Posts Tagged ‘anti-gun idiocy’

From NRA-ILA

On Tuesday, nine doctors and lawyers, claiming to represent their medical and legal organizations (and by extension, the members of their professions), strained their credibility and made fools of themselves with a call to action in favor of gun control.

The nine are Steven E. Weinberger, of the American College of Physicians; David B. Hoyt, of the American College of Surgeons; Hal C. Lawrence, of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Saul Levin, of the American Psychiatric Association; Douglas E. Henley, of the American Academy of Family Physicians; Errol R. Alden, of the American Academy of Pediatrics; Dean Wilkerson, of the American College of Emergency Physicians; Georges C. Benjamin, of the American Public Health Association; and William C. Hubbard, of the American Bar Association.

If their proposals for dealing with “firearm violence” sound familiar, it’s because you’ve heard them all before, mostly from anti-gun politicians (like President Obama) and dedicated gun control advocates (like Michael Bloomberg). Doubtless, all concerned hope the usual tired agenda will sound more convincing when promoted by learned professionals. Instead, it just makes those professionals sound like they’re out of their depth and playing politics.

The group calls for “background checks for all gun purchases, including sales by gun dealers,” believing that “purchases at gun shows do not require such checks.”

Seriously? They really don’t know that dealers have to run checks at gun shows?

Here’s another. They claim “40% of firearm transfers take place through means other than a licensed dealer; as a result, an estimated 6.6 million firearms are sold annually with no background checks.” The source of these figures, they claim, is a summary of the Cook-Ludwig Guns in America survey of 1993.

Two years ago, the authors of the survey saidthat the correct number is probably between 14 and 22 percent, but “we don’t know the current percentage — nor does anyone else.”

There’s more. They claim, “The only way to ensure that all prohibited purchasers are prevented from acquiring firearms is to make background checks a universal requirement for all gun purchases or transfers of ownership.”

They really believe that background checks stop criminals from stealing guns, buying them on the black market, and hiring “straw purchasers” to buy guns for them?

They claim that a ban on “assault weapons” and “large” magazines would be “compliant with the Second Amendment” and “constitutionally sound” according to the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller(2008).

The same Heller decision that said “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” and questioned only whether fully-automatic firearms were within the amendment’s scope, on the grounds that they’re not commonly owned.

“Patients trust their physicians to advise them on issues that affect their health, and physicians can answer questions and educate the public on the risks of firearm ownership and the need for firearm safety,” the anti-gunners claim.

First, however, these doctors and lawyers might want to educate themselves. Better yet, they should stick to medicine and law, rather than dabble in matters in which they have little understanding and zero practical experience. For bunion removal or estate planning, doctors and lawyers have a lot to offer. When serving as the gullible mouthpieces for a political agenda, they do themselves and the good standing of their professions a disservice

(Bloomberg) — California’s ban on new semiautomatic handguns that don’t stamp identifying information on the cartridge was upheld by a U.S. judge in a major loss for gun-rights groups.

The law barring sales of handguns without the microstamping technology doesn’t violate the Constitution’s Second Amendment because gun owners don’t have a right to buy specific types of firearms, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller in Sacramento said in her ruling.

“Plaintiffs insist they have the right to determine the precise way in which they would exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Mueller said. The insistence upon particular handguns falls “outside the scope of the right to bear arms,” she said.

California in 2013 became the first state to bar retailers from selling new models of semiautomatic handguns not equipped to imprint the weapon’s make, model and serial number on the cartridge when a bullet is fired. The statute was supported by law enforcement because it can help deter or solve crime.

Thursday’s ruling that the requirement doesn’t violate the Second Amendment will prompt other states to impose similar requirements, in particular because there’s wide popular support for ballistic fingerprinting, said Allison Anderman, an attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco.

“Microstamping is a really important tool for law enforcement,” Anderman said in a phone interview.

De Facto Ban

Calguns Foundation Inc. and the Second Amendment Foundation argued that the requirement amounts to a de facto ban on sales of new semiautomatics because several manufacturers said they wouldn’t produce guns that included microstamp technology even if it meant their firearms couldn’t be sold in California, the most populous U.S. state.

About 1.5 million handguns were legally sold in California since opponents sued in 2009 to block the microstamping requirement, which according to Mueller’s ruling shows that the law doesn’t effectively ban the sale of firearms in the state.

The District of Columbia, the only other place in the U.S. to mandate microstamping, is set to begin enforcing that requirement next year, Anderman said.

The two gun rights groups said in a court filing Thursday that they will appeal the ruling by Mueller, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama.

‘Strong Case’

“The court’s reasoning, that California’s prohibition of most handguns doesn’t even implicate the Second Amendment, is interesting,” Alan Gura, a lawyer for the groups, said Friday in an e-mail. “But we’re confident that we have a strong case on appeal.”

The case may go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2008 upheld individuals’ right to own handguns, calling them the “quintessential self-defense weapon.”

The 2008 high court ruling left room for gun-control backers to impose new rules to promote safety. California, New York and Maryland, among other states, enacted restrictions that U.S. gun manufacturers and retailers contend are intended to regulate their $14 billion industry out of business.

The California law was signed in 2007 by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and was put on hold until 2013 when state Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate next year, determined the technology was available to all gun makers and wasn’t encumbered by patent claims.

“The court’s ruling means that more gun crimes will be solved, more lives will be saved, and California communities will be safer,” Mike Feuer, the Los Angeles city attorney and the author of the microstamping bill, said in a statement.

The case is Pena v. Cid, 09-cv-01185, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento)

Reacting to the “catch and release” of one of its leaders for openly carrying a firearm on federal grounds that ban firearms inside the facility, Washington activists are planning a responsive armed demonstration, the Our State, Our Rights coalition announced today on Facebook. Liberty for All and Defend Amendment X will gather in front of the Tom Foley Federal Building in Spokane next Friday to protest the arrest and detention of Anthony Bosworth by DHS police on Wednesday.

“Bosworth … was arrested, detained for five hours in a steel cage without charges, denied Miranda rights, and access to an attorney, interrogated by the FBI as a domestic terrorist, and then released with a citation for ‘failure to comply,’ even though his civil rights were clearly violated at every turn,” the protest announcement explains. “His only action was that he was standing outside the federal courthouse at a 10th amendment rally, while legally openly carrying a firearm. The Feds have still not returned his firearms.”

Read the rest @ http://www.examiner.com/article/washington-activists-plan-peaceful-armed-assembly-response-to-activist-s-arrest?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Via David Codrea…

Demonstrating once again that Everytown is a place seething with ignorance and prejudice, Shannon Watts of Moms Demand Action sent out a tweet Thursday every bit as insulting to young women as patron and patriarch Michael Bloomberg proved to be about minorities.

“You think your drunk college-age daughters are bad with their iPhones?” Watts asked, approvingly parroting the headline to an editorial in The Washington Post by an anti-gun psychiatrist. “Imagine them with guns.”

Read the WaPo article-it’s good for a few laughs anyways-the surprising thing is that supposedly “educated”people think like this…

The thing is, from her own narrative, the shrink admits she raised a scatterbrained girl. At least her daughter has learned enough to know mom will shield her from the consequences of her irresponsibility and buy her a new phone if she loses or destroys it because she’s oblivious or falling-down-stairs drunk. In any case, that’s hardly cause to project those failings onto all, and use the reality that some people abuse freedom to deny it to all.

Prejudiced citizen disarmament flack Watts joined an anti-gun headshrinker in painting all college women as drunken airheads, too irresponsible and incompetent to exercise their right to armed self-defense.

Sure, some college-aged people behave badly. And some behave well. Just like the rest of the world, isn’t it?

The antis twist that around, too. That way, if Chicago experiences a rising murder rate, why, that’s a perfect opportunity to rail about “concealed carry killers” or some other damned lie aimed at disarming people who aren’t the problem.

Funny, how college women are competent enough to drive “deadly” vehicles, to vote, to live on their own, to join the military, to get jobs, to form contracts, to get married, to “choose,” and to assume all kinds of adult responsibilities. Funny how “progressive feminists” (and talk about Opposite Day on steroids – or would that be estradiol?) rail against “inequality” and the like, yet when it comes to choosing the right to keep and bear arms, their default position is along the lines of “There, there, dearies, don’t you worry your pretty little heads about it.”

That’s hardly hyperbole. It’s the continuation of a gun-grabber tradition.

“Women are virgins when it comes to guns,” District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, one of 25 women in Congress who sent a letter to the National Rifle Association protesting its then-new “Refuse to be a Victim” program was quoted in the January 1994 issue of Women & Guns magazine. “It should stay that way.”

Again we see stereotyping, and presuming to speak for all, because those who would control others know best. Right now it looks like there’s no shortage of people calling Watts on her shared WaPo prejudices over on her Twitter feed, and hopefully that post will stay up (if it doesn’t, I have a screenshot). At least that’s an improvement over her boss, who when he stepped in it and revealed his inner bigot, had the clout to order the video of it suppressed.

Via Daniel J. Kov, dkov@thedailyjournal.com

A felony gun charge against a Port Elizabeth resident arrested by police last year for possessing an unloaded antique weapon has been dismissed by the Cumberland County Prosecutor’s Office, according to a news release issued Wednesday.

Prosecutor Jennifer Webb-McRae announced in the release that the state will exercise “prosecutorial discretion to dismiss” the second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon charge against Gordon N. Van Gilder.

“Accordingly, the public should be forewarned about the prescriptions against possessing a firearm — even an antique — in a vehicle,” she continued.

Webb-McRae declined to comment further on the dismissal.

Van Gilder’s Eatontown attorney Evan Nappen said he was delighted to hear charges were dropped.

The attorney learned of the dismissal while in an interview with The Daily Journal.

“That is very good,” he said while reading the news release over the phone. “I commend the prosecutor for exercising her dis

cretion accordingly.”

If convicted of the second-degree charge, Van Gilder could have faced a maximum of 10 years behind bars

The charge also carried a minimum 3.5-year sentence that could have seriously jeopardized Van Gilder’s public school pension, his right to vote and his reputation in the community, Nappen said.

“I’m very appreciative that they exercised their discretion here and did the right thing,” Nappen said.

Nappen said his client will follow up on trying to retrieve the centuries-old “Queen Anne” flintlock antique pistol now in custody of the county.

“It’s a valuable collector’s item,” he said.

The dismissal comes after a two-week long public outcry against state and law enforcement officials, with many charging that officials overstepped in their pursuit of charges against the elderly man over an unloaded antique weapon.

Van Gilder, a 72-year-old former educator at Millville Senior High School, was arrested at his Port Elizabeth home by members of the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Department on Nov. 21, 2014.

The arrest came a day after he and 22-year-old Adam Puttergill were stopped in their Toyota Tacoma by Sheriff’s Department officers in a Millville neighborhood.

The two said they were in the process of returning to their Port Elizabeth home after visiting a Vineland pawn shop, at which Van Gilder purchased the 300-year-old flintlock pistol.

Puttergill was acting as the driver for Van Gilder, who suffers severe arthritis, he said.

He also lives with Van Gilder, who informally adopted him about a decade ago.

Cumberland County Sheriff Robert Austino later said his officers pulled the two over because they were in a suspicious neighborhood known for illegal drug activity.

While talking to the two, officers at the scene discovered empty heroin bags and a broken scale used for measuring drugs, Austino said.

The discovery prompted a full search of the vehicle and officers also found Van Gilder’s 300-year-old flintlock pistol wrapped in cloth inside the glove compartment.

Puttergill was taken into custody on an outstanding Vineland Municipal Court contempt warrant, he told The Daily Journal last week.

He also was charged with possessing two prescription pills that were not in their pharmacy container. The drug charge has since been handled by Puttergill’s attorney in Millville Municipal Court, resulting in a conditional discharge of the charge.

While Van Gilder was let go at the scene, Sheriff’s Officers returned to his home the next day and arrested and booked the 72-year-old on the unlawful weapons charge for his unregistered gun.

The incident quickly went on to attract state and national attention following revelation of the arrest by The Daily Journal last week.

Nappen and other public supporters of Van Gilder accused the Sheriff’s Department of a “smear campaign” for charging the elderly man with what they view as an egregious and overstepping charge.

The incident even spurred at least two New Jersey lawmakers to introduce bills that would provide state judges with sentencing discretion in such future cases involving those charged with unlawful weapons possession.

A bill sponsored by state Sen. Jeff Van Drew and Assemblyman Bob Andrzejczak, whose district includes Millville, would further revise the Graves Act, allowing courts to permit a person convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm admittance to pretrial intervention or supervisory treatment if they had no known association with a criminal street gang and no criminal convictions.

165 114 LINKEDIN 2 COMMENTMORE

From : http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/26/new-bill-gives-the-attorney-general-the-power-to-block-gun-sales-to-suspected-terrorists/

Feinstein’s new bill-(link at end of article) sure looks a lot like this bill did…

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr720/text

And this one…

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2159/text

More than two dozen Democrats in the House and Senate — and one Republican — want to give the U.S. attorney general the power to block the sale of guns and explosives to known terrorists, and also to anyone who is “appropriately suspected” of being a terrorist.

The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act was introduced this week by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.). They say it makes no sense that people on the terrorist watch list are prohibited from boarding airplanes in the United States, but are still free to buy guns and explosives.

Supporters of a new bill say known or suspected terrorists shouldn’t have access to guns in the United States.

“Federal law already prohibits nine categories of dangerous persons from purchasing or possessing firearms, including the mentally ill and criminals,” said King. “Yet, after almost 14 years, we still allow suspected terrorists the ability to purchase firearms. It’s time for common sense to prevail before it’s too late.”

Feinstein and King noted that according to GAO, people on the terrorist watch list who tried to buy a weapon in 2013 and 2014 were successful about 93 percent of the time.

But it seems unlikely that a GOP-led House and Senate will agree to give the attorney general the power to stop gun sales, especially with President Barack Obama still in office for the next two years.

Under the bill, the attorney general would be able to stop the transfer of a gun or explosive to a “known or suspected” terrorist if it’s possible the person might use the firearm in connection with terrorism. The bill language says the attorney general can stop the transfer if he or she “has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”

Sales could be blocked to anyone known to be involved in terrorist activities, or anyone who is “appropriately suspected.” That term is used throughout the bill but is never defined, and would likely be a cause for alarm by defenders of the Second Amendment who might worry about giving the attorney general too much discretion in deciding who is “appropriately suspected” of terrorism.

One example of how that authority could be abused was revealed last week, when it was reported that the Department of Homeland Security had produced an intelligence assessment that focuses on terrorist attacks from right-wing groups interested in defending themselves from the federal government. That led to more criticism that the Obama administration is not worried enough about radical Islamic terrorist threats, and is overly worried about right-wing groups.

The legislation would keep current provisions of the law that allow people who are blocked from buying a gun or an explosive to know why he or she was denied, and to challenge that decision at the Department of Justice, and then through a lawsuit if needed.

The Senate bill is cosponsored by 11 Democrats, and the House bill is cosponsored by 14 Democrats — King is the only Republican on the bill.

Read the bill @ http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=e0e0dab0-d7d7-4dca-83da-7b68f5be2b47

Setting the state up for massive gun owner civil disobedience along the lines of what has occurred in California and is currently happening in New York and Connecticut, Democrat State Senator Jacqueline Y. Collins filed the Firearms Registration Act with the Secretary of State on Friday. The act was then presented for first reading and referred to the Democrat-dominated Assignments Committee.

Is Democrat Illinois State Senator Jacqueline Y. Collins ready to enforce her demands against gun owners who will not comply?

Collins’ measure “[p]rovides that every person in the State must register each firearm he or she owns or possesses in accordance with the Act,” the official synopsis declares. It also “[p]rovides that a person shall not purchase or possess ammunition within this State without having first obtained a registration certificate identifying a firearm that is suitable for use with that ammunition, or a receipt demonstrating that the person has applied to register a suitable firearm under the Act and that the application is pending.”

In addition, it requires “the Department of State Police must complete a background check of any person who applies for: (1) a registration certificate for a firearm that was lawfully owned or possessed on the effective date of the Act, was brought into the State by a new resident, or was acquired by operation of law upon the death of the former owner; or (2) a renewal of a registration certificate unless, within 12 months of the date the renewal application is submitted, the applicant passed a background check conducted by the Department in connection with the applicant’s acquisition of another firearm.”

Ominously, it also “Provides that it is a Class 2 felony to sell or transfer ownership of a firearm to another person without complying with the registration requirement of the Firearms Registration Act.” That can get someone three to seven years, a punishment equivalent to that people who intentionally transmit HIV are sentenced to.

This new batch of proposed infringements is in addition to requirements already imposed by Illinois State Law requiring gun owners to have a Firearms Owner Identification Card to purchase firearms and ammunition. In fact, it’s an in-your-face to gun owners from an avowed gun hater.

Collins is a former CBS-TV in Chicago “news” editor with credentials from Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism and Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, among other credentials from “progressive” academia. Fittingly, she was a “2001 Legislative Fellow for U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.” She was also endorsed by the Brady campaign at the same time it threw its weight behind (former?) “gun communist” Bobby Rush and future felons (and prohibited persons) Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Rod Blagojevich.

When she joined rabidly anti-gun “priest” Mike “Snuffy” Pfleger for a media blood dance, they were strangely silent on the fact that the ones doing the killings in Chicago are exempt from gun registration schemes they would impose on the law-abiding. That’s because in Haynes v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that requiring felons to register guns violated Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.

Collins knows this, of course, as do all gun-grabbers who would require registration, which is a prerequisite for confiscation. That increasing numbers of gun owners know that and have defiantly told those enacting such Intolerable Acts to get bent is not lost on impotent and enraged state monopoly of violence cultists, who vent their fury by demanding others employ that violence to bend the “scofflaws” to their will.

Whether or not Collins’ latest deliberate act of spitting on freedom stands a chance of being enacted remains to be seen. Regardless, a critical mass of gun owners will not let that alter their resolve to hold fast to their rights and to not back up another inch. There’s a new paradigm, with a growing number of determined citizens recognizing what colleague Mike Vanderboegh has identified as two countries sharing the same territory, and where his fundamental question “Do the people serve the government or does the government serve the people?” has yet to be ultimately tested in our time.

Whether or not it is tested depends on how far domestic enemies with “appetites for the liberty and property” of others are willing to press those they would compel obedience from. If they’re not willing to enforce against all, it will show a self-defeating weakness in the Chicago machine, and encourage other gun owners to join in and spread mass defiance even further. And if they are, we’ll all get an unequivocal answer to that question.

http://www.examiner.com/article/illinois-democrat-s-firearms-registration-act-may-test-new-paradigm?CID=examiner_alerts_article

The coalition that sponsored last fall’s successful gun-purchase background-check initiative wants to intervene in a lawsuit trying to overturn the state law.
By Joseph O’Sullivan
Seattle Times Olympia bureau

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson on Monday applauded an attempt by a coalition of gun-regulation groups to intervene against a lawsuit seeking to roll back the new law expanding background checks on gun buyers.

A lawsuit filed in December by gun-rights supporters alleges Initiative 594 violates the Second Amendment and can inadvertently criminalize people because its language is too vague. Ferguson, along with the state Attorney General’s Office and Washington State Patrol Chief John Batiste, are currently named as defendants.

On Monday, the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, I-594 citizen sponsor Cheryl Stumbo and the local arm of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety filed to join the defendants in the lawsuit.

“It’s my role to defend initiatives lawfully passed by the people of Washington state, and my office will do so vigorously,” Ferguson wrote in an email. “We welcome the participation of the backers of the initiative in the process.”

The move, which a judge must first approve, would allow the groups to file motions and offer a full defense of a law they campaigned hard to enact.

Approved by 59 percent of voters last November, Initiative 594 expanded background checks on gun buyers beyond the federal standard to private sales like some found online or at gun shows.

But the lawsuit lays out concerns by firearms-training groups, private security guards and inspectors, and others. Among the plaintiffs are the Northwest School of Safety; Puget Sound Security Inc.; Firearms Academy of Seattle; the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation; and Alan Gottlieb, the foundation’s executive vice president.

In quick succession Monday morning, Gottlieb ticked off two reasons for gun-rights supporters to take heart with the new developments.

“I think the other side has now realized that our challenge has some very good merit to it,” he said. “The second thing is I think it shows a vote of ‘no confidence’ in the Attorney General’s Office in being able to defend.”

It is common for groups that have pushed initiatives to later become involved in the related lawsuits, according to Hugh Spitzer, acting professor of law at the University of Washington’s School of Law.

In this case, “it enables the proponents to supplement the arguments that the attorney general makes,” said Spitzer.

The development comes as gun-rights supporters have ricocheted between rallies and hearings at the Legislature, trying to find support to change or repeal I-594, or send it back to voters in a referendum.

But those bills appear to have died in the Democrat-controlled House. And a January rally at the Capitol against I-594 succeeded only in the banning of guns in the Legislature’s viewing galleries after armed demonstrators entered those areas.

Stumbo, I-594’s citizen sponsor and a survivor of the 2006 Jewish Federation shootings in Seattle, described the lawsuit as a frivolous action brought by the gun lobby.

“The same individuals who failed to weaken our state’s gun laws in last year’s election are now using the court system to do exactly that,” Stumbo said in prepared remarks.

Where is there any justice in locking up a 72-year-old man for up to 10 years for having an antique flintlock pistol? I’m sure in the Garden State authorities can find frivolous reasons, but there really isn’t any justification for such a prosecutorial overreach.

NRA News’ Ginny Simone ventured into New Jersey to speak with Gordon VanGilder, public enemy No. 1 in Cumberland County. VanGilder is a retired teacher whose career spanned 34 years. He’s an admirer of 18th century artifacts and historical memorabilia and bought the pistol to go with his collection. The pistol featured in Simone’s report is approaching its 300-year anniversary.

Simone reported that Gordon was arrested last November while heading home after lunch. A Cumberland County Sheriff’s Deputy pulled over Gordon for a traffic violation, but wanted to search his car. Upon discovering a flintlock pistol in the glove compartment, VanGilder said that another deputy wanted to let him go since he knew the firearm was an antique. The Sheriff disagreed. VanGilder was arrested the following morning, and faces up to ten years in prison; three and a half to five years of that sentence must be served before parole can be considered.

To make things more absurd, the prosecutor in the case told VanGilder’s lawyer­–Evan Nappen–who’s in the video; that ballistics test will be run on the firearm.

This case will impact Gordon’s pension as a New Jersey educator, his ability to vote, and his reputation. He will be a convicted felon if the State of New Jersey is successful in their crusade against him.

While Gordon noted that he was probably in violation of the law, he wasn’t if he was going by the federal statute, which exempts such a class of firearms. The conflict between state and federal laws is a constitutional question. Maybe this case will settle that egregious discrepancy.

Yeah, New Jersey is still one of the worst states in the country.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/02/16/in-jersey-a-flintlock-pistol-can-get-you-a-10year-jail-sentence-n1957628?utm_source=BreakingOnTownhallWidget_4&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingOnTownhall

Chicago Tribune-

“…In August, 1999, troubled by gun violence that wracked his city, former Gary mayor Scott King sued 21 gun manufacturers and distributors and six local dealers and three associations. Two local retailers reached settlements with the city, including the now-closed Fetla’s in Valparaiso and Westforth Sports in Gary. Ameripawn in Lake Station no longer sells handguns.

A trial court judge dismissed gun manufacturers and dealers, but a higher court reversed the ruling.

The lawsuit contended major manufacturers like Smith & Wesson, Colt and Beretta and gun dealers should be accountable for readily supplying guns they know will reach criminals and others who illegally can’t buy them.

King pointed to an investigation by Gary police in which undercover officers made straw purchases of at least nine handguns and boxes of ammunition after telling gun store clerks they were convicted felons or juveniles.

In its successful appeal, the city pointed to 70 murders in 1997 and 54 in 1998. From 1997 through 2,000, 764 recovered handguns were sold by dealers named as defendants.

About 30 cities across the country, including Chicago, filed similar lawsuits. All of them have been dismissed except Gary’s. Setting aside the gun makers’ arguments that a federal shield law protects them from suits, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled the case could proceed in 2009.

Gary gun suit timeline

Aug. 27, 1999 — City of Gary files suit against gun dealers, manufacturers, trade associations

December, 1999 — City settles with Fetlas, a Valparaiso retailer for $10,000

March, 2001 — trial court dismisses lawsuit, calling it unconstitutional

September, 2002 — Indiana Appellate Court reverses dismisal against certain gun dealers, allowing case to proceed.

December, 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court rules Gary may proceed with its lawsuit against gun manufacturers and sellers.

May, 2005 — Ameripawn in Lake Station agrees to stop selling pistols.

November, 2007 — City reaches confidential agreement with Westforth Sports

January, 2009 — Supreme Court denies petition for transfer.

January, 2015 — Senate Bill 390 would prohibit lawsuits against gun industry and it would be retroactive to Aug. 26, 1999.”

Read the whole story @  http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/news/ct-ptb-gary-gun-suit-bill-focus-st-0217-20150216-story.html