government changed its interpretation of the Lautenberg Amendment that prohibits gun rights for people convicted of domestic violence, so the process is no longer applicable.
Second Amendment scholar and attorney David Kopel reported on his work with cases involving concealed carry on college campuses in Colorado, and the public’s role in litigation.
He did an amicus brief on behalf of the Independence Institute and County Sheriffs of Colorado in the court challenge to a campus carry ban in Colorado. The court found in favor of the sheriffs and armed students.
He also did an amicus brief in the Woollard case that challenges Maryland carry laws that decline most applications for concealed carry. That case is on appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and may eventually end up in the Supreme Court.
Kopel noted, though, that the way gun rights litigation is successful is by identifying good cases and good clients. The goal is to win those cases, not simply to file a case. Trouble begins when some self-styled activist files a case for “emotional self-validation.”
Losses in these cases can seriously hurt the gun rights effort, and he cautioned against filing such cases, either pro se or with inexperienced counsel.
Attorney Dan Schmutter, legal counsel to the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, detailed a case he is handling in New York. This case falls “squarely within the boundaries of Heller and McDonald,” he said.
He said both of those cases say for certain that people have the right to keep a handgun in their home. The problem with his case is that the client has two homes, one in New York and the other in Louisiana. New York law says people may only have one home for them to qualify for a handgun permit.
“If your domicile is not in New York,” he said, “then you don’t have the right to keep and bear arms.”
He said it should not matter if someone has two homes, because the desire to protect one’s family should not hinge on where they may be living at a particular moment.
2A and Legal Community
Attorney Bobbie K. Ross, chair of the Second Amendment Civil Rights Litigation Subcommittee of the American Bar Association, talked about her committee’s work to bring civil rights to inform people about the Second Amendment.
She said members of the committee are planning to visit events, including regional events, and she encouraged the audience to bring such opportunities to her attention.
“We want more people to write about the Second Amendment,” she said.
Articles can be posted on the Bar Association’s website. This is important, she explained, because the ABA has a large membership and information that addresses the Second Amendment from a civil right perspective is important.
She is also looking for opportunities to co-sponsor events with other organizations, thus bringing the legal community closer to the Second Amendment community.
Miller Time
One of the highlights of the conference was the appearance by Washington Times Senior Editor Emily Miller, explaining her transformation as a gunowner in the District of Columbia.
Miller’s series, “Emily Gets Her Gun,” drew a huge following in the newspaper and on-line for its revealing look at how the District of Columbia government deliberately crafted gun regulations that are designed to discourage law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights inside the city. The District’s 30-year handgun ban was struck down in 2008 by the US Supreme Court in the landmark Heller ruling, but city officials have made it confusing and costly for citizens to exercise their rights.
Miller was taking care of a friend’s dog when she came back to the house on New Year’s Day to discover a stranger coming out the door. It turned out he was part of a burglary team hitting the whole neighborhood. She later discovered that the intruder had taken her wallet.
This led Miller to the decision she needed a gun, launching a journey through what has become a regulatory labyrinth. From that emerged her award-winning series, earning the 2012 Clark Mollenhoff Award for Investigative Reporting from the Institute on Political Journalism.
It also garnered the SAF “Journalist of the Year” award for Miller, whose story gripped and amused the audience. She described the “hassle” involved, going through a process that led to the discovery that the District’s gun regulations and the process for obtaining a permit to have a gun both confuse and discourage people.
She learned that required gun safety courses are not readily available, and that a list of instructors was outdated. Taking the course and completing all the paperwork, and paying all the required fees, cost more than $400 and that was even before she paid more than $700 for a pistol.
“The city council (adopted) every single solitary anti-gun law they could find,” she observed.
Even in the wake of Miller’s award-winning series, the District still has not removed what amount to barriers that discourage people from legally getting firearms for home protection. Miller continues to write about problems relating to gun rights in the District.
The city still has no mechanism for allowing legal concealed carry, and despite Miller’s often blistering, sometimes amusing series, gun regulations in the District can still be categorized as Draconian at best.
Miller has become a hero in the gun rights community for her gutsy head-on reporting. She has repeatedly confronted District politicians and bureaucrats about the gun regulations, challenging them to explain how they think restrictive gun laws address a citizen’s right to own firearms for personal protection, and the broader implications these regulations have in terms of public safety.
The second part of GRPC 2012 report will be posted shortly on TheGunMag.com.
