Chevy Camaro joins Dubai Police

Published April 15, 2013

FoxNews.com

• 
• 

Next Slide Previous Slide

Exotic cars are nice, but when you need to exhibit real authority only American muscle will do.

The Dubai Police department has added a Chevrolet Camaro to its growing fleet of high performance police cars. The Camaro SS coupe was supplied to the force by the local Chevy dealer, Al Ghandi Auto.

It may be the only police car in town (or the world, for that matter) with a red leather interior, as its original white over red color scheme has been retained under the green decals of the Dubai Police and a roof-mounted light bar.

Last week, Dubai unveiled its new Lamborghini Aventador patrol car, which wasn’t picked up for its speed as much as its flamboyance. The force looking to reflect the uniqueness and extravagance of the Emirate it serves.

While the Lamborghini retails for about $400,000 in Dubai, Camaros go for just $40,000, so they can definitely fill up the fleet with them for a lot less.

Not that money is an issue.

In addition to these two hot wheels, the police are planning the addition of an unspecified Ferrari model expected to cost upwards of $550,000.

With all of these flashy cars in the parking lot, the Dubai Police might want to think about hiring some extra security.

View the original article here

NRA joins lawsuit challenging New York's gun control law

• 

  Jan. 9, 2013: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo delivers his third State of the State address at the Empire State Plaza Convention Center.AP

ALBANY, N.Y. –  The National Rifle Association on Thursday joined the the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, other sportsmen's groups, firearms businesses and individual gun owners in a lawsuit challenging the state's strict new gun control law.

The federal suit, filed in Buffalo, said the law violates the constitutional rights of "law-abiding citizens to keep commonly possessed firearms in the home for defense of self and family and for other lawful purposes."

In announcing the NRA's support for the lawsuit, Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said Gov. Andrew Cuomo "usurped the legislative and democratic process" in passing the measures without sufficient input from the public.

“Despite the wishes of Governor Cuomo, law-abiding citizens have a fundamental right to keep commonly possessed firearms for defense of themselves and their families and for other lawful purposes including the enjoyment of New York’s rich hunting and sporting heritage,” Cox said in a news release.

The challenge takes aim at two key provisions of the law: a lower limit on magazine capacity and an expansion of the state's assault weapons ban to include some popular and formerly legal semi-automatic rifles.

The law pushed through by Cuomo on Jan. 15 -- the first new gun restrictions in the nation following the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. -- also requires registration of an estimated 1 million older guns.

Other provisions require five-year renewals of handgun licenses statewide, direct mental health professionals to notify authorities of patients deemed likely to seriously hurt themselves or others and require federal background checks for private gun sales in New York. It will require registration of ammunition sellers and buyers.

The law also reduces the size of legal magazines from 10 bullets to seven, though lawmakers and Cuomo have recently proposed amending that.

The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the lead plaintiff and NRA affiliate, said it was bringing the suit on behalf of its 45,000 members. President Tom King has estimated there are about 4.75 million gun owners among New York's 19 million residents. Other plaintiffs include the Westchester County Firearms Owners Association, Beikrich Ammunition Corp., Blueline Tactical & Police Supply, gun manufacturer Bedell Custom and the Sportsmen's Association for Firearms Education.

"Criminals have and use magazines without any limitation in capacity. The act's provisions on magazines put law-abiding citizens at a grave disadvantage to criminals, who will not comply with the seven-round limit," the suit said. Likewise, it said the ban on assault weapons, "a pejorative term," is being broadened "to describe countless numbers of rifles, handguns and shotguns that were commonly possessed under prior law."

The suit seeks a ruling that both provisions violate the constitution's Second Amendment right to bear arms and the 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the laws as well as injunctions stopping enforcement. The suit does not challenge many other provisions, including stronger penalties for gun crimes.

State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, named along with Cuomo as a defendant, said Thursday the law is "making New York communities safer, while ensuring constitutional protections to responsible gun owners. My office will continue to aggressively defend the protections embodied in the law because every New Yorker deserves to live in a safe neighborhood free from the threat of gun violence," he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View the original article here

NRA joins lawsuit challenging New York's gun control law

• 

  Jan. 9, 2013: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo delivers his third State of the State address at the Empire State Plaza Convention Center.AP

ALBANY, N.Y. –  The National Rifle Association on Thursday joined the the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, other sportsmen's groups, firearms businesses and individual gun owners in a lawsuit challenging the state's strict new gun control law.

The federal suit, filed in Buffalo, said the law violates the constitutional rights of "law-abiding citizens to keep commonly possessed firearms in the home for defense of self and family and for other lawful purposes."

In announcing the NRA's support for the lawusit, Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said Gov. Andrew Cuomo "usurped the legislative and democratic process" in passing the measures without sufficient input from the public.

“Despite the wishes of Governor Cuomo, law-abiding citizens have a fundamental right to keep commonly possessed firearms for defense of themselves and their families and for other lawful purposes including the enjoyment of New York’s rich hunting and sporting heritage,” Cox said in a news release.

The challenge takes aim at two key provisions of the law: a lower limit on magazine capacity and an expansion of the state's assault weapons ban to include some popular and formerly legal semi-automatic rifles.

The law pushed through by Cuomo on Jan. 15 -- the first new gun restrictions in the nation following the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. -- also requires registration of an estimated 1 million older guns.

Other provisions require five-year renewals of handgun licenses statewide, direct mental health professionals to notify authorities of patients deemed likely to seriously hurt themselves or others and require federal background checks for private gun sales in New York. It will require registration of ammunition sellers and buyers.

The law also reduces the size of legal magazines from 10 bullets to seven, though lawmakers and Cuomo have recently proposed amending that.

The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the lead plaintiff and NRA affiliate, said it was bringing the suit on behalf of its 45,000 members. President Tom King has estimated there are about 4.75 million gun owners among New York's 19 million residents. Other plaintiffs include the Westchester County Firearms Owners Association, Beikrich Ammunition Corp., Blueline Tactical & Police Supply, gun manufacturer Bedell Custom and the Sportsmen's Association for Firearms Education.

"Criminals have and use magazines without any limitation in capacity. The act's provisions on magazines put law-abiding citizens at a grave disadvantage to criminals, who will not comply with the seven-round limit," the suit said. Likewise, it said the ban on assault weapons, "a pejorative term," is being broadened "to describe countless numbers of rifles, handguns and shotguns that were commonly possessed under prior law."

The suit seeks a ruling that both provisions violate the constitution's Second Amendment right to bear arms and the 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the laws as well as injunctions stopping enforcement. The suit does not challenge many other provisions, including stronger penalties for gun crimes.

State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, named along with Cuomo as a defendant, said Thursday the law is "making New York communities safer, while ensuring constitutional protections to responsible gun owners. My office will continue to aggressively defend the protections embodied in the law because every New Yorker deserves to live in a safe neighborhood free from the threat of gun violence," he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Insult to injury? Texas town joins trend of imposing 'crash tax' on accident victims

Think getting into an auto accident is bad? It's about to get worse. Starting March 1, one Texas town will start charging drivers extra to respond to wrecks. 

"That really ticks me," Missouri City resident Meredith Johnson told KENS5.com. "I can't believe that. That's crazy!" 

She isn't alone in her frustration. 

Cash-strapped municipalities across the country have started charging victims for responding to accidents and other emergencies. Sometimes a person's insurer will pick up the tab, but a growing number are refusing to -- that means on top of paying for vehicle damages and insurance hikes, motorists are now being slapped with thousands of dollars in additional fines. 

The fee, known as a "crash tax," covers the costs of first responders that come to the aid in the event of an accident. The tax has been expanded in more than 50 cities in 26 states, but there is a growing backlash against the practice. 

In Missouri City, Texas, drivers involved in an accident will be charged up to $2,000 even if they don't call for help.  According to Fire Chief Russell Sander, insurance companies will be forced to pony up the cash, not victims. 

Ten states so far have agreed that saddling victims with additional fines sends the wrong message and have outlawed it. They include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. Bills prohibiting local governments from charging accident response fees have been introduced -- but not yet passed -- in Arizona, California and Michigan, according to the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. 

Still, there are many other places that continue to tap the misfortunes of drivers to keep their communities from bleeding red ink. In Colorado, a measure that would ban cities from levying the taxes to recoup fire, ambulance and police costs by finding drivers at fault for accidents has made steady gains among state lawmakers in the House but has run into opposition with Democrats. 

A crash tax was implemented in Fraser, Mich., in 2011. City manager Richard Haberman told The Associated Press the intent wasn't to gouge residents. 

"We're just trying to cover costs," Haberman said. 

Sander, in Missouri City, says drivers shouldn't be worried. He told San Antonio's KENS5.com he doesn't "think they're going to see much difference in our services or their cost that's out of their pocket." 

But many argue that insurers will push the penalties onto their customers by increasing deductibles, premiums or limiting coverage. 

"Like a lot of cities, we're really struggling here," John Brown, the city manager of Petaluma, Calif., told National Public Radio. "All my departments have been trying to find new revenues or cut costs." 

In Petaluma, only $14,000 was brought in last year through its crash tax. This year, the city expects $20,000-$80,000 less than the city had hoped for. 

According to a 2011 poll from the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, three out of four adults believe their taxes cover the time and services provided by emergency response providers following a traffic accident and additional accident response fees charged by local governments are not necessary. 

"There is a strong public opposition across the country to this new trend of charging accident response fees," Robert Passmore, a senior director at PCI, said in a statement.

View the original article here