Looking Back at 2009

The year 2009 was a blur of activity for the First Shots team and all of the NSSF staff that contribute to First Shots' success.

Writes Cyndi Dalena, NSSF's manager of First Shots, "From new sponsors and ranges to new media outlets, First Shots flowed into 2010 in what seemed like the blink of an eye.

"Early in 2009, we embarked on a new challenge to increase the number of participating ranges, and we gained 54 new locations! Of course, more ranges offering First Shots means more folks learning about firearm safety and enjoying the shooting sports.

"Sponsors, always key to the success of our efforts, continued to be strong supporters. From loaner firearms to ammunition and targets, sponsors provided materials to each First Shots range to reduce out-of-pocket expenses and make sure the range had everything it needed for a successful seminar.

"Campaigns were conducted in Chicago and Los Angeles with much success. In each city, First Shots seminars were filled to capacity, and additional classes were added. The response in those areas certainly tells us that city dwellers want to learn more about firearm safety and shooting.

"Many of our NSSF member ranges continue to offer First Shots on a regular basis, and we appreciate each range's commitment to firearm safety in its community and to the future of our industry. Industry sponsors have committed to continue support throughout this year -- eliminating the cost of materials to ranges! Participating ranges will continue to receive ammunition, targets and safety literature at no cost. Loaner firearms -- pistols, shotguns and traditional and modern sporting rifles -- provide the tools for broad or specific First Shots.

"Throughout 2010, getting new locations onboard will continue to be a focused effort. If you haven't scheduled First Shots yet, we are wondering why?"

By: National Shooting Sports Foundation

Bill would carry mandatory gun crime sentencing

A Carroll Republican’s bill that would create a minimum mandatory sentence for the use of any gun in committing a felony is getting bipartisan support.

Senate Bill 44 sponsor Sen. Larry Haines, R-District 5, has introduced the legislation the last several years. Last year, the bill was passed by the Senate, but it didn’t make it out of committee in the House of Delegates.

“I’m pretty confident this year we’ll be successful,” Haines said.

He said the legislation enjoys bipartisan support, especially among Baltimore Democrats.

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake is expected to testify in favor of the bill and it’s been requested it be amended to show her administration’s support, he said.

Also, House Bill 157 was cross filed with Haines’ legislation by Del. Curt Anderson, D-District 43, who represents north Baltimore.

Haines’ bill will receive a hearing with the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Thursday.

State law currently allows for a mandatory sentence for the use of a handgun during a felony.

The new legislation proposes sentencing anyone found guilty of using any gun during the commission of a felony to a minimum of five years without parole and a maximum of 20 years.

By Adam Bednar, The Caroll County Times

On handgun ban, will Chicago succeed where D.C. failed?

As James Madison and other Founding Fathers adeptly worded the Bill of Rights in order to assure us the blessings of liberty and individual freedoms, they knew their words would be interpreted by future judiciary bodies.

Whether they did so purposely or not, one amendment, the second, allows for the widest range of interpretation. It is worded as such: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In 21st century America, there is little debate over the people’s right to join or maintain a militia. However, an enormous amount of debate takes place in our legislatures and courts regarding the people’s right to bear arms. There is one reoccurring question requiring interpretation of the Second Amendment: Where and when can these arms be beared?

The Second Amendment may be the most widely interpreted and debated part of the Bill of Rights. However, a major legal turning point could be approaching on the matter this spring as the Supreme Court addresses a Chicago decision to ban handguns.

This weekend in Alexandria, protesters assembled to speak out against Starbucks allowing customers to carry firearms where and when legal. The home of the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, Chicago, is on its way to the Supreme Court as it looks to enforce a D.C.-like ban on handguns.

While Starbucks is being unfairly used as cannon fodder for those looking for stricter gun laws, the Chicago case is of serious importance.

Chicago is looking to do what the District of Columbia was unable to do — ban handguns inside city limits. Two years ago, D.C. attempted to pass similar legislation, with the U.S. Supreme Court striking it down in District of Columbia vs. Heller.

In the case, the court clearly established for the first time that individuals — even if not militia affiliated — had the right to possess firearms, including handguns. It would seem pointless, then, for the windy city to try a similar law regarding the right to bear arms — but maybe not.

The wonderfully complex and often applied 14th Amendment may have something to say in this interpretation. This amendment was created after the Civil War to close any loopholes regarding state and local governments’ ability to infringe upon constitutional rights.

A Supreme Court case involving Chicago could see the justices establish the right to bear arms as an individual’s fundamental privilege or immunity. A decision mentioning such would virtually holster state and local governments’ ability from making laws regarding the bearing of firearms. State and local government are not allowed to infringe upon anything deemed a fundamental privilege.

The amazing thing is our Constitution and Bill of Rights are so beautifully open for interpretation that the definition and application of the right to bear arms will most certainly change again.

By: Worth Richardson, The Star-Exponent