Ben Franklin Was Correct

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Benjamin Franklin, January 1775

This is a lesson that the Attorneys General from 20 states and the District of Columbia and US District Court Judge Robert Lasnik don’t seem to understand. Today Judge Lasnik extended his temporary restraining order preventing Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Conn Williamson from distributing the 3-D printing and CNC files. The original order was due to expire tomorrow but now will go until the case is settled.

The fact that these files are and have been freely available from other sources on the Internet seems to have been ignored. The website CodeIsFreeSpeech is still up and running and has all of these files.

Judge Lasnik somewhat acknowledged that this is a First Amendment case.

Lasnik said the states have submitted sufficient evidence that they are likely to suffer “irreparable harm” if the blueprints are published. The judge also said Defense Distributed’s First Amendment concerns were “dwarfed” by the states’ safety considerations.

Dwarfed? Really? The so-called safety considerations put forth totally ignore the facts surrounding the 3-D printing of the Liberator pistol. What this case is really about is the gun control lobby and their political allies realizing that 3-D printing along with low-cost CNC machines is the death knell for gun control and they don’t like it.

Stephen Gutowski at the Free Beacon has more on his ruling:

Lasnik said in his ruling he “presumes that the private defendants have a First Amendment right to disseminate the CAD files.” However, he viewed the restrictions on the right to be acceptable.

“That right is currently abridged, but it has not been abrogated,” Lasnik wrote in his ruling.

Lasnik’s wording appears to run counter to the First Amendment’s explicit protection against “abridging the freedom of speech.”

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” the First Amendment reads.

Lasnik said being forbidden from publishing gun designs on the internet didn’t mean Wilson’s free speech rights had been abrogated because Wilson was free to share the designs by other means—such as by mail or other forms of publishing.

“Regulation under the AECA means that the files cannot be uploaded to the internet, but they can be emailed, mailed, securely transmitted, or otherwise published within the United States,” Lasnik wrote. “The Court finds that the irreparable burdens on the private defendants’ First Amendment rights are dwarfed by the irreparable harms the States are likely to suffer if the existing restrictions are withdrawn and that, overall, the public interest strongly supports maintaining the status quo through the pendency of this litigation.”

Cody Wilson actually says he is elated by the decision and plans to take it to the next level. He also referred to it as “clownish” and an “intentional insult”.

“The order is a manifest injustice and literally admits to being an abridgment of the freedom of speech,”

I think it is time to see if the 9th Circuit believes more in freedom of speech or in being gun prohibitionists.

ACLU Finally Stepping Up In NY And California

The state branches of the American Civil Liberties Union in New York and California appear to be stepping up to oppose measures aimed at the gun culture.

First, in California. The ACLU is joining with groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition to oppose AB 1968 which mandates a lifetime ban on firearm ownership by anyone who has been involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility more than once in one year.

In a letter to Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) who is the author of the bill, they said:

“This bill stigmatizes people with a history of mental health issues, and perpetuates the harmful and false stereotype that such people are inherently violent and dangerous.”

As AWR Hawkins notes in an article in Breitbart, the bill’s approach is essentially the same as that was used to deny Social Security recipients that needed help managing their monies. That is, it didn’t differentiate between non-violent and violent behavior and lumped them all together.

Duke University psychiatrist and behavior health professor Jeffrey Swanson had an op-ed in the Washington Post at the time criticizing this lumping together. He said then, ““the vast majority of mentally ill individuals pose no threat to themselves nor to others. Yet the ban stigmatized a broad swath of the mentally ill by treating them as a threat.

Now on to New York where the ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting the NRA in their lawsuit against Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY). To me, this is the more important of the two because the ACLU’s defense of the NRA rightly points out the danger of using the administrative state against any organization that is out of favor at the time with a politician. describes the efforts of the Cuomo administration to deny the NRA the ability to obtain banking and insurance coverages.

A timeline prepared by the NRA suggests the intimidation campaign began last fall. The anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety met with New York officials in September 2017; a month later the Department of Financial Services began an investigation that started with a company called Lockton, which administered the NRA-branded personal liability insurance program known as Carry Guard. Despite a 20-year relationship, Lockton responded by abruptly ditching the NRA as a customer in February; so did Chubb and Lloyd’s.

Emboldened by this initial success, Maria Vullo, head of the state’s Department of Financial Services, sent a pair of ominous letters to all banks, financial institutions, and insurers licensed to do business in New York. Vullo warned companies to sever ties with pro-Second Amendment groups that “promote guns and lead to senseless violence” and instead heed “the voices of the passionate, courageous, and articulate young people” calling for more restrictions on firearms. All companies receiving the letter, she advised, should “review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, and to take prompt actions to managing these risks and promote public health and safety.”

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo underlined the regulatory threat in a tweet the next day: “The NRA is an extremist organization. I urge companies in New York State to revisit any ties they have to the NRA and consider their reputations, and responsibility to the public.'”

As a result of those not-very-veiled threats, the NRA says, multiple banks withdrew bids to provide basic depository services. The NRA is also worried about being able to continue producing its NRA TV channel, with hosts including Dana Loesch and Cam Edwards, unless it can obtain normal media liability insurance.

David Cole, the ACLU Legal Director, explained in a blog post why they filed their amicus brief even though they still cling to a collective right view of the Second Amendment.

In the ACLU’s view, targeting a nonprofit advocacy group and seeking to deny it financial services because it promotes a lawful activity (the use of guns) violates the First Amendment. Because we believe the governor’s actions, as alleged, threaten the First Amendment rights of all advocacy organizations, the ACLU on Friday filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the NRA’s right to have its day in court.

His blog post points out that while it may be the NRA that is targeted today, it could be a liberal group that is being targeted tomorrow for “disapproved speech” and that violates the First Amendment.

The amicus brief opposes NY’s motion to dismiss the NRA’s case. Their argument centers on two major points. First, that the court must consider all circumstances to determine whether or not Cuomo and company threatened adverse actions against the NRA’s banks and insurers. In essence, it urges the court to look beyond the “wink-wink, nudge-nudge” wording of the press releases and guidance letters and look to the substance of what was being communicated. That is, if you do business with the NRA we will consider it a reputational risk and make it hard for you to do any business in New York State.

The second argument in the amicus brief is that Cuomo and the other defendants misstated the requirements for a First Amendment claim. The ACLU says the requirements to make a First Amendment claim are rather straightforward and the NRA met the standard. However, the defendants (Cuomo and company) have tried to add some “non-existent requirements on to the test.” The brief then takes these apart one after another and finds they have no merit. They conclude that the NRA’s lawsuit should not be dismissed and that the case should go forward.

While I don’t agree with the ACLU on a lot of things and certainly not their incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment, I do applaud their efforts in both California and New York State. It isn the latter case where I think they’ve really stepped up in their protection of constitutional rights.

Use Special Session Of NC Senate To Do Something On Gun Rights!

The North Carolina Senate is being forced back for a special session to deal with the wording of some the proposed constitutional amendments that will be on the ballot in November. One of the amendments to be voted on deals with making hunting and fishing constitutional rights under the NC Constitution. That’s nice but the reality is that Republicans in the State Senate think such an amendment will placate gun owners despite their sitting on a bill authorizing permitless concealed carry.

The Republican majority still think backing hunting is supporting the Second Amendment and gun rights. That might have been fine when all you had was Gun Culture v. 1.0 but we have moved to Gun Culture v. 2.0 and beyond.

Grass Roots North Carolina recognizes this and they also recognize that this special session is an opportunity for the Republicans to actually do something with regard to gun rights.


Thus far, the NC Senate has made 2018 a dud for gun-rights
voters, but there is an opportunity for redemption, and just in time for

For better or worse, a judge
effectively forced the NC Senate to convene a special session in order
to fine-tune the language in some of this November’s proposed
amendments.  This is great news for both gun owners and GOP senators.

Republicans Have Miscalculated

During this year’s regular session, NC Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger, Rules Chairman Bill Rabon, and other Senate
Republicans have completely ignored gun owners. Had they simply passed HB-746
(permitless concealed
carry), they would have lived up to their recurring campaign rhetoric,
as well as their party’s platform. Instead, they chose to punt, perhaps
to avoid an issue they perceived to be controversial. Unfortunately,
that’s not courageous and that’s certainly not leadership.
Disregarding pro-gun voters, who are basically the Republican
base, is ill advised preceding a mid-term election where majorities are
for grabs, and Republicans need every vote they can scrounge. With that
in mind, perhaps it’s fair to say that Senate leaders have

The Good News for Senate Republicans

By a serendipitous twist, NC senators now have a chance to redeem
themselves in the eyes of their base, and just in the nick of time.
With a special session convening this coming week, there is
no reason GOP leaders can’t give HB-746 a hearing, and make sure it
to the floor for an up or down vote
. This simple action would please the grass roots voter, while ensuring more freedom and a greater
level of safety for all North Carolina citizens.

Good News for Gun Voters

The good news for gun owners is that the NC Senate may
actually use this opportunity to show you, the gun-rights voter, that
haven’t forgotten you. They may actually do the right thing, even if
it’s only to court your vote in November. No matter the reason, the
right thing is still the right thing, and perhaps we should expect
Republican senators see it our way this coming week.

Encourage Senate Leaders

Of course, our public servants will
need some encouragement if they are to get this done
. Below, see how you can easily contact Senate leadership and urge them to grab this
opportunity and use it to impress their voting base, while making North Carolina both safer and freer. 


    : Find phone numbers below. Deliver the following phone message (if there is no answer, please leave a message or
    call back):

  • Hello,
    I am a pro-gun voter, and I am calling to express disappointment
    in this year’s short session, but also enthusiasm over the opportunity
    we have in this week’s special session. By using this session to
    pass HB-746, the permitless concealed carry bill,  Senate Republicans
    have a chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of their voting base, and
    just in the nick of time. This mid-term election will surely be
    precarious for Republicans, and with their recent snub of gun voters, I
    am not
    terribly excited about pulling the lever for them. I insist that HB-746
    be given a hearing and be brought to the floor for a vote. Make this
    happen or
    risk an unmotivated voting base in November. Thank you.


    Below, find copy/paste email
    list(s), along with a copy/paste email message you can use, which is provided under ‘Deliver This Message.’

Senate Leader Phil Berger:
(919) 733-5708

Senator Rules Chair Bill Rabon: (919) 733-5963

Find your GOP senator’s phone number (click on the ‘Senate’ tab, search by county, district,
or your voter registration):

NC Senate
Republicans copy/paste email *list(s)
:;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;

*Spam filters or email program limitations may cause the need to send more than one email, to cover the entire
list of representatives. If so, the list above is split into three pieces, for your convenience.


Suggested Subject: “Motivate Your Base: Pass HB-746

After a
disappointing short session, I am writing to express both enthusiasm and
hopefulness over an opportunity for Senate Republicans to redeem their
of gun-rights voters. This coming week’s special session presents a
golden opportunity for Senate Republicans to live up to their pro-gun
campaign language, and to satisfy the pro-Second Amendment principles
documented in the Republican Party platform.

Basically, pro-gun voters are the base of the Republican
Party. That is why it was so surprising to see Senate leadership ignore
this critical voting bloc leading up to a mid-term election, one that is
to be precarious for Republicans. Both polling and history tell us that
Republicans will need all the votes they can scrounge in 2018. With
on the line, new attention to HB-746 (permitless concealed carry) is the
sure path to motivating the base, and I demand that you pursue this
the coming week.

now, Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger, Rules Chairman Bill
Rabon, and other Republican leaders in the Senate, have let me down.
Frankly, I am
not excited about voting for increasingly unreliable and complacent
Republican candidates, and it’s fair to assume that many other voters
similarly hesitant. A substantive and long-overdue show of support for
gun rights, by passing HB-746 during this special session, would go a
long way
to shrink the chasm GOP senators have opened between themselves and
their voting base. More importantly, passing HB-746 would make North
Carolina both
safer and freer for all of its law-abiding citizens.

I insist that you do the right thing during
this special session. Do what it takes to give HB-746 a hearing and see
it is brought to the floor for an up or down vote. I will be monitoring
your actions on this matter through alerts from Grass Roots North


Quote On The Gun Culture

I just finished re-reading John Ross’ Unintended Consequences for the third or fourth time. I came across this quote about the gun culture that really hit home.

We have a specific culture. Guns and shooting are very important to us, just like living
as nomads and hunting buffalo was important to the Indians. We are willing to work hard and have the
government confiscate half our money and use it for things we never get any benefit out of, if only we can
continue to buy our guns and our ammo and our components, and shoot a lot.

“Our culture is important, and we’re willing to pay for it. We have above -average educations, above –
average incomes, and almost nonexistent criminal involvement. We pay far more in taxes and receive
virtually no subsidy payments. You’d think Washington would be happy, but instead they are doing
everything they can to destroy our culture.

“Thomas Fleming” – attorney friend of “Henry Bowman”, p. 480

The soliloquy goes on but this is the meat of it. The only amendment that I’d make to his statement is to expand it to include more than just Washington and the Federal government. I’d add in the anti-civil rights billionaires like Bloomberg, Allen, and Gates who are protected by armed guards, the organizations they support with their wealth, and all the state and local politicians that have bought into their scheme to keep honest, hard-working citizens disarmed.

Copies of Unintended Consequences are very expensive on Amazon. While there are unauthorized PDFs of the book to be found on the Internet, I suggest contacting the publisher Accurate Press to see if they still have the paperback version available.

Canadian Rangers Retire Lee Enfield

The Canadian Army has used the SMLE or Short Magazine Lee-Enfield rifle in .303 British since the Boer War. Until this last week, their volunteer Arctic-based Canadian Rangers were still using it. However, it has now been replaced by the Colt Canada C19 bolt action rifle which a modified Tikka T3 CTR built under license.

Canadian Rangers drilling with their Lee-Enfields

As to why the Rangers used the SMLE for so long, the National Post has this from an arms expert at the Canadian War Museum:

The Lee-Enfield’s powerful .303 cartridge was famous for killing enemy soldiers with one shot, and it’s equally good at stopping a charging polar bear.

Its wood stock makes it uniquely resistant to cracking or splitting in extreme cold. The rifle is also bolt-action, meaning that every shot must be manually pushed into place by the shooter. This makes for slower firing, but it also leaves the Lee-Enfield with as few moving parts as possible.

“The more complicated a rifle gets … the more prone you are to problems with parts breaking or jamming in a harsh environment,” said Eric Fernberg, an arms collection specialist at the Canadian War Museum.

“It might seem old-fashioned … (but) the retention of the Lee-Enfield by the Canadian Rangers was a wise choice for their role and environment.”

According to the Department of National Defence, the surplus rifles will be split between Army Cadets, museums, and the Rangers who wish to buy them.

The Lee Enfield Declaration of Surplus was approved by VCDS on January 21, 2015. Approximately 9,500 rifles will be transferred to the CAF Cadets, mostly as non-functional rifles, to complement their entitlement of drill and training rifles. Another 5,000 rifles approximately, will be offered to serving Canadian Rangers individuals as a donation/gift to preserve heritage. Up to 50 rifles will be offered to CAF affiliated museums and units as display artefacts.

I guess this means that few, if any, of these Enfields will be headed south of the border.

You can see the replacement C19 in the photo below. It will come with the Pelican case and has the Canadian Rangers shield on the laminated stock.

A Judge Who Believes The Rules Matter

It is refreshing to see a state judge who believes the rules matter when it comes to a voter initiative. Thurston County (Washington) Superior Court Judge James Dixon is that kind of judge.

This past Friday he threw out the 300,000 signatures collected on petitions on Initiative 1639 which would entail another round of gun control in Washington State.  Judge Dixon found that the print on the forms was too small to be read and that the petitions did not clearly state what would be the changes in the law. He ordered the Secretary of State’s office to stop certification of the ballot initiative.

Among the things the initiative would do is raise the age to purchase a modern semi-auto sporting weapon including .22 rifles to age 21, require a firearm safety training course, and mandate safe storage. The petition process was started by the Alliance for Gun Responsibility and funded primarily by high tech billionaires such as Paul Allen.

As you might expect, the Alliance for Gun Responsibility is appealing this to the Washington State Supreme Court. Moreover, as their CEOs comments make clear they are not happy campers.

“The right of Washingtonians to make changes to our laws via initiative has been part of our state’s history for more than 100 years and is fundamental to the Washington we know today,” (Renee) Hopkins said. “Today’s decision tossed out the signatures of more than 378,000 voters, and undermined the rights of the citizens of this state in favor of the interests of the gun lobby. It’s not right, and we will continue to fight.”

Actually, it was the Alliance for Gun Responsibility’s playing fast and loose with the established rules regarding the form and style of initiative petitions that undermined the petition and not anything the judge did. I guess they thought with all the money that they had the court would just roll over for them.

As you might expect, Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation who sued as a private citizen was very pleased with the result.

“A few billionaires donated millions of dollars to buy the signatures to get this fraudulent initiative on the ballot,” Gottlieb observed. “But they couldn’t buy the Court.”

“The initiative process has no place for deceit and deception,” Gottlieb said. “The so-called Alliance for Gun Responsibility acted totally irresponsible in circulating this initiative to the voters and it not only cost them millions of wasted dollars but their credibility as well.”

The NRA had also sued along with Alan Gottlieb and the ruling is in response to both lawsuits. Chris Cox of the NRA-ILA had this to say:

“The National Rifle Association is glad to see the court today recognized how negligent, if not worse, gun control advocates were in their signature-gathering for this ill-advised ballot initiative,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “We got involved because I-1639 tramples on the rights of Washington state voters, and because the way these anti-gun activists went about pushing their agenda was egregious. We applaud this decision, and will remain vigilant in protecting the constitutional freedoms of all Americans.”

It is good for gun rights to see the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation working together in Washington State. They are also co-plaintiffs in two more lawsuits challenging efforts by Seattle and Edmonds to circumvent the state’s strong preemption laws on firearms regulations.

Some Good News To Begin The Weekend

You may remember seeing pictures and video of the collapsed rickhouse at Barton’s 1792 Distillery in Bardstown, Kentucky. Initially it was only half of the rickhouse and then, before it could be safely shored up, the other half collapsed. However, all that good bourbon is not lost.

The distillery has begun the process of recovering as many intact barrels as possible, repairing the leaking ones, and discarding the ones that can’t be saved. According to, the Sazerac subsidiary is sorting the barrels into three categories:

  1. Barrels that don’t need repair are recorded and removed from the pile to continue aging.
  2. Barrels that are leaky or damaged are moved to a coopering area to be repaired.
  3. Barrels that are beyond repair are dumped into a holding tank and discarded.

The distillery has not released any information on how much has been saved.

The following two videos show the recovery process. The first video was provided by Barton’s 1792 Distillery.

.mcclatchy-embed{position:relative;padding:40px 0 56.25%;height:0;overflow:hidden;max-width:100%}.mcclatchy-embed iframe{position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%}

There is no word whether or not the distillery is going to release the bourbon from the collapsed rickhouse, Warehouse 30, as a special release similar to what their sister company Buffalo Trace did after a tornado took the roof off of Warehouse C. That release, E. H. Taylor Warehouse C Tornado Surviving bourbon, now goes for over $1,000 per bottle on the secondary market.

Injunction Sought In California “Assault Weapon” Registration Lawsuit

As I reported about a month ago, a coalition of California gun rights groups, the SAF, and individual plaintiffs sued Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D-CA) and the California DOJ over their computer system failures which made timely registration of “assault weapons” impossible. This coalition has now added four more plaintiffs in an amended complaint and is moving for a preliminary injunction.

More details are in the release sent out this afternoon. You would think that in California of all places that you could find competent IT professionals who could get a registration system not to crash. I guess not.

BREAKING: Gun Owners, Civil Rights Groups Seek Injunction in California “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and his DOJ botched
the “assault weapon” registration program, putting thousands of gun
owners at risk of felony charges. Gun owners and civil rights advocates
are crying foul – and taking them to court.

(August 15, 2018) — Attorneys for seven California gun owners and four
Second Amendment advocacy organizations announced today that they have
filed an amended complaint and a new motion seeking a preliminary injunction in the civil rights lawsuit Sharp, et al. v. Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al. over
the California Department of Justice’s failures surrounding the ‘bullet
button assault weapon’ registration program. A copy of the court
filings can be viewed or downloaded online at

The amended complaint added as plaintiffs four additional gun owners
who were denied their rights by the DOJ, and also added the DOJ’s Chief
of the California Justice Information Services Division, Joe Dominic, as
a defendant. The motion seeks to enjoin sections of the Penal Code
relating to so-called “assault weapons,” including provisions that
subject the possession or transportation of such firearms to serious
criminal liability, including potential felony imprisonment and property
seizure, “throughout the pendency of this case, or until” the
plaintiffs and gun owners like them “have had a reasonable opportunity,
as determined by the Court, to register the qualifying firearms through a
functional registration system.” 

The plaintiffs argue that the DOJ had a legal duty to provide a
functional registration system throughout the registration period, but
that they were unable to exercise their own rights and legal duties “due
to the Defendants’ actions and failures, including but not limited to
the inaccessibility, defects, and/or non-functionality of the DOJ’s
CFARS-based registration system.” Because of that, the plaintiffs argue,
the State violated their civil rights protected under the state and
federal constitutions and denied them their statutory right to register
their firearms to avail themselves of legal protections against harsh
criminal laws. 

“[As we argue in our motion], this is about the injustice of forcing
people to comply with a law, and then depriving them of the means to do
so,” said attorney George Lee, lead counsel on the case. “It is simply
unconscionable that the Attorney General would even think about
enforcing a law where his Department’s own failures led to many people’s
inability to register their firearms in the first place.” 

In a declaration filed
with the court, the plaintiffs’ technical expert said that “it is very
clear” the problems experienced by the plaintiffs and others across the
state “were caused by either the DOJ’s CFARS servers being overloaded
and/or possibly by one of the State of California datacenters itself
being unavailable due to network routing or overload issues.” 

“This is fundamentally a simple lawsuit about a troubling issue.
Attorney General Becerra and his DOJ had one job to do: Provide a
functional system for gun owners to use in registering their eligible
firearms. But instead of doing their jobs, they created a huge new mess
for law enforcement and put innocent people and lawfully-owned property
at serious risk,” explained Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon

“This unjust California government-created problem must be stopped
immediately,” commented Second Amendment Foundation Founder and
Executive Vice President, Alan Gottlieb. “Gun owners should not be put
at risk due to state regulatory incompetence.” 

“The bottom line is that California cannot have it both ways. If the
state is going to require registration of firearms, it cannot make that
process illusory and set people up for confiscation of their property,”
said Gene Hoffman, chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “Here, Becerra
and DOJ failed to perform their duties, failed gun owners, failed the
Legislature and Governor Brown, and failed the people of the State of

Elaborating on the case, Combs explained, “Because of Becerra’s and
DOJ’s disastrous, incompetent, and possibly malicious handling of one
simple task, now thousands of gun owners are at risk of having their
guns seized or destroyed, or going to jail, simply for driving to the
gun range with a firearm that they legally acquired years ago.” 

“It is beyond clear that Attorney General Becerra is so distracted by
federal issues and President Trump that he’s completely forgotten to
fairly and properly enforce the laws of his own state – and to protect
the civil rights of innocent people first and foremost,” Combs said. 

“These plaintiffs and others like them should not have to face a
district attorney or jury in a criminal trial because Attorney General
Becerra and DOJ set them up from day one,” said Jonathan Jensen,
vice-president of Firearms Policy Foundation. 

The civil rights lawsuit is supported by The Calguns Foundation
(CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition
(FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF). The plaintiffs are
represented by attorneys George M. Lee and Douglas Applegate of San
Francisco-based Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP, as well as
Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, a former California deputy attorney general and

Californians who tried to register their firearms as “assault
weapons” before July 1 but were unable to, or who suffered a privacy
breach at DOJ, should contact the organizations’ Legal Action Hotline
immediately at or by telephone at 855-252-4510. 

Firearms Policy Coalition (
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 (
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. 

The Calguns Foundation (
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 (
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.

Forgotten Weapons: Garand Primer-Activated 1924 Trials Rifle

In this video, Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons looks at one of John Garand’s early rifles. The Model of 1924 Trials Rifle was primer-activated. That is, the primer would come out of the pocket in the brass and push a small piston back. This would serve to unlock the bolt and the autoloading process would go on from there.

This is the first that I’ve ever heard about such a system and I find it both intriguing and horrifying. Intriguing because it simplifies the barrel of the rifle – no gas ports needed – and horrifying because of the potential for failure or worse.

Larry Tribe Believes In Free Speech (When He Agrees With It)

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe is one of those liberal lions in academia. He’s put out leading books on the Constitution, testified before Congress, advocated for free speech, and is a hypocrite.

What was that last part?

Hypocrite as in saying he is an advocate for free speech but doesn’t believe that code is free speech.

This from a guy who argues that it would be wrong for the FCC and Congress to regulate violent TV programs as it would violate free speech. He has also has written law articles entitled “The Metatheory of Free Speech”.

Tribe’s argument in the Everytown amicus brief is that code is not protected because it isn’t “expressive” and because its purposes are the “widespread violations of federal and state law”.

Sorry but just because you are the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School doesn’t mean you are right.