Since the middle of December, outdoor retailer Wilderness Sports in Ishpeming has had a waiting list for the purchase of semi-automatic rifles—a list that is currently 15 customers long and counting.
Being one of only a handful of gun retailers in Marquette County and this region of the Upper Peninsula, the business in downtown Ishpeming has been receiving a large amount of calls and requests for automatic weapons.
The calls—which are a result of recent gun legislation aiming to ban the purchase of automatic, military-style weapons—have been streaming into the business from not only downstate Michigan, but also from as far away as New York state, according to Wilderness Sports employee Mike Leach.
“As far as getting calls and that kind of thing, it’s been incredible,” Leach said. “That’s the only word I can use to describe it. We’re getting calls from all over the place looking for (automatic) weapons. You name it, we’re getting calls from all over.”
The root of this sudden increase in automatic weapon requests has been grounds for extensive controversy in recent weeks, as legislation for new gun control regulations were introduced by President Barack Obama on Wednesday, Jan. 16.
If enacted by Congress, the legislation will not only ban the sale of automatic and semi-automatic weapons, but will also make universal background checks mandatory prior to the purchase and sale of firearms.
On Northern’s campus, the weapons ban will hardly affect students who store their guns at the Public Safety office, according to Director of Public Safety and Police Services Mike Bath.
“(Assault weapons) are still legal, but our typical guns are shotguns, deer rifles and a few handguns,” he said. “We also have lots of bows—that’s an up-and-coming sport and in fact we had to expand in our gun and bow area due to the number of bows.”
Bath also said that until there is a law passed, he is unsure of what will actually come of the proposed legislation.
“They’ve proposed some things, but until it actually shakes out, we’re just not going to know,” Bath said. “Until we see what the final version looks like, it’s hard to know what’s going to happen.”
According to Bath, gun-related incidents are a rarity on NMU’s campus, yet the nationwide push for gun control legislation and the subsequent controversy comes after a particularly deadly year of mass shootings in the United States as a whole in 2012.
According to www.reuters.com, seven mass shootings took place in the U.S. in 2012, killing or injuring 140 total people.
The demand for stricter gun legislation has become more widespread in the wake of events like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Aurora, Colo. movie theater shooting and the shooting in a Portland, Ore. mall just days before the Sandy Hook incident.
Leach, who recoils at the media’s use of the term “assault weapons,” and instead refers to them as automatic or semi-automatic weapons, asserted that the recent legislation has generated mostly negative responses among customers, who don’t see the necessity for any type of gun regulation.
“Many have been against (regulation), but part of that is just going to be the clientele,” he said. “We do deal mainly with people buying these things because (they’re) going to be a illegal soon.”
The clientele he is referring to has, in just more than 14 days, bought six “assault weapons,” but Leach is still significantly limited in prospective sales due to nationwide shortages of the firearms.
“We’re out of stock right now,” he said. “If I could, I’d get 20 (right now), but it just doesn’t work that way with the nationwide demand the way it is. We’re lucky to get one or two per week.”
Another facet of the argument regarding gun control is concerned with not just the regulation of military-grade weapons, but also a confrontation of other institutional and societal obstacles.
“I think our problem lies not in insufficient gun laws, but the fact that we don’t treat our people as our greatest resource,” NMU student Lydia Kauppi said, citing deficient education and health care reform as a main issue in the argument over government gun control.
That said, accessibility to healthcare for those with mental health illness is another initiative that President Obama vows to address within the limits of the executive office, according to www.reuters.com
Still, Kauppi said in order to curb gun violence, citizens, as well as governmental bodies, need to begin taking responsibility for their own futures and actions, and in doing so begin changing the way we understand and use firearms.
“If you want a population responsible enough to own high-power firearms, you need to engage in greater collective accountability,” she said.
Lenvil King Jr. • Feb 5, 2013 at 5:03 pm
“Aubrey”
Your childish attack and vastly ignorant and uninformed defensive rant only further undermines the already negligible facts and nonexistant credibility of this article, and this whole publication as a whole.
If your statement of “It’s a college newspaper, meant for living and learning.” in the defense of this poorly written and even more poorly researched article was anywhere true you should be chiding the writer for this farce, not attacking fellow readers who are apparently a lot more aware of these facts and issues than you are.
By your logic, if the writer had stated that ‘In 1492, Ghengis Khan’s Panzer divisions invaded Texas, to avenge the assassination of Thomas Jefferson’, then it was ok, because, and I quote “It’s a college newspaper, meant for living and learning.”
It used to be responsibility of journalists, no matter how inexperienced, to report facts, not blatantly make things up for the sake of selling newspapers.
Back in the late 19th century, such blatant false sensationalism and ignorant fear mongering became known as ‘yellow journalism’.
Nice to see that in almost 140 years, some thi9ngs never change.
After reading, and re-reading this “article” I have come to the conclusion that the writer did less than 5 minutes of research (likely on wikipedia) and threw together a wholly biased and blatantly ignorant article aimed at inspiring terror and fear, rather than trying to educate anyone on the actual issues.
Here are a few of the well known Federal firearms laws that the writer failed to know, grasp, or understand:
1934 National Firearms Act
Brought about by the lawlessness and rise of gangster culture during prohibition, President Franklin D. Roosevelt hoped this act would eliminate automatic-fire weapons like machine guns from America’s streets. Other firearms such as short-barreled shotguns and rifles, parts of guns like silencers, as well as other “gadget-type” firearms hidden in canes and such were also targeted. All gun sales and gun manufacturers were slapped with a $200 tax (no small amount for Americans mired in the Great Depression; that would be like a tax of $2,525 today) on each firearm, and all buyers were required to fill out paperwork subject to Treasury Dept. approval.
1938 Federal Firearms Act
Congress aimed this law at those involved in selling and shipping firearms through interstate or foreign commerce channels. Anyone involved in the selling of firearms was required to obtain a Federal Firearms License from the Secretary of Commerce ($1 annual fee). They were also required to record the names and addresses of everyone they sold guns to and were prohibited from selling to those people who were convicted of certain crimes or lacked a permit.
1968 Gun Control Act
The assassination of John F. Kennedy, who was killed by a mail-order gun that belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald, inspired this major revision to federal gun laws. The subsequent assassinations of Martin Luther King and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy fueled its quick passage. License requirements were expanded to include more dealers, and more detailed record keeping was expected of them; handgun sales over state lines were restricted; the list of persons dealers could not sell to grew to include those convicted of felonies (with some exceptions), those found mentally incompetent, drug users and more. The act also defined persons who were banned from possessing firearms.
The key element of this bill outlawed mail order sales of rifles and shotguns; Up until this law, mail order consumers only had to sign a statement that they were over 21 years of age for a handgun (18 for rifle or shotgun); it also detailed more persons who were banned from possessing certain guns, including drug users, and further restricted shotgun and rifles sales.
1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Imposed, on an interim basis, a five-day waiting period and background check before a licensed gun importer, manufacturer or dealer can sell or deliver a handgun to an unlicensed individual.
Required a new National Instant Criminal Background Check System, run by the FBI, be ready to replace the waiting period by Nov. 30, 1998. The new background check system will apply to all firearms and will allow checks to be done over the phone or electronically with results returned immediately in most cases.
I don’t think it is too much to ask anyone before they sit and bang out an article that they actually do research on the subject they are writing about.
And putting words into another person’s mouth in printed word is not only slander, it is a civil offense.
Blatantly falsifying the statements of Mr. Leach into saying that the Federally licensed business he works for is illegally providing heavily restricted fully automatic weaponry is something that personally he will consult a lawyer about.
If I could sum up this article, and the subsequent defense of its slander, bias, and blatantly attempt at journalistic terrorism, into one word, I would simply say:
Shameful.
This just shows that the North Wind deserves to be held in the same regard as its fellow tabloids, The Enquirer and Weekly World News
John(With an H) • Feb 5, 2013 at 4:12 pm
Aubrey, with a B, Chill out.
I did indeed extend an invite because you know what? Firearms law is tricky, very very tricky and extremely complicated, there are over 20,000 laws on the books regarding firearms.
It’s daunting and while I understand the mistakes, I’m in a position to provide knowledge because I’ve devoted a large amount of time to learning about firearms and hold a degree in Gunsmithing.
So while you may be defending your friend, which is all well and good, if she really wishes to write an honest article on firearms it would behoove her not to trust implicitly in what CNN or Google have to say because CNN is just as fallible, I’ve had similar issues with their reporting.
Example: Piers Morgan.
I’ve attempted to keep discourse civil and I suggest you do the same.
If Amanda wishes to decline my offer that’s fine but let her do it herself, and if she writes another article which still has problems, I’ll be less forgiving in my critique, which you have to be able to take as a journalist just as an artist has to be able to handle critique.
Michael • Feb 5, 2013 at 3:12 pm
Audrey, first off, there are at least 2 Jo(h)ns that commented on this article. Also, I am the same Michael that commented above you.
Jon’s first sentence, while harsh, displays the same disappointment I felt upon reading this article. The fact is, with a topic this touchy and serious, this article should not have gone to print with factual inaccuracies, and certainly not on the front page. The rest of Jon’s comment was factual information and a plea to fix the errors.
John (with an h) extended the olive branch because he wants to see a factual article written and is willing to spend his time to educate Amanda. I know John personally and he has put a lot of time and effort into learning about firearms and firearm law, and he can give Amanda sources to back up his knowledge.
Audrey • Feb 5, 2013 at 2:54 pm
Amanda,
Despite the couple of mistakes, no matter how hugely important they may be to Jo(h)n, I believe that there is a right and wrong way to approach and discuss one’s words and reporting. On-That-Note, you’re a journalist in the works and his harsh, demeaning words and criticisms do not earn him a pedestal for intimidation. Glad he would be “more than willing” to meet with you, but he doesn’t deserve it, and I’m certain Google or CNN is fully capable of straightening out your misconstrued information. It’s clear you’re not getting off easily, you’re accepting the blame and understand the newspaper is an outlet we the public rely on for hard information. I look forward to reading a more factual rewrite.
John • Feb 4, 2013 at 6:30 pm
Amanda,
You obviously didn’t know what you were talking about as you’ve said.
I dropped a copy of the article off at Wilderness and I’m sure you’ll be hearing from them directly as soon as Mike gets back into town.
I won’t go into the fallacies in the article itself because everyone else seems to have touched on it well enough.
However I will say that if you wish to actually learn something about the form and function of firearms and sit down and talk a little about the legislation out there currently and why people own the guns they do, I would be more than willing to sit down with you and talk about guns.
Maybe a more accurate article about the people who congress is trying to regulate would help.
Michael • Feb 4, 2013 at 5:19 pm
As has been mentioned in the comments, fully automatic assault rifles have been banned for longer than most NMU students have been alive. The word the author is looking for is “semi-automatic”.
Additionally, the features that have previously been used to define an “Assault Weapon” are either aesthetic, or make the weapon adjustable to fit multiple users. None of them make the weapon more deadly.
I was disgusted by this level of disinformation on a front-page story
Martin • Feb 4, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Can we all agree on Jon’s factual statements about the Federal Firearms act of 1938? Automatic firearms require a class III license and a BATFE tax stamp. New production and importation has been banned since 1986.
Big Bob- since we are familiar with the M16, we are aware that its chambering is based on the Remington .223, a very popular varmint hunting cartridge that is older than the AR15 (or XM16). Sen. Feinstein wants to ban the AR15, but not the Ruger mini 14 ranch rifle. They have the exact same chamber, are both semi-automatic, and have removable magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds. The difference? One has “scary” black plastic, and the other has a wooden stock.
O.k., full disclosure, Feinstein wants to ban some Rugers too. The exact same barrel and action removed from the ranch stock and placed in a plastic stock with a pistol grip suddenly makes it a mass killing machine. This not about the caliber, action, or operation of a firearm. It is about preying upon public perception, emotions, and the uninformed to infringe upon the rights of others.
Frank, your understanding of “well-regulated militia” is in direct contrast with U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Daniel is absolutely correct in the defensive use of the AR15. DHS recently purchased hundreds of select fire (the class III fully automatic type) for “defensive” use.
Quotes from the article-
“Still, Kauppi said in order to curb gun violence, citizens, as well as governmental bodies, need to begin taking responsibility for their own futures and actions, and in doing so begin changing the way we understand and use firearms.”
This sounds like Attorney General Eric Holder’s comment about “brainwashing” peoples’ thinking about guns.
“ ‘If you want a population responsible enough to own high-power firearms, you need to engage in greater collective accountability,’ she said.”
To heck with personal accountability, right? It’s all about Progressive collectivism. Even though I am a law abiding citizen, I am responsible for the evil, psychotic deeds of others. Blame me, my rights, my property, and my liberty.
VP Biden stated last week that none of the measures proposed by the President would likely reduce crime or violence. But, “if we can safe just one child…” it’s worth it. We make value of life decisions every day. I find it appalling that our VP, Sen. Feinstein, and others have no issue with 20 children being killed. They protest that the killer didn’t reload? It is clear they are focused on their agenda and standing on the graves of victims, not solving the problem. My goal would be to end this evil, deranged behavior. I’d rather they address the person and their behavior than attack the instrument.
Every one of these killings has one thing in common- a criminal broke the law. In the case of Newtown, CT, I’ve heard upwards of 40 laws were broken. Will passing one more law make criminals or psychopaths stop, and say, “oh, now THAT law I should obey!”
Amanda • Feb 3, 2013 at 10:05 pm
Jon,
Thanks for your comment. I learned a wonderful lesson this week (because that’s what college is for, right?) that regardless of whether or not I understand the subject matter of an article, I need to research it fully. I overlooked/made assumptions about a very large facet of the legislation and existing laws regarding the regulation of firearms this week, and I’m certainly hearing about it. Lesson very much learned. We will include a correction in this week’s edition.
Thanks for your input.
Amanda
Big Bob • Feb 3, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Daniel, a crook enters a home and faces a 30’06 or a shotgun blast, he will probably be taken to a morgue, right? Your arguments on citizens owning automatic weapons are baseless.
Daniel • Feb 3, 2013 at 12:40 pm
The AR is an outstanding self defense rifle. That is exactly why police departments around the country issue them to their officers. Indiividual citizens should have legal access to them. Problem is that too many Yoopers have no concept whatsoever about urban crime. They live in a safe area and think that they can defend themselves against home invaders with their Remington 700 bolt action or some five shot revolver. Good luck with that.
Ever reseach police shootings? Most take place in very short range – under ten feet. Numerous shots are fired by the police and most miss the offender due to the excitement and stress. Its not like these idiotic Hollywood movies with Willis or Statham who shoot em up and never miss. Two or three guys kick your door in at night and they find themselves facing a homeowner with his M4 carbine with its 30 round mag sticking out, they know they are in deep trouble.
Notice now that there is almost no talk from the gun control masses about dealing with mentally ill offenders or stopping the flow of extreme violence from the Hollywood sewer-pipe like that aging draft dodger Stallone in his new movie Bullet to the Head. What happened to the call to check violent video games? All gone, But lets take guns from lawful owners. Give me a break.
Frank • Feb 2, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Justin,
According to you, the Second Amendment was meant only as a stop gap between the populace and the government. With that in mind, do you belong to the Michigan Militia or any militia for that matter? Specifically, a well-regulated militia? In that case, you can rationalize owning a semi-automatic weapon based off of a design intended for a military purpose. In the case that you don’t, which I am going to bet my money on, then you are diluting and perverting the intent of the framers. On that note, what do you really know about about the Constitution? You have your right to your opinions, bat-shit crazy and unreasonable as they may be, but stop generalizing about things such as “lunatics” because even lunatics plan: James Holmes did. He didn’t use a bat nor did he use a knife or bow. He used a gun, one with high-capacity magazines designed to inflict maximum damage. Justin, your rhetoric is part of the problem. Crack a book and form an argument that isn’t skimmed off of the NRA’s public releases.
Justin • Feb 2, 2013 at 11:15 am
Bob, since when was the 2nd Amendment written to protect hunters?
It has nothing to do with hunters.
Bob, the reason for “Sandy Hooks” isn’t the rifle but the human finger on the trigger. The type of weapon didn’t matter. Rifle, handgun, bow, knife or bat. When a lunatic is a lunatic, they do crazy things what the first thing they can find.
Big Bob • Feb 2, 2013 at 9:55 am
The issue is not whether the rifle is automatic or not it is the capacity of the magazine. For the most part the average citizen cannot get an automatic rifle. That being said these weapons are no less lethal in a semi automatic mode and you fire the rifle consecutively for that 20 times or more. No hunting rifles do that, nor is there a need for one that does. If you take one in the woods you are a lousy hunter that can’t shoot. I carried an M16 for twenty years, they are for killing people. Unfortunately Americans themselves legislated that it is OK for us to have these kind of weapons. Not much you can do, the weapons are out there, the magazines and ammo are out there. Just be prepared to buy a bunch more hankies. There will be more Sandy Hooks and public place shootings.
Jon • Feb 2, 2013 at 4:49 am
Although I’m not expecting Pulitzer level writing from the North Wind I do hope for competent writing, especially from an editor, and especially from a front page article.
There is already a ban on Automatic weapons that has been instituted for some time now. In order to purchase an automatic weapon you must be issued a FFL Class 3 from the ATF&E. If you don’t have a Class 3 FFL you can not legally purchase an automatic weapon, your background check will not clear. The correct terminology you’re looking for is semi-automatic, although in a few cases an automatic weapon was the correct type. Please, do a little more research, party better a little less, and simple to avoid errors like this can be avoided.
Hopefully you can print a retraction/correction in your next paper and clear it up.