Win an AR-15? Gun giveaways spark debate
In this Friday, Feb. 15, 2013, photo, Robert Sprague poses in the kitchen of his Wilmot, N.H. home. Sprague a marketing consultant wants to put an end to gun raffles. / AP Photo/Charles Krupa
CONCORD, New Hampshire Police chiefs in New Hampshire wanted more money for their youth training program. A youth hockey team in North Dakota needed more ice time.
Both saw giving away guns as the answer.
- Pima County GOP raffles off Glock in Gabrielle Giffords' district
- Biden lobbies as Colo. approves gun-control measures
- Chicago calls for tougher gun laws, but has no room for more prisoners
- Tough NY gun law could jeopardize jobs in one town
From car dealerships to political parties to hockey teams to yes, even police chiefs, gun giveaways are an attractive way to make money or draw in customers. But in the wake of the deadly shooting rampage in a Connecticut elementary school, such raffles are drawing criticism as the ease of obtaining firearms fuels a nationwide debate over gun control measures.
The New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police is raffling off a gun every day in May, including a Ruger AR-15-style rifle with a 30-round magazine similar to the one used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that killed 20 children and six educators in December. The players in West Fargo's Youth Hockey Association will raffle off 200 guns and an all-terrain vehicle next month. Up for grabs are shotguns, handguns, hunting rifles and semi-automatic rifles.
Both raffles were planned long before the shooting in Newtown invigorated calls for increased gun control. That didn't stop critics from blasting the raffles as, at best, in poor taste and, at worst, criminal.
John Rosenthal, founder and director of the Massachusetts-based Stop Handgun Violence, called the chiefs' raffle "insane" and "criminally irresponsible."
"In 33 states - including Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont - the winner of this AR-15 can turn around the same day and sell it to anyone without an ID or background check," Rosenthal said. "They should cancel their raffle and give away a nice mountain bike or snowmobile."
Will Congress act on gun control?
Boehner: "Congress does have the responsibility" to reduce gun violence
Jonathan Lowy, director of the legal action program at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said he knows of no state in which the raffle would be illegal. But "having these gun giveaways and gun raffles can trivialize the seriousness of firearms," Lowy said.
In a letter posted on the chiefs association website, Salem Police Chief Paul Donovan extended his sympathies to the families of those killed in Newtown but stressed it and other tragic shootings "are contrary to lawful and responsible gun ownership."
Donovan, who did not respond to interview requests, wrote that the raffle's rules require that winners meet all applicable state and federal laws, including background checks. The goal of the raffle - to raise $30,000 to offset the cost of the weeklong police cadet training academy - has already been met. The 1,000 raffle tickets, at $30 apiece, sold out last month.
Three of the guns being raffled off are named on a list of weapons that would be prohibited under a proposed ban introduced by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein in the wake of the Sandy Hook rampage. That proposal would also ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
While the Newtown shooting has intensified the criticism of the chiefs' raffle, other giveaways have had similarly inauspicious timing.
After a 2011 shooting rampage in Arizona wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others, the county Republican Party raffled off a Glock handgun to raise money for voter outreach. Its slogan was "Help Pima GOP get out the vote and maybe help yourself to a new Glock." The Republican Party's interim county chairman said at the time he didn't think there was anything inappropriate about the promotion.
Missouri state Rep. John McCaherty raised campaign funds last August by raffling off an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, a month after a similar gun was used in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting that killed 12 people and wounded 58. McCaherty didn't return calls seeking comment.
The owner of an Atlanta-area sporting goods store doesn't understand the outrage.
- no previous page
- next
1/2
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Children rescued from two elementary schools in Oklahoma 19 Photos
- Tornado's destructive path 17 Photos
- Oklahoma tornado recovery grinds on amid grim scenes
- More severe weather expected after monster tornado
- Oklahoma tornado victim search efforts winding down
- Deadliest U.S. tornadoes 10 Photos
- Oklahoma tornado as seen by storm chasers Play Video
- Up-close video of Moore, Okla., tornado Play Video
http://asmdss.com/topic/830-a-letter-from-the-special-forces-community-concerning-the-second-amendment/
http://asmdss.com/topic/830-a-letter-from-the-special-forces-community-concerning-the-second-amendment/
.CON.RES.107 -- Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high... (Introduced in House - IH)
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution
I'm sure they are not going to give the gun to a criminal without a background check.
So much for your hypothetical dumb question.
You know how it goes, bignail. These people are tireless when it comes to inflicting themselves on the rest of us "for our own good". They'll never run out of causes.....
Each of these left circling morons sees himself as John Galt, though most of them come off more like Karl Marx. :-)
FACT: A lot of parents do not teach their kids right from wrong.
FACT: They do not teach them their actions have consequences.
I grew up watching westerns movies and gangster movies and I did not go out and kill people.
If it wasn't a gun, a Molotov cocktail could do the same, so are we going to ban gasoline, rags and a glass bottle?
The way our government works, take away one gun, they will not be satisfied until they do more and more. I like to shoot guns, I would like to have an AR-15, just can not justify the cost, but believe me, if someone breaks into my house, they WILL get shot.
Like the old saying goes, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
FACT: AR-15s allow people to Kill more people that knives
FACT: RETIRED takes a small argument that has been disproven by the Australian experiment to eliminate all semi-automatic weapons.
Get with the new evidence and understand your argument is not only outdated but wrong.
Apparently, you missed this.
http://www.ctpost.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4222299.php#ixzz2J7lZ49oq