The Department of Natural Resources and Environment is inviting the public to participate in the deer management planning process. Four public meetings have been held, and another four are occurring in the next couple weeks. The DNRE will present and discuss the draft statewide deer management plan. These meetings will be held 7 to 9 p.m. EST, with the exception of the Crystal Falls meeting, which will be held from 6 to 8 p.m. CST.

“These open houses are to present the first draft of the Deer Management Plan to the public and to receive comments on the plan,” said John Niewoonder, DNRE wildlife habitat biologist.” The citizen-based Deer Advisory Team, DNRE staff and others involved with the recommendations for this plan have worked diligently to create this document.”

Local staff will be available after the meeting for other deer questions; the open house portion will focus solely on the draft plan. The plan is available for review on the DNRE Web site under www.michigan.gov/dnrhunting.

Public open house locations and dates are as follows:

Tuesday March 9, Comfort Inn, 13954 State Highway M-28, Newberry

Wednesday March 10, Forest Park Elementary School, Multi Purpose Rm., 810 Forest Parkway, Crystal Falls (6 to 8 p.m. CST).

Tuesday March 16, Quality Inn, 3121 East Grand River Ave., Lansing

Thursday March 18, Northwood University, Sloan Building, Rm. 210, 4000 Whiting Dr., Midland

Individuals can also submit written comments via e-mail or U.S. mail. Send comments to: John Niewoonder, DNRE Wildlife Division, P.O. Box 30444, Lansing, MI 48909, or via e-mail, at dnr-wld-wild@michigan.gov.

Persons with disabilities needing accommodations for effective participation in the meeting should contact Alice Stimpson at 517-373-1263, or at stimpsona@michigan.gov, at least seven days prior to the meeting date to request mobility, visual, hearing, or other assistance.

The DNRE is committed to conserve, manage, protect, and promote accessible use and enjoyment of the state’s environmental, natural resource, and related economic interests for current and future generations.

By VANESSA O’CONNELL And JULIE JARGON

Starbucks Corp. and some other chain stores in the U.S. are finding themselves caught in the middle of a firearms debate, as gun-control advocates go up against a burgeoning campaign by gun owners to carry holstered pistols in public places.

The “open carry” movement, in which gun owners carry unconcealed handguns as they go about their everyday business, is loosely organized around the country but has been gaining traction in recent months. Gun-control advocates have been pushing to quash the movement, including by petitioning the Starbucks coffee chain to ban guns on its premises.

Businesses have the final say on their property. But the ones that don’t opt to ban guns—such as Starbucks—have become parade grounds of sorts for open-carry advocates.

Starbucks on Wednesday, while bemoaning being thrust into the debate, defended its long-standing policy of complying with state open-carry weapons laws, in part by stating that its baristas, or “partners,” could be harmed if the stores were to ban guns. The chain said that in the 43 states where open carry is legal, it has about 4,970 company-operated stores.

The company added: “The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.”

In 29 states, it’s legal to openly carry a loaded handgun, without any form of government permission. Another 13 allow an unconcealed loaded handgun with a carry permit, according to opencarry.org, which is a loosely organized Web forum for the movement.

In California, where it’s legal to carry a gun openly without a license in most places as long as it’s unloaded, growing numbers of armed people have been turning up at Starbucks, restaurants, and retailers, with handguns holstered to their belts to protest what they contend are unfair limits on permits to carry a concealed weapon.

The open-carry movement began spreading in 2004 after some pro-gun advocates in Virginia began researching state laws and discovered that many states don’t have laws to prevent unconcealed carry of handguns.

“The concealed carry movement has been successful but open carry is coming up,” in popularity, said Mike Stollenwerk, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and co-founder of the opencarry.org site.

“I feel other people have the right to carry firearms into a business if it’s okay with the business,” said William Moore, a carpenter from Lynwood, Wash., and an open-carry advocate who says he doesn’t carry firearms into Starbucks coffee shops.

A group called Protest Easy Guns plans on Saturday to protest Starbucks’s policy of allowing customers in open carry weapons states to carry guns inside the coffee shops. The group of women said on Thursday that it plans to demonstrate outside an Alexandria, Va., Starbucks.

Supporters are spreading in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and other areas. Some are making lists of “OC-friendly” locales, and encouraging boycotts of businesses with no-weapons signs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Home Depot Inc., Best Buy Co. and Barnes & Noble Inc., are designated as “open-carry” friendly in some online forums or say they abide by existing laws. “Our practice is to comply with local and state laws,” said Best Buy spokeswoman Sue Busch Nehring.

Open-carry proponents are also taking advantage of some momentum in state legislatures to expand gun rights, although most new and pending measures don’t specifically address unconcealed handguns.

Open carry hasn’t been part of the official focus of the pro-gun lobbying group, the National Rifle Association, which has 4 million members.

In the past 20 years, the NRA has focused on expanding the ability of U.S. gun owners to carry a handgun in a concealed manner.

Today, 38 states have a “shall issue” permit process. Two states don’t require a license to conceal carry. Eight states have “may issue” concealed carry laws, meaning permits will be given with the discretion of a local politician or police officer.

“We support the self-defense rights of law-abiding Americans in accordance with local, state and federal laws,” says Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman, who declined further comment on open-carry activity.

Some chains have banned guns from their restaurants, even in open-carry states, because of the impact it could have on non-gun-carrying customers.

“We are concerned that the open display of firearms would be particularly disturbing to children and their parents,” said a spokesperson for the California Pizza Kitchen restaurant chain.

A Peet’s Coffee & Tea spokesperson said that while the firm “respects and values all individuals’ rights…our policy is not to allow customers carrying firearms in our stores or on our outdoor seating premises unless they are uniformed or identified law enforcement officers.”

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which partnered with Credo Action, an activist group that uses mobile phones to effect social change, says it has collected more than 28,000 signatures on a petition to get Starbucks to change its policy.

Allowing customers who are armed with unconcealed guns on the premises “can’t be good for business—it galvanizes people, and some of them won’t patronize Starbucks after this,” said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, a gun-control organization in Washington, D.C.

Indeed, not all baristas agree that the Starbucks policy protects them. “I think the policy shows complete disregard for the safety and sentiments of their workers. The only thing worse than a yuppie upset with how their frappuccino turned out is a yuppie with a gun who’s unhappy with how their frappuccino turned out,” says Erik Forman, a Starbucks barista and union member in Minneapolis.

The IWW Starbucks Workers Union on Wednesday issued a statement, saying “We appreciate the vigorous debate taking place by principled individuals on both sides of this issue. However, to date we are not aware of any efforts by Starbucks to widely engage its workers who are directly affected by open-carry gun laws. We believe an appropriate solution cannot be reached without doing so.”
—Nick Wingfield and Jess Bravin contributed to this article

Write to Vanessa O’Connell at vanessa.o’connell@wsj.com and Julie Jargon at julie.jargon@wsj.com

Justices signal end to Chicago ban on handguns
March 2, 2010 11:35 AM | 49 Comments

Most of the Supreme Court justices who two years ago said the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun rights signaled during arguments today they are ready to extend this right nationwide and to use it to strike down some state and local gun regulations.

Since 1982, Chicago has outlawed hand guns in the city, even for law-abiding residents who sought to keep one at home. That ordinance was challenged by several city residents who said it violated their rights “to keep and bear arms” under the 2nd Amendment.

The case forced the high court to confront a simple question it had never answered: Did the 2nd Amendment limit only the federal government’s ability to regulate guns and state militias, or did it also give citizens a right to challenge state and local restrictions on guns?

All signs today were that five justices saw the right to “bear arms” as national in scope and not limited to laws passed in Washington.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy described the individual right to a gun as being of “fundamental character,” like the right to freedom of speech. “If it is not fundamental, then Heller is wrong,” Kennedy said, referring to the decision two years ago that struck down the hand-gun ban in the District of Columbia. Kennedy was part of the 5-4 majority in that case.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. called it an “extremely important” right in the Constitution. Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. echoed the theme that the court had endorsed an individual, nationwide right in its decision two years ago. The fifth member of the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas, did not comment during the argument, but he had been a steady advocate of the 2nd Amendment.

A ruling striking down the Chicago hand-gun ban would reverberate nationwide because it would open the courthouse door to constitutional challenges to all manner of local or state gun regulations. However, the justices may not give much guidance on how far this right extends.

Chief Justice Roberts all but forecast the court would issue an opinion that avoids deciding the harder questions about whether guns can be carried in public as well as kept at home. “We haven’t said anything about the content of the 2nd Amendment,” Roberts said at one point. He added that the justices need not rule on whether there is a right to carry a “concealed” weapon.

A lawyer for Chicago argued that there is a long American tradition of permitting states and cities to set gun regulations. For 220 years year, gun restrictions “have been a state and local decision,” said attorney James A. Feldman. Cities should be permitted to set “reasonable regulations of firearms,” he added, noting Chicagoans are allowed to have rifles and shotguns in their homes.

But he ran into stiff questioning from Scalia and his colleagues.

At one point during the argument, Justice John Paul Stevens suggested the right to bear arms could be limited to homes. A liberal who dissented in the earlier gun-rights case two years ago, Stevens said the court could rule for the Chicago homeowners and say they had a right to a gun at home. At the same time, the court could say it is not “a right to parade around the street with a gun,” Stevens said.

But that idea got no traction with the other justices, and a lawyer representing the National Rifle Association said the court should not adopt a “watered down version” of the 2nd Amendment.

It will be several months before the court hands down a decision in the case of McDonald v. Chicago.

— David G. Savage

NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS ALERT
Vol. 17, No. 8 02/26/10

Right-to-Carry Takes Effect In National Parks

On February 22, a new law took effect that applied state firearms laws to national parks and wildlife refuges across America.

The implementation of the new law, which the National Park Service (NPS) has planned for since passage of H.R. 627 last May, has so far been without major problems. NPS management reports that it has worked with the 493 individual parks, promoting a consistent message on several key points:

* Under the new law, every park is subject to all the firearms laws of the state (or states) where the park is located.
* Park visitors must know and obey state laws, including knowing which state laws apply in parks (such as Yellowstone) that cross state boundaries. (For information on state laws, go to www.nraila.org/gunlaws.)
* The new law affects firearms possession, not use. Laws regarding hunting, poaching, target shooting or any unlawful discharge remain unchanged.
* It will remain unlawful to carry in certain locations, under a separate law that prohibits possession of any firearm in a “federal facility.”

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org

Friday, February 26, 2010

Great news! Last month we alerted you to a superb pro-gun bill pending in the Virginia General Assembly.

HB 69 recently passed the House of Delegates overwhelmingly (70-29) and is now before the Senate’s Courts of Justice Committee.

Introduced by Del. Charles Carrico (R-5) and known as the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act, HB 69 is modeled after similar legislation which has been successful in other states, including Montana — the first state to pass such a law.

The Firearms Freedom Act has a simple concept. HB 69 states that if a gun was made in Virginia, and then stays in the Commonwealth, the federal government may not regulate it under the Interstate Commerce Clause. (Because, you see, the gun was never part of interstate commerce.)

This is important because the Commerce Clause is the “hook” that Congress has used to justify almost every single federal gun control law. But with the passage of HB 69, the Commonwealth will take a stand that guns stamped with the words “Made in Virginia” are no business of the federal government.

Now that we’ve breezed through the House, we can expect anti-gun forces to try and kill this excellent measure in the Senate. Therefore, it is imperative that we make it impossible for senators to do the bidding of the enemies of freedom.

ACTION: Please urge your State Senator to actively support HB 69.

To identify and contact your senator, go to http://conview.state.va.us/whosmy.nsf/main?openform and enter your address in the form provided. When the results display, clicking on the “More about” link will lead you to your senator’s e-mail address. (Using the “Send a message” link on the results page is not recommended, as that will automatically send the message to your delegate as well.)

Note: If you already know your senate district, you can simply e-mail your senator using the format districtXX@senate.virginia.gov — where XX is your district number. Use a lead zero for single-digit districts (e.g. the 1st district, Sen. Miller, would be district01).

A pre-written letter is provided below for you to copy-and-paste, or you may type your own comments when you e-mail your senator.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

Please actively support HB 69, the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act. This bill provides that if a gun is manufactured in Virginia — and the firearm stays in the Commonwealth — it is exempt from federal gun control laws. HB 69 is modeled after laws that were recently passed in Montana and Tennessee.

This is one of the most important bills that you will vote on in 2010. This is more than just a Tenth Amendment resolution — it is a bill that has teeth!

Note that HB 69 passed the House overwhelmingly (70-29). I expect an even better showing in the Senate.

It’s time that we send a message to the U.S. Congress and tell them to start legislating within the authority given them by the Constitution. Please help continue the movement that began in Montana by getting on board with HB 69.

Sincerely,

By Alan M. Gottlieb

Executive Vice President

Second Amendment Foundation

The Washington State Supreme Court has issued a precedent-setting opinion in the case of State v. Christopher William Sieyes which holds that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights “applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment”

This outstanding opinion was authored by Justice Richard B. Sanders, a Supreme Court veteran who clearly understands the history of both the state and federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps what makes the Sanders opinion so remarkable is that it places the Washington Supreme Court ahead of the United States Supreme Court in recognition that the U.S. Constitution’s recognition of the right to keep and bear arms applies to all citizens, and should also place limits on state and local governments, as it does on Congress.

Quoting Justice Sanders, “Lower courts need not wait for the Supreme Court the Constitution is the rule of all courts both state and federal judiciaries wield power to strike down unconstitutional government acts.”

The Sanders opinion was issued February 18, 2010 and its significance quickly registered with gun rights organizations and activists across the map. For example, the National Shooting Sports Foundation hailed the ruling. NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane called it “a welcome development and victory for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.”

This state high court opinion, among other things, effectively “puts on notice” anti-gun groups in the Evergreen State that their continued efforts to impair the rights of legally-armed citizens will face not only growing legislative resistance, but intense legal scrutiny. Though not binding on other states, it clears a path for other state supreme courts to follow.

Despite its brevity at only 24 pages, Justice Sanders’ opinion – which was co-signed by five of his colleagues, including Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen – thoroughly and proactively debunks any suggestion that the authors of Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution did not mean specifically what they wrote: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

Perhaps Justice Sanders put it best when he noted, “This right is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >

Copyright © 2010 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.

Tools of the Trade is now a dealer of ACE cases. Browse there selection here, I can guarantee you a good price, let us know what you are looking for!

Got my custom built rig out yesterday for some shooting, and think I did some of my best shooting to date.
The rifle is a Model 1 sales (24″ stainless bull barrel/free floated varmint kit) built with a mega machine lower, I also added a few thing of my own. It is topped with a Barska scope that I decided to try to see how good they are (or aren’t).


The group measured is 5 shots, The handloads I used for this group are 25gr of Varget pushing a 77gr Sierra MK bullet at about 2714 fps. brass is R-P nickel virgin.
Shooting conditions were calm 0 wind and about 35 degrees out, range was 200yds.

President fails to deliver on campaign promises, gun control advocates say

By Ian Urbina
updated 5:58 a.m. ET, Wed., Feb. 24, 2010

When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition.

And yet the opposite is happening. Mr. Obama has been largely silent on the issue while states are engaged in a new and largely successful push for expanded gun rights, even passing measures that have been rejected in the past.

In Virginia, the General Assembly approved a bill last week that allows people to carry concealed weapons in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, and the House of Delegates voted to repeal a 17-year-old ban on buying more than one handgun a month. The actions came less than three years after the shootings at Virginia Tech that claimed 33 lives and prompted a major national push for increased gun control.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
Click Here!

Arizona and Wyoming lawmakers are considering nearly a half dozen pro-gun measures, including one that would allow residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit. And lawmakers in Montana and Tennessee passed measures last year — the first of their kind — to exempt their states from federal regulation of firearms and ammunition that are made, sold and used in state. Similar bills have been proposed in at least three other states.

Assault weapons ban
In the meantime, gun control advocates say, Mr. Obama has failed to deliver on campaign promises to close a loophole that allows unlicensed dealers at gun shows to sell firearms without background checks; to revive the assault weapons ban; and to push states to release data about guns used in crimes.

He also signed bills last year allowing guns to be carried in national parks and in luggage on Amtrak trains.

“We expected a very different picture at this stage,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control group that last month issued a report card failing the administration in all seven of the group’s major indicators.

Gun control advocates have had some successes recently, Mr. Helmke said. Proposed bills to allow students to carry guns on college campuses have been blocked in the 20 or so states where they have been proposed since the Virginia Tech shootings. Last year, New Jersey limited gun purchases to one a month, a law similar to the one Virginia may revoke.

But recent setbacks to gun control have been many.

Last month, the Indiana legislature passed bills that block private employers from forbidding workers to keep firearms in their vehicles on company property.

Gun rights supporters also showed their strength last year by blocking legislation to give District of Columbia residents a full vote in Congress by attaching an amendment to repeal Washington’s ban on handguns.

‘Common-sense steps’
Asked by reporters about the Brady group’s critical report on the Obama administration, a White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, pointed out that the latest F.B.I. statistics showed that violent crime dropped in the first half of 2009 to its lowest levels since the 1960s.

“The president supports and respects the Second Amendment,” Mr. LaBolt said, “and he believes we can take common-sense steps to keep our streets safe and to stem the flow of illegal guns to criminals.”

Still, gun rights groups remain skeptical of the administration.

“The watchword for gun owners is stay ready,” said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association. “We have had some successes, but we know that the first chance Obama gets, he will pounce on us.”

That Mr. Obama signed legislation allowing guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains should not be seen as respect for the Second Amendment, Mr. LaPierre said. The two measures had been attached as amendments to larger pieces of legislation — a bill cracking down on credit card companies and a transportation appropriations bill, respectively — that the president wanted passed, Mr. LaPierre said.
CONTINUED : Dealers reap benefits
Regardless of Mr. Obama’s agenda, gun dealers seem to be reaping the benefits of fears surrounding it.

Federal background checks for gun purchases rose to 14 million in 2009, up from 12.7 million in 2008 and 11.2 million in 2007. But from November 2009 to January 2010, the number of background checks fell 12 percent, compared with the same months a year earlier.

In Virginia, the success of new pro-gun laws is partly a result of the Republican Party’s taking the governor’s office after eight years of Democratic control.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

A major setback for state gun control advocates was this week’s House vote repealing the one-gun-per-month law, which was passed in 1993 under Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, a Democrat, and has long been upheld as the state’s signature gun control restriction.

Supporters of limiting gun purchases to one a month said the law was important to avoid Virginia’s becoming the East Coast’s top gun-running hub. Opponents dismissed the concern.

“We shouldn’t get rid of our Second Amendment rights because some people in New York City want to abuse theirs,” Robert G. Marshall, a Republican delegate from Manassas who supported repeal of the one-gun-a-month limit, told reporters.

Guns-in-bars bill
Gun control advocates hoped to win new restrictions after the Virginia Tech massacre on April 16, 2007, in which a student, Seung-Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people before turning a gun on himself.

After the shooting, Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, pushed for stronger gun control measures. But last year the legislature rejected a bill requiring background checks for private sales at gun shows and repealed a law that Mr. Kaine had supported to prohibit anyone from carrying concealed weapons into a club or restaurant where alcohol is served.

In previous years, the guns-in-bars bill cleared both chambers but was vetoed by Mr. Kaine. But the new governor, Robert F. McDonnell, has said he supports the measure.

Virginia is also considering a measure adopted in Montana and Tennessee that declares that firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress. The measure is primarily a challenge to Congress’s power to regulate commerce among the states.

The Montana law is being challenged in federal court, and the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has sent a letter to Tennessee and Montana gun dealers stating that federal law supersedes the state measure.

This story, “Fearing Obama Agenda, States Push to Loosen Gun Laws,” first appeared in The New York Times.

Carlos Norman Hathcock II
May 20, 1942(1942-05-20) – February 23, 1999 (aged 56)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carlos Hathcock DM-SD-98-02324.JPG
Carlos Hathcock in 1996
Nickname Lông Trắng du Kich (White Feather Sniper)
Place of birth Little Rock, Arkansas
Place of death Virginia Beach, Virginia
Allegiance United States of America
Service/branch United States Marine Corps
Years of service 1959-1979
Rank USMC-E7.svg Gunnery Sergeant
Battles/wars Vietnam War
Awards Silver Star
Purple Heart

Carlos Norman Hathcock II (May 20, 1942 – February 23, 1999) was a United States Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant sniper with a service record of 93 confirmed kills. Hathcock’s record and the extraordinary details of the missions he undertook made him a legend in the Marine Corps. His fame as a sniper and his dedication to long distance shooting led him to become a major developer of the United States Marine Corps Sniper training program. He has, in recent years, had the honor of having a rifle named after him: a variant of the M21 dubbed the Springfield Armory M25 White Feather.[1]

Carlos Hathcock