(This political cartoon by Chris Britt, was published in the Springfield Journal-Register in Illinois on April 11th, 2008; re-posted with permission.)

The Philadelphia Inquirer on Jan. 4th spotlighted Freedom States Alliance affiliate, Ceasefire NJ and its efforts to enact a sensible provision to limit handgun purchases to one per month.

This common sense measure would help reduce gun violence and lower crime. The gun lobby has no real leg to stand on in its opposition since the provision doesn't violate anyone's "gun rights", nor does it impact hunters as the proposed restrictions only affects handguns, not rifles and shotguns.

New Jersey could soon become the fourth state to limit handgun purchases to one a month, a move aimed at fighting "straw" gun buyers who purchase weapons legally and pass them to criminals.

The plan, backed by officials in Camden, Newark, Jersey City and other cities, follows calls from urban leaders across the nation, including Philadelphia, to crack down on gun trafficking that they say fuels violence.

There is much debate over whether such laws work, however, and opponents say a limit would infringe on a constitutional right in a state that already has rigorous screenings for gun buyers.

The proposal won approval in the Assembly but faces a tough final test in the more evenly divided Senate. Gov. Corzine, who sponsored a similar plan in the U.S. Senate, has said he will "absolutely" sign the bill into law if it reaches his desk.

"How many guns does somebody need to purchase in a month?" Corzine asked.

Only California, Maryland and Virginia have one-gun-a-month restrictions.

South Carolina had a similar law for nearly 30 years but repealed it in the face of criticism that it had proved ineffective.

Gov. Rendell called for a one-handgun-per-month measure in Pennsylvania, but it was blocked. Philadelphia approved its own version and saw it struck down in court.

In a December hearing, Bryan Miller, executive director of Ceasefire NJ, [an affiliate of the Freedom States Alliance], said the New Jersey bill would not stop gun trafficking in the state but would be an impediment. Buyers would be restricted to one handgun purchase every 30 days - up to 13 a year because of timing quirks. He said the limits would not apply to other guns.

"What we're talking about here is some sort of balance . . . between the privilege of a tiny minority of handgun owners in the state and the common good of public safety," Miller said. "We're talking about a light burden, if any."

But some law-abiding citizens buy several guns at once to avoid repeated waits for background checks, gun-rights groups say. New Jersey already has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-control group. Pistol purchases can take weeks or even months, gun advocates say.

"This legislation makes it a crime to exercise a constitutional right to obtain handguns any more often than Big Brother dictates," said Scott Bach, president of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs.

New Jersey handgun buyers must obtain permits from local police and go through background checks, Bach said. That lets police know when multiple purchases are made, he said.

"It's overkill in the extreme, based on the false and unsupportable premise that criminals and their surrogates buy their crime guns from Jersey dealers after marching down to police headquarters to volunteer and submit themselves for fingerprinting, background checks and extensive personal disclosure," Bach said.

But that's exactly what gun-control advocates say happens. Fingerprints and personal records help only after a crime is committed, Miller said.

Straw buys appear legitimate at first because criminals work with buyers who have clean records. Limiting such purchases, Miller said, could head off some crime.

He pointed to gun-tracing data from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) showing that 28 percent of "crime guns" in New Jersey were first bought legally in the state, a sign, he said, that approved purchases can still lead to violence.

Most of the national criticism related to straw purchases centers on states with softer gun laws, such as Pennsylvania. There, the vast majority of 250 gun-trafficking arrests in the last two years were tied to straw buyers and the people who received the guns, said Al Toczydlowski, chief of the Philadelphia Gun Violence Task Force.

New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram and the ATF have launched a stepped-up program that requires local police to share gun-tracing information with the state and federal agency. So far, its only case has resulted in charges in May against five men whose original purchases were in Pennsylvania and who therefore would be unaffected by the pending legislation. Most crime guns in New Jersey come from other states.

Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney (D., Gloucester) said New Jersey already had plenty of regulations.

"We get so many laws on the books now that we don't enforce, the fact that we continue to put more on doesn't make any sense," he said.

It is difficult to measure the impact of gun-buying laws in other states.

Virginia approved a one-gun-per-month limit in 1993. The Virginia State Crime Commission issued a report two years later saying the rule had not created an undue burden on gun buyers and had reduced the number of crime guns traced back to the commonwealth.

But advocates on both sides say the law has been watered down with exceptions since then. Gun-rights groups say that's because the law proved ineffective, while gun-control organizations argue that lawmakers bent to lobbyists.

The Associated Press reported on Jan. 4th, a very disturbing story about a child, who was allegedly abused, retrieved a .22 caliber handgun from his mom's closet, waited for her to come home, and shot and killed her.

A 12-year-old boy who fatally shot his mother after an argument over his chores was found guilty of premeditated murder.

Judge James Conlogue found the boy guilty after a hearing Friday in Cochise County Superior Court in the southern Arizona town of Bisbee. The boy is not being identified because he was charged as a juvenile.

Conlogue ruled that prosecutors had proved the boy acted intentionally and with premeditation when he shot Sara Madrid, 34, eight times on Aug. 1.

The shooting happened after the boy had argued with his mother over his chores.

Madrid had left the family home after the argument, and the boy got a .22-caliber pistol from her bedroom closet, waited for her to return and then repeatedly shot her, according to court testimony.

Madrid's live-in boyfriend of 10 years, Alfonso Munoz, witnessed the shooting and said the boy gave him the empty gun afterward.

Munoz, who helped raise the boy, said he had taught the child how to use the weapon for emergencies and self-defense.

The boy's lawyer, Sanford Edleman, had argued that the boy did not intend to kill his mother but only wanted to get back at her for abusing him.

Police said the boy told them his mother yelled at him and slapped him.

Madrid's sister, Ernestine Huitron, testified Friday that Madrid did not want the boy to live with her, and that Madrid had a temper and yelled at him.

"He is a docile, sweet boy," Huitron said. "Sara said (the boy) was stupid and dumb."

Prosecutors wanted the boy tried as an adult, but the judge ruled the case should remain in juvenile court after a psychologist and psychiatrist testified that he suffered physical and verbal abuse from his mother and could be rehabilitated in the juvenile justice system.

Under Arizona law, the boy can only be held until he turns 18. Sentencing is set for Jan. 23.

On Dec. 23rd, BuzzFlash.com conducted an in-depth interview with Scott Vogel, Communications Director for Freedom States Alliance, about the election of Barack Obama, the overwhelming victory over the gun lobby across the country, and what the future holds for the issue.

Freedom States Alliance works directly with a network of seven state-based gun violence prevention organizations. (In full disclosure, Mark Karlin, the Editor and Publisher of BuzzFlash.com, helped found FSA.)

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

On every single level, from the election of Barack Obama and Joe Biden to House Congressional races and local ballot initiatives, the gun lobby's fear mongering lost.

-- Scott Vogel, Communications Director, Freedom States Alliance

BuzzFlash: Did the National Rifle Association, or NRA, suffer a decisive defeat at the polls this year in the presidential race?

Scott Vogel: First, the Freedom States Alliance, which oversees our daily news blog, GunGuys.com, does not endorse political candidates. But having said that, yes, the gun lobby suffered a major defeat in this year's election cycle. It is one of the most important, yet "under reported" stories of this year's campaign.

On every single level, from the election of Barack Obama and Joe Biden to House Congressional races and local ballot initiatives, the gun lobby's fear mongering lost, and sensible candidates who support gun violence prevention won. In states where the gun lobby boasts of its power in key battleground states, and where the NRA claims to have large numbers of hunters and NRA members, such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Wisconsin, Barack Obama won handily.

The Obama-Biden victory demonstrated definitively that our country is making a dramatic shift from the extremist agenda of the gun lobby to endorsing new leadership to address important issues, such as gun violence prevention.

Now, in this political environment, it is clear that President-elect Obama must act with crushing urgency to fix the broken economy, deal with two wars in the Middle East, and tackle the climate crisis. As gun violence prevention advocates, we also believe that we have a sensible, non-ideological administration now that is open to solving important problems, such as gun violence, in very pragmatic terms.

BuzzFlash: How did the NRA fare in U.S. House and Senate races?

Scott Vogel: There is no other way to say it, the gun lobby stepped into the "election ring" and got knocked out.

The Brady Campaign released a report in the aftermath of the elections and found that Brady-endorsed candidates won over 90% of their races. In U.S. Senate races between a Brady-backed candidate and an NRA -endorsed or "A" rated candidate, voters chose the Brady candidate 100% of the time, and in House races, 84% of the time.

Let's not forget that it was the NRA who said this was one of the most important elections in the organization's history, spending over $40 million dollars to defeat Barack Obama and other candidates who support common sense gun laws. After the gun lobby's dramatic defeats in 2006 and 2008, I think the American people should be asking if the gun lobby's extremist agenda is relevant anymore.

BuzzFlash: Putting this in context, is the reputation of the NRA as being invincible more perception than reality?

Scott Vogel: The NRA's political power is certainly based on "perception," but clearly that perspective is changing. Political observers and candidates are realizing that it doesn't help their careers and their standing to suck up to the gun lobby, and, in fact, it might spell the end of their political ambitions.

Also, keep in mind that over the last 25 years, fewer and fewer American households own guns, so the gun lobby's "base" has been dramatically shrinking. According to the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), only 34% of U.S. households have guns, and individual gun ownership has dropped to only 22%. By every measure, this trending will continue downward.

I also think that the paranoia of "gun confiscation" preached by the gun lobby to block any and all efforts to enact common sense gun laws just doesn't resonate with voters anymore. I think the American people have, at least significantly, stopped listening to the NRA's scare tactics.

Take the issue of background checks on all gun sales, for example. Making it harder for drug dealers, domestic abusers, felons, and gang members to obtain deadly weapons by mandating a background check on every gun sale is simply a mainstream and sensible position. The great majority of the American people, across the entire political spectrum, support background checks. But the gun lobby vehemently opposes them and claims it will lead to "confiscating" all guns. I think many Americans have stopped listening to the delusional voices within the gun lobby.

The only leg that the gun lobby stands on is this "threat" that they can sway an election - which, as we have discussed, they clearly can't. I think the NRA's desperation will only get worse.

BuzzFlash: Why in the world does the NRA Institute for Legislative Action support the sale of weapons such as the .50 caliber sniper rifle that can be used to assassinate people from a mile away?

Scott Vogel: The gun lobby's position on pretty much every proposal to protect our national security and our communities from the threat of gun violence, including .50 caliber sniper rifles, can be summed up in one word: "No." The NRA simply has a knee-jerk reaction to every life-saving policy, if it involves regulating the gun industry in any way. The gun lobby has blinders on to the real world, and they fight every policy on an extreme and ideological basis. Their opposition makes no sense.

Even though the NRA knows that the national security of the United States is vulnerable to attack from powerful .50 caliber sniper rifles, especially our civilian aircraft during takeoff and landing, the gun lobby opposes our efforts to keep .50 caliber sniper rifles out of the hands of terrorists. The reason is that supporting a ban on .50 caliber sniper rifles would make the gun lobby look "weak" to their base of extremists who fight under the banner of "no surrender," not to mention the immense profit motive by the gun industry to sell .50 caliber rifles. The five men just convicted on conspiracy charges for a terrorist plot against Ft. Dix had practiced with and tried to buy assault weapons.

But the NRA knows that if there was ever, god forbid, an attack with a .50 caliber sniper rifle - which is why we are urgently calling for an immediate federal ban on these weapons of terror - the gun lobby would have to face the intense scrutiny of the American public about why they enabled a terrorist attack to occur.

BuzzFlash: Likewise, why is the NRA pushing for the right of individuals to shoot anyone they even perceive as a threat to them, or "claim" is a threat to them?

Scott Vogel: To some extent, the gun lobby has started running out of ideas to push on behalf of their base. Their agenda to allow armed civilians a "license to murder," as we call it, to shoot and kill anyone whom a gun owner "feels" is a threat, even if his or her safety is not in jeopardy, is one of the most extreme positions that the NRA pushes.

The gun lobby is now venturing into areas that go beyond guns. They are supporting, in effect, vigilante justice. For example, there was an incident in Texas, where Joe Horn called a 9-1-1 operator to report that his neighbor's house was being burglarized. Although the 9-1-1 operator told Horn to stay in his home, he took his shotgun, left his house and shot to death two men, both Hispanic immigrants, then claiming self-defense. This is just one chilling example. It is very troubling, especially to law enforcement officials and prosecutors who strongly oppose these "castle doctrine" type laws. The truth is that we already have legal protections for people defending themselves.

But that's not all that the gun lobby is pushing for in terms of extending their radical agenda. The gun lobby is fervently pressing to allow college students - we're talking about 18, 19, 20-year-old males mind you - to carry hidden and loaded guns on campus and in dorm rooms, despite their pervasive access to drugs and alcohol. They claim that their argument is to stop another Virginia Tech type massacre, but the reality is that they just want to eviscerate any and all restrictions on carrying deadly guns, whether it be on college campuses, or at child day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and even government buildings and courtrooms. It's an extreme position to say the least.

BuzzFlash: How do you think the Supreme Court ruling this year that held, for the first time in its history, that the Second Amendment protects the "right to keep and bear arms" will affect gun control in the future?

Scott Vogel: It's difficult to say how the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller, which stripped the District of Columbia of its decades old handgun ban, will impact legislation to stop gun violence in the long term. My organization, the Freedom States Alliance, believes it was simply a craven, political decision by the conservative majority that ignored longstanding precedent and the robust history of gun regulations in the United States.

It was an unprecedented reversal by the Court to suddenly strike down a gun violence prevention measure based on the claim that DC's gun laws violated the Second Amendment. The Court simply had no basis to hear the case, and certainly an even weaker argument in its ruling. In fact, even conservative legal scholars have lambasted the Supreme Court's ruling, notably criticizing Justice Scalia for his incoherent opinion. They have said that the Court had no business telling an American city that they can't deal with gun violence on the local level.

On the one hand, cities such as Chicago, where we live, are fighting to keep our handgun ban. But after the Court's Heller ruling, it's very uncertain. A federal judge in Chicago just upheld the city's ban, but it is now being appealed. Other Illinois communities are ending their handgun bans and replacing them with stringent gun regulations for fear of the enormous legal costs, for local governments trying to fight the gun lobby and potentially losing. They just can't afford the potential cost with this weakened economy.

One "possibility" is that the Court's ruling in Heller will take the sting out of the gun lobby's radical agenda by acknowledging that there is a "Second Amendment" right to own guns - which we fervently disagree with - but that right, in no way, prohibits common sense gun regulations.

To cite Justice Scalia himself from his majority opinion:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...[It is not a] right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ...

[The Court's] opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms," (p. 54-55).

In short, based on the Court's own decision, there is nothing in its ruling to prohibit robust regulations of firearms or the gun industry.

BuzzFlash: As a follow-up, what constitutes an "arm"? Is a bazooka an "arm"? A .50 caliber sniper rifle? How can the Supreme Court decide what constitutes an "arm" when the only guns around when the Constitution was written were flintlocks and muskets?

Scott Vogel: It's a very good question. At what point, as the industry continues to innovate with deadlier and more powerful weapons, is a "gun" no longer just a gun? That's why we need to better identify and classify firearms and make clear distinctions between bolt action hunting rifles, and cop-killing assault weapons, because there are important differences. The gun lobby has succeeded in blurring and weakening the definitions and functions of firearms to block legislation, often claiming that any gun regulation will affect "hunting rifles," which is patently not true.

Your point is well taken. Even if you believe in an interpretation that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership, the Amendment was written when muskets were not the deadly products that are mass produced today. Now a mentally unstable student can easily obtain two powerful handguns with multiple high-capacity magazines and commit mass murder, such as the 32 students and professors killed at Virginia Tech. As you said, a terrorist armed with a .50 caliber sniper rifle could target a chemical or industrial refinery in a horrific attack. Is this weapon a gun? I don't think so.

BuzzFlash: Recently the Interior Department implemented a regulation allowing individuals to carry hidden handguns into National Parks. Just why exactly would anyone need to bring a concealed handgun into a National Park?

Scott Vogel: Gun owners don't need to carry hidden and loaded guns in our national parks, or anywhere else, for that matter. The majority of Americans are in agreement, we simply don't want guns to be carried in our national pristine wilderness areas and national treasures. It's an offensive policy, frankly.

This is, yet again, another farewell gift by George W. Bush to his buddies in the gun lobby. There is simply no reason for this rule change. We are urging President-elect Obama, immediately upon taking office, to reverse the Interior Department's rule change.

During the Interior Department's public comment period on the proposed rule change, the Department received 140,000 comments, the vast majority opposing the gun lobby's radical agenda. But the Bush administration still went with the dangerous rule change anyway.

Most upsetting is that the Bush administration completely and utterly dismissed the advice of the career professionals who protect our national parks, including our park rangers, law enforcement officials, and conservationists. In a letter sent to Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne on April 3, 2008, seven former directors of the National Park Service said that there was no need to change the existing regulation.

BuzzFlash: Do you think that handgun control proponents have given up the fight, given the string of concessions that the Bush Administration made to the NRA over the past 8 years, many of which were supported by Democrats?

Scott Vogel: I think that gun violence prevention advocates have felt the sting of the last eight years, living in the wilderness, as it were, under the Bush administration's extremist and pro-gun ideology. Remember, the NRA bragged in 2000 that if George W. Bush won election, they would be working out of his office, and they were right.

The gun lobby and gun industry got pretty much everything they wanted out of the Bush administration. It was their version of a shopping spree. The gun lobby succeeded in giving unprecedented legal immunity to the gun industry against civil lawsuits. They blocked efforts to renew and strengthen the federal assault weapons ban in 2004. They succeeded in preventing the release of gun crime trace data to local law enforcement officials to curb gun trafficking, called the Tiahrt Amendment.

As we just discussed, they allowed guns to be carried in our national parks. And although Bush's own Solicitor General asked that the Supreme Court send back the Heller case to the District of Columbia's Court of Appeals for a less stringent standard of review, Vice-President Cheney went against his own President and joined a legal brief from members of Congress who support the NRA.

And then, of course, there is the list of things they "didn't do," pressing for life-saving policies such as extending Brady background checks on all gun sales, or closing the gun show loophole, or even fully funding ATF to effectively close down rogue gun dealers. The Bush administration permitted the ever increasing lethality of firearms, standing idly by while .50 caliber sniper rifles became more prevalent and allowing an explosion of new and powerful assault weapons to be mass produced and mass marketed.

Although it seems like ancient history now, one of the biggest issues in the democratic primary in 2000 between Sen. Bill Bradley and Vice-President Al Gore was their differences on gun violence prevention. Bradley supported both licensing gun owners and registering guns, whereas Gore preferred licensing, and later advocated for background checks against Gov. Bush during the 2000 election.

In fact, when Jim Lehrer of the NewsHour asked what was the difference between Gore and Bush on the gun issue, Gore said of the Texas Governor: "He's with the NRA -- and I'm not."

President Clinton used gun control as a scapegoat for losing Congress in the 1994 midterm elections. And several of Gore's campaign advisers said that the "gun issue" cost him West Virginia and Arkansas - despite the fact that Gore won the popular vote and received a half million more votes over Bush. With all that in mind, the funding from several foundations, large donors and even advocates for gun violence prevention dried up or went away.

The prevailing wisdom in politics was that the "gun issue" was a losing position. For a time, many advocates simply felt that under President Bush's radical administration, gun control was a lost cause, and so we saw a kind of "depression" set in. It has been difficult.

But the truth is that there are advocates and organizations across the country that have not given up, and that continue to fight for their principles to enact solutions to save lives from gun violence.

Now, with a new administration, and a dramatically different point of view and expectation that government has a significant role to play in bettering our lives and society, we believe that there are opportunities, even small incremental steps, to start making a difference on the gun violence epidemic.

BuzzFlash: Do you believe that there might come a time when NRA members might become rational about the dangers of certain types of weaponry? After all, the NRA successfully supported the "right" of people on the FBI terrorists watch list to buy a gun. That threatens our national security. Why do members of the NRA support compromising our safety as a nation?

Scott Vogel: I think there will always be a radical fringe of the pro-gun movement that will always see attempts to reduce gun violence as an infringement on their survival, power, and identity. The gun issue is symbolic, and deeply embedded in the psyche of a lot of extreme gun owners. Those individuals are not like to change their beliefs and support efforts to curb gun violence.

Those gun owners see the world through a prism of fear, and imagine that enemies such as gun violence prevention advocates, are trying to take away their ability to defend themselves and their families.

But you're right, it is deeply ironic that the same radical gun owners who live in perpetual fear of stronger gun laws being enacted actually risk their own lives and their families by owning guns, especially if their weapons are not stored securely.

But those fringe groups or individuals bear no real impact on our politics. The truth is that over time, as gun ownership continues to decrease, and as older generations pass on, the youth of today simply do not share the extremist viewpoints by the gun proponents of the past. Young people today, on the whole, don't see guns, just like the issue of equality for gay and lesbian Americans, as a divisive cultural issue. They are far more pragmatic and less ideological and extreme than the older generation.

I think the younger generation demonstrated that, in carrying Barack Obama to the White House, there is a space for a new and hopeful era in politics where government becomes a "solutions business." I also think that, just like the issue of global warming, we will continue to see a shift where gun violence becomes less of a divisive political issue, and more of a mainstream and bipartisan challenge for our generation to solve.

BuzzFlash interview by Mark Karlin.

* * *

Resources:

Freedom States Alliance:
http://www.freedomstatesalliance.org/

GunGuys.com:
http://www.gunguys.com/

Donate to the Freedom States Alliance by clicking here.

Sign up to become a member of the Freedom States Alliance by clicking here.

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

The New York Times posted a strong editorial on Dec. 23rd, praising a new report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and calling for swift Congressional action to pass federal gun violence prevention legislation such as closing the gun show loophole.

For years, the gun lobby has defeated new gun control laws partly by arguing that stronger laws do not deter crime. A study prepared by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group headed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York and Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston, should finally put that myth to rest.

The study analyzed trace data for guns used in connection with crimes during 2007.

The data reveal a strong correlation between weak state gun laws and higher rates of in-state murders, police slayings and sales of guns used in crimes in other states.

Many states have enacted strong gun laws to supplement inadequate federal ones, including mandatory background checks on gun show sales. States requiring the same background checks at gun shows as those required for store purchases show an export rate for guns used in crimes that’s nearly half the national average.

This argues for Congressional action to end the gun-show loophole nationally. States with weak gun laws produce different outcomes. More than half the guns recovered in out-of-state crimes last year were supplied by Georgia, Florida, Texas, Virginia and six other states where weak laws make it easy for gun traffickers and other criminals to obtain weapons.

Weak gun laws also put a state’s own citizens at risk. There were nearly 60 percent more gun murders in the 10 states where exports were highest than in the states with low export rates — and nearly three times as many fatal shootings of law enforcement officers.

The study by the mayors’ group isn’t the first to document the link between weak gun laws and gun violence or the “iron pipeline” by which guns flow from states with weak gun laws into states with strong ones. Still, the numbers are startling. They explain why the gun lobby resisted their release, and they provide a powerful retort to those who claim tougher gun laws don’t work.

• TX: Authorities pressed a manhunt Tuesday for a gunman in a pickup truck who is suspected of killing two people and injuring another in a series of rush hour shootings on Dallas-area roads.

On Dec. 17th, at the State of Illinois Building, noted gun violence prevention activist Father Michael Pfleger, organized a large rally to call for stronger gun laws, and to remember the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) students who have been killed by guns. Also in attendance was Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis and Minister Louis Farrakhan who spoke about the urgent need to protect the life of every child.

CLTV ran a good news story about the rally and repeated calls to state lawmakers to pass common sense gun laws.

But at the rally, this heartbreaking six minute video was played about the CPS students killed by guns called, "Silent Screams."

• WI: The Milwaukee Police Department arrested a Milwaukee County Sheriff's deputy on suspicion of shooting and injuring a woman and a 12- year-old girl. The deputy, 39, is a 12-year veteran. He began arguing with his girlfriend at a home and fired a handgun multiple times; one of the bullets stuck the victim in the face.
• FL: Raphael Valentine Hiss, 26, shot and killed his girlfriend, Mary Abberton, 29, before killing himself. Friends said that Hiss hadn't had a chance to grieve over his other girlfriend's death, and was heavily medicating himself. Hiss used MySpace to post a photo gallery of himself posing with a gun and a YouTube video that shows news clips from the Virginia Tech shooting, which is part of a Nas music video.
• FL: A 15-year-old girl, Teah Wimberly, who shot and killed her longtime friend, Amanda Collette, 15, at a high school,mpleaded not guilty to a second-degree murder charge. She will be tried as an adult. If convicted, she could be sentenced to a maximum of life in prison.
• MS: Robert Lightsey, 55, the owner of Lifeguard Medical Alerts and SmarTel Communications and a keyboardist for Highland Baptist Church, was hunting with his son, Tyler, when a gun discharged, fatally striking him in the chest. The unintentional shooting is under investigation.
• SC: An ex-convict charged with killing a child who knocked on his door on Halloween night is facing a federal weapons charge. A grand jury indicted the man, Quentin L. Patrick, 22, on one count of being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition.
• CA: Justin Levens, 28, a mixed martial art fighter with the Ultimate Fighting Champion (UFC), shot and killed his wife, Sara McLean-Levens, 25, then turned the gun on himself. No suicide note was found, but investigators recovered a handgun at the scene.
• MO: Terry G. Gordon Jr., 31, an armed suspect wanted on charges of rape and aggravated indecent liberties with a child was killed as law enforcement officials attempted to serve an arrest warrant.
• CA: The family of a slain correctional officer and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association are offering $50,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction for the slaying of Correctional Officer Steve Lo, who was shot to death Oct. 15 in front of his South Sacramento home as he prepared to leave for work. Lo, 39, is survived by a wife and five children. A former Sacramento County Sheriff's Department deputy, Chu Vue, 43, has been named as a "principal" in the investigation into the Lo's slaying.
• MI: A domestic disturbance on Saginaw's east side turned into a police-involved shooting that left one man dead.
• OH: A Summit County jury today convicted Latroy Turner, 24, from Akron, for his role in a string of hotel robberies in August, including one in which he raped a woman at gunpoint in front of her boyfriend.

(Photo by David Molnar / The Republican. As his father, Sean Connery snaps a photograph, left, Devin Connery of Lunenburg, fires a Heckler & Koch Universal Machine-Pistol at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo sponsored by the Westfield Sportsman Club and C.O.P. Firearms and Training on Sunday. Later in the day, an 8-year-old boy, Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Conn., accidentally shot himself to death while shooting an UZI.)

Gun proponents lurched into a full court public relations strategy, desperately spinning the news media and lawmakers that "machine gun shoots" are "safe", despite the recent death of an 8-year-old boy who killed himself firing an Uzi machine gun.

(See our previous post: A Nation Gone Gun Crazy: Young Children Shooting Machine Guns).

BOSTON (AP) — Gun control advocates hope that manslaughter indictments in the death of an 8-year-old who accidentally shot himself in the head with an Uzi at a gun show will deter other gun shows from allowing children to fire weapons.

But enthusiasts say gun ranges are remarkably safe and that most shows do not feature live shooting like the one in Westfield where Christopher Bizilj, of Ashford, Conn., lost control of the powerful automatic weapon while aiming at a pumpkin.

James Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners' Action League, a membership-based organization that represents individual gun owners and gun clubs around Massachusetts, said the clubs have a near-perfect safety record.

"We look at safety so seriously that any accident, especially a fatal accident like this, is going to rock our members for years," Wallace said.

"But this is so rare; if you look at other activities kids are involved in, shooting sports at the ranges is probably the safest activity kids can get involved in," he said.

The "safest activity kids can get involved in"?

How do people like Mr. Wallace say these comments with a straight face? Right, because little league soccer is pretty dangerous compared to firing a machine gun that killed a little boy.

Christopher attended the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman's club on Oct. 26 with his father and brother. The fair's ads promised shooters with certified instructors, but prosecutors said last week Christopher was supervised by an uncertified 15-year-old boy when the accident occurred.

The gun club, two men who supplied the weapons and a small town police chief who owns a company that sponsored the fair were all indicted last week on involuntary manslaughter charges.

In addition to the manslaughter charges, the police chief and the club were also indicted on four counts each of furnishing a machine gun to a minor.

But the criminal charges may have little effect on how gun shows are run in Massachusetts, which already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

State law says it is legal for children to fire a rifle or shotgun if they have parental consent and are supervised by a certified instructor.

But it is illegal in Massachusetts to furnish a child with a machine gun under any circumstances.

Most gun shows in the state are events where guns are bought and sold, but they do not feature live shooting.

NewMart Promotions, a New York company that sponsors several gun shows in Massachusetts, including a popular annual show at the Western States Exposition in West Springfield, has no live shooting at any of its events.

"We don't even allow loaded guns in the shows. Every gun is emptied at the door by the West Springfield police," said Martin Fasack, director of NewMart.

Gun control supporters hope the indictments in Massachusetts will deter promoters in other states where shoots offering children the chance to fire machine guns are more common.

"This sends a strong message nationwide that other gun clubs who are engaging in these kinds of machine gun shoots could face criminal penalties if they don't stop this sort of dangerous conduct," said Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington D.C.

Vice said there are no federal regulations governing live shoots at gun shows.

The events are regulated by each state. In most states, a child could walk into a gun show and fire an Uzi legally, he said.

(We are pleased to post the following action alert from Freedom States Alliance affiliate, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence).

The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence Invites You To an Important Event

• Where: State of Illinois Building, 100 W. Randolph
• When: Wednesday December 17, 2008 at 12 noon

(Screen shot of Chicago ABC News report on students killed by gun violence).

Fr. Michael Pfleger is holding a gathering at The State of Illinois Building to remember the youth lost this year to gun violence. The names of all the children in the city who lost their lives in 2008 will be called as we honor their memory.

At this event we will also call on our legislators to spend 2009 passing common sense gun laws and changing the Illinois funding structure to devote more funding to education and provide our children with the best opportunities they deserve.

Speakers at this event will include youth as well as Mayor Richard Daley, CEO of Chicago Public Schools Arne Duncan, and Minister Louis Farrakhan.

It is important that we fill the auditorium, and show citizens and legislators alike that we are united in our efforts to make Illinois safer and committed to a brighter future for our youth.

Please join us and spread the word to others.

• OH: An 8-year-old boy has been taken to the hospital after being shot in the chest by his 11-year-old brother after the two found a loaded handgun. The boys found the loaded weapon in their grandmother's car. The children were playing "gangster" with the .25 caliber gun when the weapon fired and the bullet hit the 8-year-old.
• OH: A Lorain County minister, Rev. Mark Petric, testified against his own son, Daniel Petric, 17. Daniel was so angry that his father would not allow him to play the video game Halo 3 that he shot his parents, then tried to make it appear to be a murder-suicide. His mom, Susan Petric, died of a gunshot wound to the head.
• CT: Hartford police say two men who were shot to death inside a multifamily house over the weekend, Jean Carlos Colon, 24, and Luis Soldevila, 37. Police Chief Daryl Roberts says the shooting may have been drug related.
• CA: One teen killed, another critical after early morning shooting in Richmond.
• NJ: A 30-year relationship culminated in Cumberland murder-suicide. Teddy Marcantonis broke into Lisa Gabriel's farmhouse, fatally shot her new boyfriend, Joe Martorana, and then died a fiery death in his burning SUV parked outside.
  
• WV: Brent Spencer was arraigned on charges that he shot and murdered his own 3-year-old son. Spencer has been arrested twice for driving under the influence: once in 2000 and once in 2001. One of those arrests landed him on home confinement for six months.
• IL: A Joliet man, Anthony Matthews, 45, has been charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder in shootings that killed LaDeana Hite, 35, and seriously injured another woman.
• WI: Wade Heimke, 38, was accidentally shot and injured while pheasant hunting in the Town of Rhine by his hunting partner Howard Hinze, 44. Heimke was struck in the hand and shoulder by five shotgun pellets.
• NC: The person involved in a shooting this weekend that resulted in the death of a Hispanic man, Luciano Martinez Martinez, 50, could be charged with “negligent hunting,” Transylvania County Sheriff David Mahoney said. The sheriff declined to name the hunter who fired the fatal shot.
• LA: Two men were hunting on private property when one of the men accidentally shot and killed Patrick Hebert, 43. The name of the shooter is not being released at this time, but the sheriff says it appears to be an unintentional.

AlterNet has a must-read article by Liliana Segura, posted on December 10th, about the gun lobby's insane agenda to arm college students with hidden and loaded handguns on campuses: "The NRA and Co. have pushed campaigns to allow concealed-weapons permits on college campuses in 15 states this year and failed in all of them."

(This article is in follow-up to AlterNet's reporting from Dec. 4th about the gun lobby's major losses in this year's election).

First the bad news: Despite its election day smackdown, the NRA and its pals soldier on in their mission to arm god-fearing Americans in ludicrous places.

A flurry of news stories earlier this year reported a pioneering solution proposed to the rash of recent campus shootings: instead of redoubling efforts to enforce the whole "gun-free school zone" thing -- a quaint little notion from, like the 1980s -- why not change the rules to let students bring more guns onto college campuses?

A few answers leapt to mind -- binge drinking, drug use, close living quarters in a high-pressure environment -- but for awhile, it seemed like the idea was catching on. In the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre in April 2007, in which 32 people were killed, several states began considering legislation to expand the right to carry a concealed weapon onto college campuses.

So what's the good news?

The legislation has been a dismal failure.

Despite all the media attention to the fight to extend concealed weapons onto college campuses, this end result has gone underreported.

"In 2008, proponents of guns in the classroom have gone zero-for-fifteen with 'guns-on-campus' bills," the Brady Campaign reported this June, "failing in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington.

Only two bills are still pending -- in Michigan and Ohio -- and neither has shown any sign of movement in the last two years.

Only one state -- Utah -- has ever passed such a law."

The gun lobby is hardly declaring defeat, however.

One thing it has to show for its efforts is a new generation of gun activists, who have formed a new group called Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Spawned in the wake of the Virginia Tech killings, the apparently thriving organization is spreading the gun lobby's gospel of "self-defense," and arguing that under the banner of states' rights, students at public colleges and universities should be allowed to carry concealed weapons onto their campuses. "We don't feel that campus is some magical environment," SCC spokesman Michael Guzman told FOX News last year.

Magical or not, colleges have long been "gun free zones" for a simple reason: students should be able to go to school without fear of assault by a deadly weapon.

It takes a pretty twisted brand of logic to believe that because horrific massacres sometimes do happen, the solution is to throw more guns at the problem.

Yet that's precisely the fear-mongering argument of the pro-gun crowd, which has seized on such tragedies to advance their argument that public places prohibiting guns are intolerably dangerous and that filling them with guns is the best way to make them safer.

Virginia Tech, according to this crowd, was just further proof that "gun free zones" -- whether they be schools, churches or bars -- are themselves tragically misdirected.

The term itself has been effectively maligned. Google "gun free zones" and you get hundreds of thousands of links to pages describing them as death zones. They are "reckless, negligent, and known to be dangerous," argues one. "When will those who pushed for gun-free zones realize that they are contributing to tragic situations?" asks another. And, a personal favorite, and delivered without a hint of irony: "An armed society is a polite society."

***

SCCC -- whose website features a link to its Facebook page as well as a section featuring 15 different styles of t-shirts bearing the group's logo (a handgun wearing a graduation cap), in addition to clocks, tote bags, trucker hats a barbeque apron and underwear (the only women's option being a "classic thong") -- is clearly trying to make concealed weapons cool among the college set. And it seems to be working. As of November 29th, the young organization claims to have 35,000 members.

While SCCC describes itself as a grassroots group comprised mostly of students, with no affiliation to the National Rifle Association, the NRA is featured prominently on its (rather dated) news blog, which continues to push McCain/Palin as the clear choice for gun owners. More importantly, it's goal is in lockstep with the NRA's longtime mission of spreading guns to college campuses, providing a response to those who argue that, like its mission to bring guns onto national parks -- one that was quietly rewarded last week -- the NRA has pursued this goal without much consideration for what those who actually live and work on college campuses want.

In Utah, currently the only state that allows concealed weapons on its campuses, the relatively new law was fought by tooth and nail by school administrators like then-president of the University of Utah, who told the Christian Science Monitor in 2002: "Given the unique environment of a college campus, that is not a place for guns." Another professor vowed early retirement if the university if the law was rolled back. "I don't care if it's guns or Darwin or divine intervention," law professor John Flynn said. "The state legislature has no business invading the university's right to manage its own internal affairs."

Exasperated gun enthusiasts like to ridicule the notion that a campus's learning environment might be compromised by the introduction of lethal weapons. As one lobbyist and former Utah politician put it (a bit redundantly), "With a concealed weapon, you don't know it's concealed. The idea of something no one knows about having a chilling effect on the free exchange of ideas just doesn't have a lot of logic."

Not surprisingly, some students disagree. "I feel less safe knowing that a stranger sitting beside me in class may have a gun in his or her backpack," one University of Utah student told CNN earlier this year. Imagine that.

The gun lobby and SCCC also like to draw a distinction between the "bad guys" -- people who bring guns onto campus illegally -- and the "good guys" -- permit-holding gun owners who could save the day if it became necessary. (Supporters of concealed weapons on campus cite the many laws and regulations that will ensure that guns are only in the hands of "good guys.")

It's a pretty simplistic way to classify human beings -- and years of murder statistics haven't exactly borne it out.

Most recently, an unprecedented 38-page report has found a connection between weak gun laws and fatal shootings.

"States with lax gun laws had higher rates of handgun killings, fatal shootings of police officers, and sales of weapons that were used in crimes in other states, according to a study underwritten by a group of more than 300 U.S. mayors," reported the Washington Post.

(Read the full AlterNet article by clicking here).

The New York Times ran an editorial on Dec. 10th calling on Barack Obama, after he becomes President, to reverse the perverse ruling by Bush's Interior Department to permit carrying loaded and hidden guns into our nation's pristine national parks.

We Don’t Feel Safer

Anticipating what Barack Obama has called “common-sense gun safety laws,” the Bush administration has rushed through a last-minute gun rule that is the antithesis of common sense. The Interior Department published a rule last week that will allow loaded, concealed weapons in nearly all of this country’s national parks.

The rule, which will take effect next month, will apply to national parks in every state that has a concealed carry law, even if guns are prohibited in state parks.

The administration — again — also has ignored the point of a public comment period. It received 140,000 comments on this proposed rule change, the vast majority opposing it, and still went ahead.

There already is ample provision for carrying unloaded and properly stowed guns in transit through the parks. This is a rule that was bought and paid for by the National Rifle Association, and it reflects its obsession with overturning even the most sensible restrictions on gun use.

Right now, the National Parks are among the very safest places in this country, according to the F.B.I. The presence of concealed, loaded weapons is likely to change that, and it also is likely to pose an increased threat to wildlife.

The parks were set aside to preserve their natural beauty and provide enjoyment for visitors. Loaded guns — concealed or unconcealed — are completely inconsistent with that purpose and with the enjoyment of visitors who do not wish to come armed.

Unfortunately, far too many states have laws that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons.

But no one should misinterpret those laws as the will of the people. They too are the will of the N.R.A., which has done everything in its power to force dangerous gun laws through one State Legislature after the next.

We hope that one of the incoming Obama administration’s first steps in bringing common sense to bear will be the reversal of this absurd and dangerous rule.

Resource: See press release from the National Parks Conservation Association and other coalition partners about Bush's decision to permit carrying weapons in national parks.

• CA: Evidence suggests that Scott Ruffalo's gun death was self-inflicted. Shaha Mishaal Adham, 26, who turned herself in, was released from custody. Adham's lawyer, Ronald Richards, says that his client was let go after he presented evidence to police showing that the gunshot wound to Ruffalo was self-inflicted.
• MO: A St. Louis city police officer shot and killed himself behind the Lasalle Baptist Church. Police say the officer shot himself with his own gun. He was 37-years-old; his name is yet to be released.
• CO: Families cope a year after Colo. church shootings.
• VA: Willie Donaldson, 35, was charged in the shooting of Loudoun County resident Matthew Hicks, 32. Donaldson called police and said he had shot a visitor and found Hicks with multiple gunshot wounds.
• WA: Police are searching for suspects in connection with a shooting Tuesday evening in Rainier Valley that left two victims with gunshot wounds.
• VA: Detectives believe 81-year-old Thomas K. Appleberry shot his 81-year-old wife, Rachel Appleberry, and his 53-year-old son Thomas K. Appleberry Jr., and then shot himself. Preliminary evidence indicates there was a domestic conflict in the home.
• NJ: Carl Haddad, 56, was charged with discharging a firearm while hunting without due caution in a recent hunting accident that sent a bullet through two walls of a township home, ending in a 2-year-old girl's bedroom.
• IL: In Aurora, a lockdown was implemented at a west suburban high school Wednesday morning after a student reported seeing a gun in the school. It has been lifted and classes are back in session. No injuries were reported and an air pistol was found at the school.
• CA: A 76-year-old man, Alan Gwinn, was found dead on his front lawn by police from a gun suicide.
• MS: Billey Joe Johnson was a top-rated high school football player and sought after by several schools across the country, now he is dead after a self-inflicted gun shot wound. The Mississippi running back was pulled over for a routine traffic stop. The officer had left Johnson in his vehicle and returned to his squad car when he heard a gun shot.

A remarkable and hard-hitting editorial from the Philadelphia Inquirer on Dec. 6th adamantly called on New Jersey's Assembly to take urgent action by banning powerful .50 caliber sniper rifles.

These dangerous weapons have the capability of inflecting a major terrorist attack on sensitive targets within New Jersey and across the United States, such as targeting civilian aircraft during takeoff and landing, or attacking chemical and industrial refineries

(See a video clip from 60 Minutes about the .50 caliber sniper rifle below the editorial).

A densely populated and industry-rich state like New Jersey doesn't need more people carrying .50-caliber rifles capable of hitting a target from miles away.

These devastatingly destructive weapons should be banned.

In the coming weeks, state Assembly members can take the first step toward doing just that - by approving a measure that would halt the sale of the rifles, now legal even under New Jersey's restrictive gun laws.

The measure is expected to come up for a vote by next month. If passed, New Jersey would be only the second state to institute such a ban, following California, where these weapons were banned in 2004.

The risks in not doing so are clear. Consider what happened in Texas last month, when a NASCAR fan at the Texas Motor Speedway in Fort Worth was struck by a stray bullet fired from a .50-caliber Vulcan single-shot rifle some five miles away.

With a weapon designed and advertised for military use, the danger from such accidental mishaps is only half of the worry in a heavily urban and suburban state.

As noted by the prominent handgun safety group Ceasefire NJ, [a Freedom States Alliance affiliate], the Garden State abounds with potential targets for terrorists armed with these so-called sniper rifles.

Planes crowding busy skies, chemical rail tankers, refineries, and other industrial plants storing dangerous materials - all would be vulnerable to a weapon that one weapons manufacturer boasts will down a jet with a single round.

The Assembly bill, A-2116, would prohibit the sale to civilians of these sniper rifles and .50-caliber handguns. (It would not affect sales or ownership of large-caliber hunting rifles or historic reenactor guns.)

Ceasefire NJ is right to credit Assembly Speaker Joseph J. Roberts Jr. (D., Camden) for his advocacy of this safety measure.

While the ban may disappoint some collectors, it could safeguard millions of Jersey residents from the real threat that .50-caliber sniper rifles could fall into the wrong hands.

A ban is just common sense.

Watch video of Ed Bradley's report on 60 Minutes, along with New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, as they demonstrate the destructive power and terrorist threat of the .50 caliber sniper rifle:

(We are pleased to post the following press release from the National Parks Conservation Association and other coalition partners).

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

December 5, 2008

Contact: Bryan Faehner, National Parks Conservation Association, 202.419.3700 (See other contacts below).

Final regulations go further than proposed; allow concealed, loaded firearms in parks in 48 states

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Despite concerns raised by every living former director of the National Park Service, several ranger organizations, retired superintendents, and thousands of national park visitors, the Bush Administration today put the safety of national park visitors and wildlife at risk by finalizing a decision to allow concealed, loaded firearms at 388 of 391 national park sites.

The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, the Association of National Park Rangers, the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, and the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) expressed deep disappointment and concern over the Bush Administration’s firearm regulation, published today in the Federal Register, which overturned a Reagan-era regulation that allowed unloaded and safely stowed firearms in national parks.

“Once again, political leaders in the Bush Administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association. This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a common-sense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades,” said Bill Wade, President of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

The Administration received almost 140,000 comments, the vast majority of which opposed the proposal to allow loaded guns in national parks.

Regrettably, the final regulation is even more extreme than the Administration’s original proposal, and permits concealed and loaded guns to be carried in national parks located in any states with concealed carry laws, not just those that allow guns in their state parks as originally proposed.

Only the three national park units in Wisconsin and Illinois, which do not issue concealed carry permits, are excluded.

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, there were 1.65 violent crimes per 100,000 national park visitors in 2006—making national parks some of the safest places in the United States.

The new regulation could increase the risk for impulse shootings of wildlife, and risk the safety of visitors and rangers. Despite the potential affect on national park wildlife and resources, the Administration did not conduct an environmental review as required by law.

“Land management agencies have worked diligently over the years to successfully create the different sets of expectations amongst the visiting public to reflect the differing levels of resource protections for each specific area,” said John Waterman, President of the Park Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police. “National parks are different from other public lands. The visitor population expects, demands, and gets a higher degree of protection, enforcement, and restriction in a national park. Furthermore, while national parks are amongst the safest areas to be in, the toll on the U.S. Park Ranger is high: U.S. Park Rangers are the most assaulted Federal Officers in the country. This vague, wide-open regulation will only increase the danger U.S. Park Rangers face.”

In a letter sent to Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne on April 3, 2008, seven former directors of the National Park Service said that there is no need to change the existing regulation.

“In all our years with the National Park Service, we experienced very few instances in which this limited regulation created confusion or resistance,” the letter stated. “There is no evidence that any potential problems that one can imagine arising from the existing regulations might overwhelm the good they are known to do.”

“American citizens have traditionally valued the professional opinions of park rangers when it comes to managing national parks,” said Association of National Park Rangers President Scot McElveen. “In the professional opinion of ANPR, this regulation change will have negative impacts on park wildlife. Our experience in operating parks creates disbelief that wildlife poaching rates will not increase under the new regulation. We oppose this rash regulatory change.”

Echoing these concerns, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees last month released a new report revealing that more than three out of four of 1,400 current and former employees of the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service predict that this controversial regulation will have an adverse affect on the ability of agency employees to accomplish their mission.

Furthermore, it found that 75 percent of respondents feel that there will be an increase in opportunistic or impulse wildlife killings in parks and refuges.

“With this decision, many state parks across the country will now provide a more protective environment for wildlife and visitors than national parks—once the safest place for families. Furthermore, this decision undermines the ability of national park professionals to manage the parks and runs counter to the overwhelming majority of Americans who wrote in opposition to allowing loaded firearms in our national parks,” said NPCA Associate Director for Park Uses Bryan Faehner.

###

Further contacts:
Bill Wade, Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, 520.615.9417

John Waterman, Park Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, 610.823.2907

Scot McElveen, Association of National Park Rangers, 423.286.8644

See background on coalition below.

Read on...