“We’re Doing Really Well” – Mike Fifer, Ruger CEO

Sturm, Ruger and Co., Inc. will be featured in the November 5th edition of Forbes Magazine. That issue will feature Forbes’ Best Small Companies in America list and Ruger is number four on the list.

Intimacy with the product–and the customer–has been key to Ruger’s turnaround. That, plus embracing industry trends like compact guns and military-style weaponry, has vaulted the company to the No. 4 spot on our list of the Best Small Companies in America. Since Fifer took over in late 2006 Ruger’s share price has jumped sixfold to a recent $49. Over the last 12 months it has netted $55 million on $406 million in revenue; half a dozen years ago it barely managed $1 million on $168 million in sales.

Read the whole article. It is a good read and doesn’t indulge in anti-gun hysteria. It did elicit this absurd comment from a reader named “Greg”.

 The business of murder machinery can be highly profitable.
A good sin stock.

Sure, Greg, whatever. Nonetheless, I’m glad to see that Ruger has rebounded from the Bill Ruger, Sr. days and has adopted new ideas, new manufacturing techniques, and ditched the limited capacity magazine nonsense. As a shareholder, I’m doubly glad.

H/T Lars at NRA Blog

Magpul Announces Gen 3 PMAG

Magpul Industries had this announcement on their Facebook page a few hours ago:

Magpul is proud to announce the release of the
GEN M3 PMAG and new pricing for the existing PMAG, which will continue
to be produced as part of the MOE line.

The existing PMAG will
now be priced at an MSRP of $12.95 and an MSRP of $15.95 for the Window
version, and will now be known as the PMAG 30 AR/M4 GEN M2 MOE. Once
existing supplies of the GEN M2 PMAGs are exhausted, they will begin
shipping in MOE packaging, and will not include dust covers. All colors
will continue

to be available.

The PMAG 30 AR/M4 GEN M3 will begin shipping in black only on 1 Nov,
2012, at an MSRP of $14.95. The Window version will be available soon,
at an MSRP of $17.95.

 Magpul has more on the Gen 3 PMAG including details on changes in both the external and internal geometry, a new four-way anti-tilt follower, and compatibility with the FN SCAR at the link here.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see some dealers start offering deals on their existing inventory of Gen 2 PMAGs in order to make room for the new Gen 3 model. If so, I’m all for it!

What Is It With Violent Rhetoric And Anti-Gun Politicians

Vice President Joe Biden likes to take credit for writing what became the 1994 assault weapons ban (sic) or, more properly, The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

From an 2011 interview with PBS’s Jim Lehrer:

JIM LEHRER: New subject, Mr. Vice President.

In light of the Tucson tragedy, are you in favor of federal legislation that would ban the sale of these multiround cartridges, holders?

JOE BIDEN: Jim, you may remember, in the old days, when I had some real power…

JIM LEHRER: Oh, yes.

JOE BIDEN: I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

(LAUGHTER)

JOE BIDEN: I’m the guy that first passed and wrote the assault-weapons ban and — and also tried to pass legislation relative to the size of magazines, that is the — those clips that hold all the bullets that get shoved up into the rifle.

JIM LEHRER: The 31 — those 31 rounds.

JOE BIDEN: Yes. And there’s all kinds of them of various…

JIM LEHRER: Sure. Sure.

JOE BIDEN: So — so, I, as a senator, and I, as an elected official, have been on record as supporting — and we did originally have an assault-weapons ban in place.

Say what you will about Biden, he hasn’t shied away from his support of gun control. So it makes one wonder what it is about anti-gun politicians and their fascination with violent rhetoric. Look at what he had to say this afternoon at a campaign stop in Naples, Florida.

Vice President Biden lit into Paul Ryan with a violent analogy during his campaign stop Thursday in Las Vegas.

“Ryan has written a book called ‘The Young Guns’ with two other
members of the House … Republican leaders in the House,” the vice
president said. “You had, unfortunately, the bullets are aimed at you.”

The Republicans have bullets aimed at you? What is with this nonsense? Doe Biden make this stuff up off the cuff or does he actually have someone writing it for him? Is he trying to emulate President Cooler Than Thou who promised to bring a gun to a knife fight?

As to bullets “aimed at you”, while there has been some research on bullets that can alter their direction in flight, bullets don’t aim themselves. You aim the gun and the bullet goes where it is directed. Even a buffoon like Biden ought to realize that.

A Suggestion

So Obama gives his endorsement – sorta, kinda, maybe – to the call for a new “assault weapons ban”. As part of a “comprehensive strategy”, he’d like to see “if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.” While it isn’t a ringing endorsement, the media is playing it that way as are the gun prohibitionists like the Brady Campaign.  So too, in all honesty, is the NRA.

Given that, I expect the sales of ARs and AKs to accelerate along with standard capacity magazines.

Here is a suggestion. Rather than running out and buying your third, fourth, or fifth AR-15 and your second or third AK-47/AK-74, why not take some of that money and make a campaign contribution or series of contributions to pro-gun rights candidates. It has the advantage of helping to elect enough pro-rights candidates which, in turn, will prevent any new AWB from even getting out of committee. Moreover, instead of having to pay some ridiculously inflated price for that next AR or AK, the market rates will remain stable or even go lower.

The NRA-PVF list of endorsements and grades are here and the GOA’s list is here. Many state level organizations such as Grass Roots North Carolina and the Illinois State Rifle Association have their grades and endorsements as well.

The price of a box or two of decent ammo sent to the right candidate in a close race helps a lot. Be selective and be strategic. Go for the close races because it will have a stronger impact. Remember also that you aren’t limited to giving money to a local candidate. So far this year I’ve given small donations to candidates in Arizona, Michigan, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio plus Sen. Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund.

If you are bound and determined to get another AR, just buy a stripped receiver for a hundred bucks or less. It is the part that has the serial number and thus is the “firearm”. You can always pick up the rest of the lower parts and a completed upper at a later date.

ISRA’s Endorsements For Congress In Illinois

The Illinois State Rifle Association’s FEDPac has announced their endorsements and preferences in selected congressional elections in Illinois. I heard one of their endorsed candidates, Rep. Joe Walsh (R-8) speak at last year’s Gun Rights Policy Conference and was very pro-Second Amendment. I know he faces a tough re-election due to redistricting. I hope he does well.

The ISRA-FEDPac is pleased to announce its list of candidate
endorsements and candidate preferences for the upcoming general
election.



The ISRA-FEDPac has endorsed the team of Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul
Ryan over the Obama/Biden team. Illinois firearm owners have first hand
experience with Obama’s disdain for the right to keep and bear arms.
Thus, Illinois firearm owners know full well that Obama is not the best
choice for our nation’s chief executive.



In the 2nd Congressional District, the ISRA-FEDPac has expressed its
preference for Brian Woodworth over incumbent Jessie Jackson, Jr.
Although Congressman Jackson is himself an avid gun owner, it is not
certain that, if re-elected, he will act in the best interests of his
fellow lawful firearm owners. Furthermore, if Jackson is re-elected and
steps down due to his health problems, it is highly likely that he will
be replaced by someone even less friendly to lawful firearm owners than
is Rep. Jackson. Such is a situation that hunters and sportsmen cannot
risk.



In the 6th Congressional District race, Rep. Peter Roskam has earned the
ISRA-FEDPac endorsement in light of his solid record of support and
respect for the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.



In the 8th Congressional District, Rep. Joe Walsh receives the
ISRA-FEDPac endorsement in light of his outstanding record on firearm
rights issues. Although Walsh’s opponent, Tammy Duckworth, is part of
the growing ranks of war heroes, that status does not grant her license
to pick and choose which parts of our Constitution she will defend and
those she will not. Duckworth’s indifference to the 2nd Amendment
leaves her unsuitable to serve the people of the 8th District.



In the 11th Congressional District, the candidacy of Rep. Judy Biggert
is endorsed by the ISRA-FEDPac due to her long record of support for the
right to keep and bear arms. Biggert’s opponent, Bill Foster, is
unacceptably weak on issues important to firearm owners. Furthermore,
allegations that Foster slapped his ex-wife around during divorce
proceedings are troubling. Gun grabbing and wife beating are not
qualities that most citizens would like to see in their Congressional
Representative.



In the 12th Congressional District, Jason Plummer is preferred by the ISRA-FEDPac over his opponent.


In the 13th Congressional District, Rodney Davis is preferred by the ISRA-FEDPac over his opponent.


Illinois hunters and sportsmen have been very fortunate to have had some
great friends in Congress preserving and protecting our outdoor
traditions. It is with great pleasure that the ISRA-FEDPac announces
its endorsement of Randy Hultgren (IL-14), John Shimkus (IL-15), Adam
Kinzinger (IL-16), Bobby Schilling (IL-17) and Aaron Schock (IL-18).



The ISRA-FEDPac wishes all of its endorsed and preferred candidates the
best of luck on November 6th and encourages all hunters and sportsmen to
get out and exercise their most important right – the right to choose
who represents their interests in the halls of government.

The Debate Gun Question

I was a bit surprised that the issue of firearms even came up in the debate last night as I would have thought the Democrats wouldn’t want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. I wasn’t surprised by Obama’s answer but was pleased that Romney did try to bring up Operation Fast and Furious before being cut-off by CNN’s Chief hack Political Correspondent Candy Crowley though he didn’t push it far enough.

The questioner, identified as Nina E. Gonzalez, is probably this woman – Nina Fedirko-Gonzalez, Licensed Clinical Social Worker. The person on Facebook appears to be the same person as in the Media Matters’ picture from the debate. As far as I can tell, she is not a contributor to any candidate in state, local, or national elections. I checked the NY State campaign contribution database, OpenSecrets.org, and the Federal Elections Commission.

If you read the transcript below you will see that both candidates are relatively ignorant about firearms. Romney said automatic weapons are illegal which they aren’t and Obama conflated semi-auto weapons with cosmetic similarities into full-auto/select-fire military-grade firearms. The best I can say about it is that Obama come out in favor of a new AWB and Romney said we don’t need new laws as well as merely mentioned Operation Fast and Furious. As to Romney and gun bills in Massachusetts, here is what the Gun Owners Action League said about it in 2007.

QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in
2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of
criminals. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit
the availability of assault weapons?



OBAMA: We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I
believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting
and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect
themselves.



But there have been too many instances during the course of my
presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody.
Most recently out in Aurora. You know, just a couple of weeks ago,
actually, probably about a month, I saw a mother, who I had met at the
bedside of her son, who had been shot in that theater.



And her son had been shot through the head. And we spent some time, and
we said a prayer and, remarkably, about two months later, this young man
and his mom showed up, and he looked unbelievable, good as new.



But there were a lot of families who didn’t have that good fortune and whose sons or daughters or husbands didn’t survive.



So my belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already
got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals,
those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of
background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to
enforcement.



But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for
soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m
trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the
violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault
weapons ban reintroduced.
But part of it is also looking at other
sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago,
there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re
using cheap hand guns.



And so what can we do to intervene, to make sure that young people have
opportunity; that our schools are working; that if there’s violence on
the streets, that working with faith groups and law enforcement, we can
catch it before it gets out of control.



And so what I want is a — is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is
seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing
numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
But part of
it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into these communities
and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur.



CROWLEY: Governor Romney, the question is about assault weapons, AK-47s.



ROMNEY: Yeah, I’m not in favor of new pieces of legislation on — on
guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal.
We, of course,
don’t want to have automatic weapons, and that’s already illegal in
this country to have automatic weapons.
What I believe is we have to do,
as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which
is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have, and to
change the culture of violence that we have.



And you ask how — how are we going to do that? And there are a number
of things. He mentioned good schools. I totally agree. We were able to
drive our schools to be number one in the nation in my state. And I
believe if we do a better job in education, we’ll — we’ll give people
the — the hope and opportunity they deserve and perhaps less violence
from that. But let me mention another thing. And that is parents. We
need moms and dads, helping to raise kids. Wherever possible the — the
benefit of having two parents in the home, and that’s not always
possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh to tell our
kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting
married to someone, that’s a great idea.



Because if there’s a two parent family, the prospect of living in
poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will —
will be able to achieve increase dramatically. So we can make changes
in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence and
give them opportunity, and bring them in the American system. The —
the greatest failure we’ve had with regards to — to gun violence in
some respects is what — what is known as Fast and Furious. Which was a
program under this administration, and how it worked exactly I think we
don’t know precisely, where thousands of automatic, and AK-47 type
weapons were — were given to people that ultimately gave them to — to
drug lords.



They used those weapons against — against their own citizens and killed
Americans with them. And this was a — this was a program of the
government. For what purpose it was put in place, I can’t imagine. But
it’s one of the great tragedies related to violence in our society which
has occurred during this administration. Which I think the American
people would like to understand fully, it’s been investigated to a
degree, but — but the administration has carried out executive
privilege to prevent all of the information from coming out.



I’d like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was
behind it, why it led to the violence, thousands of guns going to
Mexican drug lords.



OBAMA: Candy?



CROWLEY: Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these
assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned.



I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in
Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support
that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with
these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?



ROMNEY: Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the
anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation.
And it’s referred to as an assault weapon ban, but it had, at the
signing of the bill, both the pro-gun and the anti-gun people came
together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted.



There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that haven’t previously
been available and so forth, so it was a mutually agreed- upon piece of
legislation. That’s what we need more of, Candy. What we have right now
in Washington is a place that’s gridlocked.



CROWLEY: So I could — if you could get people to agree to it, you would be for it?



ROMNEY: We have —



OBAMA: Candy?



ROMNEY: — we haven’t had the leadership in Washington to work on a
bipartisan basis. I was able to do that in my state and bring these two
together.



CROWLEY: Quickly, Mr. President.



OBAMA: The — first of all, I think Governor Romney was for an assault
weapons ban before he was against it. And he said that the reason he
changed his mind was, in part, because he was seeking the endorsement of
the National Rifle Association. So that’s on the record.



But I think that one area we agree on is the important of parents and
the importance of schools, because I do believe that if our young people
have opportunity, then they are less likely to engage in these kinds of
violent acts. We’re not going to eliminate everybody who is mentally
disturbed and we have got to make sure they don’t get weapons.



OBAMA: because I do believe that if our young people have opportunity,
then they’re less likely to engage in these kind of violent acts.



We’re not going to eliminate everybody who is mentally disturbed, and
we’ve got to make sure they don’t get weapons. But we can make a
difference in terms ensuring that every young person in America,
regardless of where they come from, what they look like, have a chance
to succeed.



And, Candy, we haven’t had a chance to talk about education much, but I
think it is very important to understand that the reforms we’ve put in
place, working with 46 governors around the country, are seeing schools
that are some of the ones that are the toughest for kids starting to
succeed. We’re starting to see gains in math and science.



When it comes to community colleges, we are setting up programs,
including with Nassau Community College, to retrain workers, including
young people who may have dropped out of school but now are getting
another chance, training them for the jobs that exist right now.



And in fact, employers are looking for skilled workers. And so we’re
matching them up. Giving them access to higher education. As I said, we
have made sure that millions of young people are able to get an
education that they weren’t able to get before.



Now…



CROWLEY: Mr. President, I have to — I have to move you along here. You said you wanted to…



(CROSSTALK)



CROWLEY: We need to do it here.



OBAMA: But — but it’ll — it’ll — it’ll be…



(CROSSTALK)



OBAMA: … just one second.



CROWLEY: One…



OBAMA: Because — because this is important. This is part of the choice in this election.



When Governor Romney was asked whether teachers, hiring more teachers
was important to growing our economy, Governor Romney said that doesn’t
grow our economy.



When — when he was asked would class size…



(CROSSTALK)



CROWLEY: The question, Mr. President, was guns here, so I need to move us along.



OBAMA: I understand.



CROWLEY: You know, the question was guns. So let me — let me bring in another…



OBAMA: But this will make a difference in terms of whether or not we can move this economy forward for these young people…



CROWLEY: I understand.


OBAMA: … and reduce our violence.


CROWLEY: OK. Thank you so much.

This Billboard Should Be Across The Street From The White House

A group called MurderedMexicans.org is sponsoring a billboard that asks “Who cares about a few hundred” murdered Mexicans. I don’t know if they have other billboards up but the one below is in Clovis, New Mexico on S. Prince Street. This picture comes from a post on CleanUpATF.org.

This website along with its Spanish language version lays out the details of Operation Fast and Furious. It urges people to call their Congressman but especially those on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It says to thank those asking the tough questions of ATF and the Justice Department and to ask those defending Attorney General Eric Holder “why they are defending such a despicable person”.

Not having heard of this group, I checked Network Solutions and their Whois tool and found that the website was registered in March of 2012 to Charles Abernathy.

An Internet search turns up a story from the Portales News-Tribune about Abernathy and the billboard.

Charles Abernathy, 47, said the website is a grassroots effort to
hold those responsible for the Fast and Furious fiasco, in which a
border patrol official was killed.



He said the “murdered Mexicans” refers to the hundreds who were killed by weapons supplied to Mexican Drug Cartel leaders through a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms sting.



Abernathy said he chose the words for their shock value.


“I’m sure some people are offended,” said Abernathy, an oil field truck
driver from Houston. “I think if they use that and end up doing research
over the issues. …. This is what I’m trying to accomplish; people
don’t know about this and now they do.”

The story points out that some in Clovis were offended by the billboard until they went to the website. They do wish he’d chosen his wording a little differently. Abernathy is also paying for digital billboards in Odessa and Lubbock, Texas. He says it is a grassroots effort and he is paying for it out of his own pocket.

 More power to people like Charles Abernathy who put their money behind their convictions.

CCRKBA Says Justice Steven’s Comments Illustrate Importance Of This Election

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens was the speaker at a luncheon sponsored by the Brady Campaign on Monday. In his speech, he said he was astounded that Congress hadn’t taken steps to address “gun violence” (sic).

In reaction and to illustrate the importance of this election for both the Second Amendment and the future direction of the Supreme Court, Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms released this statement:

BELLEVUE, WA – Monday’s high-profile prodding by retired Supreme
Court Justice John Paul Stevens for Congress to do something, and for
presidential candidates to say something, about gun control proves the
importance of who is in the White House and the U.S. Senate to make and
confirm high court nominations, the Citizens Committee for the Right to
Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Reuters reported that the retired justice was the speaker at Monday’s
luncheon hosted by the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Stevens wrote dissenting opinions on both the 2008 Heller ruling and
the 2010 McDonald decision, both of which affirmed that the Second
Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms.

“In both of his dissents,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb,
“Justice Stevens contended that the right to keep and bear arms was
limited to state militia service. It was, and remains, an astonishing
position on a fundamental civil right.

“What Justice Stevens’ speech clearly underscores,” he continued, “is
the critical importance of who is president, not just for the next four
years, but whenever a vacancy occurs on the high court. Imagine if
Justice Stevens’ opinion had prevailed.”

Stevens’ dissent in the Heller case was heavily criticized by the
majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia. The majority ruling
described Stevens’ arguments as “simply wrong,” and at one point – when
addressing Stevens’ history of the Second Amendment – said that he
“flatly misreads the historical record.”

“Stevens’ replacement on the Supreme Court was liberal Elena Kagan,”
Gottlieb noted. “A liberal, anti-gun majority could easily narrow,
rather than expand, the scope of our Second Amendment. That’s why it is,
and always will be, important for gun owners to have a pro-gun-rights
president and pro-gun majority in the Senate, especially on the
Judiciary Committee.”

To see more on Steven’s speech, Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned has video of the event.

Quote Of The Day

Today’s quote of the day comes from historian and classicist Victor Davis Hanson. To my mind, Hanson is one of the most astute observers in America.

From his post in the National Review Online entitled “A Presidency Squandered” in which he discusses all the advantages and goodwill that Barack Obama had going for him when he entered office in 2009.


And what happened?


Barack Obama chose to ram down the nation’s throat a polarizing,
statist agenda, energized by the sort of hardball politics he had
learned in Chicago. Rather than bring the races, classes, and genders
together, he gave us an us-versus-them crusade against the “1
percenters” and the job creators who had not “paid their fair share,”
accusations of a Republican “war on women,” and the worst racial
polarization in modern memory. Statesmanship degenerated into chronic
blame-gaming and “Bush did it,” as he piled up over $5 trillion in new
debt.  Financial sobriety was abandoned in favor of creating new
entitlement constituencies, and job creation was deemed far less
important than nationalizing the health-care system.



And so here we are, three weeks before the election, with a
squandered presidency and a president desperately seeking reelection not
by defending his record, but by demonizing his predecessor, his
opponent — and half of the country.



What, then, was Obama’s first term?


Jimmy Carter’s ends justifying Richard Nixon’s means.

That is indeed a bad combination – Carter’s ineffectiveness combined with Nixon’s paranoia and viciousness. God help us if he is returned for a second term.