The Anti’s Are Getting Worried About A Supreme Court Case

The Supreme Court agreed to hear NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v. The City of New York in January. The case involves an absurd New York City regulation that forbids those with handgun permits from taking their legally owned handguns outside the city limits of New York. These permits only allow a person to keep the handgun in their residence or to practice at one of only seven firing ranges within the city limits. They cannot take their handguns to vacation homes, to ranges outside the city limits, or to competitions outside the city regardless of how it is stored.

Yesterday, Ladd Everitt, Director of One Pulse for America and formerly the communications director for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic), had an op-ed in the New York Daily News urging the city to repeal its handgun transport ordinance. This is the same Ladd Everitt who delighted in portraying those of us in the gun culture as “insurrectionists” and leading demonstrations outside NRA headquarters that attracted about a dozen protesters.

From his op-ed:

A ruling in NYSRPA vs. NYC could overturn not only the city’s gun transport reg, but also “may-issue” laws governing concealed carry of firearms in public in New York and seven other states. Carry licenses are more difficult to obtain than premises licenses in NYC. Law enforcement officials have discretion to deny carry licenses to applicants with a history of violence. The NRA spent $1 million to get Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court because they believe he will provide the decisive fifth vote to eliminate such discretion by declaring a new, individual right to carry guns in public.

New York City leaders don’t have to fall into the trap the NRA is baiting for them. It is within the authority of NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill to revise or repeal the regulation at the center of NYSRPA vs. NYC. If he took this step (conceivably with the blessing of Mayor de Blasio) and cleared the way for premises licensees to transport secured firearms to locations outside the city, the plaintiffs’ stated grievance would be remedied. The Supreme Court might decide to drop the case before ruling on it.

Ladd may be an asshole but he isn’t dumb. He realizes the danger to the gun control lobby if the Supreme Court rules against New York City which they probably would in all likelihood. In addition to his concerns about may-issue concealed carry permits, the Supreme Court could finally clarify the standard to be used by lower courts in deciding Second Amendment cases. If they said it must be strict scrutiny and they backed this up by taking cases where courts applied intermediate scrutiny, it would open the door to a large round of 2A litigation.

Mayor Adrian Fenty of the District of Columbia was sure of the rightness of DC’s ban on handguns. He decided that DC would appeal their loss in the Court of Appeals in the Heller case to the Supreme Court. We know that turned into DC v. Heller and a recognition that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

Ladd concludes by saying:

It’s true that allowing New York City residents to transport guns outside the city would entail certain public safety risks, even if the practice was regulated. But with the gun violence epidemic increasing in the United States, our communities simply cannot withstand newfound constitutional protections for violent “good guys with a gun.” Now is the time for the NYPD to step up and protect all Americans by repealing NYC’s gun transport ordinance.

I love Ladd’s hyperbole even when he is way off base. The problem isn’t with honest citizens who own a firearm, perhaps have a carry permit, and who engage in armed self-defense. The problem is with violent criminal actors (to use Dr. William Aprill’s phrase). They view gun laws as something to be ignored just like they ignore the laws dealing with theft, assault, and homicide.

When you see a Michael Bloomberg, a Shannon Watts, or one of the Brady co-presidents calling for New York City to ditch this law and moot the NYSRPA case, then you will know the gun control lobby is really running scared. Coming as this op-ed does from the periphery of the gun control lobby, it is a sign that some are awakening. I just hope the rest continue along with their smug, elitist attitudes thinking that they can’t lose.

Florida Carry Sues Miami Beach Police

Open carry is generally not legal in Florida. However, there are exceptions such as when one is fishing or hunting. Because of this, groups like Florida Carry organize “fishing trips” where their members legally open carry. The Miami Beach Police didn’t think much of this and disrupted, assaulted, and detained members of Florida Carry at one such event as shown in the video below.

As a result, the Miami Beach Police Department is now being sued by Florida Carry and the individuals illegally detained for violation of their civil rights under color of law.

From Florida Carry:

Miami Beach, FL – A lawsuit for deprivation of civil rights under color of law and violations of Florida firearms and fishing laws has been filed today against the City of Miami Beach and officers of its police department over an incident where the officers assaulted, battered, and detained law-abiding fishermen at a Florida Carry fishing meetup on the South Pointe Fishing Pier on June 24th 2018. The incident was captured on video.

Dubbed the “South Pointe Six”, six Florida Carry members and supporters were held by police for well over two hours without cause, while the police officers went on a fishing expedition of the own in an illegal attempt to find something… anything… the officers could use in order to charge the “South Pointe Six” with a crime before finally failing and releasing them.

Even after eventually releasing Florida Carry’s members, the Police Department forced the premature end of our First Amendment protected gathering by closing the public fishing pier until all known Florida Carry members and supporters left the area.

“Florida Carry will not allow our members to be abused, injured, held without cause, and have their civil rights violated without the strongest possible response to prevent these types of attacks on the good, law-abiding, citizens of our Great State.” Said Florida Carry Executive Director, Sean Caranna.

“Most police officers and deputies that we encounter are outstanding professionals who have an incredibly tough job to do, we respect that honor that. However, we’ve seen these types of abuses happen far too many times in cities and counties who do not respect the Right to Bear Arms. Every City and County in Florida should already know that proper training about the legal possession and carry of firearms is necessary. These types of abuses will not be tolerated – IT ENDS HERE.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Florida Carry General Counsel Eric Friday.

They Should Have Done Like French Farmers

I was reading a press release on Monday from RW Arms of Fort Worth, Texas. They were a retailer of bump stocks. As I understand it, they had purchased the entire remaining inventory from Slide Fire last year. The press release said they were were surrendering their remaining 60,000 bump stock to BATFE for destruction.

Fort Worth based retailer, RW Arms, will turn in their entire inventory of bump stocks to the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on Tuesday, March 26th, to be
destroyed, in compliance with the Bump Stock Ban. RW Arms will transfer 60,000 bump stocks
to American Shredder in Fort Worth, Texas, to be shredded and recycled under the supervision
of ATF agents.

 Subsequent stories in Texas newspapers shows them being crushed at the recycling plant.

Now I’m sure they turned them over like this because they want to stay in the good graces of the BATFE and the rest of the Deep State. However, I might have taken a page from the French farmers protesting what they considered injustices.

I would have loaded them up into this.

Driven them to this building which is the headquarters of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Donned my yellow vest. And then done this like French farmers have done in Paris.

Bearing in mind that French farmers have dumped more “odiferous” offerings, I think this would have been a more gentle protest of the perversion of the rule of law by the administrative state at the behest of politician than those French farmers might have conducted. I guess we will have to wait and see if the courts can grow a spine and actually stand up for the rule of law.

Chief Justice Roberts Refuses To Issue Stay

The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation released this statement by Twitter concerning the refusal of Chief Justice John Roberts to issue an emergency stay of the bump stock ban rule.

Updates on the case will continue to be posted at

It should be remembered that the key issue is not really bump stocks. The key issue is whether or not any government agency can reinterpret the black letter law to outlaw something or some action that they had expressly said was legal earlier.

DC Circuit Stays Bump Stock Rule (Updated)

The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has issued a stay on the enforcement of the BATFE’s bump stock ban. It is only temporary and is intended to give the judges on the Circuit Court the time needed to study the expedited appeal. It doesn’t go to the merits of the case but the judges acknowledged that the March 26th deadline was an issue.

From the court’s order:

BEFORE: Henderson, Millett, and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges


Plaintiffs in these three consolidated cases challenge a final agency rule banning
Bump-Stock-Type Devices, 83 Fed. Reg. 66514 (Dec. 26, 2018) (“Bump-Stock Rule”),
which is scheduled to take effect on March 26, 2019. On February 25, 2019, the district
court denied the plaintiffs’ joint request for a preliminary injunction staying the Bump-Stock
Rule’s effective date. On March 1, 2019, this court granted the Appellants’ joint motion for
expedition of this case, in which they sought resolution of the appeal on a highly expedited
basis before the March 26, 2019, effective date. Under that expedited schedule, this case
was argued on March 22, 2019. At oral argument, counsel for the government explained
that it was now its position that the Bump Stock Rule’s March 26, 2019 effective date
should be viewed as the date when the government will cease exercising its prosecutorial
discretion not to enforce federal law against those who possess or trade in bump-stockdevices covered by the Bump-Stock Rule. Oral Arg. 49:00-51:55. Following oral argument, the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. filed a voluntary motion to dismiss its appeal, or in the
alternative to stay its appeal, and advised that the government opposes the motion to
dismiss. In light of these representations, it is

ORDERED that the motion of the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., to dismiss its
appeal, No. 19-5043, be granted. Appeal No. 19-5043 is hereby dismissed. It is

FURTHER ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that the effective date of the
Bump-Stock Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 66514 (Dec. 26, 2018), be administratively stayed in its
application only as to the named Appellants in appeals Nos. 19-5042 and 19-5044, pending
further order of this Court.
The purpose of this stay is exclusively to give the Court
sufficient opportunity to consider the disposition of this highly expedited appeal, and should
not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of the appeal. See D.C. Circuit
Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 33 (2018).

 As I understand this, it only applies to the individuals and organizations named as plaintiffs in the cases.

UPDATE: The attorneys for the appellants have filed an Emergency Joint Motion to Modify the Stay Order. Since the government refuses to compromise, they are requesting either clarification from the Court saying the stay ” includes their respective members, supporters, and those similarly situated
members of the public” or to stay the Final Rule in its entirety until the DC Circuit has made a decision on the merits. They request either alternative be extended to 48 hours after the Court makes its final determination in order to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The motion can be found here.

UPDATE II: Please see the comment from Brandon Combs of the FPC/FPF below. FPC v. Whitaker was dismissed only insofar as its appeal goes. As Brandon notes, they plan to amend their filing in District Court now that AG William Barr has “ratified” the earlier decision.

UPDATE III: The DC Circuit Court has clarified their stay of the bump stock rule but will not extend the stay to all bump stocks. As a result, the plaintiffs in this case have filed an application for an emergency stay with Chief Justice John Roberts.

From the clarification, in part:

FURTHER ORDERED that the request for clarification be granted in part and be
denied in part. The administrative stay entered on March 23, 2019, applies only to the
named Appellants in appeals Nos. 19-5042 and 19-5044, including any current bona
fide members of the named membership associations.

Thus, if you are a member of the Madison Society Foundation, Florida Carry, or the Firearms Policy Foundation, the stay applies to you and you will not have to turn your bump stock in tomorrow or destroy it by then.

Here is what FPF says about membership:

 This morning the U.S. DOJ filed brief arguing that Members of Firearms Policy Foundation who own/possess bump-stock-type devices are currently protected by the D.C. Circuit’s administrative stay of the ATF’s bumpstock ban Final Rule. To become a member and Join FPF please donate $1 or more at or

If you want to join the Madison Society Foundation, it is $30 for a lifetime family membership. Go here if you’d like to join them.

Finally, the membership page for Florida Carry can be found here.

I don’t have a bump stock but I did join the FPF because I appreciate the work they are doing.

Upgrading My $1 Mossberg 500

Years ago I won a Mossberg 500A 12 gauge shotgun in a raffle held by a local police department auxiliary. The entry fee was $1 and I paid it with change in my pocket. The shotgun was in a woodland camo and came with both a 18.5″ improved cylinder barrel and a 20″ barrel with rifle sights. This shotgun sat in a box for years until just recently when I decided to upgrade it for a home defense shotgun.

My first step was taking it apart (thank you YouTube!) and giving it a deep cleaning. The barrel had a bit of rust on the outside of it so with a mix of sandpaper and rust remover I cleaned it up. I used Birchwood Casey’s Gun Scrubber Synthetic Safe Cleaner on all the parts to remove dirt, fouling, and old grease. I then scrubbed the bore of the barrel until it shone like a mirror.

My next steps were to decide if I wanted to replace the follower, to add a picatinny rail, to add a red dot sight, whether to make it compatible with mini-shells, and to upgrade the follower spring. Once I decided to upgrade the stock Mossberg follower I had a number of choices to make. Delrin plastic or aluminum? Lime green or any number of anodized options? It came down to the lime green Delrin  follower from S&J Hardware and the aluminum anodized one from NDZ Performance. I eventually decided on the S&J follower because it seemed “slicker”. If I was also going to replace the thumb safety, I might have gone with a NDZ combo package. However, the existing safety seems perfectly adequate.

S&J Hardware Delrin follower – picture from their website.

I had planned to replace the existing spring with a Wolff Extra Power magazine spring. Indeed, I actually bought one. However, it was so strong that it was near impossible to get it installed. I finally gave up and stayed with the stock spring. I may eventually switch but I think the stock spring will work for now.

The brass bead on the 18.5″ barrel would have been perfectly adequate. I had toyed with adding the XS Sights big dot sight but decided a red dot would work better in the long run. I got a UTG picatinny rail from Amazon along with a certified refurbished Bushnell TRS-25 red dot sight. I have used the Bushnell sight on a Ruger 10/22 and on an AR-15 pistol. I was concerned whether it would hold up to the shock of a shotgun round but was assured in an email from Bushnell that it would do fine with 2.75″ shells.

As I intend to give 1 3/4″ mini-shells a try, I bought an OPSol Miniclip 2.0 Flex directly from OPSol Texas. Every review, written and video, agreed that the OPSol Miniclip was the way to go. The Miniclip is a little rubber doo-dad that can be slipped in and out of the shotgun to let the mini-shells feed.

After going to all the trouble to update the internals of the Mossberg 500, it would have been a shame to ignore the exterior. Remember I had to sand some rust off the barrel. I went back and forth on a number of camo patterns and eventually settled on a modified tiger stripe. It would be easy to do using spray paint and blue painters tape.

I had planned to just use black and olive drab for the tiger stripe pattern. I decided to modify it a bit by using a light olive as an accent to the black stripes. These were done using a pair of fishnet pantry hose, more blue tape, and the lighter olive spray paint.

 As you can see in pictures below, I think it came out nicely. I did go over the finished paint job with two coats of a matte finish sealer.

And a closer detail picture of the modified tiger stripe camo.

The blue tape is, obviously, still on the safety and the pump rails. I want to let the sealer cure overnight before removing it.

All that is left to do is mount the picatinny rail and red dot as well as reassemble the internals of the shotgun. That and to take it to the range for testing!

This was a fun project that didn’t cost that much money. Everything all told was less than $100 and will make this old Mossberg 500 much improved.

World Class Snark

I love snark. The tweet below is, in my opinion, world-class.

As most probably know, that Irish-American former congressman from Texas by the name of O’Rourke has decided to run for president. I’d wager that if he were forced to take an Ancestry DNA test, the only Spanish blood in his veins might have come from a survivor of the Spanish Armada that washed ashore in Ireland.

Cheer to entrepreneur and business advisor Carol Roth for giving us the proper pronunciation of O’Rourke’s first name.

Give Thom A Call This Morning

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) has been equivocating on red flag laws in his letters to constituents (like me!). Tillis is also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee which is holding hearings on red flag laws. Now is the time to send Thom a message regarding red flag law. Grass Roots North Carolina is asking for people to give his office a call this morning to let him know this ain’t OK.

Tillis, by the way, is up for reelection in 2020 so he is in that part of his term where he needs to play politician 100% of the time. We need to use that to our advantage.

From the GRNC alert:


Friday night, GRNC alerted supporters to the fact that US Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC)
looks to be capitulating to his
anti-gun colleagues in Washington. Tillis has telegraphed his support
for “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” (or “Red Flag” laws) by
supporting S. 7. This
bill would allow
the word of an accuser, voicing “concerns,” to strip a citizen of
several of the Constitutional protections guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights—without due process
. Yet, in Senator Tillis’ recent
correspondence with concerned constituents, he did not address any
of the glaring and very serious problems with S. 7. Telling the “whole”
truth is to tell the truth. Omitting critical details on such an
important matter is, well… something else. This does not inspire voter
confidence in Tillis’ resolve to support the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, it looks like the
Judiciary Committee, of which Tillis is a member, will conduct a hearing on S. 7 on March 26. Human rights are non-negotiable, and
therefore, Tillis must not vote for this bill—but he seems poised to

As part of
Friday’s alert, we asked gun owners and other supporters of the Bill of
to phone Thom Tillis’ DC office on Monday morning
(3/18/2019), and this alert is a friendly
reminder to do just that. Below, in the Immediate Action section, find
details on how to reach Tillis and demand that he stand for the 2nd,
4th, 5th
and 6th Amendments, not against them. 

To read more about “Red Flag” laws, and Thom Tillis’
willingness, to cozy up to them as a member of the powerful Senate
Judiciary Committee, click to read Friday’s
, and/or click to read a previous alert on
the topic

Support “Rights Watch International
AmazonSmile Learn more about Rights Watch

You shop. Amazon
(What is Amazon Smile?)


    Monday morning
    (3/18/2019), please phone Thom Tillis’s DC office at this number: (202) 224-6342.
    If you
    can’t call in the morning, please call as soon as you can after that.
    Deliver the following message to Tillis’ staff or his voice-mail.
I am calling about the senator’s recent correspondence on the topic of
Senate Bill 7, “Extreme Risk Protection Orders,” sometimes called, “red
flag” laws. In this correspondence, he conspicuously
failed to address the severe Constitutional problems with red flag laws;
the establishment of ex parte hearings is just one of many examples. In
these laws threaten Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment
protections—at least.

I am quite
troubled by Senator Tillis’ effort to dance around the major problems
with red flag laws and I expect him to be more candid, indeed more
honest, with me in the future. As a North Carolina voter and a gun
owner, I also
expect the senator to live up to his oath of office, to the Republican
Party’s platform, to the pro-Second Amendment statement on his own
website, and to do everything in his power to defeat this revolting,
un-American bill, and any other bill like it. Thank

Reactions, Pro And Con, To Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling

As you can well imagine the gun prohibitionists are ecstatic over the Connecticut Supreme Court’s constitutionally dubious ruling in Soto et al v. Bushmaster et al today. Both the Brady Campaign and the Giffords Law Center had filed amicus briefs in the case.

From the Brady Campaign which has been working hard to punch holes in the Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act for many years:

Justices have reversed a lower court ruling allowing the lawsuit to move forward and put the question to a jury of whether or not Remington and gun dealers can be held accountable for its role in the 2012 shooting. The lawsuit argues that the assault-style weapon used in the massacre had knowingly been marketed to the public despite being designed for military use. It is also argued that the weapon’s marketing deliberately appealed to young people, particularly those like the 20-year-old who killed 26 people in Newtown, Connecticut.

“This is a good day for justice and for victims of gun violence everywhere,” stated Brady President, Kris Brown. “The law requires everyone, particularly businesses, to operate in a way that will not cause foreseeable harm. It’s time for gun companies to be held to this same standard, and stop being allowed to put profits over people. Brady stands ready to continue our support of Sandy Hook families in their quest for justice.”

For 30 years Brady’s legal team has led the way in winning precedent setting cases that hold gun companies accountable for their role in gun crimes. These cases are reining in and challenging gun industry protection laws, and include a negligent marketing claim against the maker of an assault weapon used in a mass shooting in 1993. This case was discussed at length in today’s decision. Brady’s team provided advice and counsel to the Sandy Hook lawyers throughout the case, also filing an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs.

“We are happy that the Sandy Hook families will get the day in court they deserve. Companies that choose to market weapons of war to the public should not get a free pass from the duty to use the reasonable care that every other person or business must follow,” stated Brady’s VP of Legal, Jon Lowy. “It is unfortunate that the gun industry’s special protection law forced these grieving families to endure years of appeals to get what should be rightfully theirs — their day in court and an opportunity to prove their case. Thankfully this court recognized that if you unreasonably market weapons of war to the public, you can be held accountable for the consequences.”

Reader of this blog know that not one military in the world has adopted the semi-automatic AR-15 or its progeny for use. Calling it a “weapon of war” and “designed for military use” is an outright lie and both Brown and Lowy know it.

Likewise, the Cult of Personality’s Legal Arm otherwise known as Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has weighed in on the ruling with a comment from Adams Skaggs who is their chief counsel.

“Today’s decision is a victory for the families of Sandy Hook and a victory for the principle that no industry is above the law or above accountability. The Connecticut Supreme Court squarely rejected the idea that any industry, no matter how powerful, can slam the courthouse doors shut to the victims of their illegal marketing practices. Now, these families who suffered so much will have the day in court they rightly deserve. We look forward to working with them as this case moves forward, and to supporting all victims of American gun violence as they pursue justice.”

Understandably, those who stand for the rule of law and the recognition that the liability for the criminal misuse of any legal product lies with the criminal were not pleased with this ruling.

Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation responded strongly saying, in part:

“This ruling strains logic, if not common sense,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The court dismissed the bulk of the lawsuit’s allegations, but appears to have grasped at this single straw by deciding that the advertising is somehow at fault for what did that day in December more than six years ago.

“This is like suing Ford or General Motors because a car they sold was stolen and used to run over a pedestrian all because the car manufacturers advertised that their car had better acceleration and performance than other vehicles,” he added.

, 20, first killed his mother and took her legally-purchased Bushmaster rifle to the school, where he murdered 20 youngsters and six adults. The lawsuit contends that Remington’s advertising was designed to glorify the Bushmaster rifle and enhance its appeal to younger consumers.

Justice Richard Palmer, writing for the majority, said that the “regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the state’s police powers.”

“That is absurd in this case,” Gottlieb observed. “Did the advertising even remotely suggest that the Bushmaster is best for murdering people? It appears to me like the court was looking for a way to squeak around the provisions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that Congress passed in 2005. After all, the court dismissed most of the allegations, but now has decided that advertising might be at fault. That’s a stretch of credulity worthy of surgical elastic.”

“There is no evidence the killer was driven by any advertising whatsoever,” he said. “This is an affront to the First Amendment as well as the Second. Even hinting that the killer was motivated in some way by an advertising message is so far out in the weeds that it may take a map for the court to find its way back.”

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which is located in Newtown, Connecticut and whom is the actual lobby for the firearms industry, also disagreed with the majority’s opinion in the ruling. While a bit more circumspect that the SAF’s comment, it still expresses their displeasure.

NEWTOWN, Conn. – The Connecticut Supreme Court today reversed (4-3) a state Superior Court ruling and decided in Soto v. Bushmaster that the case can go forward based on the plaintiffs’ allegation that the defendants marketing and advertising of a legal product somehow violated Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). The Court’s split decision held that CUTPA fit within an exemption to the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that permits lawsuits where the defendant violated a statute applicable to the sale of firearms. In a strongly worded and well-reasoned dissent, Chief Justice Robinson rejected the majority’s overly broad interpretation of the scope of the limited exception, which is contrary to legislative text, canons of statutory interpretation and the legislative history of the PLCAA. The majority’s decision today is at odds with all other state and federal appellate courts that have interpreted the scope of the exception. As the trade association for the firearms industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation® filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants in this case and both respectfully disagrees with and is disappointed by the court’s majority decision.

Finally, from what I can tell from an internet search, neither Cerberus Capital Management nor Remington Outdoor Company have issued statements.