Month: January 2018

Uncategorized

Brian Aitken Pardoned….Finally

January 15, 2018 by 3 Comments

In one of the last acts before he leaves office on Tuesday, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) issued a long overdue pardon to Brian Aitken. The pardon issued on Friday pardoned Brian for possessing hollow-point bullets and simple assault. His earlier conviction for illegally carrying firearms was overturned by an appeals court who found that he was indeed, as he always claimed, moving to a new residence.

From the Courier Post:

Aitken, a businessman whose seven-year prison term previously was commuted by Christie, said he was “so happy to finally put this chapter behind me.”

“Thank you to everyone who has stuck with me over the years,” Aitken said in a Facebook post. “I can’t thank Gov. Chris Christie enough.”

Aitken was arrested in January 2009 when a Mount Laurel police officer found three unloaded guns in his car. Aitken had purchased the guns legally in Colorado, but lacked a permit to carry them in New Jersey.

Aitken served almost four months in a state prison for unlawful possession of a weapon and other offenses before Christie commuted his sentence in December 2010.

 We interviewed Brian on the Polite Society Podcast after the release of his book on the arrest, court battle, and sentencing to prison. His book, The Blue Tent Sky: How the Left’s War on Guns Cost Me My Son and My Freedom, is available on Amazon. I’ve read the book and it would be $1.99 well spent for the Kindle version to fully comprehend the war on gun owners in New Jersey.

Brian issued this note of thanks on his Facebook page:

Thank you everyone who has stuck with me over the years. I’m so happy to finally put this chapter behind me. Tuesday will be a sad day for the State of New Jersey but today is an incredibly happy day at the Aitken household. I can’t thank Governor Chris Christie enough. I’m sure there’s more to say but it’s all still a bit surreal. I just wanted to make sure you guys heard it from me first.

Since he had his sentence commuted by Gov. Christie, Brian wrote his book, got married, started a business, and had a daughter. However, unless I’m mistaken, I still don’t think he has visitation rights with his son from his earlier marriage which is incredibly sad.

You can see more about the Brian Aitken miscarriage of justice in this video by NRA News and in his talk with the Cato Institute.

I’m glad that Brian has his full life back now and I’ve both happy and amazed that Chris Christie did the right thing in pardoning Brian.

Uncategorized

Twitter Factoid Of The Day

January 11, 2018 by 1 Comment

John Tyler was born in 1790. He was both the 10th President and 10th Vice President of the United States. He served from 1841 until 1845 after assuming office on the death of President William Henry “Old Tippercanoe” Harrison.

Here’s where it get incredibly interesting. His grandsons Lyon Gardiner Tyler Jr. and Harrison Ruffin Tyler, the children of his son Lyon, are still alive. Lyon was born in 1924 and Harrison was born in 1928. Their father Lyon was born in 1853 to Tyler’s second wife Julia Gardiner (1820-1889).

As Matt Smethurst joked in a follow-on tweet:

Another way to think about this: There are people who could look at you today, in 2018, and say: “Yeah, my dad was 8 years old when the war started.”


“World War 2?”


“Ha, nope.”


“Oh wow, World War 1?”


“The Civil War.”

Think of it – you have three generations of one family spanning parts of four centuries. That is just incredible.

Uncategorized

Which Is Faster – Old School Remington 870 Or New Remington 870 DM?

January 11, 2018 by

In an amusing – and incredibly well edited video – photographer Yamil Sued compares which Remington shotgun is faster in sending 10 rounds down range – the 870 or the new box mag-fed 870 DM.

Obviously, the Remington 870 DM is quicker to reload for the average person. However, if you look at the video, the old school Remington 870 is quicker to get off the first five shots. I wonder what the difference would have been if Yamil had used one of those loading devices for use in 3-gun competition.

Uncategorized

50 Female Gun Owners Set Sights on Washington DC

January 11, 2018 by

The DC Project started by retired police officer and 3-Gun champion shooter Dianna Muller will once again descend on Congress this June. Composed of women from each of the 50 states (or darn close to it), they visit Congressional offices promoting a pro-Second Amendment message.

While they have some sponsorships, they are seeking funding through a GoFundMe page. Their goal is to raise $25,000 and they could use your support in their efforts.

The Girl and A Gun Women’s Shooting League is a presenting sponsor. Their announcement on the event is below:

AUSTIN, TX — Women from around the country are preparing to travel to the U.S. Capitol as part of the DC Project, a nonpartisan initiative that brings 50 women, one from each state, to Washington, DC, to meet with their legislators about issues addressing the Second Amendment. The women, who will be meeting with Congressional members and staff from June 20-23, 2018, have diverse professional experiences, ethnicity, and political beliefs, but share a common interest centered on the appreciation of America’s gun culture.

The DC Project was started by champion shooter Dianna Muller in 2016 to encourage female shooters to meet with legislators in order to give politicians a direct connection to the fastest growing demographic of gun owners. Females provide unique stories and perspectives on the attraction of the 2nd Amendment, including competition shooting sports, commerce, self-defense, hunting, and conservation.

“The Second Amendment is part of the United States Constitution and does not belong to one party,” said Muller. “Female gun owners are diverse, and have individualized stories and accounts of why this Amendment is so important to them. These stories need to be shared as they are representative of many within legislators’ constituencies.”

A Girl & A Gun Women’s Shooting League (AG & AG) is the presenting sponsor of the DC Project. With a nationwide network of firearms instructors and female gun owners, AG & AG is a strong voice for the Second Amendment. Robyn Sandoval, Executive Director, is making her third trip with the DC Project to meet with lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“A Girl & A Gun is honored to be a part of this initiative. As a mother who was a supporter of gun control for decades, I now devote my life to empowering women with the safe use and storage of firearms,” said Sandoval. “It is important that our lawmakers learn our stories and have access to our resources for education on gun-related issues.”

The DC Project will host several events during the week as participants give speeches and meet with lawmakers to address the rising demographic of female gun ownership; the value of the 2nd Amendment in today’s society; and the importance of the preservation of America’s gun culture, from conservation and commerce to competitive sports, hunting, and self-defense.

For more information on the DC Project visit: http://dcproject.info

About A Girl & A Gun

A Girl & A Gun Women’s Shooting League (AG & AG) is a membership organization whose events have been successful stepping stones for thousands of women into the shooting community and fostered their love of shooting with caring and qualified instructors to coach them. AG & AG breaks barriers for women and girls in the area of self-defense and in pistol, rifle, and shotgun shooting sports by welcoming beginners to learn the basics of safe and accurate shooting and providing experienced shooters with advanced-level opportunities. The club has more than 5,000 members in 48 states, with chapters that host recurring Girl’s Nights Out at more than 150 ranges throughout the nation.

Uncategorized

Gun Store Zoning Case Appealed To The Supreme Court

January 10, 2018 by

Alameda County, California includes cities such as Oakland, Pleasanton, and Berkeley. It also plays fast and loose with its zoning laws and how they interpret distances. John Teixeira and some associates wanted to open a gun store in an unincorporated area of Alameda County back in 2012. The zoning law there forbids gun stores within 500 feet of a residence, school, or liquor store. Teixeira met those requirements and was given a conditional use permit and variance from his local zoning board of adjustment. Then the Alameda County Board of Supervisors decided to change how distance was measured for zoning purposes. Thus, a survey of all empty lots showed that Teixeira could not meet the “new and improved” standards anywhere in the unincorporated areas of the county.

What the county did was institute a variant of “redlining”. In this case it was used to ban gun stores. In the past it was used to make sure that blacks and other minorities were restricted to living in certain areas. Both are a violation of civil rights.

Given this, Mr. Teixeira sued and was joined in his suit by the Second Amendment Foundation, the California Association of Federal Firearm Licensees, and the Calguns Foundation along with two other individual plaintiffs. The case was lost in US District Court but was initially a win before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. I’m sure you can guess the rest of the story. The anti-gun judges of the 9th Circuit forced it into an en banc hearing in which they agreed with the District Court and negated the win.

Yesterday the plaintiffs in the case filed an appeal with the US Supreme Court asking for a writ of certiorari. The attorneys on the case are Don Kilmer and Alan Gura. The brief can be found here.

The plaintiffs issued the following statement of the appeal:

Supreme Court Asked to Review Alameda County Gun Store Ban

WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 9, 2018)­­­­­­ – Attorneys for three civil rights advocacy organizations and three individuals have filed a petition seeking United State Supreme Court review of a controversial 2017 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld an Alameda County, California law effectively banning gun stores within the unincorporated area of the county. A copy of the petition (and other case documents) can be viewed at https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/teixeira.

The lawsuit, first filed in 2012, challenged a county ordinance that prohibits gun stores from being located within 500 feet of places that include residentially zoned districts. But, according to a scientific study conducted by the plaintiffs that included a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) evaluation of all parcels in Alameda County, there are no lots within the unincorporated county that meet the ordinance’s 500-foot-rule requirements.

On appeal, the plaintiffs won before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. But that opinion was vacated and reversed following an en banc rehearing before the full appeals court. Now the case is being appealed to the nation’s highest court.

“You simply cannot allow local governments to ignore the Second Amendment because they don’t like how the Supreme Court has ruled on the amendment twice in the past ten years,” noted Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “You shouldn’t be able to zone the Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights.”

“Local neighbors who live eight lanes across an interstate and the anti-rights politicians that cater to them can’t redline gun stores and the right to buy arms out of existence,” noted The Calguns Foundation’s Chairman, Gene Hoffman. “Since this case was filed multiple local city and county governments have used unconstitutional zoning laws to stop new gun stores from opening and close down existing gun stores. If this was a book store or an abortion clinic, the Ninth Circuit would not have hesitated in striking this zoning regulation unanimously.”

“The Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment was not a second-class right, but lower courts are ignoring that and holding otherwise—and so far, they’ve been getting away with it. We hope this case gets individual liberty back on track,” added California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees’ founder and Executive Vice President Brandon Combs.

“The federal courts exist, in part, to protect fundamental rights that might not be popular in certain jurisdictions,” noted California attorney Don Kilmer, who represents the plaintiffs. “Today, in the Ninth Circuit, those are gun rights. Tomorrow, who knows? One question presented by this case is whether our rights are subject to only one Constitution, or do those rights change from state to state?”

Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is joined in the case by California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL), The Calguns Foundation (CGF), and three businessmen, John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga, and Gary Gamaza. They are represented by Virginia attorney Alan Gura and California attorney Don Kilmer.

Uncategorized

The Sky Is Not Falling For Gun Sales

January 8, 2018 by 1 Comment

Gun sales in 2012, 2015, and 2016 were so high as to be outside the norm. They were at least one, if not two, standard deviations from the long term average. We know much of the difference was driven by outside events such as the Newtown murders and the widely-assumed probability that Hillary Clinton would succeed Obama as president. What we are seeing in 2017 is a return to the norm but at a higher level.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation just released their adjusted-NICS figure for December 2017. The figure of 1.6 million NICS checks was down 12% from the prior year. That said, it still was the 5th highest December for the adjusted NICS checks on record.

Elsewhere, I’ve read that 2017 was the fourth highest year on record for gun sales as measured by the NSSF adjusted NICS checks. In terms of unadjusted NICS checks, it was the second highest year on record after 2016.

It is important to remember that NICS checks in and of themselves do not have a one-to-one correlation with gun sales. There can be more than one firearm on a single Form 4473. Likewise, carry permits from states like North Carolina and Texas substitute for NICS checks. Finally, many states use the NICS system for their original and continuing checks on those that they’ve issued carry permits.

I will be heading to the SHOT Show which begins in two weeks. I will be reporting regularly on what I’m seeing and what I’m hearing. I am particularly interested in the tenor of conversations I have with dealers.

Uncategorized

Rhodesian FAL

January 8, 2018 by

I’ve read a number of books on the Bush War in Rhodesia over the years and have seen (online) a number of parts kits built FALs. However, the FAL that Larry Vickers and Ian McCollum examine in the video below is an actual Rhodesian Army FAL right down to the ground-off South African markings.

In another video just released by Larry himself, you can see him shooting this Rhodesian FAL in both semi-auto and full-auto mode.

Not to get all political but one wonders what the former Rhodesia or Zimbabwe as it is called today would be like if it had not been caught up in both post-Colonialism and the Cold War. If Harold Wilson and the Labour Party had not been in power in the UK in 1965, would Ian Smith and the Rhodesians have felt compelled to declare independence unilaterally? Ah, the what-ifs abound.

Uncategorized

Reclassification Of Bump Stocks By BATFE – Comments Due By January 25th

January 7, 2018 by 3 Comments

As many already know, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives anticipates opening a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with regard to bump fire stocks to clarify whether or not they meet the definition of a machine gun under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Before they release any proposed rule, they are seeking comments from manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. These must be received by midnight EST on January 25, 2018.

The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with the questions to be answered is here. All comments must include this identification number – 2017R-22. Comments can be submitted online, by fax, or by US Mail. So far, 2,309 comments have been received. Here is the link to submit them online. It also allows you to upload a document.

These are the questions that they have for consumers:

Consumers

21. In your experience, where have you seen these devices for sale and which of these has been the most common outlet from which consumers have purchased these devices (e.g., brick and mortar retail stores; online vendors; gun shows or similar events; or private sales between individuals)?

22. Based on your experience or observations, what is (or has been) the price range for these devices?

23. For what purposes are the bump stock devices used or advertised?

 Gun law attorney Adam Kraut had these suggestions for responding to the ANPRM. Adam has more on the notice here.

Comments vary in form, length, and specificity. However, there are some things that a person submitting a comment will want to consider. Specificity is key. Providing a basis for the support or opposition to a proposed rule is crucial. Citing to studies or other evidence-based information is useful to show the agency why or why not a proposed rule is useful. In the instance of an ANPRM, responding to the specific questions posed by the agency is a particularly good strategy (not to say a commenter could not and should not go broader in their response). Regulations.gov has some more tips.

As important as comment “dos” are, there is one comment “don’t” that should be avoided: the Form Letter. As comment periods are not a measure of “popularity”, flooding the agency with form letters do not serve a useful purpose in the rulemaking process. A comment that is well reasoned is a much better avenue to pursue and not very difficult.

David Codrea has his take on the notice of rulemaking here.

The danger in this anticipated rulemaking is the same as it is with the proposed bills banning bump stocks before Congress:  where does it stop? With the Slidefire Bump Stock or will it go further to mean any modification that could increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm? Because of this, it is important that we comment.

While it might feel good to tell the BATFE to just f*#k off, go away, and mind the letter of the law, that will get us nowhere. It will be expressly ignored as it includes profanity. I think Adam’s approach to address some part of the questions asked is a good one. These cannot be ignored as readily. I think the key thing is to kill the attempt to issue a rule before it gets off the ground. That is better than having to respond to an actual proposed rule which is more likely to be adopted.

Uncategorized

Industry News: Cor-Bon Ammo Sold

January 4, 2018 by

According to a Farnam’s Quips post yesterday, Cor-Bon Ammunition of Sturgis, SD has been sold to a new ownership group. Founder and CEO Peter Pi and his family will no longer be affiliated with the company.

Cor-Bon ammunition has been a family-owned company since its inception. The only CEO the company ever had was Peter Pi, my good friend and colleague. I was just on the phone with him yesterday.

At the end of 2017, Cor-Bon was sold to new owners. The Pi family is no longer involved!

I don’t know any of the details of the sale, and I know nothing about the new owners other than that they are new to the ammunition industry. I’m looking forward to meeting them at the SHOT Show later this month.

Right now, nothing is being produced at the Cor-Bon factory in Sturgis, SD, and no one can tell me when production will be resumed, nor what products will be retained and what will be dropped.

John Farnam goes on to report that Peter Pi’s oldest son Peter is starting his own ammunition company called Defiant Munitions. They expect to be shipping by mid-year 2018.

I’ve never used Cor-Bon ammo but it has always had great recommendations from people I know and trust like Marty Hayes and Michael Bane.

Uncategorized

Injunction Sought Against California Assault Weapons Law

January 4, 2018 by

The attorneys for five individual plaintiffs and four institutional plaintiffs (SAF, Calguns, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Firearms Policy Foundation) filed for an injunction today in the case of Holt et al v. Becerra. The case is filed in California Superior Court for Riverside County. The filings today also added another individual plaintiff – Craig Stevens. SFC Stevens is an active duty member of the California Army National Guard and is currently deployed to the Middle East.

The joint press release on the filing is below:

RIVERSIDE, CA (January 3, 2018) — Attorneys for 5 California gun owners and 4 civil rights advocacy organizations have filed for an injunction against the state’s Department of Justice regulations on so-called “assault weapons.”

In the request for an injunction, the plaintiffs argue that “they, and many others similarly situated, will suffer irreparable injury if they are forced to comply with the registration requirement in accordance with the Challenged Regulations by the statutory deadline of June 30, 2018. In essence, they and many others would either be illegally forced to register or illegally denied the ability to register their firearms.”

Also filed was an amendment to the case, adding Craig Stevens as an individual plaintiff suing over the regulations. According to the filing, Stevens is “currently an active-duty member of the California Army National Guard, having the rank of Sergeant First Class (SFC), and is currently and as of December 23, 2017, deployed overseas to the Middle East.”

Stevens has tried multiple times to comply with the DOJ regulations on “assault weapons,” but the DOJ rejected his application even though there was no legal basis for them to deny him the registration of his firearm. “The declaratory and injunctive relief, and/or mandamus relief, sought in this action are necessary as set forth herein, to vindicate his right (and obligation), and the rights (and obligations) of others similarly situated, to register this legally-owned firearm as the only available means by which to maintain lawful possession of such firearms according to the DOJ’s regulatory scheme,” the court filing says.

About the new filings, plaintiffs’ attorney George M. Lee explained, “As we show in our motion for an injunction, the State’s regulatory and enforcement scheme was designed and functions to separate law-abiding people from their rights, property, and statutory obligations. We seek in this case to make DOJ follow the same laws they impose on others – and protect law-abiding gun owners in the process.”

Raymond DiGuiseppe, co-counsel and former California deputy attorney general, agreed. “The Department of Justice has grossly exceeded their authority and is illegally imposing its will on thousands of California gun owners. Their regulations and actions undermine the rule of law and put potentially hundreds of thousands of people at risk for serious criminal liability. We look forward to resolving these issues as quickly as possible and protecting California’s law-abiding gun owners from this regulatory overreach.”

Named as defendants are California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Chief of the DOJ Bureau of Firearms Stephen Lindley, the California Department of Justice itself, Director of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) Debra Cornez, and State Controller Betty Yee.

The lawsuit is backed by The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF).

A copy of the complaint and petition for writ of mandate can be viewed or downloaded at http://bit.ly/holt-v-becerra.

CASE BACKGROUND:

In July 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a number of new gun control bills into law, including two (SB 880, Hall; AB 1135, Levine) expanding the State’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The bills were universally opposed by civil rights advocacy groups including Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of California, the National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and others.

“The Legislature ignored every rule in the book to fast-track their civilian disarmament agenda and herd the people into a state-wide gun-free-zone,” said FPC Spokesperson Craig DeLuz in a statement at the time.

Following that, in December 2016, the California DOJ submitted its first attempt at “assault weapons” regulations under the OAL’s “File & Print” process, which means that the DOJ claimed the regulations were not subject to the public notice or comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

However, the DOJ withdrew the regulations near the end of OAL review period, after receiving thousands of opposition letters from FPC members and Second Amendment supporters.

Then, in May of last year, the DOJ re-submitted regulations under the same “File & Print” process. FPC, FPF, CGF, and Craig DeLuz sued the DOJ over the Department’s actions of blocking access to the public records concerning its promulgation of these regulations. The regulations were completely rejected by OAL a little more than a month later.

Next, the DOJ submitted a virtually-identical set of regulations under the “File & Print” process, again claiming “APA-exempt” status. Inexplicably, this time the OAL approved the regulations, shuttling them along for publication through the Secretary of State in July 2017 and thus allowing the DOJ to proceed with its new “assault weapon” regulatory process.

Then, just before closing doors for the Thanksgiving 2017 holiday, the DOJ notified FPC and other Institutional Plaintiffs that it had filed yet another proposed rulemaking on “bullet-button assault weapons” (that would create new 11 CCR § 5460) for the purpose of attempting to retroactively bootstrap its prior July regulations into effect for all purposes including criminal prosecutions.

FPC published the new proposed regulations and prior regulatory updates at BulletButtonBan.com, a Web site it established in 2016 for tracking the new California assault weapon laws and regulations. Members of the public can use FPC’s Grassroots Action Tools to submit responsive written comments to DOJ regarding the new proposed regulations.

A public hearing on the new regulations is scheduled for 10 a.m. on January 8, 2018, at the Resources Building Auditorium in Sacramento.

ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS:

Plaintiffs George Holt, Irvin Hoff, Michael Louie, Rick Russell, and Craig Stevens are all law-abiding, tax-paying residents of California who lawfully own firearms potentially subject to the DOJ’s illegal regulatory scheme. This scheme would retroactively deem their firearms “assault weapons” that either must now be registered as such through a burdensome and wasteful registration process or that cannot be registered all, effectively rendering any continued possession unlawful. The DOJ’s regulations expose them to criminal liability that would not otherwise exist under the actual laws regulating firearms in California.

The plaintiffs have joined this lawsuit to stand against the illegal regulatory actions of the DOJ and protect their rights and the rights of countless other law-abiding California gun owners being placed in jeopardy.

ABOUT THE ORGANIZATIONS:

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, through advocacy, legal action, education, and outreach.

Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.