Twenty years ago this Thursday, the federal government took a step that remains a call to arms for guns rights hardliners. Many Americans remember the Waco siege as a federal raid against the compound of the Branch Davidians, a religious sect whose leader, David Koresh, was physically and sexually abusing adults and children. But for pro-gun absolutists, the Waco siege was something else. The kind of government tyranny they expect more of during the second Obama administration, and the kind of repression they are already preparing to resist.

“#USA>> Do you want *NAZI #Democrats TELLING you What you can EAT or How many Bullets you can DEFEND YOUR CHILDREN WITH? #STANDandFIGHT #tcot,” tweeted @johnmatthew19 this week using the hashtag #StandandFight encouraged by the National Rifle Association, and the hashtag #tcot or TopConservativesonTwitter favored by the organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference being held in Washington in two weeks.

At the same time that the gun lobby is helping to fuel threatening language on the Internet, it is trying to keep secret its financial backing for key witnesses testifying about gun violence before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

One witness, David Kopel, who testified on January 30, identified at the hearing as a law school adjunct professor, received more than $108,000 in grants from the NRA’s Civil Rights Defense Fund in 2011. Another witness, David T. Hardy, testifying Wednesday as a private attorney in Tucson, Arizona, received $67,500 in grants from the same NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund in 2011. Another witness testifying Wednesday, Nicholas Johnson, a Fordham Law School professor, spoke a year ago at an NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund scholars’ seminar.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/27/senate-witness-on-weapons-ban-funded-by-gun-lobby/

Detroit — Police say a 29-year-old woman accidentally shot herself in the leg inside the MotorCity Casino-Hotel early Tuesday morning, causing quite a commotion among gamblers.

The woman, a concealed pistol license owner, apparently had the gun in her purse and it discharged, sending a bullet into her right thigh, according to police.

--snip--

It is unclear whether charges will be pressed against the woman, police say.

"Although she has a CPL (concealed pistol license) to carry it, it is against the law to enter a casino with any firearm. As a result, the police are investigating this matter and we are cooperating fully," said MotorCity spokeswoman Jacci Woods

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130219/METRO01/302190398#ixzz2M1y0TEV5

Many of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s gun proposals allow gun owners to keep their current firearms, so long as they register them. However, one recommendation could have some current gun owners turning over their weapons.

The change would come as a result the governor’s efforts to make background checks more comprehensive and broaden the list of convictions that could make someone ineligible to possess a firearm.

Currently the state does not allow convicted felons to possess guns. It also prohibits people convicted of a handful of other misdemeanor crimes from owning firearms. Negligent homicide, low-level assault convictions, inciting riots, and possessing drugs can also prevent one from getting a gun permit.

Malloy would like to see that expanded to include people convicted of drunk driving or driving under the influence of drugs during the past five years. It would also include any offense involving a gun as well as any conviction involving the use or threat of force.

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/malloy_proposes_confiscating_guns_from_owners_with_dui_convictions

Those concerned about the $32 billion firearm industry–gun owners, investors, whatever–should shift their attention from Capital Hill to courtrooms around the country. Potentially damaging gun-control measures seem more likely to come from the country’s justices than from its 535 lawmakers.

Two federal appeals courts last week reviewed the legality behind concealed carry laws. In Denver, the court decided that concealed-carry firearms aren’t protected by the Second Amendment. A thousand miles away in Chicago, the court reached a different decision. It declined to reconsider a ruling that found that state’s ban on concealed carry unconstitutional.

These two courts aren’t the first to mull this issue. A New York federal appeals court last November upheld a state law that required concealed-carry applicants to prove “proper cause” to obtain concealed-carry licenses. Looking ahead, appeals courts in California and Virginia are set to review the issue.

Concealed carry laws have been on the rise for the greater part of three decades. They could very well soon stretch nationwide, if Illinois completes its about-face on concealed carry. Not too surprisingly, it’s most prevalent in red states, especially so in Georgia, Utah and Florida; in the Peach State, for example, more than 12% of adults 20 and older have an active permit. All told, more than 8 million Americans have one. And not only has the number of licensing states increased in the past ten years (in 2002, seven states including Illinois banned concealed carry), but more and more states are recognizing others’ permits, making it practical to become licensed and purchase a weapon.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2013/02/25/a-gun-control-battle-that-could-actually-damage-the-industry-is-escaping-public-attention/

A growing number of shooting enthusiasts are creating legal trusts to acquire fully automatic guns, silencers or other firearms whose sale is restricted by federal law — a mechanism that bypasses the need to obtain law enforcement approval or even criminal background checks.

The trusts, called gun trusts, are intended to allow owners of the firearms to share them legally with family members and to pass them down responsibly. They have gained in popularity, gun owners say, in part because they may offer protection from future legislation intended to prohibit the possession or sale of the firearms.

But because of a loophole in federal regulations, buying restricted firearms through a trust also exempts the trust’s members from requirements that apply to individual buyers, including being fingerprinted, obtaining the approval of a chief local law enforcement officer and undergoing a background check.

Lawyers who handle the trusts and gun owners who have used them say that the majority of customers who buy restricted firearms through trusts do not do so to avoid such requirements. And most gun dealers continue to require background checks for the representative of the trust who picks up the firearm. But not all do. Christopher J. Dorner, the former Los Angeles police officer who embarked on a weeklong assault on law enforcement officers this month that ended with his death on Feb. 12, said in a rambling 11,000-word manifesto that he had used a gun trust to buy silencers and a short-barreled rifle from a gun store in Nevada without a background check.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/in-gun-trusts-a-legal-loophole-for-restricted-firearms.html?hp

WASHINGTON -- In the insular world of gun rights groups, Alan Gottlieb is a man on the make. Over the past five years, his Bellevue, Wash.-based nonprofit, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), has raced to expand gun rights, building on one of the most significant court rulings in decades. Now, Gottlieb is hoping to open the legal floodgates by litigating dozens of cases nationwide.

The December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., galvanized the public in support of gun control measures, but so far, the national conversation has revolved almost entirely around legislation. Many of the most significant changes to U.S. firearms law today are happening not in Congress, however, but in the courts.

Much of the SAF's reputation in the courtroom can be attributed to a Northern Virginia-based litigator, Alan Gura, who is best known for successfully arguing District of Columbia v. Heller before the Supreme Court. That landmark 2008 decision held that the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual, not just the state militia, to possess a gun.

Gura and Gottlieb teamed up after the Heller victory and filed more than 40 lawsuits, quickly establishing the SAF as a prolific player in Second Amendment litigation. In 2010, the duo scored a major win with a case they had initiated, McDonald v. Chicago, which extended the Heller decision to cover the states. In doing so, the Supreme Court overturned the Windy City's handgun ban, on the books for 28 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/second-amendment-foundation_n_2745038.html

RENO, Nev. — California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but that doesn't stop some gun buyers from finding a way around those laws when shopping for weapons.

Nevada has seen its share of boom and bust. Though there's one export, besides lady luck, that Californians can't seem to get enough of -- handguns, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles.

"Probably half of the illegal weapons that are coming into San Francisco and the Bay Area are coming out of different states, such as Nevada, Texas, Arizona," said Lt. Bobby Guzman from the San Francisco District Attorney's Office. "I believe that Reno is one of the hot spots where all these weapons are coming just because they're in very close proximity to the San Francisco Bay Area."

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/special-reports/nevadas-lax-gun-laws-make-it-popular-californians-/nWW2B/

Cops in the Brownsville area of Brooklyn are dealing with one of New York City’s most crime-infested areas by spending more time on Facebook. That’s where they’ve found plenty of evidence of illegal gun possession and are nabbing criminals who post pictures of themselves living la vida loca.

Officers and detectives in the 73rd Precinct in Brownsville spend part of their shifts every week on Facebook, looking for pictures of weapons and evidence of gang activity, according to the Daily News. And it’s working.

Compared to statistics for the rest of the city, in Brownsville cops took more illegal guns off the streets in 2012 than the year before. Gangsters apparently post pictures of themselves with guns, drugs and money, and it doesn’t take cops long to track them down.

“We have identified the bad guys and we are going after them,” Deputy Inspector Joseph Gulotta, the precinct commander, told the Daily News. “Social media has changed everything.”

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/02/cops-facebook-track-illegal-weapons/?cid=con:105

On Dec. 14, the horrific slaughter of 20 defenseless 6- and 7-year-olds stirred something in all of us. Mothers and fathers across the country grieved with the families of Newtown, Conn. We were stunned, shocked, deeply saddened and, most important, moved to change.

One Million Moms for Gun Control was founded by a Zionsville mother, Shannon Watts, the day after the Newtown massacre. In a few weeks, our ranks swelled to 70,000 members, with the potential to reach 80 million mothers nationwide. We have traditionally remained quiet in the discussion regarding gun control, but no longer. We are changed. We are strong. We are speaking out.

Every day in the United States, 270 people are shot, including 47 children. Of the 270, 87 die. Every year almost 100,000 people and 20,000 children in America are shot; 31,000 die from their wounds, including 3,000 children. We have had enough. The time has come for change.

A recent poll estimated that more than 90 percent of Americans, including gun owners, overwhelmingly support universal background checks. The National Rifle Association opposes this because, as Wayne LaPierre, its spokesman, says, “criminals won’t submit to a background check.” Since when was the fact that criminals break laws a reason for not having any? This logic is flawed. The fact is that laws reduce death, period.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130224/OPINION/302240011/Moms-had-enough-call-gun-regulations

Yesterday, at CNN.com, I offered two proposals to enhance gun safety that would not require a vote of Congress: (1) a Surgeon General's report on the health hazards of guns in the home; (2) a congressional investigation of the safety practices of the gun industry.

Robert VerBruggen offered a substantial reply at National Review Online.

Before responding in my turn, there's a threshold point that must be stressed and then stressed again. At one point in his reply, Robert dismissively describes one study of gun safety as a "tiny phone survey" "conducted in 1996." And of course … he's right! A lot of the most important data in the gun debate is unsatisfactory and is out-of-date.

There's a reason for that, and the reason is that the gun advocates themselves passed a law through Congress almost 20 years ago forbidding the use of federal research dollars to study gun safety. It's audacious for the people who have done everything in their power to suppress the evidence now to complain about the poor quality of the evidence as exists. Their determination to suppress the evidence is itself the strongest clue as to which way the evidence points.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/20/why-does-the-gun-lobby-fear-science-and-safety.html