User's Tags

Chris Avena 's Entries

16 blogs
  • 25 Jan 2013
    Organizer postpones big Pennsylvania gun show Yamiche Alcindor, @Yamiche, USA TODAY10:45p.m. EST January 24, 2013   (STORY HIGHLIGHTS) Reed Exhibitions plans to reschedule the event Glendale, Calif., may ban guns and gun shows on city property The region where the show was supposed to be will lose about $80 million in revenue A decision Thursday to postpone a large Pennsylvania gun show has sparked debate about whether such events are coming under fire in the wake of last month's Newtown, Conn., shooting massacre. Reed Exhibitions announced it was postponing the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in Harrisburg, Pa., which had been scheduled for Feb. 2 to Feb. 10. The change came after Reed banned assault rifles at the show, prompting several exhibitors to boycott. "In the current climate, we felt that the presence of modern sporting rifles would distract from the theme of hunting and fishing, disrupting the broader experience of our guests," the company said in a statement. Reed Exhibitions plans to reschedule "as the national debate clarifies." The Pennsylvania postponement comes as Glendale, Calif., lawmakers consider passing an ordinance banning guns and gun shows on city property. Those efforts and others, made in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shootings that killed 26 people, may signify changing attitudes toward gun shows and gun possession, according to Tom Lorenz, a Glendale city spokesman. "Some City Council members and the police chief see it as a symbolic message that gun violence is not tolerated in our community," Lorenz said. Legislators recently asked the city attorney to draft the new gun law. The attorney now has four to six weeks to write an ordinance that would make it a misdemeanor to have or sell a gun on city property. Gun advocates argue that gun shows and gun rights will remain stronger than ever because of push-back by citizens eager to protect the second amendment. Other cities are talking about taking similar steps while some gun shows have postponed their events, Lorenz said. The region where the Pennsylvania show was supposed to take place will lose about $80 million in revenue, said Rick Dunlap, a spokesman for Hershey Harrisburg Regional Visitors Bureau. "This economic loss is collateral damage from a national debate," said Dunlap adding that local businesses rely on the show for first quarter earnings. Gun rights advocates argue that the president, congressional leaders, and gun control supporters are unfairly using the Newtown shooting to pressure organizations and the public into restricting guns. "An attack on one firearm is an attack on all," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, a non-profit legal defense organization based in Bellevue, Wash. "They are trying to pit one gun owner against another gun owner." Gene Hoffman, chairman of the Calguns Foundation, another gun advocacy group, said banning one of the most popular selling rifles in the world doesn't make sense. He and Gottlieb said they doubt future organizers will make attempts similar to Pennsylvania to curtail gun shows. "This is a strong warning to anyone throwing a gun show in America," Hoffman said. "You don't get to police what is legal and otherwise protected by the Constitution." ADVERTISEMENT ABOUT THE AUTHOR YAMICHE ALCINDOR Yamiche Alcindor, a breaking news reporter, splits her time covering quickly developing incidents and stories about the social issues affecting the USA. She's also a proud Miami Heat fan.  Send Yamiche Alcindor a Message        
    1401 Posted by Chris Avena
  • Organizer postpones big Pennsylvania gun show Yamiche Alcindor, @Yamiche, USA TODAY10:45p.m. EST January 24, 2013   (STORY HIGHLIGHTS) Reed Exhibitions plans to reschedule the event Glendale, Calif., may ban guns and gun shows on city property The region where the show was supposed to be will lose about $80 million in revenue A decision Thursday to postpone a large Pennsylvania gun show has sparked debate about whether such events are coming under fire in the wake of last month's Newtown, Conn., shooting massacre. Reed Exhibitions announced it was postponing the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in Harrisburg, Pa., which had been scheduled for Feb. 2 to Feb. 10. The change came after Reed banned assault rifles at the show, prompting several exhibitors to boycott. "In the current climate, we felt that the presence of modern sporting rifles would distract from the theme of hunting and fishing, disrupting the broader experience of our guests," the company said in a statement. Reed Exhibitions plans to reschedule "as the national debate clarifies." The Pennsylvania postponement comes as Glendale, Calif., lawmakers consider passing an ordinance banning guns and gun shows on city property. Those efforts and others, made in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shootings that killed 26 people, may signify changing attitudes toward gun shows and gun possession, according to Tom Lorenz, a Glendale city spokesman. "Some City Council members and the police chief see it as a symbolic message that gun violence is not tolerated in our community," Lorenz said. Legislators recently asked the city attorney to draft the new gun law. The attorney now has four to six weeks to write an ordinance that would make it a misdemeanor to have or sell a gun on city property. Gun advocates argue that gun shows and gun rights will remain stronger than ever because of push-back by citizens eager to protect the second amendment. Other cities are talking about taking similar steps while some gun shows have postponed their events, Lorenz said. The region where the Pennsylvania show was supposed to take place will lose about $80 million in revenue, said Rick Dunlap, a spokesman for Hershey Harrisburg Regional Visitors Bureau. "This economic loss is collateral damage from a national debate," said Dunlap adding that local businesses rely on the show for first quarter earnings. Gun rights advocates argue that the president, congressional leaders, and gun control supporters are unfairly using the Newtown shooting to pressure organizations and the public into restricting guns. "An attack on one firearm is an attack on all," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, a non-profit legal defense organization based in Bellevue, Wash. "They are trying to pit one gun owner against another gun owner." Gene Hoffman, chairman of the Calguns Foundation, another gun advocacy group, said banning one of the most popular selling rifles in the world doesn't make sense. He and Gottlieb said they doubt future organizers will make attempts similar to Pennsylvania to curtail gun shows. "This is a strong warning to anyone throwing a gun show in America," Hoffman said. "You don't get to police what is legal and otherwise protected by the Constitution." ADVERTISEMENT ABOUT THE AUTHOR YAMICHE ALCINDOR Yamiche Alcindor, a breaking news reporter, splits her time covering quickly developing incidents and stories about the social issues affecting the USA. She's also a proud Miami Heat fan.  Send Yamiche Alcindor a Message        
    Jan 25, 2013 1401
  • 24 Jan 2013
    NSSF Statement on the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show January 24, 2013 By nssfnews   We have just learned that Reed Exhibitions has decided to postpone the 2013 Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show. In the days following Reed Exhibitions’ announcement that modern sporting rifles would be prohibited from the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show, the leadership of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has been in intense, frank discussions with Reed Exhibitions management in an effort to reverse this unacceptable decision. These discussions reached an impasse. NSSF is in no way affiliated with, nor does it participate in or exhibit at this show in any way. Reed Exhibitions does, however, manage the NSSF-owned SHOT Show (though Reed manages the SHOT Show, all SHOT Show decisions, policies and actions are made at NSSF’s direction). Because of Reed’s recent actions, NSSF is considering all options regarding the management of future SHOT Shows. _________________________________
    1528 Posted by Chris Avena
  • NSSF Statement on the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show January 24, 2013 By nssfnews   We have just learned that Reed Exhibitions has decided to postpone the 2013 Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show. In the days following Reed Exhibitions’ announcement that modern sporting rifles would be prohibited from the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show, the leadership of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has been in intense, frank discussions with Reed Exhibitions management in an effort to reverse this unacceptable decision. These discussions reached an impasse. NSSF is in no way affiliated with, nor does it participate in or exhibit at this show in any way. Reed Exhibitions does, however, manage the NSSF-owned SHOT Show (though Reed manages the SHOT Show, all SHOT Show decisions, policies and actions are made at NSSF’s direction). Because of Reed’s recent actions, NSSF is considering all options regarding the management of future SHOT Shows. _________________________________
    Jan 24, 2013 1528
  • 10 Jan 2013
    Bank of America – The Un-American Bank   By Chris Avena, President of SeeMeHunt.com     Is Bank of America The Un-American Bank? Only a few short months ago Bank of America severed their business relationship with McMillan Firearms because they were a gun manufacturer. As much as Bank of America portrayed their statements as just a misunderstanding, their sincerity was just a little hard to swallow. When a financial institution takes a political position about a particular industry, they walk a very dangerous line.   Should a financial institution be able to decide that they do not want to do business with a legal and federally regulated business because they do not agree with their industry? Should they be able to freeze your account without provocation? Should they be able to act on their own accord while putting their client’s financial interests in jeopardy? That is exactly what Bank of America has done.   According to Joe Sirochman the President of American Spirit Arms, he was told by a Manager at Bank of America     “WE BELIEVE YOU SHOULD NOT BE SELLING GUNS and GUN PARTS ON THE INTERNET “   With the recent surge in recent firearm sales, American Spirit Arms e-commerce sales have increased by 500%. Naturally, they have had much larger than normal bank deposits at Bank of America. You would think that a financial institution would value a client whose business is growing. Instead, Bank of America decided to hold the deposits for “Further Review”. They did not clear those payments or make the money available to American Spirit Arms. Their account was frozen in a state of flux or as Bank of America stated –   “They were keeping the account Under Review”.   While they were holding those payments under review, American Spirit Arms was fulfilling their obligation by shipping product to their customers that they rightfully paid for. When a financial institution’s political beliefs inhibits their customer’s ability to operate their business, that institution has just crossed the line. Where does the legal obligation to their customers end?   As a firearms manufacturer, American Spirit Arms holds a FFL (Federal Firearms License). They are bound to abide by ALL of the State and Federal rules and regulations. They are audited regularly by ATF (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms) and Homeland Security.   Bank of America Also has State and Federal Rules and Regulations that they Must abide by and they are regulated by the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission).   By acting as Bank of America has, they may have broken several SEC Regulations. A financial Institution has a fiduciary duty to act in their clients best interests. Bank of America’s actions shows a complete disregard for their clients well being and in doing so, put their financial future at risk.   If a gun manufacturer was not working within their legal guidelines, ATF and Homeland Security would shut them down. What will it take for the SEC to do their job as a Federal Regulator to make sure that Bank of America lives up to their Obligation.        
    2884 Posted by Chris Avena
  • Bank of America – The Un-American Bank   By Chris Avena, President of SeeMeHunt.com     Is Bank of America The Un-American Bank? Only a few short months ago Bank of America severed their business relationship with McMillan Firearms because they were a gun manufacturer. As much as Bank of America portrayed their statements as just a misunderstanding, their sincerity was just a little hard to swallow. When a financial institution takes a political position about a particular industry, they walk a very dangerous line.   Should a financial institution be able to decide that they do not want to do business with a legal and federally regulated business because they do not agree with their industry? Should they be able to freeze your account without provocation? Should they be able to act on their own accord while putting their client’s financial interests in jeopardy? That is exactly what Bank of America has done.   According to Joe Sirochman the President of American Spirit Arms, he was told by a Manager at Bank of America     “WE BELIEVE YOU SHOULD NOT BE SELLING GUNS and GUN PARTS ON THE INTERNET “   With the recent surge in recent firearm sales, American Spirit Arms e-commerce sales have increased by 500%. Naturally, they have had much larger than normal bank deposits at Bank of America. You would think that a financial institution would value a client whose business is growing. Instead, Bank of America decided to hold the deposits for “Further Review”. They did not clear those payments or make the money available to American Spirit Arms. Their account was frozen in a state of flux or as Bank of America stated –   “They were keeping the account Under Review”.   While they were holding those payments under review, American Spirit Arms was fulfilling their obligation by shipping product to their customers that they rightfully paid for. When a financial institution’s political beliefs inhibits their customer’s ability to operate their business, that institution has just crossed the line. Where does the legal obligation to their customers end?   As a firearms manufacturer, American Spirit Arms holds a FFL (Federal Firearms License). They are bound to abide by ALL of the State and Federal rules and regulations. They are audited regularly by ATF (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms) and Homeland Security.   Bank of America Also has State and Federal Rules and Regulations that they Must abide by and they are regulated by the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission).   By acting as Bank of America has, they may have broken several SEC Regulations. A financial Institution has a fiduciary duty to act in their clients best interests. Bank of America’s actions shows a complete disregard for their clients well being and in doing so, put their financial future at risk.   If a gun manufacturer was not working within their legal guidelines, ATF and Homeland Security would shut them down. What will it take for the SEC to do their job as a Federal Regulator to make sure that Bank of America lives up to their Obligation.        
    Jan 10, 2013 2884
  • 15 Dec 2012
    I know that Many - Including myself are in disbelief of the senseless shooting of those innocent children yesterday. I cringe at the thought that - what if it was my kid. It is a terrible thing and as a parent - my heart goes out to the parents who lost a child at the hand of this misguided individual.With that said- I know that once again gun laws are thrust into the spot light and what it really comes down to is Criminals & Psycho's do not obtain a gun through legal  means.  Our Right to Bare Arms is not an amendment to insure that we can go hunting. It is an amendment that is there to give us the ability to protect ourselves from our enemies - Both Foreign & Domestic. It gives us the basic right to protect our freedoms. Our Freedom of speech, Freedom of Religion, free to own properties & Live Our Way of Life. People Just Do Not Get It!Maybe it should be mandatory that we read the Bill of Rights Once in a while - To remember why hundreds of thousands of Americans fought & Died to Protect our way of life. To protect the right to have an opinion. Weather you agree or disagree, THAT is Our Right."Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to national security, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed". With all of the Terrorism in the world today - Our Right To Bare Arms is more important today than it has Ever Been in Our Great Countries History.We can turn a blind eye to what is going on in the world around us and say - "No, that could never happen here"Well It Has Happened Here. It happened on September 11th, 2001 and it can happen again.Let keep our eyes on the real issue at hand. A mentally ill person took the lives of countless innocent people yesterday. My prayers and condolences go out to the family and friends of all who have been touched by this situation
    1059 Posted by Chris Avena
  • I know that Many - Including myself are in disbelief of the senseless shooting of those innocent children yesterday. I cringe at the thought that - what if it was my kid. It is a terrible thing and as a parent - my heart goes out to the parents who lost a child at the hand of this misguided individual.With that said- I know that once again gun laws are thrust into the spot light and what it really comes down to is Criminals & Psycho's do not obtain a gun through legal  means.  Our Right to Bare Arms is not an amendment to insure that we can go hunting. It is an amendment that is there to give us the ability to protect ourselves from our enemies - Both Foreign & Domestic. It gives us the basic right to protect our freedoms. Our Freedom of speech, Freedom of Religion, free to own properties & Live Our Way of Life. People Just Do Not Get It!Maybe it should be mandatory that we read the Bill of Rights Once in a while - To remember why hundreds of thousands of Americans fought & Died to Protect our way of life. To protect the right to have an opinion. Weather you agree or disagree, THAT is Our Right."Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to national security, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed". With all of the Terrorism in the world today - Our Right To Bare Arms is more important today than it has Ever Been in Our Great Countries History.We can turn a blind eye to what is going on in the world around us and say - "No, that could never happen here"Well It Has Happened Here. It happened on September 11th, 2001 and it can happen again.Let keep our eyes on the real issue at hand. A mentally ill person took the lives of countless innocent people yesterday. My prayers and condolences go out to the family and friends of all who have been touched by this situation
    Dec 15, 2012 1059
  • 05 May 2012
    The bank that absorbed Seattle-based SeaFirst Bank back in 1983 has allegedly taken an action that might resonate in downtown Seattle, but to the American firearms community it’s a declaration of war, and gun owners are evidently poised to strike back.    Bank of America is alleged to have advised McMillan Fiberglass Stocks that, because it now manufactures firearms, its business is no longer welcome. The bank has denied the allegation. It's quickly becoming a case of "he said/he said," with some gun owners expressing skepticism, others accepting the report as true.    The report sizzled across cyberspace over the weekend has spread Mondays morning to Jim Shepherd’s The Outdoor Wire, and HotAir.com. It has ignited a discussion on GunRightsMedia.com, Northwest Firearms and other forums. A story under my byline also appears in TheGunMag.comMany in the Pacific Northwest who have or had personal and business accounts with SeaFirst (a.k.a. Seattle First National Bank among old-timers) are gun owners.    According to a message posted on Facebook by Kelly D. McMillan, director of operations at the Phoenix-based McMillan Fiberglass Stocks and McMillan Firearms Manufacturing company, a meeting with a Bank of America senior vice president occurred the other day that went like this: McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today Mr. Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an “account analysis” meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit we have with them. He spent 5 minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.At this point I interrupted him and asked “Can I possible save you some time so that you don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer what my business.”“That is correct” he says.I replied “That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a 2nd Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won’t mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?”“You have to do what you must” he said.“So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?”Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing left for him to say. ___________________________________________ UPDATE: This column reached McMillan Monday morning and he stands by his story. Bank of America has posted this message on its Facebook page: "We want to let you know that we hear your comments and questions regarding one of our customers. While we cannot discuss the details of any individual client we work with, we can assure you the allegations being made here are completely false. Bank of America does not have a policy that prohibits us from banking clients in this industry. In fact, we have numerous, longstanding customers in the industry. "We are also extremely proud of our support of the US military and reject any assertion to the contrary. We count as clients many companies that provide for our nation's defense. We employ thousands of veterans, Guardsmen, and Reservists, and plan to increase our hiring this year."—Bank of America    The Snopes website is also discussing the controversy here. This column's call to Bank of America has not been returned. _________________________________________________________ Shepherd, in Monday morning’s Outdoor Wire, noted that the story has gained plenty of traction. McMillan concluded with this observation, and a warning to customers: I think it is import for all Americans who believe in and support our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms should know when a business does not support these rights. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. When I don’t agree with a business’ political position I can not in good conscience support them. We will soon no longer be accepting Bank of America credit cards as payment for our products.—Kelly D. McMillan    Over at HotAir.com, there is already a rumbling of boycott. And at PJMedia, columnist Bob Owens has literally taken off the gloves, reminding readers that McMillan is “heavily involved” with the U.S. military, producing stocks for the Marine Corps’ designated sniper rifle, and producing equipment for other branches. He also had this assertion: Bank of America was the recipient of well over 100 billion dollars in federal money. They are also one of just two vendors processing payments for Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign, employing a system that disables safeguards against illegal foreign donations. Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina, is the site of the Democratic Nation Convention in September.—Bob Owens, PJ Media    This story may, or nay not, cause a ripple in high finance circles, but it is certainly causing a ripple effect in the firearms community as more gun owners – and especially the gun rights activists – are learning about this.    Q. Do you have a Bank of America account, and will this story cause you to change banks?   PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forum  
    3292 Posted by Chris Avena
  • The bank that absorbed Seattle-based SeaFirst Bank back in 1983 has allegedly taken an action that might resonate in downtown Seattle, but to the American firearms community it’s a declaration of war, and gun owners are evidently poised to strike back.    Bank of America is alleged to have advised McMillan Fiberglass Stocks that, because it now manufactures firearms, its business is no longer welcome. The bank has denied the allegation. It's quickly becoming a case of "he said/he said," with some gun owners expressing skepticism, others accepting the report as true.    The report sizzled across cyberspace over the weekend has spread Mondays morning to Jim Shepherd’s The Outdoor Wire, and HotAir.com. It has ignited a discussion on GunRightsMedia.com, Northwest Firearms and other forums. A story under my byline also appears in TheGunMag.comMany in the Pacific Northwest who have or had personal and business accounts with SeaFirst (a.k.a. Seattle First National Bank among old-timers) are gun owners.    According to a message posted on Facebook by Kelly D. McMillan, director of operations at the Phoenix-based McMillan Fiberglass Stocks and McMillan Firearms Manufacturing company, a meeting with a Bank of America senior vice president occurred the other day that went like this: McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today Mr. Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an “account analysis” meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit we have with them. He spent 5 minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.At this point I interrupted him and asked “Can I possible save you some time so that you don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer what my business.”“That is correct” he says.I replied “That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a 2nd Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won’t mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?”“You have to do what you must” he said.“So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?”Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing left for him to say. ___________________________________________ UPDATE: This column reached McMillan Monday morning and he stands by his story. Bank of America has posted this message on its Facebook page: "We want to let you know that we hear your comments and questions regarding one of our customers. While we cannot discuss the details of any individual client we work with, we can assure you the allegations being made here are completely false. Bank of America does not have a policy that prohibits us from banking clients in this industry. In fact, we have numerous, longstanding customers in the industry. "We are also extremely proud of our support of the US military and reject any assertion to the contrary. We count as clients many companies that provide for our nation's defense. We employ thousands of veterans, Guardsmen, and Reservists, and plan to increase our hiring this year."—Bank of America    The Snopes website is also discussing the controversy here. This column's call to Bank of America has not been returned. _________________________________________________________ Shepherd, in Monday morning’s Outdoor Wire, noted that the story has gained plenty of traction. McMillan concluded with this observation, and a warning to customers: I think it is import for all Americans who believe in and support our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms should know when a business does not support these rights. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. When I don’t agree with a business’ political position I can not in good conscience support them. We will soon no longer be accepting Bank of America credit cards as payment for our products.—Kelly D. McMillan    Over at HotAir.com, there is already a rumbling of boycott. And at PJMedia, columnist Bob Owens has literally taken off the gloves, reminding readers that McMillan is “heavily involved” with the U.S. military, producing stocks for the Marine Corps’ designated sniper rifle, and producing equipment for other branches. He also had this assertion: Bank of America was the recipient of well over 100 billion dollars in federal money. They are also one of just two vendors processing payments for Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign, employing a system that disables safeguards against illegal foreign donations. Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina, is the site of the Democratic Nation Convention in September.—Bob Owens, PJ Media    This story may, or nay not, cause a ripple in high finance circles, but it is certainly causing a ripple effect in the firearms community as more gun owners – and especially the gun rights activists – are learning about this.    Q. Do you have a Bank of America account, and will this story cause you to change banks?   PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forum  
    May 05, 2012 3292
  • 22 Feb 2012
    An Illinois lawmaker wants gun owners to shell out extra taxes in order to finance a new grant program for trauma centers, a move firearms advocacy groups say amounts to a "sin tax" on law-abiding hunters and target shooters.  State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, in a bill introduced earlier this month, proposed a 2 percent surtax on ammunition. The proceeds would go toward a "high-crime trauma center grant fund," which would then send the tax money to trauma centers in "high-crime areas."    The idea is to begin to offset the high cost of gun violence. Mark Walsh, campaign director for the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told FoxNews.com that cost often ends up being shouldered by these urban trauma centers.  "(The money would go) into communities here in Illinois that have been damaged with gun violence," he said. "I think it's a legitimate way to pursue funding."  But Richard Pearson, director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said the bill effectively saddles gun owners -- hunters, target shooters and those who own firearms for self defense -- as a whole with the cost of gang violence in high-crime areas like Chicago.  "We aren't causing the problem. They are," Pearson said. "It's an attack on firearm owners and their rights. ... They think that because we like to target shoot and hunt, we're bad people, and we should pay for all the ills of the city of Chicago."  Since gun owners in Illinois have to have a special ID card which requires a background check to obtain, Pearson said those committing crimes of gun violence aren't likely to be paying much into the proposed tax fund.  "They're not buying their ammunition (legally). They're not paying any part of the tax. They're getting their stuff illegally," he said.  He estimated a typical box of ammo runs for about $25 in Illinois, meaning the average tax per box would be about 50 cents.  Cassidy, a Democrat who represents a district in the North Side of Chicago, did not return a request for comment.  Her proposal would exempt ammunition purchases by the state's Department of Natural Resources.  All the surtax proceeds from other ammo sales would go toward the grant fund.  The National Rifle Association is also opposed to the bill. Spokeswoman Stephanie Samford said "law-abiding citizens should not be saddled with a tax on ammunition to pay for the acts of violent criminals."  "This sends a message that responsible gun owners are somehow responsible for violent crime, which is certainly not true," she said. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/21/gun-rights-groups-decry-proposed-surtax-on-illinois-ammo-sales/?test=latestnews#ixzz1n81HVJoS
    1420 Posted by Chris Avena
  • An Illinois lawmaker wants gun owners to shell out extra taxes in order to finance a new grant program for trauma centers, a move firearms advocacy groups say amounts to a "sin tax" on law-abiding hunters and target shooters.  State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, in a bill introduced earlier this month, proposed a 2 percent surtax on ammunition. The proceeds would go toward a "high-crime trauma center grant fund," which would then send the tax money to trauma centers in "high-crime areas."    The idea is to begin to offset the high cost of gun violence. Mark Walsh, campaign director for the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told FoxNews.com that cost often ends up being shouldered by these urban trauma centers.  "(The money would go) into communities here in Illinois that have been damaged with gun violence," he said. "I think it's a legitimate way to pursue funding."  But Richard Pearson, director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said the bill effectively saddles gun owners -- hunters, target shooters and those who own firearms for self defense -- as a whole with the cost of gang violence in high-crime areas like Chicago.  "We aren't causing the problem. They are," Pearson said. "It's an attack on firearm owners and their rights. ... They think that because we like to target shoot and hunt, we're bad people, and we should pay for all the ills of the city of Chicago."  Since gun owners in Illinois have to have a special ID card which requires a background check to obtain, Pearson said those committing crimes of gun violence aren't likely to be paying much into the proposed tax fund.  "They're not buying their ammunition (legally). They're not paying any part of the tax. They're getting their stuff illegally," he said.  He estimated a typical box of ammo runs for about $25 in Illinois, meaning the average tax per box would be about 50 cents.  Cassidy, a Democrat who represents a district in the North Side of Chicago, did not return a request for comment.  Her proposal would exempt ammunition purchases by the state's Department of Natural Resources.  All the surtax proceeds from other ammo sales would go toward the grant fund.  The National Rifle Association is also opposed to the bill. Spokeswoman Stephanie Samford said "law-abiding citizens should not be saddled with a tax on ammunition to pay for the acts of violent criminals."  "This sends a message that responsible gun owners are somehow responsible for violent crime, which is certainly not true," she said. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/21/gun-rights-groups-decry-proposed-surtax-on-illinois-ammo-sales/?test=latestnews#ixzz1n81HVJoS
    Feb 22, 2012 1420
test