“An Act to Regulate the Sale of Concealed Weapons in North Carolina” – Part I

The North Carolina House of Representatives passed HB 1318 on March 10, 1919 and ushered in what we now call the pistol purchase permit system. Attempts to overturn this 96-year old law failed in the last session of the North Carolina General Assembly due to opposition from the sheriffs’ lobby. The battle is continuing in this session of the General Assembly with gun rights groups and Republicans on one side and gun control groups, the NC Sheriffs Association, and Democrats on the other.

In an earlier post, I detailed some of the racial climate of North Carolina and how that led to the bill’s passage. This post will detail how the law has changed over the years since 1919. In subsequent posts, I plan to examine the personalities involved, the political machine behind it, and the bills passage through both houses of the General Assembly. While we are currently fighting the NC Sheriffs Association over the passage of HB 562, it was not until 1959 that the duty of issuing purchase permits was transferred from the Clerks of the Superior Court to the sheriffs.

The Law As Passed

Chapter 197 of the 1919 Session Laws reads:

The General Assenibly of North Carolina do enact:
Section 1. That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or
corporation in this State to sell, give away or dispose of, or to
purchase or receive, at any place within the State from any other
place within or without the State, without a license or permit
therefor shall have first been obtained by such purchaser or
receiver from the clerk of the Superior Court of the county
which such purchase, sale, or transfer is intended to be made,
any pistol, so-called pump-gun, bowie knife, dirk, dagger or
metallic knucks.

Sec. 2. That the clerks of the Superior Courts of any and all
counties of this State are hereby authorized and directed to issue
to any person, firm, or corporation in any such county a license
or permit to purchase or receive any weapon mentioned in section
one of this act from any person, firm, or corporation offering
to sell or dispose of the same, which said license or permit shall
be in the following form, to wit:

North Carolina,
I, ___________________________clerk of the Superior Court of said
county, do hereby certify that ___________________________whose
place of residence is ________________________________Street, in
____________________(or) in______________________ Township
_________________________County, North Carolina, having this day
satisfied me as to his, her (or) their good moral character, and
that the possession of one of the weapons described in section one
of this act is necessary for self-defense or the protection of the
home, a license or permit is therefore hereby given said________________
_________________________________________to purchase one pistol,
(or) ____________________________________________from any per-
(If any other weapon is named, strike out word pistol.)
son, firm, or corporation authorized to dispose of the same.
This ______________day of ______________________________, 19___

Clerk Superior Court.

Sec. 3. That before the clerk of the Superior Court shall issue
any such license or permit he shall fully satisfy himself by affidavits,
oral evidence, or otherwise, as to the good moral character
of the applicant therefor, and that such person, firm, or corporation
requires the possession of such weapon mentioned in section
one of this act for protection of the home: Provided, that
if said clerk shall not be so fully satisfied, he shall refuse to issue
said license or permit : and Provided further, that nothing in this
act shall apply to officers authorized by law to carry firearms.
The clerk shall charge for his services upon issuing such license
or permit a fee of fifty cents.

Sec. 4. That the clerk of the Superior Court shall keep a
book, to be provided by the board of commissioners of each
county, in which he shall keep a record of all licenses or permits
issued under this act, including the name, date, place of residence,
age, former place of residence, etc., of each such person,
firm, or corporation to whom or which a license or permit shall
have been so issued.

Sec. 5. That each and every dealer in pistols, pistol cartridges
and other weapons mentioned in section one of this act shall keep
an accurate record of all sales thereof, including the name, place
of residence, date of sale, etc., of each person, firm, or corporation,
to whom or which any and all such sales are made, which said
record shall be open to the inspection of any duly constituted
State, county or police officer, within this State.

Sec. 6. That during the period of listing taxes in each year
the owner or person in possession or having the custody or care
of any pistol or other weapon mentioned in section one of this
act shall he, and is hereby, required to list the same specifically,
together with the value thereof, as is now required by law for
listing other personal property for taxes : Provided, that all
persons listing any such weapons for taxes as aforesaid shall also
be required to designate his place of residence, local street address,
or otherwise as the case may be.

Sec. 7. That any person, firm, or corporation violating any of
the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
fined or imprisoned in the discretion of the court.

Sec. 8. That upon submission or conviction of any person in
this State for unlawfully carrying concealed weapons off of his
own premises, the pistol or other deadly weapon with reference
to which the defendant shall have been convicted shall be condemned
and ordered confiscated and destroyed by the judge presiding
at any such trial.

Sec. 9. That this act shall be in force from and after the first
day of April, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen.
Ratified this 10th day of March. A.D. 1910.

 1923 Amendment

The General Assembly adopted two changes to the original concealed weapons bill. First, it made it unlawful to receive one of the weapons mentioned in the original bill by mail, railroad express, or any other common carrier unless you possessed the permit from the Clerk of the Superior Court. You were also required to present that permit to the mail carrier, postmaster, railroad agent, etc before taking delivery of the weapon.

This amendment also specified the fine and potential prison term for violation of the law. Fines were to be from $50 to $250 while the prison terms were not less than 30 days nor more than six months. All of the above were at the discretion of the court.

1947 Amendment

The changes to the law in 1947 were very minor. As part of an omnibus revision of a number of state statutes, blackjacks and slung-shot were added to the list of weapons that required a purchase permit from the Clerk of the Superior Court.

1959 Amendment

HB 1048 made major changes in the administration of the purchase permit law. It transferred responsibility from the Clerks of the Superior Court and gave it to the Sheriff of each county. The sheriffs were now made responsible for issuing permits and keeping records of the issuance of the permits. It was also the sheriff’s responsibility to dispose of confiscated weapons.

Interestingly, this amendment did not apply in all counties. 41 counties were excluded from this act. While most were small counties in the eastern and western parts of the state, the most significant exclusion was Mecklenburg County.

1971 Amendment

Historic edged weapons were defined to be any bayonet, trench knife, sword, or dagger manufactured during or prior to WWII (as late as January 1, 1946). These and antique firearms previously defined as those made prior to 1899 or muzzle loading firearms were excluded from the purchase permit requirement. As an aside, it is interesting that edged weapons from the Korean Conflict and Vietnam War were not excluded.

1979 Amendment

Three significant changes were made in this amendment by SB 213. First, the permit was now required to be obtained from the sheriff in the county in which the purchaser or receiver resided. It has been previously required to be obtained in the county in which the sale or receipt took place.

The second major change was that any provisions of local acts in conflict with these changes were repealed. As noted in the 1959 Amendment, it only applied to 59 counties.

The third major change was that the list of weapons now only included pistols. Dirks, daggers, bowie knives, metallic knucks, blackjacks, slung shot, and “so-called pump guns” were now excluded from the permit requirement.

Interesting Sec. 3 and Sec. 4 still refer to obtaining permits from the Clerk of the Superior Court even though this requirement was changed in 1959.

1993 Amendment

While the 1979 amendment dropped everything but pistols from the permit requirement, this amendment headed in the opposite direction by adding crossbows to the law. Crossbows were added because a person ineligible to purchase a firearm used a crossbow to murder someone in Union County according to former Union County sheriff and later NC Rep. Frank McGuirt.

1994 Amendment

This amendment was part of a larger omnibus bill that codified classes of misdemeanors. Rather than being a fine of up to $200 and/or imprisonment of up to six months, the penalty was now listed as a “Class 2” misdemeanor. This was the mid-range classification which meant imprisonment for more than 30 days but less than six months.

2003 Amendments

HB 817 provided that a North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit could substitute for the pistol/crossbow purchase permit.

HB 281 made grammatical corrections and changes to the law.

2009 Amendment

These changes concerned crossbows and the definition of a crossbow dealer, manufacturer, and wholesaler. It deemed the permits issued to dealers, wholesalers, and manufacturers as being continuing permits with no expiration date.

2011 Amendment

Just as the 1993 bill added the crossbow to the purchase permit requirement, so SB 406 repealed the requirement to get a “pistol permit” to buy a crossbow.

This bill also clarified that persons under indictment for or who have been convicted of a felony were not eligible to be issued permits. However, pursuant to a NC Supreme Court ruling, the bill excepted those convicted of felonies involving antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, or restraints of trade. It also said that a person who had been pardoned or who had his or her firearm rights restored could obtain a pistol purchase permit.

If You Are In The Raleigh Area On Tuesday Afternoon, Please Attend

Grass Roots North Carolina is having a press conference in Raleigh on Tuesday to announce their own media campaign to combat the lies told by Bloomberg’s Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors about HB 562. Their radio campaign featuring North Carolina moms will be called, “Michael Bloomberg doesn’t speak for me.”

More on the conference and the GRNC’s counter-attack on those progressives who insist keeping a racist law is good policy below:



Bloomberg… Lies… When it
comes to attacks on your second amendment rights, those two words are
synonymous …

This New York billionaire believes that he can dump his money,
which ironically is decorated with the faces of our founders, into this
state and
foist his liberal beliefs on you. Apparently he considers the words in
our founding documents to be just as dispensable as his billions.

It once again
is time to remind the Republican controlled legislature that they
are “off” by
one letter. This is NC not NY. Michael
Bloomberg does not speak for our families, moms, students, businesses, or anyone else in North Carolina.


Attend Tuesday’s Press Conference

This coming Tuesday, at 1:00 PM, we will aggressively take on 
Michael Bloomberg, mayors against this, moms demanding that, and any
anti-gun groups who pretend to represent North Carolinians.

This press
conference will kick off a radio campaign from NC mothers saying,
Michael Bloomberg doesn’t speak for me.” 

Click here to go to the
H562 Resource Center, hear one of the radio spots, and read more about the bill. 

(or: http://www.grnc.org/hb-562). The H562 Resource Center is also easily accessible from GRNC’s home page.

Show solidarity
against Bloomberg’s astroturf “Moms” by attending the press
conference. See press conference details below, under ‘Immediate Action
Required.’  Also below, if you’re a North Carolina mom, see
how you can help GRNC fight the Bloomberg machine.


  • ATTEND THIS TUESDAY’S PRESS CONFERENCE. Please dress for the press: No clothing with inflammatory slogans, business
    casual or better preferred, etc. Press conference details below: 
  • WHEN: 

    Tuesday, May 19, 2015; 1:00 PM

    Legislative Building

    Press Room

    16 W. Jones Street
    Raleigh, NC
    MAPS &



    Legislative Complex Map:

    TIPS:  Due to traffic and parking considerations, please allow for plenty of extra travel time. Please be in the press room by 12:45

  • MOMS, PLEASE VOLUNTEER TO DO RADIO SPOTS. Email DirectorofDevelopment@GRNC.org 

  • CONTRIBUTE: Click here to help GRNC pay for
    these critical radio spots.
    (Or go to:
    Any help you can give
    is needed, and greatly appreciated.

Lies Told by Moms
Demanding Action

to learn the full details of the deceptions spread by the so-called Moms Demanding Action (or rather Moms Demanding Gun

If You Support A Law That Is Based On Racism, Are You A Racist?

The headline to this post is meant to be provocative. In the last couple of days, I have received numerous emails from gun prohibitionists groups and have seen Everyday Moms for Illegal Mayors launch a media campaign all of which is intended to keep in place North Carolina’s pistol purchase permit system.

§ 14-402 and § 14-403 of the North Carolina General Statutes were originally passed in 1919 and gave the Clerk of the Superior Court (later given to the Sheriff) of each North Carolina county the power to determine just who of their county’s residents would be eligible to purchase a handgun. Note that this preceded the Gun Control Act of 1968 by almost 50 years. Firearms of all sorts could still be purchased over the counter and through the mails. So why would the North Carolina General Assembly give Clerks of the Superior Court such power? Below is a little context.

The end of the Great War in 1918 saw the return of many African-American veterans who had served in segregated military units. They had served their country both home and abroad and were now coming home expecting some recognition of their rights. W.E.B. DuBois had encouraged black veterans to not just return home but to return home fighting against Southern racism.

At an Emancipation Day ceremony in Raleigh in January 1919, a crowd of 3,000 passed resolutions condemning lynching and attacking segregation. Through the 1920s, the annual commemorations of emancipation as well as the Armistice ending World War I remained occasions for rallies. Editorials in the black press in Durham and Raleigh frequently called for improvements in, if not an end to, the Jim Crow system.

White North Carolinians listened with concern to the outbursts of black protests after the War, but they managed to preserve both white supremacy and the myth that black North Carolinians were contented with legal segregation and Jim Crow. North Carolina’s postwar reconsideration of racial relations and racial policy took place in the context of the nationwide “Red Scare” between 1918 and 1921, touched off by fears of communist and foreign subversion.

Adding to this general fear was Winston-Salem’s November 17, 1918 riot over the attempted lynching of a black man who had been erroneously accused of raping a white woman. Most of the rioting was done by whites but it was the black community which had the tanks sitting in their streets.

The General Assembly passed “An Act to Regulate the Sale of Concealed Weapons in North Carolina” on March 10, 1919. It required a permit to purchase “any pistol, so-called pump-gun, bowie knife, dirk, dagger or metallic knucks.” The “so-called pump-gun” is, as best as I can determine, what we would now call a pump shotgun. Section 3 of Chapter 197 reads:

That before the clerk of the Superior Court shall issue
any such license or permit he shall fully satisfy himself by affidavits,
oral evidence, or otherwise, as to the good moral character
of the applicant
therefor, and that such person, firm, or corporation
requires the possession of such weapon mentioned in section
one of this act for protection of the home: Provided, that
if said clerk shall not be so fully satisfied, he shall refuse to issue
said license or permit
: and Provided further, that nothing in this
act shall apply to officers authorized by law to carry firearms.
The clerk shall charge for his services upon issuing such license
or permit a fee of fifty cents.

The Clerk and the firearms dealer were both required to keep records of the permittees/purchasers including name, age, residence, former residence, “etc.”  The owner of the firearm was also required to list it as personal property with the local tax authorities.

Let’s think about this a bit. Who would be considered to be a person of “good moral character” in 1919 to a legislature that was composed primarily of white Democrat segregationists who were sympathetic to the KKK? And what do you think the Clerk of the Superior Court is going to consider by “etc.” which is actually included in the text of the bill? I think any intelligent person could reasonably assume that a person of “good moral character” would tend to be white, probably a Democrat (unless living in the mountains), a segregationist, a church-goer, and someone who owned property. It would not have been an African-American nor would it have been a populist, socialist, or union organizer. I would also assume that the race of the purchaser was intended to be kept as part of the records.

Given the state of race relations in North Carolina in 1919 and the contextual background of this law, I defy anyone to say that there is no racial component to this law. It may not have said de jure that blacks couldn’t possess pistols and other weapons but that was the de facto reality.

So I say to Mike Bloomberg, Gabby Giffords, Dan Gross, Shannon Watts, and all the others of their ilk who have been agitating against HB 562, does not your support for the continuation of a law conceived in racism make you just a wee bit racist yourself?

Army “Concerns” About Transfer Of M1911A1 Pistols To CMP

I knew the Depart of Justice had become politicized under the Obama Administration but I still held out hopes for institutions like the US Army. It appears that my hopes were in vain. Based upon the document embedded below, the Army’s Congressional Liaison Office has as many political toadies as the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.

It appears that someone in either the Department of Justice or the White House has prodded the Army to go public with their “concerns” about the potential transfer of about 92,000 M1911A1 pistols to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. I wrote about the budget amendment put forth by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) that would save taxpayers $200,000 annually by transferring these pistols to the CMP. It is a win-win plan.

Specifically, the Army worries that this transfer could be a threat to public safety, that the pistols would not be traceable, and that it might violate the Gun Control Act of 1968. If the person or committee that wrote this white paper must be depended upon to protect our nation against all enemies, foreign or domestic, then we are sunk. I have not read anything so mealy mouthed in a while.

Let’s review the rules for purchasing firearms or ammo from the CMP. First, and foremost, they don’t sell to just anyone. You have to be an eligible individual. To be eligible, you must:

  • Provide proof of US citizenship
  • Provide proof of age
  • Be a member of a CMP affiliated club
  • Provide proof of marksmanship activity 
  • Be legally eligible to purchase a firearm
The CMP runs a FBI NICS check on every sale which negates the first objection of the Army and DOJ. If you live in certain states, they ship the rifle to a FFL for the final transfer.
They also keep records on every sale and can provide serial number traces. They do this for a fee for individuals who want to know if their M1 Garand originally came from the CMP. Again, this negates the objection about traceability.
The white paper is correct that the CMP is not a FFL. However, they have been exempted from GCA68.
Finally, the CMP is distinctly concerned with marksmanship and firearms safety. They are not going to be selling guns to the Crips, Bloods, or Latin Kings OR felons OR those convicted of domestic violence OR those adjudicated mentally ill. 
Let’s call this white paper what it is – utter bullshit. The officers in the Army that my Dad served for 28 years would have been ashamed to put this out. 

SAF Helps A Navy Vet Get His Guns Back

At the beginning of April, retired Navy vet Rick Bailey of Glendale, AZ had his $25,000 firearms collection seized by the courts. His next door neighbor had filed an Injunction of Harassment against him. And what did Mr. Bailey do to cause this? He complained to the neighbor about the smell of horse manure wafting from two dump trucks owned by the neighbor’s landscaping business.

var p = new anv_pl_def(); p.config = {}; p.config.width = 640; p.config.height = 360; p.loadVideoExpressV3(‘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|1000011|SPS’);

Fortunately, thanks to the help of the Second Amendment Foundation he got them back. The SAF continues the rest of the story below:

BELLEVUE, WA – A retired Navy veteran in Arizona whose gun collection had been seized by Glendale police now has his firearms back, the Second Amendment Foundation revealed today.

SAF had intervened in the case of Glendale resident Rick Bailey early last month, taking on funding of the case and working with Chandler, Ariz., attorney Marc J. Victor. Bailey’s case had fired up Second Amendment activists across the country after police confiscated 28 firearms valued at more than $25,000, which Bailey had collected over more than a decade.

Bailey was generous in his praise of SAF’s intervention, noting, “I want to thank Alan Gottlieb and the Second Amendment Foundation for all the help in getting my firearms returned.”

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said he was honored to have been able to step in with support for what he called a “worthy effort on behalf of a deserving veteran.”

Bailey had complained to the City of Glendale about a neighbor’s habit of parking dump trucks used in his landscaping company. The dispute unfolded over several months until Bailey called police over concerns of toxic chemical odors apparently coming from the neighbor’s property. The neighbor apparently alleged that Bailey had threatened him, and the following day, he obtained a harassment order against Bailey.

“Mr. Bailey had been devastated by incident,” Gottlieb explained. “This all started because of a dispute with a neighbor that got way out of hand. Nobody should have their life turned upside down, and their property seized, because of an allegation that should have been thoroughly investigated.

“I want to credit attorney Marc Victor for his work in this legal action,” he added. “He was on top of this case, and SAF was delighted to help out with funding.”

“Now that Rick Bailey has his firearms back,” Gottlieb observed, “perhaps his dignity can also be restored. This kind of silly season story should never happen in real life.”

Warning And Call To Action For Illinois Residents

In the wake of the 7th Circuit’s ludicrous decision in Friedman v. City of Highland Park in which the court upheld a gun ban based on “feelings“, the gun prohibitionists in the Illinois legislature are trying to strike while the iron is hot. State Sen. Julie Morrison (D-Deerfield) has filed SB 2130 which would eliminate state preemption of local firearm ordinances. The state preemption of local ordinances was part of the grand compromise in the bill that allowed shall-issue carry in Illinois. Assault weapons (sic) bans in place before July 19, 2013 were allowed to remain in plan but no new ones could be enacted.

Both Illinois Carry and the Illinois State Rifle Association have issued alerts for their members and supporters on Sen. Morrison’s move to gut state preemption.

From Illinois Carry:

Currently, the Firearm Concealed Carry Act and FOID Act concerning concealed carry and transportation of firearms is the same throughout the entire state. On May 5, 2015, Senator Julie Morrison filed SB2130 Firearm Owners ID – Assault Weapons, a bill proposing to eliminate preemption of local ordinance related to modern sporting firearms and their accessories. Preemption was included as agreed language when the Firearm Concealed Carry Act was passed and, at the time, allowed ample opportunity for home rule municipalities desiring local regulation to enact such ordinances.

Eliminating preemption now would open the door to an ever growing patchwork of ordinances, making it nearly impossible for law abiding citizens to understand the legal status of their firearms when moving from place to place, and could turn legal firearms into illegal firearms in the blink of an eye.

This late in the session we do not get the same advance notice of committee hearings, readings, etc.. Everything is ramped up to move fast, sometimes overnight or faster, so instead of waiting for notice to file witness slips, it’s time to go directly to your legislators and voice your position. Please contact Senator Morrison immediately and express your concern about her bill interfering with your rights as a law abiding firearm owner.

Senator Morrison can be reached at:

(217) 782-3650
(847) 945-5200


Please contact your own State Senator to voice your opposition to SB2130.

Telephone numbers and email addresses can be found at this link.

I will add the Illinois State Rifle Association alert at a later time as I don’t have access to it at work.

UPDATE: Here is the alert from ISRA.




Anti-gun extremist State Senator Julie Morrison (D-Deerfield) has introduced a dangerous gun control bill that would ban the possession of most of the guns you now own. If passed, SB 2130 would allow city councils and village boards to decide which firearms you would be allowed to own – and you know what that means.

Many insiders believe that SB 2130 is the gun control movement’s first stab at legislation that would allow city councils and village boards regulate concealed carry at the local level – and you know what that means too.


The gun-grabbers have tipped their hand. They are planning a full-out assault on your gun rights in the closing days of the spring legislative session.


1. Call State Senator Julie Morrison at (217) 782-3650 and politely tell the person that answers the phone that you are a law-abiding firearm owner and that you oppose Julie Morrison’s efforts to crush your gun rights. You should also call Senator Morrison’s district office at (847) 945-5200 to deliver that same message.

2. Call your state senator and politely tell him or her that you are a law-abiding firearm owner and that you do not appreciate Sen. Morrison’s efforts to restrict your rights. Politely ask your senator to vote against SB 2130. If you do not know who your senator is, or if you do not know how to get in touch with your senator, then click this link: Find Your Senator.

3. Please post this alert to any and all Internet blogs, bulletin boards or social media sites to which you belong.

4. Pass this alert on to your friend and family and ask them to make phone calls as well.


Defense Distributed, SAF Sue John Kerry And The State Department

Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation have joined forces to sue the State Department on First, Second, and Fifth Amendment grounds. They contend the the State Department through its Directorate of Defense Trade Controls misused ITAR regulations to force Defense Distributed to take down its files for the Liberator pistol among other items. The State Department’s Office of Legal Counsel as far back as 1978 had said that the use of ITAR to impose prior restraint on “privately generated unclassified information in the public domain” violated the First Amendment.

The big guns are being brought to bear on this fight. Lead counsel is Alan Gura. The legal team also includes Prof. Josh Blackman of South Texas College of Law who has published on this topic in the Tennessee Law Review and attorneys from the global intellectual property firm of Fish & Richardson (no relation!). Fish & Richardson just happens to be the top intellectual property firm in the United States by all rankings.

The complaint can be  found here.

The Second Amendment Foundation has more on the lawsuit below:

SAF Sues Feds Over Censorship Of 3-D Firearms Printing Information

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today joined Defense Distributed of Austin, Texas, in filing a federal lawsuit against Secretary of State John Kerry, the Department of State and other federal officials, seeking to stop the Government’s unconstitutional censorship of information related to the three-dimensional printing of arms.

The Government’s restraint against the publication of this critical information, under the guise of controlling arms exports, violates the First Amendment right to free speech, the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and the Fifth Amendment right to due process, the lawsuit alleges.

SAF and Defense Distributed seek to publish 3-D printing information at no cost to the public. Constitutional attorney Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky leads the litigation team, which also includes William “Tommy” Jacks, Bill Mateja, and David Morris of Fish & Richardson; export control counsel Matthew Goldstein, and constitutional law Professor Josh Blackman.

“Americans have always been free to exchange information about firearms and manufacture their own arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We also have an expectation that any speech regulations be spelled out clearly, and that individuals be provided basic procedural protections if their government claims a power to silence them.”

The lawsuit asserts the defendants are unlawfully applying International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to prevent the plaintiffs from exercising in free speech on the Internet and other forums. ITAR “requires advance government authorization to export technical data,” the complaint asserts. There are criminal and civil penalties for violations, ranging up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million per violation.

Defense Distributed generated technical information on various gun-related items, which it published on the Internet. But it removed all the files from its servers upon being warned that it “may have released ITAR-controlled technical data without the required prior authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a violation of the ITAR.” In June 2013, Defense Distributed submitted various published files to DDTC for review of a machine called the “Ghost Gunner.” In April, DDTC said the machine does not fall under ITAR, but that software and files are subject to State Department jurisdiction.

“Defense Distributed appears to be caught in what seems to be a bureaucratic game of merry-go-round,” Gottlieb said. “The right to keep and bear arms includes the ability to acquire or create arms. The government is engaging in behavior that denies the company due process under the Fifth Amendment. We’re compelled to file this action because the bureaucracy is evidently playing games and it’s time for these agencies to behave.”

Just think, if Hillary Clinton had hung around a little longer at the State Department, the suit could have been titled Defense Distributed et al v. Hillary Clinton et al!

UPDATE: This case has caught the attention of the New York Times and Wired. I’m not surprised by Wired but the Times is a bit surprising. They note that Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed have a “high-powered legal team” and quote another First Amendment expert as saying this lawsuit is “not frivolous”. Hmm.

Sebastian also has some more on the case here.

An Excellent Proposal

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) represents the 3rd District of Alabama. Within that district sits the Anniston Army Depot, the CMP-South sales and administrative operations, and the new CMP Talladega Marksmanship Park. Given that parts of Ft. Benning and Maxwell-Gunter AFB are also in his district, it is not surprising Rep. Rogers sits on the House Armed Services Committee. He is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces and is a member of the Readiness Subcommittee which handles much of defense budget.

Rep. Rogers has come up with a budget saving idea that warms my heart. Currently, the Department of Defense spends about $200,000 annually to store approximately 90,000 M1911A1 pistols. Rogers is proposing that these pistols be transferred to the CMP and offered for sale. He made an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2016 on this proposal and it was passed.

“As a gun owner and strong believer in the Second Amendment, my proposal is a common-sense approach to eliminating an unnecessary cost to the Federal government while allowing the very capable CMP to handle the sale of these vintage firearms that otherwise would just sit in storage. This amendment is a win – win for the taxpayer. I was pleased the amendment passed the committee and appreciate the support my colleagues on this proposal,” Rogers said.

Currently, the Army stores excess M1911A1 pistols, which used to be the standard U.S. Armed Forces sidearm, until it was replace by the Berretta 9mm pistol. Besides the 8,300 pistols that have been sold to law enforcement and transferred to foreign countries for a small price, the rest of the M1911A1 pistols are now being held in storage costing the taxpayer around $200,000 a year.

Transferring these vintage pistols to the CMP would allow them to inspect, grade, prepare for sale and sell these pistols. The CMP would reimburse the Army for costs associated with transferring the pistols. CMP South, headquartered in Anniston, Alabama, oversees sales. CMP North is headquartered in Camp Perry, Ohio.

 WTVM 13 in Birmingham has more on the story here.

I agree with the congressman that this is a win-win. Now I need to rejoin a CMP-affiliated club and get on their approved rolls in order to purchase one of these (and perhaps a Garand or two).

Bloomberg’s Minions Win In Oregon

With apologies to all my good friends in California, Oregon, and Washington State but the Pacific Coast is not also called the Sinister Coast for nothing. Yesterday, the Oregon House of Representatives voted 32 to 28 to concur on SB 941. This follows the 17-13 vote on April 14th by the Oregon Senate to pass the bill.

Governor Kate Brown (D-OR) indicated through her spokesperson that she would be signing the bill. According to The Oregonian, she is a gun control supporter of long standing. Brown assumed the Oregon governorship when ex-Gov. John Kitzhaber (D-OR) resigned the office under a cloud of scandal. 

Senate Bill 941, according to its summary, would:

Requires private person to complete transfer of firearm by appearing with transferee before gun
dealer to request criminal background check or shipping or delivering firearm to gun dealer in
certain circumstances. Specifies exceptions for family members, law enforcement, inherited
firearms and certain temporary transfers. Punishes violation by maximum of one year’s
imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both, or maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment, $250,000 fine, or both, for
second or subsequent offense.

[Requires] Authorizes Department of State Police to notify [local] appropriate law enforcement
agency when, during criminal background check performed prior to transfer of firearm, department
determines that recipient is prohibited from possessing firearm.

Authorizes court to prohibit person ordered to participate in assisted outpatient treatment from
purchasing or possessing firearm during period of treatment if certain criteria are met.

Declares emergency, effective on passage.

Unlike the I-594 which passed in Washington State, SB 941 is a bit more clear about what is a transfer and what isn’t. The bill says a transfer is a sale, gift, loan, or lease of a firearm with certain exceptions made for “temporary transfers”.  Among the exceptions are when at a range whether for just target practice or a class; when hunting; when sent to a gunsmith or someone who customizes firearms; and when loaned to prevent “imminent death or serious physical injury” but only as long as needed to prevent death or injury. I will say that last exception is a bit vague. How do you determine when the threat begins or ends?

The vote for this bill was along party lines. In the Senate, 17 out of 18 Democrats voted for the bill while all 12 Republicans plus St. Sen. Betsy Johnson (D-Scappoose) voted no. Meanwhile in the House, 32 out of 35 Democrats voted for the the bill while all 25 Republicans voted no along with Democrat Representatives Jeff Barker (D-Aloha), Caddy McKeown (D-Coos Bay), and Brad Witt (D-Clatskanie).

Excuse this tangent but what I found so striking about both houses of the Oregon Legislature is that they are so overwhelmingly white. I don’t mean just predominantly white – I mean lily white or, as Procol Harum sang, a whiter shade of pale. The only minority in the State Senate is a Republican woman – Sen. Jackie Winters (R-Salem). In the House, it is barely better. Rep. Lew Frederick (D-Portland) is the only African-American while Representatives Jessica Vega Pederson (D-Portland) and Joe Gallegos (D-Hillsboro) appear to be the only Hispanics in the legislature. According to US Census figures, Oregon is 77.5% white, 2% black, 4% Asian, and 12% Hispanic which includes “white Hispanics”.

If Oregon was either a Southern or conservative state or both, the Justice Department under both Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch would have been all over them demanding answers. Since it isn’t, all is well.

Back on topic, I think the politicians who voted to preserve the Second Amendment rights of Oregonians should be recognized.

In the Senate: Senators Baertschiger, Boquist, Ferrioli, Girod,Hansell, Johnson, Knopp, Kruse, Olsen, Thatcher, Thomsen, Whitsett, and Winters.

In the House: Representatives McLane, Barker, Barreto, Bentz, Buehler, Davis, Esquivel, Gilliam, Hack, Hayden, Heard, Huffman, Johnson, Kennemer, Krieger, McKeown, Nearman, Olson, Parrish, Post, Smith, Sprenger, Stark, Weidner, Whisnant, Whitsett, Wilson, and Witt.

 (The Democrats are in italic)

A Couple Of Tidbits From Ruger’s Quarterly Report

After the close of the stock market yesteday, Sturm, Ruger & Co. released their quarterly earnings report. Below are a couple of tidbits that I gleaned from it which I thought were interesting.

  • In the first quarter of 2015, net sales and the estimated sell-through of the Company’s products
    from the independent distributors to retailers increased 12% and 15%, respectively, from the
    fourth quarter of 2014. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System background
    checks (as adjusted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation) decreased 15% during the
    same period.

  • New products, including the AR-556 modern sporting rifle and the LC9s pistol, represented
    $22.8 million or 17% of firearm sales in the first quarter of 2015. New product sales include
    only major new products that were introduced in the past two years.

It looks like Ruger has done well even if the market has contracted somewhat. It would be interesting to know how much of the new sales were attributable to the AR-556 and how much to the LC9s. With the market demands for ARs cooling somewhat if prices are any indication, I’m guessing the LC9s represented more than 50% of the $22.8 million in sales.

Ruger holds it annual shareholder’s meeting this morning. It is being webcast and you can see it at this link.