Heizer Defense, who were the makers of the DoubleTap Tactical Pocket Pistol, and Raymond Kohut, the inventor of the DoubleTap, have parted ways. Kohut issued the following press release this afternoon stating that he was looking for a new manufacturer or, as an alternative, to license production of the pistol.
October 11, 2012
To our valued customers:
As the inventor of the DoubleTap™ pistol and owner of the design and utility patents, along with other intellectual property including the DoubleTap™ name, I am issuing this press release to inform our loyal customers of the current status of the production of this new innovative pistol.
Since we introduced the DoubleTap™ Tactical Pocket Pistol in November of last year, we have been overwhelmed by the industry reception; the popularity confirmed by literally tens of thousands of orders placed by consumers to their dealers, through our distributor partners.
Unfortunately, with the deepest regret, today I announce that we have terminated our relationship with HEIZER DEFENSE, our manufacturing partner, due to their inability to manufacture the DoubleTap™ pistol. I cannot comment further on this subject at this time, under advice from legal counsel, due to pending litigation.
It is our intention to immediately license the design to a leading firearms manufacturer or to align with another manufacturing source to produce the DoubleTap™. We intend to accomplish this as quickly as possible to satisfy the huge demand for the DoubleTap™ pistol. I will make a further announcement as soon as we have established a new manufacturing agreement.
I didn’t have the opportunity to check out the DoubleTap pistol when I attended the NRA Annual Meeting in St. Louis which is a shame. It looked like an innovative pistol and with Heizer’s ties to the aerospace industry it seemed a good fit. I’m also sad that I didn’t arrange a visit to the factory in St. Louis when I had a chance as I go there 2-3 times a year to visit family.
I hope Mr. Kohout finds the manufacturing partner needed to continue making this pistol. It looked like a fine backup or tertiary firearm.
Dave Hardy has a post up on the substantial donation made by Mayor Mike Bloomberg to the Joyce Foundation. The money comes from his Bloomberg Philanthropies. At the same time as Bloomberg is giving money to the Joyce Foundation, the Brady Campaign is running a substantial deficit.
Sebastian examines this pattern of donations in more detail noting that little of the Bloomberg money is going to the more established (and somewhat more moderate) Brady Campaign/Center.
Essentially what Bloomberg is doing is to use the Joyce Foundation as a cut-out to fund the radical gun prohibitionists at CSGV, VPC, and Media Matters. The clamor from these organizations makes Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors aka MAIG look much more moderate and “reasonable” by comparison.
How Machiavellian!
Read both sets of posts from Dave and Sebastian to understand the full impact of Bloomberg’s moves.
This FBI video from 1969 called “Shooting for Survival” illustrates how much has changed in the world of training. They are shooting what appears to be S&W .38 Special revolvers in the first few scenes and are shooting one-handed. The only two-handed grip you see, for the most part, is a tea-cup.
That said, shooting from cover and concealment is as important now as it was then. They do a good job of showing the effective use of cover and the importance of keeping your limbs covered. They also show how to protect yourself from ricochets.
In a decision last Friday in New York State, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department reversed the dismissal of a case, Williams et al v. Beemiller, Inc., et al, involving the manufacturer of Hi-Point firearms, its distributor, and a licensed dealer under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. They remanded the case back to Superior Court for trial. The firm representing Hi-Point (Beemiller, Inc.), the Renzulli Law Firm, had won the dismissal of a similar case in Connecticut last year. Williams was represented in the suit by the Brady Center.
Attorneys for the distributor, MKS Supply, are undecided about whether to appeal or not but do believe the case will ultimately be dismissed.
Jeffrey Malsch, a lawyer for MKS, said he is reviewing the decision.
“We believe (the lower court’s ruling) was a courageous and legally
correct decision, but the Fourth Department was unwilling to follow his
well reasoned opinion,” he said. “Whether we appeal or not, we are
confident that ultimately the facts will contradict the baseless
allegations in the complaint and the case will be dismissed.”
This case involved a Buffalo, New York teen, Donald Williams, who was misidentified as a member of a rival gang and shot. The weapon used was a 9mm Hi-Point pistol which was purchased at a gun show in Ohio from a licensed dealer. It appears that it was a straw purchase even though the court documents allege the sale of the pistol to a New York State resident. However, under the Gun Control Act of 1968, an out of state resident cannot purchase and take direct delivery of a handgun. The handgun must be shipped to FFL in the purchaser’s home state who will then run the NICS check along with complying with local and state laws governing the purchase of a handgun.
While the court said it was undisputed that this matter falls within the PLCAA’s general definition of a “qualified civil liability action”, they said in this case one of the six permitted exceptions to a “qualified civil liability action” did apply.
Of particular relevance here, a “qualified civil liability action” does not include “an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought” (15 USC § 7903 [5] [A] [iii] [emphasis added]).
The court went on to say that when reviewing a motion to dismiss, they must accept the facts as stated in the complaint and accord the plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt.
Applying that standard, we agree with plaintiffs that the court erred in dismissing the complaint inasmuch as they sufficiently alleged that defendants knowingly violated various federal and state statutes applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms within the meaning of the PLCAA’s predicate exception.
The statutes that the defendants are alleged to have violated are those involving straw purchases and trafficking of firearms illegally. They especially allege this with regard to the dealer Charles Brown who operated out of his home.
In October 2000, Brown allegedly sold Bostic and/or Upshaw handguns, including the gun used to shoot plaintiff, at a gun show in Ohio. According to plaintiffs, Brown knew or should have known that Upshaw and/or Bostic were purchasing the 87 handguns for trafficking in the criminal market rather than for their personal use because (1)they had purchased multiple guns on prior occasions; (2) they paid for the guns in cash; and (3) they selected Hi-Point 9mm handguns, which are “disproportionately used in crime” and have “no collector value or interest.”
To conclude, the court in general accepted all the allegations of the Brady Center on behalf of the plaintiff Donald Williams. They also are going to allow the Brady Center to go on a fishing expedition into Brown’s relationship with MKS Distributors.
Ultimately, I think this case will be dismissed against all the defendants but especially Beemiller, Inc. dba Hi-Point Firearms. Since they sold to an intermediary distributor, it will be hard to argue that they should be held responsible for the actions of a dealer over whom they had no control nor direct relationship.
This case was the topic of a recent segment of NRA News with Cam Edwards interviewing Steve Halbrook regarding the court’s decision. He thinks it will be ultimately dismissed whether on appeal from this court or in the Superior Court for Erie County.
The court’s decision can be found here. The Brady Center’s breathless press release can be found here.
You may remember my post from last week about how the Legal Center to Prevent Gun Violence (sic) did not want to hear any thing other than the party line at their event “Truth Telling: The Media’s Role in the Conversation on Guns”. They had sent a ticket refund to CalGuns Foundation director Josh Berger saying his presence at their event wasn’t “appropriate” even though it was being held on the campus of a state-owned law school.
My, my, my, what a difference a week makes.
Elise K. Traynum, General Counsel and Secretary to the Board of Directors at UC Hasting College of Law, has sent Josh a letter informing him that if the event is held on their campus, he must be allowed to attend.
Dear Mr. Berger,
In addition to the UC Hastings’ nondiscrimination policies, the College has a longstanding
commitment to a culture of free and open inquiry,
spirited debate, and the exploration of diverse ideas. We believe in the
fundamental right and responsibility to foster and protect rational
discourse in an environment marked both by the rigorous
challenge of ideas and by tolerance for the expression of multiple
viewpoints.
This afternoon I informed Ms.
Thomas, the Executive Director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun
Violence, that you must be allowed to attend the October 25 event if it
is held on the College campus.
Thank you for your correspondence.
Elise Traynum General Counsel and Secretary to the Board of Directors University of California Hastings College of the Law
198 McAllister Street
San Francisco, California
The ball is now in the Law Center’s court. Do they move the event or do they allow their delicate ears to hear opposing voices? Decisions, decisions.
I’m happy to see that Hastings College of Law did the proper thing even though, to be honest, they didn’t have much choice given that they are a state supported school.
In our increasingly urbanized society people are losing their connection to the natural world. Sometimes it is so bad you don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
For example in the clip below a woman calls into a Fargo, ND radio station complaining about deer crossing signs as they, in her opinion, are encouraging the deer to cross the road there. She wants to the signs moved to lower traffic density areas because then the deer will go there to cross the road instead.
I can only hope that this call was made up and there really isn’t someone that stupid driving our highways or voting for that matter.
“If we were to pursue a tax on something like guns and ammo, clearly
that wouldn’t be popular with the [gun lobby] out there, and it may not
generate $50 million, but … it is consistent with our commitment to
pursuing violence reduction in the city and in the county,” Kurt
Summers, Preckwinkle’s chief of staff, said on Monday.
The tax is also a backdoor attempt at gun control which they are not shy about admitting. Summers says the idea of the “violence tax” is also to limit the number of firearms in circulation citing rising murder rates in Chicago as well as a rising number of inmates in the county jail. They are also trying to justify the tax by citing the cost of law enforcement, the court system, and trying uninsured gun shot victims in county-owned hospitals.
The idea of a “violence tax” is not sitting well with gun rights activists in Illinois.
“This is just another example of the blame game —
Chicago and Cook County has a gun violence problem, Chicago’s got a high
high school drop-out rate, they’ve got a drug problem, they’ve got a
gang problem, but they want to make legal gun owners, guys like me, the
scapegoat,” said Todd Vandermyde a National Rifle Association lobbyist
who works in Springfield.
He said this is an unfair tax on a constitutional right that will hurt the poor.
“It is another way to enact a Jim Crow law and keep people from exercising their constitutional right, he said.
“All you’re doing is jacking up the price of guns
and ammunition — for someone who can least afford it,” he said. “The
problem with something like this is that you’re hurting people who don’t
have the ability to get out of Cook County. So if you have someone in
Englewood, they have to venture out to DuPage County, to Will County? I
don’t think so.”
Board President Preckwinkle has not yet disclosed the amount of the tax. She is expected to announce her budget next week and the tax will likely be part of it.
Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle defended a plan to put a special tax on bullets and ammunition, saying the county has to find ways to pay for the health costs associated with gun violence and to curb such violence.
“Cook County suffers from systemic gun violence,” she told reporters at a press briefing Tuesday about the so-called violence tax, which was first reported by the Chicago Sun-Times. “The wide availability of ammunition exacerbates the problem.”
Preckwinkle has already declined to raise either property or sales taxes to fund the shortfall. When asked about a tax on sugary drinks, she responded that “gun violence” (sic) is a bigger problem than obesity. Given the years of draconian gun control laws in Chicago and Cook County, it might have been a bit more honest on her part to say that soda drinkers and manufacturers are a bigger voting bloc/lobby than gun owners and she didn’t want to cross Coke and Pepsi’s lobbyists. To paraphrase the movie Chinatown, “It’s Chicago, Jake.”
UPDATE:Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned notes that taxing a right for the purposes of discouraging it is unconstitutional. He outlines the Supreme Court precedents in his post.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the sister organization of the Second Amendment Foundation which successfully sued Chicago, issued a pointed rejoinder to Board President Preckwinkle:
BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens
Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today criticized a proposed
“violence tax” on firearms and ammunition sold in Chicago and surrounding
Cook County suburbs as a means of closing a multi-million-dollar budget
gap.
The tax proposal by Cook County Board President Toni
Preckwinkle would be designed to help close what the Chicago Sun-Times
reports is a $115 million gaping hole in the 2013 budget. The reasoning
behind this idea is that “roughly two-thirds of the budget pays for both
the county’s public health clinics and two hospitals along with the
criminal justice system that includes the courts and jail,” the newspaper
said.
“Law-abiding firearms owners in Cook County should not be
shouldering the bills for criminals,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.
“Under Preckwinkle’s plan, honest citizens would be financially punished
for the bad behavior of a criminal element that appears to be rampant and
unchecked, considering the number of shootings and murders that have been
tallied.
“This violent crime surge,” he continued, “seems to
correlate with the election of Rahm Emanuel as Chicago’s mayor. Maybe
President Preckwinkle should send the bill to Emanuel. Of course, he might
have an empty wallet, considering the money he’s spent fighting court
battles to thwart gun rights in the city, not to mention the $399,950 he
had to finally pay to the Second Amendment Foundation this year for legal
costs because the city lost the McDonald case.”
The newspaper
quoted an aide to Preckwinkle who claimed the tax on guns and ammo would
be “consistent with our commitment to pursuing violence reduction in the
city and in the county.”
“That’s a pretty smug attitude,” Gottlieb
said, “considering the body count so far this year. In September, just in
Chicago, there were 41 slayings. That doesn’t reflect much of a commitment
to reduce violence, but this tax idea certainly suggests that Preckwinkle
– like so many other Chicago politicians – is trying to shift the blame
for her problems to someone else.
“Perhaps Preckwinkle should
consider an alternative,” he added. “How about a tax on politicians for
impairing the gun rights of law abiding citizens by preventing them from
protecting themselves, their families and their homes from the county’s
violent criminals?
“There’s a problem in Cook County, alright,”
Gottlieb concluded, “but law-abiding gun owners didn’t create it, and
should not be taking the rap for it, financially or otherwise.”
The Firearm Blog ran a story today about the potential for Colt and Remington to relocate manufacturing out of Connecticut and New York respectively if those states adopted the flawed technology known as microstamping. The story noted as have others that many states would welcome these firearms manufacturers if they decided to leave the Northeast.
Cam Edwards of NRA News did an interview this evening with Larry Keane, General Counsel of the NSSF, on this issue. Keane repeated the NSSF’s position that the technology needs more study before it could ever be adopted. Moreover, and I didn’t know this, he said the patent holder of this technology has come around to the same position and is urging more study of microstamping.
Joe Huffman of the View From North Central Idaho has an excellent overview of the technology and its limitations on his blog here.
It appears that at least a limited form of the castle doctrine may be coming to the United Kingdom according to a story in the Daily Mail Online.
Chris Grayling, the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, announced that he is changing the law that would allow home owners (or householders, in Brit-speak) to use “disproportionate force” when faced with burglars or home invaders. Currently, people in the UK are only allowed to use “reasonable” force and it was only within the last couple of years that the duty to retreat even if within the home was removed.
It will mean someone who is confronted by a burglar and has reason to fear for their safety, or their family’s safety and in the heat of the moment uses force that later seems ‘disproportionate’ will not be guilty of an offence.
This could include the use of lethal force. Only force which is ‘grossly’ disproportionate will not be permitted.
Mr Grayling said: ‘Being confronted by an intruder in your home is terrifying, and the public should be in no doubt that the law is on their side. That is why I am strengthening the current law.
‘Householders who act instinctively and honestly in self-defence are crime victims and should be treated that way.
‘We need to dispel doubts in this area once and for all, and I am very pleased to be delivering on the pledge that we made in Opposition.’
It is good to see that the United Kingdom is coming to its senses on this. Many may remember the story of farmer Tony Martin who served more time in prison for killing a burglar in his house than did the burglar’s accomplices. Martin was originally convicted of murder and eventually had his conviction reduced to manslaughter on appeal. He still had to serve a five year sentence.
UPDATE:The British paper The Daily Telegraph has more on the changes as proposed by the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling. They note such a “law-and-order” policy is quite popular with the Conservative Party’s base.
by 