Iowahawk Satirizes Operation Fast And Furious

Iowahawk is one of the best satirists on the scene today. In a post he did today, he imagines a phone call between President Obama and a Mexican leader. The topic of Operation Fast and Furious comes up because the Mexican leader’s son was murdered by the drug cartels with a firearm provided by ATF. An excerpt is below but follow the link to read the whole thing.

Now, Juan, let’s not jump to conclusions here. We both know there are lots of machine gun murders in Mexico, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re all…

Yes, Juan, I got your messages. As a matter of fact that’s why I’m calling this afternoon. I’ve had my people look into this thing and…



Now… now Juan… let’s just calm down here a minute. Just, okay.. okay… let me please explain, okay? See, the funny thing is, it turns out, a couple years back there was, well, this stimulus program money, and then there were these brainstorming sessions, where, well, there were some ideas what to do with it. So, anyhoo, one of the ideas that happened was, ‘hey, what if there were, say, 2000 machine guns that got sent to Mexican drug lords?’ and so forth.

Well no, of course we couldn’t tell you. It would have ruined the surprise.

Well, okay, I guess the gato is out of the ol’ bag-o. You know that drug cartel war problem you’ve been having? So, well, the idea was, hey, wouldn’t it be great if somehow we could put a trace on the machine guns, and then, surprise! It’d be a like a whole pinata full of drug lord information.


Why? Well see, if we traced all the machine guns we gave to your drug lords, then we could all learn how your drug lords get their machine guns.

New Videos From Crimson Trace

Iain Harrison from Crimson Trace sent out this release today.

(Wilsonville, OR) Crimson Trace today launched its new online video collection, featuring Media Relations Manager Iain Harrison. The video series addresses many of the frequently asked questions posed by CTC’s loyal customers and deals with installation, zeroing, care and maintenance, among other topics. “We had a lot of fun shooting these videos and believe our customers will find them very useful,” said Kent Thomas, Director of Marketing for Crimson Trace. “Each one gives an in-depth look at a specific topic that crops up regularly, which will give Lasergrip™ and Laserguard™ users another great source of information on Crimson Trace products.”

Crimson Trace’s Facebook friends were rewarded with a sneak preview of the videos last week and these have already proven to be immensely popular. The productions may be viewed either on the CTC website, or on their Youtube channel and the company expects to add new titles to the collection in order to keep up with both consumer demand and new product offerings.

Below is a video of Iain Harrison explaining parallax and the Crimson Trace Laser. Their YouTube channel is located here.

Jennings et al v. BATFE et al Loses In District Court

The NRA challenge to the ban on purchases of handguns from licensed dealers for those over 18 but under 21 was found in the favor of the defendants by U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings yesterday. The suit, Jennings et al v. BATFE et al (former D’Cruz v. BATFE), was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The NRA brought this suit approximately one year ago along with a companion suit against the State of Texas to allow the same age group concealed carry licenses. Texas currently only allows those who are serving or have served in the military to be able to obtain Texas concealed carry permits if they are under the age of 21. These are the suits in which the Brady Campaign took the low road and tried to villify James D’Cruz due to his Halloween costume.

The NRA brought both suits on Second Amendment and Equal Protection grounds.

The first thing Judge Cummings considered was whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue. The DOJ attorneys sought to have the case dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) saying that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. Judge Cummings denied their Motion to Dismiss saying:

The ban prevents 18- to 20-year-olds from purchasing handguns and handgun ammunition from FFLs who would likely purchase these items were it legal to do so. The NRA presents evidence from its vendor members that they have lost profits from refusing to sell handguns to 18- to 20-year-olds and would sell handguns to law-abiding citizens in this age range if it were legal to do so. The fact that the ban restricts a would-be buyers’ market demonstrates a judicially cognizable injury directly affecting FFLs. See Craig, 429 U.S. at 194. As such, the NRA also has standing to bring this suit on behalf of its FFL members.

Judge Cummings then examined whether the ban on the sale of handguns by FFLs to the 18 to 20-years olds violated their rights under the Second Amendment. Noting along the way that nothing precluded them from purchasing handguns in private sales, he said that based upon the exceptions noted in Heller and on 5th Circuit precedent which made a distinction between possessing and the dealing of firearms, the rights of this age group were not violated under the Second Amendment. He then suggested that it was up to Congress to make the decision on this.

In essence, it is within the purview of Congress, not the courts, to weigh the relative policy considerations and to make decisions as to the age of the customer to whom those licensed by the federal government may sell handguns and handgun ammunition.

With that he granted the government’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denied the plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment as to the Second Amendment grounds. He also denied as moot the defendant’s motion to dismiss on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds (failure to state a complaint).

Finally, Judge Cummings examined whether this ban on the sale of handguns by FFLs to 18 to 20-years olds violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause. While these rights apply expressly to the states, the Supreme Court has found that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment encompasses the rights provided by the Equal Protection Clause.

Noting that the Supreme Court has held that age is not a suspect classification and that the defendants had presented evidence that Congress in passing the Gun Control Act of 1968 had made the considered decision that this age group was “emotionally immature, or thrill-bent juveniles and minors prone to criminal behavior”, he again found that the government was not violating the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection rights. He applied a Rational Basis scrutiny to this claim and said:

Congress identified a legitimate state interest—public safety—and passed legislation that is rationally related to addressing that issue—the ban; thus, it acted within its constitutional powers and in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause.

With that he granted the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, denied that of the plaintiffs, and denied the defense motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on their Equal Protection claim.

I would presume now that the NRA will appeal this case to the 5th Circuit as they needed a judgment at this level before they could move up the appellate chain. I know Alan Gura has said that in the cases he has brought for the Second Amendment Foundation that he has sought a quick decision, whether good or bad, so that the cases can then be brought to the relevant Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell is critical of Judge Cummings’ attempt to punt a decision on this back to Congress.

So Congress could say no one who has not yet attained the age of 90 is permitted to own a firearm, and that is completely within Congress’ purview? The Courts should have nothing to say about it? What other right do we treat that way?

It continues to amaze me how little regard lower courts have for Heller and McDonald. Maybe there’s sound legal reasoning involved here. I have not seen the opinion. But punting to Congress strikes me as awfully weak.

While I would agree with Sebastian, I do think Judge Cummings threw the NRA a bone when it said they and the plaintiffs had standing to sue. I don’t think it is reasonable to expect a District Court judge to go against precedent within his own circuit nor what other courts have said post-Heller on this sensitive issue. I think by saying they had standing and by closing this case out in just a little over a year, Judge Cummings may have done as much as he could do. This case was always going to be appealed regardless of how he ruled.

UPDATE: The NRA-ILA has announced plans to file a prompt appeal of Judge Cummings’ ruling in this case.

Yesterday, a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the federal ban on dealer sales of handguns to adults from the ages of 18 to 20 does not violate the Second Amendment. The National Rifle Association plans to file a prompt appeal of the court’s ruling to the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

“We strongly disagree with this ruling,” said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. “As we said when we filed this case, adults 18 and up have fought and died for American freedom throughout our country’s history. They are adults for virtually every legal purpose under federal and state law, and that should include the ability to buy handguns from licensed dealers to defend themselves, their homes and their families. Our fellow plaintiffs in this case are law-abiding and responsible young adults. We plan to defend their rights to the very end.”

The case is Jennings v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. A related case challenging Texas’ ban on issuance of concealed handgun licenses to adults in the same age group is still pending before the same court.

Canted Versus Non-Canted Holsters

Grant Cunningham is not only a talented revolversmith but a good firearms trainer as well. He has just published an interesting article on the differences between a straight or non-canted holster and a canted holster and which you should choose for your application.

In general, he finds that holsters that allow a straight up and down draw work well in competition events like IDPA but not so well when drawing from a defensive posture.

When I started my drawstroke from where I expected to be in an actual fight — from that threat reaction posture — my straight-drop holster felt as if it locked my gun into place. It was difficult to remove, and I found myself rising to a more upright position just to get the gun out of the holster. That sort of defeated the purpose of the realistic training!

When I realized this (and it took me about a year — I’m a stubborn learner), I changed to a forward-canted holster. That design was not suitable for competition but perfect for realistic defensive shooting practice because it conformed to what my body was most likely to do in a real life-or-death struggle.

The canted holster puts the exit path of the gun closer to the natural movement the hand is likely to make from an actual defensive posture. Put another way, the canted holster places the gun in the position the body is going to find itself in during a fight! It works better with the body’s natural reactions and trained responses than the straight-drop holster does. That makes it easier and more efficient to use under the circumstances in which I expect to defend myself.

This is an excellent article full of good illustrations. Grant’s parting advice is well worth taking to heart – “Pick your gear for the fight you’re likely to have, not the one you want to have.”

Quote Of The Day

Michael Bane in his Downrange Radio podcast, Episode 232 had a great comparison between the TV show Sons of Anarchy and the ATF at about the 11 minute mark.

If someone can tell me the difference between the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Sons of Anarchy, I’d sure like to hear it. I don’t know if you’ve seen the show Sons of Anarchy – it’s a biker gang that runs guns. Gosh! I actually don’t understand the difference between Sons of Anarchy and ATF. They both run guns. They both don’t pay attention to the national borders. They both don’t care who the collateral damage is.

Snark Of The Day

Instead of calling this the Quote of the Day, it really is snark so I’ll call it the Snark of the Day. It comes courtesy of a Tweet by Iowahawk. It combines both of the scandals du jour of the Obama Administration.

The EPA is reviewing my $1 billion bid to make solar machine guns for Mexican drug lords.

In Ezell – Chicago’s New Range Ordinance Doesn’t Moot Case

Another win for Rhonda Ezell and the team of Alan Gura and David Sigale!

In a decision released today, Judge Virginia Kendall said that despite the rewriting of the Chicago Gun Range Ordinance, it doesn’t moot the case and denied the City of Chicago’s motion to dismiss the case.

Though the Court cannot conclude that the new ordinance is the same as the old without further litigation, as the Supreme Court did in Northeastern Florida, it is consistent with that case not to dismiss the instant litigation as moot and instead to let the parties litigate the issue of whether the new ordinance is a de facto ban on firing ranges or so burdensome as to infringe on Chicagoan’s Second Amendment rights. Moreover, as a practical matter, Ezell is either going to: (1) challenge the constitutionality of these restrictions by filing an amended complaint as part of this case; or (2) file a new case attacking the same restrictions. The Court sees no upside in making the parties start over with another judge who has less familiarity with the issues and facts of the case than this Court.

She then set Friday, September 30th as the deadline for the parties to submit an agreed proposed injunction order or separate proposed injunction orders if they cannot agree. The plaintiffs have until October 15th to submit an amended complaint which her attorneys have indicated they will doing. Finally, she set a status hearing for October 26th.