An Easily Understandable Explanation of Derivative Markets

Or, how the Government screws you, rewards its cronies and it’s all business as usual.

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit.

She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar. To solve this problem, she comes up with new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later.

She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans). Word gets around about Heidi’s “drink now, pay later” marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi’s bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit by providing her customers’ freedom from immediate payment demands,

Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently, Heidi’s gross sales volume increases massively. A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi’s borrowing (credit) limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank’s corporate headquarters, expert traders (young Harvard Business School Grads) transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets.

Naive investors don’t really understand that the securities sold to them as AA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation’s leading brokerage houses.

One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi’s bar.

He so informs Heidi, Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics, they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since, Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs. Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%.

The collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.

The suppliers of Heidi’s bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms’ pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds.

Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.

Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies in Government.

The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Heidi’s bar.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

RMEF Launches Dale Earnhardt Land/Wildlife Legacy

RENO, Nev. – Ten years after his death at the Daytona 500, Dale Earnhardt’s enduring legacy as a competitor and outdoorsman has sparked a new partnership between the Dale Earnhardt Foundation and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

The new venture has been christened the Dale Earnhardt Land/Wildlife Legacy.

Announcing the news March 4 at the RMEF annual convention in Reno, Nev., RMEF President and CEO David Allen said the partnership is good for wildlife and hunters.

“There are lots of NASCAR fans in the RMEF membership, and lots of conservationists among race fans. Teaming up allows us to redouble our efforts on projects that honor Dale’s memory – things like wildlife habitat improvement, land conservation, hunting access improvements and more,” said Allen.

Allen added the partnership will help RMEF gain visibility at NASCAR races and events.

Earnhardt’s son, Kerry, was in Reno for the announcement and to represent the Earnhardt family and others involved in the Dale Earnhardt Foundation. The nonprofit group based in North Carolina funds charitable programs and causes that sustain Dale Earnhardt’s lifelong commitment to children, education and wildlife conservation.

Teresa Earnhardt, Dale’s wife, said, “As a lifelong outdoorsman, Dale was committed to wildlife and land conservation, a passion which he shared with his friends and family. Now that legacy lives on through his foundation and we are honored to have a partner in RMEF. Our shared mission to conserve and restore native game and their habitat will ensure the same opportunities for future generations and Continue the Legend.”

Allen was a personal friend of Earnhardt. In fact, he directed marketing and sponsorships for the Dale Earnhardt/Richard Childress race teams and other NASCAR teams until Earnhardt’s fatal crash in 2001. He remains close to the family.

“When Dale wasn’t thinking about racing, he was thinking about hunting and sharing his passion for the outdoors with others,” said Allen. “It was an honor to know him and now it’s an honor to be working closely again with Teresa to help keep that legacy growing. Dale is the working man’s hero and RMEF is the working man’s conservation group, so this is a great fit. Dale would be very proud today.”

Childress said, “Dale was ‘The Intimidator’ for his fearlessness and competitiveness on the track, but the peacefulness of the outdoors also was a big part of who he was. I believe his quiet-time hunting and fishing helped recharge him for racing, and I know he’s smiling down now at being able to help other people enjoy the outdoors like he did.”

Realtree founder and president Bill Jordan, who also was a friend of Earnhardt, said, “I was fortunate to hunt with Dale and to know him both as an outdoorsman as well as a legendary driver. I’m so pleased to see RMEF teaming up to help honor his memory through conservation, because that’s so meaningful to both race fans and hunters.”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Twenty-Five States Seek “Nullification” Of Federal Gun Control Laws

As of this writing, five states, Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and South Dakota, have passed laws through their legislature effectively nullifying the Federal Government’s authority to regulated guns and gun accessories. Two states, Montana and Tennessee, their laws most commonly called Firearms Freedom Acts, have been signed by their governors. The other three are expected to follow suit. In addition to those five states, at least twenty more have introduced similar legislation and another half dozen intend to introduce it. By years end, there could feasibly be well over 30 states making an attempt to tell the Federal Government to butt out of their intrastate gun and gun accessory manufacturing.

The model for most of these bills came from Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act, a bill that basically states that any gun or gun accessory manufactured in Montana that is purchased and remains in Montana, cannot be regulated by the Federal Government of the United States. Montana is seeking “Declaratory Judgment” before suggesting that anyone proceed with the manufacturing of guns and accessories.

In reality what these Firearms Freedom Acts are doing is “nullifying” the authority of the Federal Government to regulate guns within the borders of each state when none of the guns or related products ever leave the state. The Federal Government has been very successful in the past in regulating all guns through the “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution. Montana’s bone of contention is that the Commerce Clause has regulated interstate commerce and has no authority over intrastate commerce.

One might ask if this is a full blown act of nullification. It’s not that Montana and other states are saying that any or a specific federal law is being declared unconstitutional in it’s entirety. In this case any law that the Federal Government thinks gives them authority to regulate intrastate gun manufacturing, is being challenged.

Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and one of the sponsors of the MFFA, says this is a states’ rights issue.

This is a states’ rights effort, using firearms as the object of the exercise. The MFFA exempts Montana-made and retained firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition from federal power, saying that if these items do not cross state lines, they are strictly INTRAstate commerce, not INTERstate commerce, and not subject to federal authority.

Although nullification isn’t a term that is widely used these days, there are other examples of modern day nullification or challenges to certain federal laws. Two that come to mind are the REAL ID Act and marijuana laws. Some states have passed legislation challenging the constitutionality of forcing citizens to have to carry an identification card they believe infringes on their right to privacy and the Constitution. And, some states have passed their own laws authorizing marijuana for medical use where the Federal Government bans all uses and possession of the drug.

We may also be staring down the barrel of nullification depending on what happens with President Obama’s proposed National Health Care plan. If it is mandated that every American citizen have health insurance, many have asked where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have that kind of authority.

Probably the most recent case that expanded the power of the Federal Government to regulate commerce, came in 1942 in the Wickard v. Filburn case. This came at a time when President Roosevelt demanded the power to institute his programs he thought where going to get us on the road to recovery after the Depression. Scary isn’t it.

One of the more notable accounts of nullification was in 1832 in South Carolina. South Carolina’s “Ordinance of Nullification” declared the Tariff of 1828 and Tariff of 1832 unconstitutional. This put President Andrew Jackson in quite the predicament. While Jackson quietly assembled his army, ready to invade South Carolina, negotiations continued. Jackson’s fear was that if South Carolina were to be allowed nullification, many of the southern states would follow suit. Also many of the New England states apposed the tariffs. Jackson feared that secession would follow the nullification and this would lead to the demise of the Union. He also feared that an invasion of South Carolina could just as easily lead to civil war.

Other than President Jackson’s fear of the trouble in South Carolina, his bigger deterrent was coming from the fact that several other states, although never officially declaring nullification, were poised to do so.

Perhaps it is telling that so many states are seeking some form of nullification, some dealing with REAL ID, others medical marijuana and 25 states or more, opting to use gun rights as their tools to seek out a return of more state sovereignty, as is granted us in the Tenth Amendment. What does it tell us that so many states chose gun rights as their tool? And what does it tell us about the people’s attitudes toward the expansion of government.

Where will this go? First we should wait to see what the Court rules in the Montana Firearms Freedom Act case and watch to see how many other states pass and get signed their “nullification” bills. Soon, then, we can declare, “Balls in your court!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Winter Blizzards Will “Distort” Unemployment Figures?

Are you kidding me? What? Is this the first time the United States has ever had snow?

“The blizzards that affected much of the country during the last month are likely to distort the statistics. So it’s going to be very important … to look past whatever the next figures are to gauge the underlying trends,” Summers said in an interview with CNBC, according to a transcript.

So, tell me what you think. Do you think this is a stupid excuse to try to hide behind because of the failures of this administration to produce jobs? Is this right up there with Obama’s new “saved or created” jobs, so that now we have to use weather or any other convenient occurrence as an excuse for failure? Or is this real? Are these snow events that unprecedented and have really affected unemployment?

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Cabela’s Targeted by National Animal Rights Group

*Editor’s Note* This is the U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance approach in addressing the actions of the fringe, extremist organization, Defenders of Wildlife, in lying about Cabela’s supporting “wolf-killing competitions”. My version was a bit different. I just call DOW “Pond Scum“. We each have our own style.

(Columbus) – One of the nation’s largest anti-hunting groups, Defenders of Wildlife, have taken aim at Cabela’s Inc. with a misguided and misleading public relations campaign designed to raise money to fund its efforts against outdoor sports.

According to an action alert posted by Defenders, the group accused Cabela’s of sponsoring three so-called “wolf-killing competitions” in Idaho. The group also attacked Cabela’s for the decision by the local paper in Sidney, Nebraska to not run an inflammatory ad against Cabela’s that Defenders had produced. It then went on to solicit funds to run the ad in other papers throughout the state.

The charges by Defenders are grossly misleading. Cabela’s did not sponsor any “wolf-killing” events. Rather, it provided $150 worth of products as a donation to the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife-Idaho organization. That group organized and conducted three local predator hunts in 2009. The hunts complied with all state and federal laws. Additionally, all available information indicates that no wolves were killed during the hunts.

Cabela’s has been a long-time supporter of legal hunting and fishing and has worked closely with state and federal wildlife agencies to conserve wildlife populations. They are renowned in the business world as a leader in conservation programs and ethic. By contrast, Defenders has been one of the leaders in an effort to keep the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population on the Endangered Species List despite the recovery of their population and reasonable management plans designed by state officials.

“Defenders of Wildlife is attempting to tarnish the reputation of one of the most wildlife conscious companies in the world,” said Bud Pidgeon, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance president and CEO. “Sportsmen should show their support by visiting a local Cabela’s and let them know that you appreciate their efforts and are not fooled by the antis’ propaganda.”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Racketeering Lawsuit Filed Against Humane Society Of The United States

This tip was sent to me by a reader. Thank you!

Feld Entertainment and the Ringling Brothers circus are suing the Humane Society of the United States, its lawyers and other animal rights groups. Bribery, fraud, obstruction of justice, and money laundering are some of the charges being leveled against HSUS, its attorneys and other animal rights groups.

“America’s farmers, ranchers, hunters, fishermen, research scientists, fashion designers, and restaurateurs have seen for decades how the animal rights movement can behave like a mobbed-up racket,” said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. “But it’s still shocking to see the evidence laid out on paper. In a treble-damage lawsuit like this, a jury could actually do the humane thing and finally put HSUS out of business completely.”

Could it be HSUS will get some of what it deserves?

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Maine Should Oppose Funding Fish And Wildlife With General Taxation

George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, has announced a group effort plan to help fund the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife with a portion of the general taxation. SAM is teaming up with The Nature Conservancy and the Maine Audubon seeking 1/8% of sales tax revenue to fund MDIFW.

Smith writes of how nearly one million Maine residents enjoy the benefits of the hard work done by MDIFW and yet do not pay a nickel for it. He’s correct. MDIFW is funded through license fees and federal money kicked back via the Pittman-Robertson Act. And yet, MDIFW is overburdened with non fish and game programs all funded on the backs of hunters, trappers and fishers.

Changing the funding to come from general taxation is a bad idea and I’ll explain why. First let me briefly lay out my plan for how to ease the financial burden along with the stretching thin of MDIFW personnel. Remove a majority of the non game programs that have been dumped in the lap of MDIFW and place them at the Department of Conservation or other departments where they belong. Then fund those programs with general tax dollars. This would include but not be limited to management of all non game wildlife, including plants and vegetation. Add to that endangered species protection, wildlife viewing platforms, etc. and let’s put search and rescue and snowmobile/atv law compliance into law enforcement. When the Warden Service is needed, they can bill out their services to the appropriate department.

Keeping general tax dollars out of MDIFW is essential. If Maine should opt to allow this money for funding, I guarantee, environmentalists, anti-hunting and animal rights groups will begin pounding the drum and demanding that they have representation on the MDIFW commission. Just about every state in America that has buckled to the financial pressures to find ways of funding and chose tax dollar funding, has run up against this very problem.

Here’s one state in which I’ll give you an example. New Jersey began funding it’s fish and wildlife division, which by the way was morphed into a larger Department of Environmental Protection, with tax dollars. Almost immediately animal rights and anti hunting groups demanded representation. This was a petition that was circulated there last year.

I support Assembly bill A3275 and Senate bill S2041 – legislation that will democratize, modernize and remove the corrupting influence of profit from the hunter-dominated New Jersey Fish and Game Council, the state body that has power over our wildlife.

Declaration for an Independent and Democratic Wildlife Council

We, the people of New Jersey, stand united against the NJ Fish and Game Council, for it has abused its power, has broken the law, and benefits from millions of our tax-dollars every year without giving one voice to the common man.
We seek nothing but reasonable reforms that will prepare our state for managing wildlife in the twenty-first century. We aspire to nothing more than bringing democracy to a state body that now has none.
We act for the environment, for wildlife, for the people of New Jersey and the ideal of good government, for when one special interest holds tyranny over all, only arrogance and corruption can follow.
In this cause we are unanimous and resolute: The NJ Fish and Game Council must be dramatically reformed, so that it will at last serve the interests of the many instead of the recreational hunting desires of the few.

Notice the demonizing of hunters through “profit” when their goals are to put an end to all hunting and fishing. They describe it as “modernizing” and “democratizing” wildlife management. Is this what Maine wants?

In Smith’s article he points out that $2.4 billion is raked in each season through benefits directly related to work by the MDIFW. If you want to see that amount of money shrink in a hurry, then allow the animal rights groups to get a foot in the door to limit hunting and fishing opportunities. MDIFW spends enough time now wasting valued wildlife management dollars defending senseless lawsuits brought on the state by the same groups that will be demanding representation.

I appreciate George Smith’s eagerness to find funding for MDIFW but not at the expense of the hunting, trapping and fishing heritage Maine has enjoyed for decades. I contend that we can actually grow the economic contributions to the state of Maine by shrinking MDIFW back to a fish and game department, while moving all non game programs into other departments, including Conservation and better funding those programs with the tax dollars they deserve.

The money that MDIFW generates now from license sales can then be put toward game management, which is suffering badly. With improved hunting, trapping and fishing opportunities, license sales will go up and non resident sportsmen will return to Maine to spend their valuable sports dollars.

Maine voters should seriously get all the answers and completely understand what an amendment to the Constitution would do to their hunting and fishing heritage. The quick fix to a money problem might look appealing but in the long run it may not be in the best economic interest for Maine to do this.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

USCAP Statement on Membership Changes Misleads Public

Statement of Tom Borelli PhD, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project

Washington, D.C.: The following is a statement from Tom Borelli, PhD., director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project:

“Yesterday’s press release from the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) misled the public by failing to disclose that in addition to losing BP, Caterpillar and ConocoPhillips, the lobbying group lost Marsh, Inc. and Xerox from its ranks. Marsh and Xerox were listed as members in Congressional testimony in January 2009.

USCAP’s effort to put a happy face on its crumbling organization is laughable. While touting new members, USCAP forgot to tell the public that it lost Marsh and Xerox from its lobbying effort.

USCAP is collapsing as fast as the prospects of passing cap-and-trade legislation. USCAP’s slanted view of its organization and its inaccurate portrayal of the economic impact of cap-and-trade is as biased as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Nobel Prize winning report on global warming. Economic studies on cap-and-trade consistently show the legislation will increase energy prices and slow growth both of which are job killers.

General Motors and Chrysler, despite their bankruptcies, remain as USCAP members.

It’s outrageous that taxpayer-owned companies such as General Motors and Chrysler are dues-paying members of a lobbying outfit. With GM and Chrysler, we have government-owned companies lobbying the government for policies that will make our country less competitive. It’s no wonder everyday Americans are becoming Tea Party activists.”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Cabelas Continues Long Partnership for Elk Country

MISSOULA, Mont. – More than 6,500 conservation projects completed. Over 5.7 million acres of habitat, mostly on public land, enhanced or protected. Nearly 600,000 acres opened or secured for public access. These and other milestone achievements of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation wouldn’t be possible without partners like Cabelas.

One of the organization’s longest and most generous supporters, Cabelas has announced renewed sponsorship of several RMEF initiatives for 2010.

“Conservation and stewardship of wildlife and wild lands is at the core of our business,” said Cabelas’ Chief Executive Officer Tommy Millner. “We’re proud to partner with and support the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in their efforts to preserve the heritage of conservation that’s so important to our customers and our employees.”

For 2010, Cabelas is again donating gift cards and merchandise used as premiums in RMEF membership drives, contributing items for auctions and other fundraisers, underwriting the RMEF 2010 conservation art print, sponsoring Elk Camp seminars and the Elk Country Legacy mission campaign, and more.

“Cabelas is more than the World’s Foremost Outfitter; it’s one of the reasons why RMEF has become a premier force for conservation. Words don’t express our gratitude nearly as well as our rising numbers of completed projects and conserved acres,” said Steve Decker, vice president of marketing for RMEF.

He added, “We thank everyone at Cabelas for their long and continuing partnership.”

Visit Cabelas at www.cabelas.com.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Obama Takes Another Hit

President Obama’s Cap-and-Trade Policy Takes Another Hit: BP, Caterpillar and ConocoPhillips Exit USCAP Global Warming Lobbying Group

Washington, D.C.: President Obama’s cap-and-trade policy took another hit with the announcement that oil companies BP and ConocoPhillips and heavy equipment maker Caterpillar are leaving the high-profile United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) lobbying organization.

USCAP played a key role in lobbying for the Obama-supported Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill approved by the House of Representatives last year.

“The companies that bolted USCAP realized the organization was really a front group serving only the interests of GE and utility companies and their environmental allies. This became obvious when the Waxman-Markey bill gave the vast majority of free carbon allowances to the utility industry while GE reaped the reward of its lobbying muscle by securing federal mandates for electricity generation in a way that benefits GE’s wind turbine business,” said Tom Borelli, PhD, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project.

“With the Waxman bill, environmental special interest groups and GE achieved their renewable energy dreams and the utilities took the free carbon allowances, leaving their coalition partners in the oil and heavy industry companies out in the cold,” added Borelli.

For years, policy experts at the National Center have been harsh critics of USCAP, saying its lobbying goals are bad for the U.S. economy, low-income Americans, employment and the stockholders of affected companies, including those of several USCAP members.

On the eve of Caterpillar’s 2007 stockholder meeting, for example, The National Center organized a letter to Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens signed by 70 organizations, companies and prominent individuals, including a former U.S. Attorney General, urging Owens to immediately withdraw Caterpillar from USCAP. National Center for Public Policy Research Vice President David Ridenour noted when the letter was released that the cap for which USCAP was lobbying would “cost the poorest fifth of Americans nearly double what it would cost the wealthiest fifth of Americans, as a percentage of wages, in added energy costs.”

Ridenour also noted that Caterpillar itself would have been adversely affected: “Capping U.S. emissions will accomplish little while hurting the poor and many of the industries upon which Caterpillar has depended for sales. When Caterpillar President James Owens has presided over the destruction of the oil, mining, timber and agricultural industries, what product will it have to sell then? Emissions credits?”

Borelli concurs. “When I challenged Caterpillar’s participation in USCAP at the 2007 Caterpillar stockholder meeting, I was outraged to learn that CEO Jim Owens did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis to estimate the impact of cap-and-trade on his business. By adopting the progressive line of ‘having a seat at the table’ in shaping legislation to justify USCAP membership, Owens embodied the proverbial ‘useful idiot’ in supporting the left-wing’s energy agenda,” said Borelli.

At the 2009 Caterpillar shareholder meeting, Owens acknowledged he opposed the Waxman-Markey bill because it could harm his business. This put Owens at odds with coalition partner Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric.

GE secured hundreds of millions of dollars from President Obama’s $787 billion “American Reinvestment and Recovery Act” for its utility customers Duke Energy, Exleon and FPL Group – all USCAP members.

“USCAP has always been about GE, the utility industry, and environmental advocacy groups advancing their narrow cause at the cost of the other coalition ‘partners’ and taxpayers. It’s only a matter of time until the other USCAP members, such as John Deere & Co., wake up and recognize that cap-and-trade legislation is toxic to shareholder interests,” said Borelli.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Head Of Montana Shooting Sports Association Proposes Manufacture Of Youth Rifle

Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and lone plaintiff in MSSA v. Holder, has proposed the manufacture of a youth .22 caliber rifle if the Montana Firearms Freedom Act actually becomes laws. It will be called the Montana Buckaroo.

The Montana Firearms Freedom Act was actually signed into law by Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer last year. The law states that any firearm or firearm accessory that is manufactured in Montana and is sold in Montana cannot be regulated by the Federal Government. Marbut’s proposed manufacturing of this youth rifle would fall under the rules of such a law.

However, MSSA v. Holder, is scheduled to be heard in court later this year. MSSA took the initiative to request a court hearing to get a judgment on the constitutionality of this law. MSSA is prepared to go all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary. In the meantime, Holder is requesting that the case be dismissed on the grounds that Gary Marbut does not have legal standing to sue. Marbut claims he does and part of that proof is his plans to manufacture and market the Montana Buckaroo.

There are now 22 states that have passed or proposed similar laws to the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. You can learn more about those by visiting Firearms Freedom Act.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Kansas Introduces Firearms Freedom Act

Rep. Merrick has introduced HB 2620, the Kansas Firearms Freedom Act.

This brings to 22 the number of states with introduced FFA bills, in addition to the two states with bills enacted (Montana and Tennessee). Two more states and it will be a majority of states onboard this effort to challenge the authority of D.C. Idaho, West Virginia, New Mexico, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia and North Carolina are reputed to be working on FFA bills. See:
http://www.FirearmsFreedomAct.com
(to be updated with Kansas ASAP)

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Sportsman’s Alliance Of Maine’s Public Statement About Procurement Of Sportsman’s Email Addresses

Below is a copy of a statement made available to the public by George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine. This article is in response to the concerns of sportsmen whose email addresses were obtained by SAM through Maine’s Freedom of Access Act law. Following this letter, please find my response.

~~~~~

Email Address Purchase Explanation

By George Smith

January 28, 2010

I am disappointed, discouraged, and yes, a bit angry at the way the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has handled SAM’s purchase of the department’s list of email addresses. Here’s the whole unvarnished story.

Maine’s Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) was enacted to bring transparency to our government. I believe secrets have no place in state government and everything state employees know, we should know.

Nearly all information gathered by or created by state agencies is available to the public, from research reports to draft policies to databases. The State of Maine FOAA website (www.maine.gov/foaa/) explains this law and the process required to request information. FOAA requests are received regularly at DIF&W and other agencies and are routinely processed.

SAM was a charter member of Maine’s Freedom of Information Coalition, and I served on the Coalition’s board of directors for several years. SAM remains an active member of the Coalition.

The Coalition has been working, inside and outside the legislature, on FOAA issues including questions about what if any information deserves protection in this new technological age. I do not believe email addresses will ever be protected, any more than mailing addresses have been, but we’ll see.

Every state agency is required to abide by the FOAA. DIF&W has provided information on its licensees for decades to all who asked, including political parties and candidates, businesses, and nonprofits. Included in the information DIF&W provides are your name, address, and licenses purchased.
When you get those “Dear Sportsmen” letters from political candidates, where do you think they got your name and address? DIF&W, of course.

The department is allowed to charge a fee equal to the cost of providing the requested information. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. In my experience, if they are happy to provide the information and it suits their purposes, there is no charge. If they are unhappy about your request, you will pay. SAM paid $1500 for the list of email addresses.

It is important to remember that the law already protects information we all consider private such as our Social Security and credit card numbers. Please understand that such protected private information was NEVER the subject of SAM’s FOAA request for email addresses.

No lawsuit or other legal action was taken to procure the list. The Attorney General’s staff merely advised DIF&W that the list was subject to FOAA. Your email address possessed by DIF&W has always been available to the public. SAM’s purchase changed nothing in that regard and set no new precedent.

The Process

For many years I have been purchasing DIF&W’s entire list of licensees including names and mailing addresses. The list served as a principle means of prospecting for new SAM members and allowed us to send our messages to the entire constituency of sportsmen. But as the costs of mailings increased, we were forced to reduce those mailings.

As I began to receive DIF&W’s emailed messages myself, it occurred to me that their email addresses would give SAM a new and inexpensive way to communicate with sportsmen. My initial plan was to email our new SAM E-News. We are already using the email addresses of SAM members for this purpose and decided to extend this effort to all sportsmen who could be reached by email.

The first time we email a message to DIF&W’s list, we intend to give recipients the opportunity to opt out of future messages from SAM.

There are many sources of email addresses (and that’s one reason we get so much unsolicited email including SPAM). I chose DIF&W because its list is a perfect constituency of those SAM wants to reach.

A private company, InforMe, is the state’s database vendor. DIF&W’s email list is managed by InforMe and the department’s emailed messages are sent by another private company, Constant Contact. So I asked InforMe to sell DIF&W’s list of email addresses to SAM. My first request was sent in March of 2009.

InforMe refused my request. So I turned to DIF&W for help. After another refusal, I asked the Attorney General’s staff for help.

After receiving the Attorney General’s guidance, DIF&W sold SAM the list of email addresses.

FOAA requests

I have had to utilize the FOAA many times. It always surprises me when a state agency refuses my request for information, because they receive training in FOAA. I have been refused a document that a DIF&W leader was reading from, draft policies, and more. I have taken to submitting most of my requests to DIF&W for information using FOAA, because it simply is quicker than waiting to find out if they are willing to give me the information without a FOAA request.

Here’s a good example of the problems we have encountered. Last fall, after SAM’s Fishing Initiative Committee spent more than a decade encouraging DIF&W to adopt a comprehensive policy for the management of salmonids, John Boland, DIF&W’s Fisheries Director and a person I respect and work closely with, informed me that he had put a new salmonid policy on the Commissioner’s desk.

I emailed Commissioner Dan Martin, asking for a copy of the policy. He refused, saying he would not provide the policy until he had read and approved it. He had no right to withhold that policy and I asked the Attorney General to intervene on my behalf. I received the policy the next day.

Senator David Trahan and I used FOAA recently to obtain information about logging in deeryards that were supposed to be protected. We currently are awaiting information in response to a FOAA by Senator Trahan concerning the saltwater fishing license, information we hope will help us defeat the license proposal.

DIF&W’s emailed message

The message DIF&W emailed to its customers about SAM’s purchase of email addresses was unfortunate and incomplete. By taking their message to the media and 100,000 customers, the department assured that many more requests for the list would be received. They didn’t need to do this.

Never before have they chosen to inform licensees when their names and addresses and other information was sold.

SAM has asked the department to send another message, fully explaining this matter, including an accounting of those who have purchased information about licensees in the past, and making sure you understand that the information you provide when purchasing a license is available to the public. Legislators have also suggested that DIF&W post a similar notice on its website. That would be a good idea for all state agencies.

SAM’s Position

While SAM did nothing wrong in obtaining information that is available to anyone, we regret the discomfort this has caused those we serve. We hope you find our action understandable, and if you happen to receive emailed information from SAM, you will find it useful and important.

~~~~~

My Response:

I would like to say that I have never thought that the emails were obtained illegally. As a matter of fact, in the one article I wrote about SAM procuring the emails, I addressed the issue as one of extremely bad public relations.

We live in an electronic age. With the rapid growth of the Internet, lack of knowledge can set businesses and organizations back in their progress as was the case for SAM. On the same token, knowledge can advance their cause. They now need to mend some fences and get with the times. The days of “stealing” email addresses to send unsolicited information is not only outdated but is extremely bad business. SAM needs to become cutting edge in this regard.

Smith’s article is forthcoming and appears to be accurate from the information I have been privy to. There is somewhat a need to explain SAM’s legal approach in obtaining the emails because I have listened to some sportsmen wrongly accuse both the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and SAM for illegally giving or getting these emails.

Setting the legalities aside, there are two issues Smith talks of that I would like to address. First is his explanation about how SAM has used FOAA requests in the past to get information. The examples Smith gives are good examples of what the FOAA was intended to do. It is about transparency in government, not the legal ability to buy a list of emails for the purpose of sending and/or soliciting information to unwanted recipients, legal or not. It is understandable that from a “legal” perspective, emails and even personal mailing addresses would be included in FOAA because the politicians who made the law want access to that information for their own selfish desires.

The example Smith uses to explain some of SAM’s past uses of FOAA is a far cry from using FOAA to obtain email addresses.

Whether it’s legal or not misses the bus. It’s simply bad public relations and poor business. Is it really worth angering a few dozen people in hopes of getting one to read your propaganda? Which brings us to my second issue. Just because it is legal to go out and obtain emails doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best method of accomplishing a goal. Smith hints that if MDIFW hadn’t sent out an email warning those email holders what had happened, that sportsmen would not have known and no harm, no foul. I think this is a bit of a case of burying your head in the sand.

People don’t like SPAM and they don’t like junk mail that clutters their mailboxes and fills up our landfills. It’s unwanted, it’s rude and a poor business practice. To believe that by forcing information into someone’s email box with an explanation that an opt out function will be included in the first email, is about as good as receiving an unsolicited item in the mail that says if you don’t send it back you’ll have to pay for it.

As I explained before, SAM now has fences to mend and I offered steps I think they should take. They have explained their side of the story but I don’t believe that’s good enough. This is not an apology. It’s an attempt to release SAM from any legal wrongdoing and in the last sentence Smith exclaims, “we regret the discomfort this has caused those we serve”. It seems he is sorry SAM has angered a lot of people but all indications this isn’t going to stop them from their appointed task. He then goes on to ask readers to have an understanding and he hopes they enjoy the information they will be receiving through email.

“You’ve got mail!”

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Handgun Sales Boom at Elk Foundation Fundraisers

MISSOULA, Mont. – Ask an elk hunter about their favorite caliber and you’ll hear nary a peep about the .45 ACP. Venerable handgun round, certainly. Big game round, hardly.
That’s why Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation officials are pleasantly surprised that a Kimber 1911 in .45 ACP emerged as the top-performing firearm at 2009 fundraisers for elk habitat conservation.

The gun, blued with an RMEF logo laser-etched into rosewood grips, was the first-ever 1911 in the organization’s core lineup of firearms for auctions and raffles nationwide.

“Hunting rifles and shotguns are always the centerpiece of our fundraising efforts, but last year we sold 325 of these pistols and generated well over $600,000 gross for elk and other wildlife,” said Steve Decker, vice president of marketing for the Elk Foundation. “At several events this gun sold for more than $5,000, which we certainly never expected.”

Also in 2009, RMEF passed the 5.7 million-acre mark in habitat protected or enhanced for elk and other wildlife, and the 600,000-acre mark in hunting lands opened or secured for the public.

Decker says he’s uncertain whether the Elk Foundation’s 2009 handgun sales were related to the nationwide boom in handgun sales last year, or if the big game hunters who support the organization were simply enthusiastic about the new offering. Either way, the inaugural 1911 was so successful, RMEF will offer a Kimber .45 ACP companion model in stainless steel, with matching logo engraving, in 2010.

All firearm recipients must pass standard background checks.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

S. Dakota, Colorado File “Firearms Freedom Act” Bills

The movement continues nationwide as state after state gets on the bandwagon seeking 10th Amendment separation of state and federal government. Seemingly fed up with the strong arms and broadening Federal Government controls, states are hoping a law, the same or similar to Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act, will set the ball rolling to regain some of the states’ sovereignty.

For those not familiar, the nation’s first Firearms Freedom Act, appeared in Montana, sponsored by the Montana Shooting Sports Association. The Act essentially declares that any guns or gun parts manufactured in Montana and remain in Montana, cannot be regulated by the Federal Government. Montana passed that Act and it was signed by Gov. Schweitzer. The state is seeking declaratory judgment from the courts.

South Dakota and Colorado are the two latest states to file bills that are clones or near replicas of Montana’s bill. State Senator Larry Rhoden has introduced the South Dakota Firearms Freedom Act as SB 89. In Colorado, Senator Dave Schultheis has just introduced the Colorado Firearms Freedom Act as SB 10-092.

This now makes Firearms Freedom Acts passed in Montana and Tennessee, and introduced in these 21 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

It’s likely that FFAs will be introduced soon in West Virginia, New Mexico, Idaho, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina and possibly elsewhere.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Next Page »