The Washington Times ran a story today describing how the Chinese are rapidly building up their armed forces beyond what would be needed to defend themselves or to attack Taiwan. This is, of course, an important story.
However, when I saw the picture below of a Chinese missile-carrying truck, I cracked up. Whitewalls? The People’s Liberation Army has trucks with whitewall tires? Bwahahahahahahaha.
According to a post on military.com, FNH-USA has announced that the Special Operations Command has approved the SCAR line of weapons for “full rate production”. This includes both the SCAR-17, the SCAR-16, and the Mk-13 grenade launcher.
From ACQuipedia, the online Acquisition Encyclopedia, full-rate production is defined as:
The second effort of the Production and Deployment (P&D) phase defined and established by DoDI 5000.2. This effort follows a successful Full Rate Production Decision Review (FRPDR). The system is produced at rate production and deployed to the field or fleet. This phase overlaps the Operations and Support (O&S) phase since fielded systems are operated and supported (sustained) while Full Rate Production (FRP) is ongoing.
Since that definition is about as clear as mud, let me translate that into normal English. What this means is that the SCAR system has gone through development, testing, and then limited production for use in the field. Before it could be approved for “full-rate production”, the SCAR system had to go through a review process called the “Full Rate Production Decision Review”.
This was a go/no-go point at which a negative decision would mean that the SCAR rifle wasn’t going to be deployed to SOCOM. Authorization for full-rate production means that the SCAR rifle system is going into full production for deployment to the field. The next stage after this will be “sustainment” where extra’s and spare parts are produced to keep the system going.
A semi-readable explanation of the whole process can be found here. See page 7 in particular. All I can say is thank God for my degree in Project Management for allowing me to somewhat understand what they were trying to say!
UPDATE: Here is a link to FNH-USA’s press release courtesy of The Outdoor Wire.
UPDATE II: Apparently, the “full-rate production” of the SCAR rifle does NOT include the SCAR-L which is the 5.56 version. It only applies to the SCAR-H (in 7.62), sniper variants, and the grenade launcher. This is according to reports from the KitUp blog and statements made on another forum by a FNH-USA spokesman.
From the Second Amendment Foundation announcing their lawsuit against the City of Chicago for banning gun ranges:
SAF SUES CHICAGO OVER GUN RANGE PROHIBITION ON 1A, 2A GROUNDS
For Immediate Release: 8/16/2010
CHICAGO, IL – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today filed a lawsuit in federal court against the City of Chicago’s new gun ordinance, asserting that “by banning gun ranges open to the public…under color of law,” the city is depriving citizens of their right to keep and bear arms in violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Joining SAF in this lawsuit are the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), Action Target, Inc., and three individual plaintiffs including a retired Chicago police detective. They are represented by attorneys Alan Gura of Virginia and David Sigale of Chicago, who teamed up with SAF and ISRA on the landmark case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, effectively striking down Chicago’s 28-year-old handgun ban.
“While the city has adopted new regulations that make it legal to own handguns,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “they have crafted this new ordinance to make it virtually impossible for prospective gun owners to meet all legal requirements unless they travel outside the city for mandatory training. The new ordinance prohibits public gun ranges inside the city yet the city demands that handgun owners get at least one hour of range training time.
“This is a ‘Catch-22’ scenario,” he continued, “that seems deliberately designed to discourage Chicago residents from exercising their firearm civil rights barely two months after those rights were restored by the Supreme Court.”
Individual plaintiffs are Rhonda Ezell, a victim of three attempted burglaries who has disabilities making it difficult for her to travel outside the city; Joseph Brown, a WWII U.S. Army veteran who was among the liberators of the infamous Dachau concentration camp, and William Hespen, a retired police detective, all of whom must qualify for Chicago Firearms Permits.
Action Target, a Utah-based company, builds shooting ranges and manufactures gun range equipment and supplies. It has a long history of providing gun safety equipment and training, and has previously built law enforcement shooting ranges in Chicago. However, Action Target is prohibited from building a public target range within the city’s limits under the restrictions of the new gun ordinance.
Randy Graham, vice president of Action Target, said, “We believe that citizens have a constitutional right to use and train with firearms in a safe and controlled environment. As a leader in the firearms training industry, Action Target is committed to standing up for these rights.”
“By banning public gun ranges,” Gottlieb said, “and by banning the loan and rental of firearms at such ranges, Chicago is acting under color of law to deprive citizens of their right to keep and bear arms, and to conveniently receive the education required under the ordinance that is necessary to obtain a Chicago Firearms Permit. The city is violating both the Second and First amendments, and we are asking the court to put an end to this nonsense.”
UPDATE: Embedded below is the complaint in Ezell et al v. City of Chicago.
Ezell et al v. Chicago – Complaint
After the initial flurry of lawsuits being filed after the McDonald v. Chicago decision, there was a quiet period while we waited for responses by the defendant states and municipalities. Some of the firsts responses are starting to come in.
Bateman et al v. Perdue et al
This was the first of the post-McDonald cases filed. It directly challenged North Carolina’s “emergency powers” act which imposed restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition during a declared emergency as well as forbidding the possession of a firearms outside of a person’s residence.
On Wednesday of last week, Stokes County filed a motion to dismiss the case against them. In effect, they said they’d never banned firearms in their ordinances or proclamations and that they were not responsible for state law.
Then, on Friday, the State of North Carolina moved to dismiss the cases against Governor Perdue and Secretary of Crime Control and Public Safety Reuben Young. They are basing their claim on “Plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” They submitted 89 pages of exhibits with their motion.
Given the extensive nature of the exhibits, I will post a separate analysis of this later.
Benson et al v. City of Chicago et al
This is the suit brought by the National Rifle Association challenging the new Chicago gun laws that were enacted within days of the McDonald decision. The NRA has filed an amended complaint in this case as of August 13th.
I will post a comparison of the original complaint and the amended complaint as soon as I can.
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association et al v. Lindley
This is one of the cases being brought in the State of California challenging AB 962, the Handgun Ammunition Sales Law. O-OIDA brought this suit on, among other grounds, that the new law violates the FAA Act of 1994.
All parties in the case have stipulated that that State of California has an additional 28 days in which to file a response to this complaint. This gives California until September 17th in which to file an answer.
Baker v. Biaggi et al
This is the case in which the State of Nevada State Parks are being sued by the Mountain States Legal Foundation over the issue of possession of firearms for self-protection. It seeks to have a tent declared a temporary residence in which a person would be permitted to have a firearm.
The Nevada Attorney General’s office has filed an Answer on behalf of three of the five defendants. Their Answer includes David Morrow, Administrator of Nevada State Parks; Eric Johnson, Nevada State Parks Fallon Regional Manager; and Andrew Bass, Park Supervisor I, Wild Horse State Recreation Area. Excluded in the Answer are Allen Biaggi, Director of the Nevada Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, and Allen Newberry, Chief of Operations and Maintenance.
After an Answer has been received on behalf of the latter two, I will do an update on this case.
Mishaga v. Monken
This is a new case that has flown under the radar. It was filed at the end of July by the Mountain States Legal Foundation on behalf of Ellen Mishaga, an Ohio resident, against the head of the Illinois State Police for denying her a Firearms Owner Identification (FOID) card. Mrs. Mishaga contends that as a frequent visitor to the State of Illinois she is precluded under Illinois law from possessing a firearm for self-defense in a residence because she doesn’t have a FOID card. The only exceptions to the requirement to possess a FOID card are those there to attend a shooting competition or those who possess an Illinois non-resident hunting license. Neither of these exceptions applied to her. Accordingly, she applied for a FOID card and was denied twice because she doesn’t have an Illinois driver’s license or state ID card – both of which she is not eligible to possess.
I will have a more extensive and separate post on this case soon.
This case is being brought in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers!
The comparison of the original and amended complaint in Benson et al v. Chicago et al can be found here.
The post on Mishaga v. Monken, the case by an Ohio resident challenging Illinois’s FOID Card, is found here.
I am still working on the post about the motions to dismiss in the first post-McDonald case – Bateman et al v. Perdue et al.
In a surprisingly sympathetic article, the Washington Post examined the background of Raymond Woollard’s case against the State of Maryland over the denial of his concealed carry permit. The case, Woollard et al v. Sheridan et al, challenges the requirement of the State of Maryland that a person must show “apprehended danger” before being issued a concealed carry permit.
I examined the case back in July here. Mr. Woollard is joined in the case by the Second Amendment Foundation. Alan Gura is joined by Maryland attorney Cary Hansel as the attorneys of record. The case is being brought on both Second and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. One of the key arguments in the complaint is that “Individuals cannot be required to prove their “good and substantial reason” for the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.”
The Washington Post article describes how Mr. Woollard was the victim of a home invasion on Christmas Eve 2002 and how long he had to wait for police assistance. Mr. Woollard has consistently said it took police 2 1/2 hours to arrive. The Baltimore County police dispute this but did acknowledge it was over an hour. They blamed the rural location, holiday staffing, and bad weather for the slow response time.
Woollard was initially granted a concealed carry permit after this incident which was renewed again in 2005. The intruder turns out to have been his son-in-law who, as the article notes, had “a history of depression, drug and alcohol abuse, and domestic violence.” They do not say whether the intruder is still married to Mr. Woollard’s daughter but do acknowledge that he had served time for violating his probation after the 2002 home invasion. Mr. Woollard said he had not previously publicly identified the intruder as he wanted to protect his daughter.
With regard to the need for concealed carry and response time of the police, Mr. Woollard notes:
“It’s up to me. Do you have to show a reason to have a driver’s license?” Woollard said. Under current law, the only people likely to carry guns are criminals who do not follow the law anyway, Woollard said. “And the police, as good as they are, show up after the fact.”
When asked for comment on the case, the Maryland State Police declined as it was an active case. However, the gun control group CeaseFire Maryland blew off the challenge to Maryland’s concealed carry law saying:
“Good luck to him,” spokesman Casey Anderson said. “I would have a hard time imagining that the Supreme Court is going to say you have a constitutional right to hide a firearm on your person.”
I seem to remember that Mayors Fenty and Daley made similar statements about constitutional rights and the Second Amendment before losing in Heller and McDonald cases respectively. I recommend reading the whole article to get more of the human details of this case.
65 years ago today, Japan announced their acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration and hostilities ended in the Pacific.
If you are a mom and pop blogger, getting hit with a Federal lawsuit out of the blue has got to be terrifying. Many of those being sued by RightHaven LLC do not have deep pockets and are afraid that they will lose everything. Clayton Cramer reported that some of those being sued will probably have to declare bankruptcy.
Fortunately, its seems that the victims and those opposed to RightHaven’s tactics have started to organize. Realizing that information is key, a new website has been established called RightHavenLawsuits.com. They say their mission “is dedicated to gathering together and posting for the public information about Righthaven LLC.” They have links to some of the lawsuits as well as articles on RightHaven LLC.
Another website called RightHaven Victims lists every individual, business, and blog that has been sued by RightHaven LLC for copyright violations. It encourages those sued to work together to share information and to unite to form a collective front against RightHaven LLC. They realize that one of the keys to RightHaven’s success will be the use of a “divide and conquer” strategy. This website is also sharing defense strategies being used by the defendants.
A Facebook page has been established called “stop the LVRJ/RIGHTHAVEN witch hunt!” In addition to providing resources for those being sued, they are also seeking to publicize that RightHaven LLC did not give any sort of “cease and desist” or take-down letter before suing. While not required in most cases, it is the common practice to do so.
Finally, law professor Eric Johnson has a new post on his blog, Blog Law Blog, on the RightHaven LLC lawsuits. The post, entitled “Righthaven’s Innovation? Stooping Lower”, sets forth his opinion on what they are doing.
I think what the Las Vegas Review-Journal and its thugster stooge Righthaven are doing is completely obnoxious. It reeks. It also makes the Las Vegas Review-Journal look like a pack of feral alley dwellers instead of an earnest news organization that is deserving of the public trust.
That said, Professor Johnson goes on to say that the lawsuits are not frivolous. The suits are based upon perceived copyright violations that are actionable. The law makes it easy to sue for copyright violations and they are using it. That said, he notes as we go through life we come upon many opportunities to sue others. What makes our system of civil law work, however, it that we exercise restraint and discretion in filing lawsuits. If we didn’t, the courts would be clogged.
Professor Johnson finds it particularly objectionable that the Las Vegas Review Journal and their extension RightHaven LLC are filing their lawsuits without making any attempt to resolve the disputes informally. He concludes:
Righthaven and its associated newspapers are on the cutting edge because they have stooped lower than anyone else in the news business has been willing to go. That’s nothing to be proud of.
I couldn’t agree more.
UPDATE: My first Instalanche! Welcome Instapundit readers. Stay a while and visit.
If you want to read more about the RightHaven LLC lawsuits go to posts here and here. I have a couple other posts on RightHaven LLC here and here as well.
UPDATE II: If you would like to listen to an interview with Clayton Cramer, he was a guest on Tom Gresham’s GunTalk Radio show last Sunday. The episode can be found here or on iTunes. The interview with Clayton begins at about the 24:20 mark.
From the Illinois State Rifle Association:
Governor Quinn Steps Up Attacks On Law-Abiding Firearm Owners
CHICAGO, Aug. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The following was released today by the ISRA Political Victory Fund (ISRA-PVF):
Law-abiding Illinois firearm owners are under a renewed attack by Gov. Pat Quinn’s re-election campaign. After receiving the endorsement of a radical gun control group last week, Quinn’s campaign is now the apparent mastermind of a plan to place a referendum on the November ballot that would call for the banning of a wide variety of popular hunting and target firearms.
Petition documents filed with the Illinois State Board of Elections show the title of the proposed referendum as being “Petition to Ban the Sale on Semi-Automatic and Assault Weapons.” Notarized signatures on over 100 pages of petitions show one “Maz Jackson” as being the petition circulator. Maz Jackson is a top field operative for the Quinn gubernatorial re-election campaign.
“It appears that Pat Quinn plans to attack hunters and sportsmen from every angle,” commented ISRA-PVF spokesman, Richard Pearson. “First he throws in with the likes of gun control extremists Jim and Sarah Brady, and now his campaign staff is circulating petitions seeking to ban most of the privately owned firearms in the state. Once again, Pat Quinn has shown himself to be more in step with Mayor Daley and the Chicago power structure than he is with the vast majority of Illinois citizens.”
The ISRA-PVF is a political action committee affiliated with the Illinois State Rifle Association. Donations to the ISRA-PVF are not tax deductible. A copy of our report is available for a fee from the Illinois State Board of Elections, Springfield, IL
Roberta X has good coverage of it on her blog.
As one of those who visits relatives in Illinois, their gun rules are enough to make you want to pound your head on the wall. I remember the first time I went into the local gun store in O’Fallon, Ron & Jo’s, and was told I couldn’t buy ammo because I didn’t have either a FOID card or a hunting license. I was like “WTF?”. They apologized and said it was Illinois law.
The Las Vegas Sun had a story today saying two more defendants reached confidential settlements with Steve Gibson and Righthaven LLC.
Jack Wooden of Columbus, Indiana who runs an outdoor site called madjacksport.com and Pennwell Corporation, an Oklahoma company which runs an energy information website, pennenergy.com, are reported to have settled their lawsuits with RightHaven LLC.
“BobbyG” in the comments section wins the comment of the day award with this:
Get me re-write:
“Righthaven LLC, the company suing website owners over copyrights to Las Vegas Review-Journal stories, has coerced confidential extortion agreements with two more defendants.”
According to stories in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Alton, IL Telegraph, the Winchester Ammunition division of Olin Corporation is exploring plans to move their East Alton, IL center-fire ammunition plant to Oxford, Mississippi. Winchester had moved their rimfire ammunition production to Oxford in 2004.
Managers announced the plans to workers last Thursday (August 5th). At stake are about 1,000 jobs. According to statements from the River Bend Growth Association, Winchester is the area’s largest employer with about 1,700 employers. The move, if Winchester goes ahead with it, would be completed over three to five years.
Two factors that may be behind the move are Olin’s property tax dispute with Madison County, Illinois and the need to lower labor costs.
One of the factors driving Olin’s decision may be its Madison County property tax. The corporation has appealed its East Alton facilities’ assessed value each year since 2003, said Kerry Miller, chairman of the Madison County Board of Review.
Last year, the Board of Review, which hears property assessment appeals, put the company’s property value at $36 million. Olin’s appraisers, however, put the market value of its property at $17 million. Olin has appealed the Review Board’s valuation, and it is pending in Illinois’ appellate court, Miller said.
Labor costs would probably be lower for Winchester in Mississippi than in East Alton. The workers at the East Alton plant are represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 9.While not explicitly stated in either story, it seems to be understood that the Mississippi plant is non-union.
Neither the mayor of Oxford, MS nor the Mississippi Development Authority would not say anything more than they work “to retain and support existing businesses”. Illinois officials were not so reticent.
State Sen. William Haine, D-Alton, said he got a call about the potential move from one of the company’s lobbyists the day before the announcement. He said he is not sure what motivated the decision.
“I’m shocked, to tell you the truth,” he said. “I thought they were making money there.”
The state could look at some kind of tax abatement for the company’s facilities in Alton, but “there isn’t any pot of money in Springfield to hand over to anyone,” Haine said.
“We don’t know how to proceed as a state,” he said. “It’s pretty hard to assemble an incentive package when we don’t know what’s driving their decision. And B, it’s evident the state of Illinois doesn’t have any money.”
And from the Mayor of East Alton to the Telegraph:
East Alton Mayor Fred Bright said it would hurt his community, but his experience with the company shows that is not a major concern for management.
“Olin cares for nothing but Olin, itself,” Bright said.
Mayor Bright’s attitude sounds real helpful in attempting to keep his city’s largest employer. At least State Sen. Haine is realistic enough to realize that the State of Illinois doesn’t have the money to pay them to stay.
Winchester has had a presence in East Alton since 1892 when the Equitable Powder Company was founded there by Franklin W. Olin. Ammunition production began in 1898 with the opening of the Western Cartridge plant.
UPDATE: Sam Pierce of the Illinois Review gives more perspective on Winchester’s plans to move. He worked in the Engineering Dept of Winchester for almost 10 years at the East Alton plant. After reading his piece, I’m surprised that Olin didn’t move the plant years ago.
by