News

In nominating Scott L. Bach, an attorney from New Jersey, as CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month for November, John M. Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, said that, “at this time, when there is so much controversy over our gun rights at the state level, we are fortunate to have such articulate spokesmen defending our rights as Scott Bach has proved himself to be. He is most deserving of this Award, as he has been most consistent and forthright in defending the individual Second Amendment civil right to keep and bear arms.” Scott spoke at the recent national Gun Rights Policy Conference held in Phoenix, Arizona, co-sponsored by CCRKBA and the Second Amendment Foundation. He was a featured speaker on a panel which reviewed legislative affairs in a number of states. Scott is President of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. He also is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association. Scott indicates he is a member of the law enforcement community and that he is licensed to practice in four states. Previously, his professional experience has included internships in the United States Congress, the office of the U.S. Attorney, and the U.S. Court of Appeals. Scott has written extensively on gun rights in both New Jersey and in the country as a whole. Just a few months ago, he wrote an incisive analysis on what he termed firearms rationing, reasoning that statutes which mandate such buying and selling actually facilitate victimization of the innocent. He noted that a court in New Jersey recently had stated that, “There is no rational relationship between restricting the number of guns that a licensed gun dealer and a licensed gun owner can transact per month and the frequency of illegal gun possession and crime.” Bach wrote that, “in so holding, the court voided a local ordinance that rationed firearms specifically to law-abiding citizens pre-certified by the State as having no criminal or mental health record after passing a 13-point background investigation. “Trying to reduce gun crime by rationing firearms to law-abiding citizens is a little like trying to reduce stabbings by rationing steak knives to restaurant goers, which is why the Court found the ordinance to be irrational. The criminal misuse of any lawful product is not a function of the number of units sold to honest citizens; it’s a function of how effectively society deals with those who misuse them.” In his article, Scott targeted directly the gun grabbers in New Jersey who apparently refused to accept the rational basis for the Court’s ruling in the case Scott cited in the article. “Despite judicial recognition of the fallacy of gun rationing,” wrote Scott, “gun ban extremist group CeaseFire NJ, embarrassed by its loss at the local level, is now pushing for passage of statewide gun rationing, misleadingly citing statistics to buoy their latest whopper – that handguns bought by law-abiding citizens from New Jersey licensed dealers are significantly involved in crime and illegal trafficking. Obtaining a permit to purchase a handgun in New Jersey is a lengthy, intrusive, expensive and complicated process. The absurd notion that criminals voluntarily subject themselves to police fingerprinting, invasive background checks, licensing fees, and months of delays, only to then turn around and illegally sell the guns registered to them on the street, strains reason and credibility. “Yet that’s precisely the fairy tale that CeaseFire and its gun grabbing director Bryan Miller are peddling to the legislature, deceptively citing BATFE gun tracing statistics to ‘prove’ that large quantities of legally purchased guns are used in crime. What they conveniently forget to mention is that a large percentage of the traced guns have nothing whatsoever to do with criminal activity, but they are given the label ‘crime gun’ nevertheless, because of a BATFE database requirement that all traced firearms must first be given a descriptive code before they can be entered into the system, and the available codes happen to carry the designation ‘crime’ in their name, regardless of whether the traced firearms were actually involved in crime.” In a devastating statement, Scott wrote that, “the so-called ‘crime guns’ misleadingly cited by CeaseFire include firearms recovered after house fires, floods and other natural disasters, firearms recovered from gun buy-back programs, firearms surrendered by the spouses of deceased firearms owners, firearms identified during routine inspections of licensed dealer books and records, firearms seized by court order, and lost or stolen firearms that are later recovered, all of which have to be booked as ‘crime guns’ before they can be traced.”

In nominating Scott L. Bach, an attorney from New Jersey, as CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month for November, John M. Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, said that, “at this time, when there is so much controversy over our gun rights at the state level, we are fortunate to have such articulate spokesmen defending our rights as Scott Bach has proved himself to be. He is most deserving of this Award, as he has been most consistent and forthright in defending the individual Second Amendment civil right to keep and bear arms.”
Scott spoke at the recent national Gun Rights Policy Conference held in Phoenix, Arizona, co-sponsored by CCRKBA and the Second Amendment Foundation. He was a featured speaker on a panel which reviewed legislative affairs in a number of states.
Scott is President of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. He also is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association.
Scott indicates he is a member of the law enforcement community and that he is licensed to practice in four states.
Previously, his professional experience has included internships in the United States Congress, the office of the U.S. Attorney, and the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Scott has written extensively on gun rights in both New Jersey and in the country as a whole.
Just a few months ago, he wrote an incisive analysis on what he termed firearms rationing, reasoning that statutes which mandate such buying and selling actually facilitate victimization of the innocent.
He noted that a court in New Jersey recently had stated that, “There is no rational relationship between restricting the number of guns that a licensed gun dealer and a licensed gun owner can transact per month and the frequency of illegal gun possession and crime.”
Bach wrote that, “in so holding, the court voided a local ordinance that rationed firearms specifically to law-abiding citizens pre-certified by the State as having no criminal or mental health record after passing a 13-point background investigation.
“Trying to reduce gun crime by rationing firearms to law-abiding citizens is a little like trying to reduce stabbings by rationing steak knives to restaurant goers, which is why the Court found the ordinance to be irrational. The criminal misuse of any lawful product is not a function of the number of units sold to honest citizens; it’s a function of how effectively society deals with those who misuse them.”
In his article, Scott targeted directly the gun grabbers in New Jersey who apparently refused to accept the rational basis for the Court’s ruling in the case Scott cited in the article.
“Despite judicial recognition of the fallacy of gun rationing,” wrote Scott, “gun ban extremist group CeaseFire NJ, embarrassed by its loss at the local level, is now pushing for passage of statewide gun rationing, misleadingly citing statistics to buoy their latest whopper – that handguns bought by law-abiding citizens from New Jersey licensed dealers are significantly involved in crime and illegal trafficking. Obtaining a permit to purchase a handgun in New Jersey is a lengthy, intrusive, expensive and complicated process. The absurd notion that criminals voluntarily subject themselves to police fingerprinting, invasive background checks, licensing fees, and months of delays, only to then turn around and illegally sell the guns registered to them on the street, strains reason and credibility.
“Yet that’s precisely the fairy tale that CeaseFire and its gun grabbing director Bryan Miller are peddling to the legislature, deceptively citing BATFE gun tracing statistics to ‘prove’ that large quantities of legally purchased guns are used in crime. What they conveniently forget to mention is that a large percentage of the traced guns have nothing whatsoever to do with criminal activity, but they are given the label ‘crime gun’ nevertheless, because of a BATFE database requirement that all traced firearms must first be given a descriptive code before they can be entered into the system, and the available codes happen to carry the designation ‘crime’ in their name, regardless of whether the traced firearms were actually involved in crime.”
In a devastating statement, Scott wrote that, “the so-called ‘crime guns’ misleadingly cited by CeaseFire include firearms recovered after house fires, floods and other natural disasters, firearms recovered from gun buy-back programs, firearms surrendered by the spouses of deceased firearms owners, firearms identified during routine inspections of licensed dealer books and records, firearms seized by court order, and lost or stolen firearms that are later recovered, all of which have to be booked as ‘crime guns’ before they can be traced.”

U.S. Representative Travis W. Childers of Mississippi is the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month for October.
Rep. Childers is chief sponsor of H.R. 6691, the most recent version of the proposed Second Amendment Enforcement Act.
In nominating the Congressman from the Magnolia State for the Award, John M. Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, explained that, “in order to understand the public service that Rep. Childers has rendered to Americans’ gun rights, it is important to consider the situation in which he has acted.”
“For years,” Snyder continued, “congressional gun right defenders have been incensed over the extreme gun laws in the District of Columbia, a federal city over which Congress has ultimate authority. The Washington, D.C. gun laws, enacted by District politicians after Congress granted home rule to the District, have prohibited law-abiding District residents from possessing handguns even within their own homes.
“Second Amendment supporting Representatives and Senators have sponsored federal legislation to overturn the severely restrictive District of Columbia gun laws. At the same time, District residents have pursued Second Amendment arguments in the courts in an effort to overturn the District gun laws on a constitutional basis. This approach finally bore fruit in June when the U. S. Supreme Court declared, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, that the prohibition on handgun possession is an unconstitutional violation of individual Second Amendment gun rights.”
Snyder added that, “While this decision was a victory for gun rights, District officials adopted new regulations which, while ostensibly in keeping with the letter of the Supreme Court decision, continued to undermine its spirit. These officials are trying to make it so difficult for law-abiding District residents to possess handguns that it will be almost impossible for them legally to do so. They also continue to consider semiautomatic handguns as machine guns and to prohibit citizens from possessing them.
“A number of Representatives, from both political parties, want to thwart this attempt by District politicians to in effect vitiate the Supreme Court gun rights decision. It appears there are a sufficient number of Representatives willing to sign a discharge petition to force the anti-gun Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, to allow consideration of such a bill. However, in order to avoid such a confrontation, Congresswoman Pelosi reportedly indicated she would be willing to allow such a bill to come to the floor of the House provided it enjoyed bipartisan support.”
Snyder noted that, “by stepping into this situation, Congressman Childers, a conservative Democrat, takes a leadership role in Congress as a top gun right advocate. He most certainly deserves this Award.”
When Rep. Childers introduced H.R. 6691 in August, he stated that, “the Supreme Court recently upheld Americans’ fundamental right to bear arms, and the legislation ensures that this decision is not infringed upon. I am proud to have introduced the Second Amendment Enforcement Act with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to protect the rights of gun owners. I will continue to fight for the constitutional rights of Mississippians and all Americans.”
He noted H.R. 6691 would repeal the D.C. ban on semiautomatic handguns, repeal the requirement that firearms be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock in the home, repeal extensive D.C. bureaucratic requirements of the D.C. gun registration system, and allow D.C. residents to buy handguns in Virginia or Maryland.
Childers was born in Booneville, Mississippi. He received a bachelor’s degree in business administration from the University of Mississippi.
While a student at Ole Miss, Childers became licensed as a Real Estate Salesperson. After graduating he joined a real estate business eventually establishing Travis Childers Realty and Associates, a successful Northeast Mississippi real estate firm. He and his wife Tami also own Landmark Community, a personal care home, and Landmark Nursing Center..
In 1991, Childers was elected Prentiss County Chancery Clerk. He was reelected five times. In 2001-2002, Childers served as president of the Mississippi Chancery Clerks Association.
Childers was elected to Congress earlier this year in a special election when incumbent Rep. Roger Wicker was appointed to the U.S. Senate by Gov. Haley Barbour after long-time Sen. Trent Lott vacated the post.
Travis and Tami have two children, Dustin and Lauren.

U.S. Representative Travis W. Childers of Mississippi is the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month for October.
Rep. Childers is chief sponsor of H.R. 6691, the most recent version of the proposed Second Amendment Enforcement Act.
In nominating the Congressman from the Magnolia State for the Award, John M. Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, explained that, “in order to understand the public service that Rep. Childers has rendered to Americans’ gun rights, it is important to consider the situation in which he has acted.”
“For years,” Snyder continued, “congressional gun right defenders have been incensed over the extreme gun laws in the District of Columbia, a federal city over which Congress has ultimate authority. The Washington, D.C. gun laws, enacted by District politicians after Congress granted home rule to the District, have prohibited law-abiding District residents from possessing handguns even within their own homes.
“Second Amendment supporting Representatives and Senators have sponsored federal legislation to overturn the severely restrictive District of Columbia gun laws. At the same time, District residents have pursued Second Amendment arguments in the courts in an effort to overturn the District gun laws on a constitutional basis. This approach finally bore fruit in June when the U. S. Supreme Court declared, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, that the prohibition on handgun possession is an unconstitutional violation of individual Second Amendment gun rights.”
Snyder added that, “While this decision was a victory for gun rights, District officials adopted new regulations which, while ostensibly in keeping with the letter of the Supreme Court decision, continued to undermine its spirit. These officials are trying to make it so difficult for law-abiding District residents to possess handguns that it will be almost impossible for them legally to do so. They also continue to consider semiautomatic handguns as machine guns and to prohibit citizens from possessing them.
“A number of Representatives, from both political parties, want to thwart this attempt by District politicians to in effect vitiate the Supreme Court gun rights decision. It appears there are a sufficient number of Representatives willing to sign a discharge petition to force the anti-gun Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, to allow consideration of such a bill. However, in order to avoid such a confrontation, Congresswoman Pelosi reportedly indicated she would be willing to allow such a bill to come to the floor of the House provided it enjoyed bipartisan support.”
Snyder noted that, “by stepping into this situation, Congressman Childers, a conservative Democrat, takes a leadership role in Congress as a top gun right advocate. He most certainly deserves this Award.”
When Rep. Childers introduced H.R. 6691 in August, he stated that, “the Supreme Court recently upheld Americans’ fundamental right to bear arms, and the legislation ensures that this decision is not infringed upon. I am proud to have introduced the Second Amendment Enforcement Act with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to protect the rights of gun owners. I will continue to fight for the constitutional rights of Mississippians and all Americans.”
He noted H.R. 6691 would repeal the D.C. ban on semiautomatic handguns, repeal the requirement that firearms be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock in the home, repeal extensive D.C. bureaucratic requirements of the D.C. gun registration system, and allow D.C. residents to buy handguns in Virginia or Maryland.
Childers was born in Booneville, Mississippi. He received a bachelor’s degree in business administration from the University of Mississippi.
While a student at Ole Miss, Childers became licensed as a Real Estate Salesperson. After graduating he joined a real estate business eventually establishing Travis Childers Realty and Associates, a successful Northeast Mississippi real estate firm. He and his wife Tami also own Landmark Community, a personal care home, and Landmark Nursing Center..
In 1991, Childers was elected Prentiss County Chancery Clerk. He was reelected five times. In 2001-2002, Childers served as president of the Mississippi Chancery Clerks Association.
Childers was elected to Congress earlier this year in a special election when incumbent Rep. Roger Wicker was appointed to the U.S. Senate by Gov. Haley Barbour after long-time Sen. Trent Lott vacated the post.
Travis and Tami have two children, Dustin and Lauren.

State Senator Joe McPherson of Woodworth, Louisiana has been named CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month for July.
In nominating the lawmaker for the Award, John M. Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, noted that there are solid reasons for the designation.
“Throughout his public career,” said Snyder, “Sen. McPherson has been an outstanding proponent of the individual, Second Amendment civil right of law-abiding American citizens to keep and bear arms.
“Within the context of defense of gun rights, a struggle has been developing in regarding the right of lawfully-armed employees to keep their guns in their vehicles while parked on their employer’s property.”
Snyder said that, “Sen. McPherson is taking a lead in Louisiana for gun owners’ rights and certainly deserves being named CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month.”
In Florida just recently, Snyder recalled, the Florida State Legislature passed and Governor Charlie Crist signed into law a measure which protects the right of Florida citizens with valid state-issued permits to carry concealed firearms to keep their guns locked in their vehicles while at work so that they can actually have their guns with them while going to and from work. This was enacted into law after several years of struggle with corporate interests in the state who wanted to prevent their workers from keeping their guns in their cars while the automobiles were parked in the various firms’ parking lots.
Georgia subsequently enacted guns in the workplace legislation that Governor Sonny Perdue signed into law.
In Louisiana, the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry and the Louisiana Chemical Association are fighting to maintain what they consider their right to prevent law-abiding gun owners from bringing their guns onto their property. Greg Bowser, a chemical association representative, for instance, said that, “You have a right to have a gun in your car but as a property owner, I should have a right to say, ‘You can’t bring that gun on my property.’”
To that, Sen. Joe McPherson said the companies unfairly deprive employees of the right to defend themselves and the ability to go hunting on their way to or from work. He proposed legislation similar to measures being considered in other states.
Sen. McPherson said his proposal “is assuring we don’t take away citizens’ rights. In Louisiana, we look at a car as an extension of a home.”
Greg Bowser of the Louisiana Chemical Association, however, told the House Criminal Justice Committee that passage of the bill would tell employers that, “If you employ people, you lose your rights for saying what you can control on your personal property,” and said also that the McPherson bill would allow workers to sue their employers “for telling them this is something I don’t want on my personal property.”
Sen. McPherson pointed out that “there are people being fired” because they show up at work with a gun in their vehicles. He noted a man in his district went duck hunting before work and was bragging to a fellow worker about bagging the limit and having the ducks in his truck. The fellow worker told his supervisor about it and suggested the man’s gun must be in there, too.
McPherson’s proposal, Senate Bill 51, would provide specifically that a person who lawfully possesses a firearm may transport or store such firearm in a locked, privately-owned motor vehicle in any parking lot, parking garage, or other designated parking area.
The bill would provide also that no property owner, tenant, public or private employer, or business entity will be liable in any civil action for damages resulting from or arising out of an occurrence involving the transportation, storage, possession or use of a firearm transported or stored pursuant to his proposal.
Joe McPherson has been a State Senator since 2000. He also served previously in the State Senate from 1984 to 1996. He’s in the U.S.A.R. and is a business owner of retail and healthcare facilities and also commercial property.
He’s been educated at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge and received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Northwestern State University.
Sen. McPherson is Chairman in the Louisiana State Senate of the Standing Committee on Transportation, Highways and Public Works. He serves also on the Agriculture, Forestry, Aquaculture and Rural Development Standing Committee.
Sen. McPherson is the Safari Club International 2008 State Legislator of the Year.

Ronnie Barrett of Murfreesboro, Tennessee is the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month for June.
In nominating Barrett for the Award, CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb pointed out that, as part of a “divide and conquer” strategy on the part of anti-gunners, the gun grabbers are trying to isolate one group of gun owners from others. The gun grabbers are trying to isolate firearms enthusiasts who are particularly interested in and committed to the use of .50 caliber rifles for legitimate purposes. Ronnie Barrett has become a leader in exposing the fallacies of gun grabbers in this regard and in fighting them with the truth. “Consequently,” added Gottlieb, “Ronnie is most deserving of this Award.”
Barrett founded Barrett Firearms Manufacturing in 1982. Well known for .50 caliber rifles, Barrett produces rifles in .416 Barrett and 6.8 SPC calibers. Barrett also is a growing innovator in the design and production of optics for long range shooters. Barrett’s bold idea of a shoulder fired .50 caliber rifle led to the now celebrated Model 82 rifle.
With Barrett, the .50 caliber issue came to a head recently when the Chief of Police in Honolulu, Hawaii, Boisse Correa, called for and used his office to promote an Aloha State ban on .50 caliber rifles.
“If Hawaii or any state bans the sale of the .50 caliber rifle,” stated Barrett in response, “we will immediately stop the sale and service of all Barrett products to that state’s government agencies. We will also welcome all small arms manufacturers to take the same action.”
“It is the law,” continued Barrett. “Barrett Firearms Manufacturing cannot sell our products to those who break the law even though the officials responsible may not yet be indicted. Barrett will not support a state or local government that is obviously in violation of the United States Constitution thereby jeopardizing the safety and security of its citizens.”
Barrett wrote Correa that, “The act of a government entity banning commercial sales of legal firearms, such as my .50 caliber rifle, not only violates the basic principles of the Constitution, but also puts national security at risk by ending the delicate balance between the government and the private sector. Furthermore, it sets a precedent that endangers the future of other vital defense contractors.
“How important is this particular rifle? In 2004, the United States Army named the Barrett M107 Rifle as one of the 10 Greatest Inventions for helping our brave service men and women do their jobs. The free enterprise system allowed me, a civilian sportsman and manufacturer, to perfect that rifle and get it into the hands of those who defend freedom.”
Barrett let Correa know that he realized Correa has been receiving “exaggerated and untrue information that is originating from the Violence Policy Center. For many years, the VPC has claimed an urgent need to ban powerful rifles by predicting some attack will soon happen that will result in preposterous destruction. Well, as much as they promote the attack idea, they don’t happen, as this is not the type of weapon our enemies are using against us.
“VPC’s call for urgent action is in hopes that no time will be spent in factual research that easily reveals the irrationality of these exaggerated claims. All of these tactics have failed to work in Washington, D.C. Now, the VPC’s plan is to continue this deception at the state level.”
Barrett stated to Correa that “I was in law enforcement myself for several years. There is something that bothers me, and I believe it should bother you as a police official. Sir, your general testimony and statements must be based on factual evidence. All police work in this great nation must be firmly grounded in facts, collected evidence, and the solid truth.
“Throughout history, when police work was contaminated with innuendoes, fabrications and fear tactics, the society was doomed. Now, I must ask you how many murders can you report that were committed in your jurisdiction with a .50 caliber rifle? How many robberies? How many .50 caliber rifles have you found at crime scenes? The answers should be true facts; anything else is a destroyer of our society, our great republic.”
Barrett has been battling the anti-gun .50 caliber rifle scam for some time.
After California banned .50 caliber firearms, he wrote that, “Unlike California, we cannot allow any of our local, state or federal officials to be deceived with any of this ‘big lie’ gun control propaganda. The U.S. has every gun law that could possibly be needed.”

Dick Anthony Heller, the Washington, D.C. resident challenging the District’s handgun ban in the United States Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, is the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month for April.
In nominating Heller for the Award, John M. Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, said that, “Dick Heller deserves the thanks and appreciation of America’s 80 million law-abiding gun owners for bringing this case all the way from the streets of the Capital City to the highest court in the land. He’s arguing that the handgun ban is a violation of the individual Second Amendment civil right to keep and bear arms. He’s been arguing this for over 10 years. A year ago, an appellate court agreed with him and declared the D.C. law an unconstitutional violation of the individual right to keep and bear arms. Then the city of Washington asked the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court ruling. When I met and talked with Dick on March 18 in the Supreme Court building just before entering the courtroom to hear arguments in the case, he said he’d been working on the case for so long that it had become part of his life. His patience, persistence and determination in pursuing this matter render him a true modern Second Amendment hero. He certainly is most deserving of this Award.”
Heller is a security guard at a government facility in the Nation’s Capital. He carries a pistol on the job but is prevented by the D.C. law from being able to keep a handgun in his own home for self-protection.
Heller, 66, told Point Blank that his father was a medic in the submarine service of the U.S. Navy during World War Two, and that Dick was born in San Diego, California at a time when his dad was based there.
He’s had an eventful life, living in many parts of the United States and the world, even spending about a year in Africa as a gold miner.
Heller joined the U.S. Army when he was 17 years old and became a paratrooper. He eventually settled in Washington, D.C. in 1962 since his parents had jobs in the city. He earned an engineering degree at Montgomery College in adjacent Montgomery County, Maryland in the 1960s. According to The Washingtonian, Dick has “worked in banking, at NASA, in a stock brokerage, and as a consultant.”
About 38 years ago, Dick moved to the Capitol Hill section of Washington, D.C. At the time, he owned a few firearms, and bought a nine-shot Buntline Special revolver with a 9-1/2 inch barrel.
Shortly after Dick bought the Buntline, the city enacted its nefarious law which prevented anyone but retired and working law enforcement officers from keeping handguns in their homes and required that all shotguns and rifles be kept unloaded and dissembled or disabled with a trigger lock. The 1976 law allowed exceptions for residents who at the time already owned handguns, provided they registered the firearms with the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police before a given deadline.
Although Heller could have kept the Buntline at the time had he registered it with the city, he refused to do so.
“I objected to the government’s knowing everyone’s business,” he said. “We lived in an era when John Wayne was still king. It was a culture that celebrated our Western heritage.”
Dick left his revolver with friends across the Potomac River, in suburban Virginia.
The neighborhood in which Heller was living went from bad to worse, and he “routinely witnessed gunfire, drug-dealing and other violence,” according to the Baltimore Sun. Heller felt he needed to keep a handgun at home for self protection but now was prevented by the handgun ban from doing so.
Heller and others got together with attorney Bob Levy of the Cato Institute, who agreed to fund the case, and decided to challenge the D.C. gun law.
On July 22, 2002, Heller went to police headquarters to register his personal .22 caliber handgun, and was turned down. That meant he could claim he was “harmed” by the D.C. law and had legal standing to sue.
Although there originally were a number of plaintiffs in the case challenging the D.C. law, the lower court decided that only Heller had standing to sue.
Heller has since married and moved to another neighborhood of Washington, D.C. and hopes for a favorable ruling in the case by the Supreme Court.
A decision is expected in late June.

John F. Stossel, a consumer reporter, author and co-anchor for the network television ABC News show 20/20, has been named CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month for April.
In nominating Stossel for the Award, John M. Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, said that, “While many people rightfully complain about anti-gun owner bias in the mainstream media, it nonetheless is true that there are at least a few media personalities who are not infected with this bias and who in fact forthrightly maintain and defend the viability of the individual Second Amendment civil right of law-abiding American citizens to keep and bear arms. Surrounded as they are with fellow professionals who generally are off the wall in their animosity towards gun rights, these few are outstanding in their professional commitment to the truth regarding the right to keep and bear arms. Such a professional is John Stossel, and it’s hard to praise and commend him too highly for his articulate defense of our rights in what possibly is a truly wretched and vapid intellectual environment. He most surely deserves the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month Award.”
Stossel recently blasted an anti-gun New York Times editorial for calling upon U.S. Senators “to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth.”
That newspaper’s editors, stated Stossel, “seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between ‘carefully controlling guns’ and ‘arming everyone to the teeth.’ But no one favors ‘arming everyone to the teeth’ (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.
“As for the first option, ‘carefully controlling guns,’ how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized. While they search for – excuse me – their magic bullet, innocent people are dying defenseless.”
According to Stossel, “Laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws are laws against self-defense.
“Criminals have the initiative. They choose the time, place and manner of their crimes, and they tend to make choices that maximize their own, not their victims’, success. So criminals don’t attack people they know are armed, and anyone thinking of committing mass murder is likely to be attracted to a gun free zone, such as schools and malls.”
Stossel, born 1947 in Chicago Heights, Illinois, noted that, “Government may promise to protect us from criminals, but it cannot deliver on that promise. This was neatly summed up in a book title a few years ago: ‘Dial 911 and Die.’ If you are the target of a crime, only one other person besides the criminal is sure to be on the scene: you. There is no good substitute for self-responsibility. How, then, does it make sense to create mandatory gun free zones, which in reality are free crime zones?
“The usual suspects keep calling for more gun control laws. But this idea that gun control is crime control is just a myth. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation that clearly led to reduced violent crime or murder. When Washington, D.C. passed its tough handgun ban years ago, gun violence rose. The press ignores the fact that often guns save lives. It’s what happened in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law. Hearing shots, two students went to their cars, got their guns and restrained the shooter until police arrested him.”
John began his journalism career as a researcher for KGW-TV and later became a consumer reporter at WCBS-TV in New York City before joining ABC News as consumer editor and reporter on Good Morning America. He lives in New York City with his wife and their two children.

Alan Gura, the counsel of record for the pro-gun side in the gun case being argued this month before the United States Supreme Court, is the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month for March
In nominating Gura for the Award, John M. Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, said that, “in this landmark case, Alan has been the public leader of the charge in the lower courts, through the Appellate Court and now all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The whole development is a tribute to his dedication and persistence as well as to his professional competence. He has taken a tremendous responsibility on his shoulders, in effect becoming the spokesman before the Supreme Court not only for the rights of law-abiding Washington, D.C. residents, but indeed also for the individual Second Amendment civil right of all law-abiding American citizens to keep and bear arms. We wish him well. He is in our prayers as he carries forward the banner of freedom. He most certainly deserves this Award as a sign of our appreciation for his efforts on behalf of our rights.”
In the case up for consideration by the Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller, Alan Gura, along with his associates and supporters, maintains that the District of Columbia gun law virtually banning private handgun acquisition and effectively prohibiting the availability of firearms for purposes of self-defense is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
In a recent analysis of the case, known originally as Parker v. District of Columbia, Gura stated that, “Fear and disinformation have long been the hallmarks of the movement to end private gun ownership. Not surprisingly, the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Parker v. District of Columbia, confirming that people have an individual right to keep and bear arms, has elicited outrageous predictions of doom from gun prohibitionists. The Violence Policy Center’s Josh Sugarmann neatly summed up the hysteria in warning that Parker ‘may mark the beginning of a long, national nightmare from which we will never recover as a nation.’
“Allow me to offer a more optimistic view: Parker not only marks the beginning of the end of gun prohibition, it might also reverse the erosion of our individual rights by re-enforcing the primacy of judicial review and preventing sophists from defining rights out of existence.”
Alan Gura pointed out that, “Most Americans are not Second Amendment absolutists, in either the negative or positive sense of the term. We tend to appreciate the individual right to arms without excessive regulatory harassment, understanding the value that firearms provide in securing individuals from violent criminal predation and precluding a dangerous government monopoly on force. We likewise understand that not all weapons should be possessed by all people at all times.
“In practical terms, Parker’s correct interpretation of the Second Amendment – a cherished individual right which, like all other rights, is subject to some measure of regulation – happily coincides with the public’s appreciation of constitutional liberty…Parker means merely that courts will evaluate gun laws the same way that courts review laws touching upon other constitutional rights: by balancing the fundamental individual right at stake against the purported regulatory interest.”
Gura’s law practice focuses primarily on civil and appellate legislation, with an emphasis on intellectual property, constitutional law, and civil rights.
Prior to founding Gura and Possessky, PLLC, Gura began his career by serving as a law clerk to the Honorable Terrence W. Boyle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Subsequently, as a Deputy Attorney General for the State of California, Gura defended the State of California and its employees from all manner of lawsuits, in state and federal courts, at trial and on appeal. Thereafter, Alan entered the private practice of law with the Washington, D.C. offices of Sidley and Austin. In February 2000, he left the firm to serve for a year as Counsel to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight.
Alan Gura is admitted as an active member in good standing in the District of Columbia Bar, the Virginia State Bar, and the State Bar of California. He also is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Eleventh, Federal and District of Columbia Circuits; and the United States District Courts for the District of Columbia, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Central, Southern, Eastern and Northern Districts of California.

Jeanne Assam of Colorado Springs, Colorado is the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month for February.
In nominating Ms. Assam for the Award, John M. Snyder, CCRKBA Public Affairs Director, said that, “this woman, by her recent heroic defensive action in an extraordinarily difficult conflict situation, demonstrates that guns in the hands of good people are necessary for the defense of life. She certainly is most deserving of this Award.”
It was just a couple of months ago that Jeanne Assam, 42, armed only with her handgun, courageously interrupted and stopped a one-man killing spree perpetrated by a madman armed in car and person with a Bushmaster XM15 rifle, an AK-47 rifle, a Beretta .40 cal. semiautomatic handgun, a Springfield Armory 9mm semiautomatic handgun, and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition.
On one Sunday, when a number of Americans participate in church services of various denominations, Matthew Murray, 24, reportedly shot and killed two people on the Faith Bible Church campus in Arvada, Colorado and wounded two others in the morning.
Murray then moved on to New Life Church in Colorado Springs where he shot and killed two other people and wounded two more.
It was at that point that Jeanne Assam demonstrated her heroism.
“There was chaos,” Assam said, as parishioners ran away. “I will never forget the gunshots. They were so loud.”
Assam said, “I saw him coming through the doors” and took cover. “I came out or cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down.”
Assam, a private citizen with a permit to carry a concealed firearm, was acting as a volunteer guard at the church that Sunday. Police said later that Murray had fired 26 rounds from his Bushmaster rifle and one round from the Springfield 9mm. They said Assam fired 10 rounds at Murray and that Murray subsequently took his own life.
“God was with me,” said Assam. “I didn’t think for a minute to run away.”
Assam said she believes God gave her the strength to confront Murray, keeping her calm and focused even though he appeared to be twice her size and was more heavily armed.
Sgt. Jeff Johnson of the Colorado Springs Police Department confirmed that, at the time of the actual encounter, Murray was carrying two handguns and a rifle.
Assam said, “It seemed like it was me, the gunman and God.”
She said, “I was given the assignment to end this before it got much worse. I just prayed for the Holy Spirit to guide me. I said, ‘Holy Spirit, be with me.’ My hands weren’t even shaking.”
When the gunman entered New Life Church, she said, she took cover and drew spiritual and physical strength from her religious faith.
At the present time, Assam works for a ministry.
At New Life Church, she attends one religious service on Sundays and volunteers as a guard at another service.
Formerly a police officer, Assam said that she had pulled her gun several times in the course of her job but never had to fire at anyone.
About 10 years ago, Assam was a police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota who was fired for lying during an internal investigation. Sgt. John Delmonico, President of the Police Federation of Minneapolis, said police were investigating a complaint that Assam swore at a bus driver in connection with an incident on a city bus. “In giving a statement about the incident, she was untruthful and she was fired,” Delmonico said. The swearing was on tape, he said. “The union arbitrated the case and the arbitrator upheld the termination.”
That 10-year old incident did not bother officials at New Life Church. Pastor Brady Boyd said Jeanne Assam’s license to carry a gun and her experience at other police departments had persuaded leaders to let her serve as a volunteer security guard at the Colorado Springs church.
“She is a fairly new believer in Christ,” Pastor Brady said of Assam and her Minneapolis background. “If you go back into pasts, you can dig up something on any of us. She admittedly made lots of bad decisions but only in the past few months has she become a devoted follower of Christ. Her life has changed. She was let go, but that happens every day to good people. I don’t want her to be convicted or crucified for being a heroine. That’s way a lot of people don’t get involved. She did the right thing at the right time.”