Month: April 2019

Uncategorized

Village Of Deerfield (Illinois) To Appeal Overturn Of Its AWB

April 17, 2019 by 1 Comment

The Village of Deerfield, Illinois had passed an ordinance in 2018 that would have banned standard capacity magazines and “assault weapons” (sic) broadly defined. They were sued by the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation in the case of Easterday v. Deerfield. A second case was filed against the village by Guns Save Lives which was supported by the NRA.

The village lost in March when the Lake County Circuit Court issued a permanent injunction against the ordinance. Judge Luis Berrones found that the ordinance was a new law and not an amendment of a prior ordinance. In 2013 when the Illinois General Assembly passed the Concealed Carry Act and an amended FOID Act, they gave home rule municipalities a few days to amend their ordinances which could have included assault weapon bans. After that time, this power was reserved to the state.

Yesterday’s Chicago Tribune is reporting that Deerfield plans to appeal.

The Village of Deerfield plans to appeal a judge’s March 22 ruling permanently blocking the village from enforcing a ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.


In a short statement Tuesday, the village announced that Mayor Harriet Rosenthal and the village board had unanimously agreed April 15 to appeal the ruling of Lake County Circuit Court Judge Luis Berrones to the Illinois Appellate Court.


In that ruling, Berrones contended that Deerfield overstepped its authority in April 2018 when it enacted a ban on assault weapons after the Illinois legislature had declared such regulations to be the exclusive power of the state.

The village’s statement on the appeal notes that they are being represented pro bono.

We appreciate the continued pro bono services that have been provided already, and that will be provided throughout the appellate process by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Mr. Christopher Wilson, partner of the Chicago office of Perkins Coie. We continue to believe that these weapons have no place in our community and that our common-sense assault weapon regulations are legal and were properly enacted.”

So an unholy alliance of gun prohibitionists and Big Law (Perkins Coie has 1,000+ lawyers) continues to conspire to help the Village of Deerfield trample on the rights of its citizens to protect themselves. This is lawfare at its worst.

Uncategorized

The NRA Sues Their Ad Agency Ackerman McQueen (Update)

April 16, 2019 by 2 Comments

I don’t begin to know or understand all the internal politics and machinations at the National Rifle Association. I do know that advertising firm Ackerman McQueen and their PR subsidiary Mercury Group have long been considered the power behind the throne. If reports are to be believed, they are the ones who orchestrated the ascension of Wayne LaPierre and the eventual departure of the late Neal Knox. Having heard the story from multiple sources, I give them a lot of credence.

Thus, it was quite surprising to read in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal that the NRA was suing Ackerman McQueen and Mercury Group. The story has since been picked up by the New York Times, Fox News, the Washington Post, and a number of other media outlets.

The lawsuit was filed on Friday, April 12, 2019, in the Circuit Court for the City of Alexandria (Virginia). The lawsuit accuses Ackerman McQueen of impeding efforts by the NRA to inspect book and records including contracts related to the existing services agreement. This inspection is essential for the NRA Board to fulfill its fiduciary duty and to comply with New York non-for-profit law which governs the NRA’s activities since it is incorporated in that state.

The specific concerns that the NRA sought to investigate include:

  • Out of pocket expenses that lacked documentation as required by the Services Agreement
  • Lack of transparency regarding annual budgets as well as adherence to the budgets by Ackerman McQueen
  • Lack of transparency regarding “fair market value” determinations for services
  • Concerns that the NRA was being invoiced for the full salaries of NRA-Dedicated Personnel despite these people spending time on non-NRA clients
  • Refusal to provide data in writing on number of visitors, viewership numbers, and other performance metrics related to NRATV

A footnote also said that many of NRA’s stakeholders were concerned “that NRATV’s messaging – on topics far afield of the Second Amendment – deviated from the NRA’s core mission and values.” I know many of my friends in the Second Amendment community shared this concern.

I should note at this point that NRATV is owned by Ackerman McQueen and that personalities such as Cam Edwards and Ginny Simone are actually Ack-Mc employees. This, in turn, is the heart of the other major aspect of this lawsuit – the role of Oliver North with Ackerman McQueen and to whom he owes his allegiance.

The lawsuit alleges that Audit Committee of the Board of Directors sought to review the full contract between Ackerman McQueen and Col. North but was rebuffed. Moreover, North’s attorneys indicated he would only “disclose a copy of the contract to the NRA subject to AMc’s consent.”

 The NRA’s General Counsel was finally allowed to see the contract but was not allowed to have a copy. This review by the General Counsel led to many questions. These included a) was North a 3rd-party contractor or an employee of Ack-Mc with a duty of loyalty to them; b) whether previously disclosed costs borne by the NRA for the “North Contract” were accurate; and c) “whether the contract imposed obligations on Col. North that prevent him from communicating fully and honestly with other NRA fiduciaries about AMc.” Thus, the NRA says it became determined to resolve these issues.

The suit asks that Ackerman McQueen be found in breach of contract, that they be required to furnish the NRA copies of all AMc-Third Party NRA Contracts, that they be ordered to furnish the NRA with copies of annual budgets for the period 2016-2018, a list of all NRA-Dedicated personnel and the amount of time they devote to the NRA account, and copies of all records that would show the costs to the NRA or the NRA Foundation (from Jan 1, 2018 through April 1, 2019) incurred by North’s American Heroes series, from compensation to Col. North, from office space rented for Col. North or related staff, and whether each item was billed specifically to the NRA, the Foundation, or both.

Ackman McQueen contends this lawsuit is the work of the NRA’s outside counsel William Brewer III who is the in-law of their co-CEOs Revan and Angus McQueen. However, the lawsuit is brought by the Virginia law firm of  Briglia Hundley not by Mr. Brewer’s firm. Todd Rathner, NRA Board Member, speculates that the attack on Mr. Brewer is the work of the pro-AckMc faction of the Board in an effort to undermine Wayne LaPierre.

Board members Todd Rathner and Joel Friedman are on the record about the lawsuit with the New York Times.

The suit culminates the fracturing of a more than three-decade relationship between Ackerman and the N.R.A., going back to the shaping of such memorable lines as Charlton Heston’s proclaiming that his gun would have to be pried “from my cold, dead hands.” Wayne LaPierre, the longtime chief executive of the N.R.A., had previously been a steadfast champion of the Ackerman relationship.


“I think it says something about Wayne’s character, even though he’s had a long-term working business relationship with a vendor, he’s willing to do what is right and necessary for the N.R.A. and its members,” said Todd Rathner, a board member of the rifle association.


Joel Friedman, another board member, said he was dismayed that the documents had not been turned over.


“It leaves you questioning, and you can come up with all these potential different scenarios as to why, but none of them are good,” he said.


“My mind goes to: Are they overcharging us? That’s one,” he added. “Two, are there things charged to us that were not part of the contract? Then, No. 3, has there been a misallocation of personnel?”

It will be interesting to hear the discussion, if any, of this case at the NRA Annual Meeting which starts in little more than a week. As for me, the fact that Board members are finally questioning the costs as well as the role of Ackerman McQueen is good news. In a saner world, with a smaller board that held actual power, the Ackerman McQueen contract would have been put up for bid multiple times over the years. That it hasn’t is a disgrace.

UPDATE:  Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned had this to say, in part, about the lawsuit.

This is a struggle that needs to happen. Bitter and I are not as anti-Ack-Mac as some folks. We think there’s merit to some of their work, and they do some things do well. But we also believe their relationship with NRA is unhealthy, and there probably is not be any fixing it. Sometimes you’re just better off pulling the tooth, rather than trying to save it. This is probably one of those cases.

I had a call out of the blue late this afternoon from a person on the NRA Board. It was off the record and not for attribution. This person thinks that the lawsuit might be a smokescreen to protect the NRA from New York State. It gives the impression that they are taking their fiduciary and financial duties seriously. As both the lawsuit notes and I mentioned above, the State of New York revised their statutes to require not-for-profits to do more due diligence and to pay more attention to where members and donors money is being spent.

The rationale behind this being a smokescreen to protect the NRA is that, according to this person, the NRA had not been requiring any sort of invoices or other detailed record-keeping for services rendered in years gone by. In other words, Ack Mc said here is how much we want and please send us a check. God forbid that they were that slack but I believe it.

So that you can read the whole lawsuit, I’m embedding it at the bottom of this post.

Uncategorized

NYC Blinks. Unfortunately

April 15, 2019 by 3 Comments

When the Supreme Court surprised us by granting certiorari in NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York et al, those of us in the pro-rights community rejoiced. This would be the first major Second Amendment case involving firearms accepted for cert since McDonald v. Chicago. A number of states as well as a number of gun rights organizations filed amicus briefs urging the Court to accept the case. As issue in the case was a New York City law that forbid those with handgun licenses from traveling outside the city limits with their handguns. They were only allowed to transport their handgun to one of seven licensed ranges within the city.

It was felt that this case might be used to establish both the right to carry outside the home and to set the standard that should be used in Second Amendment cases. David Kopel said the case offered the opportunity to “to begin reining in lower court nullification of the Supreme Court’s precedents in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.” Brian Doherty writing in Reason noted that the Second Circuit “believed that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms pretty much only counts in the home, and thus these transport laws do not harm its core purpose.” He went on to say the many American believe their right to self defense does not end when they step out the door of their home.

At the end of March I noted an op-ed by Ladd Everitt, Director of George Takai’s gun control organization One Pulse for America, which urged the City of New York and the NYPD to change the law forbidding transport. I postulated that the gun control lobby was getting a bit nervous by this case and wanted the city to do what it took to moot the case. While I don’t think Everitt’s op-ed would case the City of New York to reevaluate its law, I’m sure some heavy hitters among the gun prohibitionists getting on-board this bandwagon would.

Michael Bloomberg’s wholly funded mouthpiece, The Trace, ran a story on Monday on the case and by Friday the City of New York had filed a motion with the Supreme Court advising them that the NYPD was engaging in a proposed rulemaking that would moot the case.

From the city’s attorney:

The Court granted the petition for a
writ of certiorari in this case on January 22, 2019, and petitioners’ merits brief is
currently due on May 7, 2019.


I write to advise the Court of a proposed rulemaking. If adopted in
accordance with established procedures, the proposed rule would render this case
moot before the parties complete the merits briefing in this case. For this reason, I
also write to request that the Court stay the current briefing schedule pending final
action on the proposed rule.

The proposed rule would allow residents with a premises permit for their handgun to transport them, unloaded, in a locked container, with the ammo in a separate container to:

  • Another premises of the licensee where the licensee is authorized to
    have and possess a handgun;
  • A small-arms range/shooting club authorized by law to operate as
    such, whether located within or outside New York City; and
  • A shooting competition at which the licensee may possess the handgun
    consistent with the law applicable at the place of the competition.

The NRA-ILA released a statement calling the move, in essence, a sham.

“The City of New York clearly knows that its current restrictions on the carrying and transportation of lawfully owned firearms are unconstitutional and will fail under any standard of constitutional review, as the NRA has been saying for years. Today, it asked the U.S. Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution and allow the City to slow walk a narrow expansion of its current policy through a lengthy bureaucratic process — the result of which, even if adopted, would still unduly infringe upon the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. That is not how things work in the Supreme Court; the Court does not put its review on hold while the government embarks on a journey that at best might fix only a limited part of the constitutional defect. This is nothing more than a naked attempt by New York City to resist Supreme Court review of policies that even New York must recognize as inconsistent with the holdings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. The City of New York did not respect its citizens’ Second Amendment rights before the Supreme Court granted review in this case and it will not respect them going forward. We are confident that the Court will reject New York’s desperate attempt to avoid review of its blatantly unconstitutional laws.”

 I’m not sure the NRA is correct in being confident that the Supreme Court will reject New York City’s request to hold off on briefing the case. Given the chance to avoid the issue, I think the Supreme Court as led by Chief Justice Roberts may do just that. They have had many other opportunities to take another Second Amendment case and have punted.

Uncategorized

I Have A Thing For 16 Gauge

April 11, 2019 by

And Stevens has the thing for me!

Stevens by Savage just announced they will be importing their Model 555 and Model 555 Enhanced in 16 gauge from Turkey. They had previously offered these in 12 and 20 gauge.

From their release:

Get the performance and style of the
Stevens 555 Enhanced in a new 16-gauge model. Its light aluminum receiver is
scaled to gauge and incorporates a steel insert that reinforces the breech,
minimizing weight and maximizing strength. The fast-handling over-and-under
boasts upgrades including an Imperial walnut stock and fore-end, auto shell
ejector, and a silver, scroll-engraved filigree ornament receiver. Standard
features include a manual safety and a single, selective mechanical trigger—all
at a price that’s unmatched among comparable shotguns.
FEATURES:
•    New 16-gauge model
•    Auto
ejectors
•    Imperial walnut stock
•    Silver, scroll-engraved filigree ornament
•    Five interchangeable chokes
•    Lightweight aluminum receiver
•    Single selective mechanical triggers
•    Chrome-lined barrels
•    Tang-mounted safety

The Stevens 555 Enhanced comes in at 6.45 lbs, has 28 inch barrels, and is made by Kofs of Turkey.

MSRP for the Enhanced version is $879 and the non-engraved blued version is $705. That’s a lot of gun for the price given that most over-under shotguns start at over $1,000 and go up from there.

As to why I have a love for the 16 gauge, I just do. It is a classic gauge that has fallen out of favor and I think that is part of its appeal to me.

Uncategorized

This Saddens Me

April 10, 2019 by 4 Comments

There were two candidates running for the NRA Board of Directors who had been nominated by petition. They were Adam Kraut and Anthony Colandro. Both had a good deal of support from grassroots Second Amendment activists.

You can guess what I’m going to write next.

Neither Adam nor Anthony were elected.

From Adam on Facebook:

Earlier this morning, I received word that I was not elected to the NRA Board of Directors.

I want to express my deepest gratitude to everyone who supported me the last three years. The amount of time and effort many of you put in was nothing short of amazing. I am forever grateful that so many of you believed in me.

This was never about me obtaining a seat on the Board but about trying to put the organization on a path that reflected our values. I hope that you all continue to remain engaged, communicate your frustrations with the Board directly, look for new candidates that reflect your values and put the same tenacity in your support behind them as you did myself.

Anthony posted a video about it on Facebook and it can be seen here.

This saddens me. I’m sure when I see the final results that a celebrity who never attends meetings will have come out in first place or within the top five. Moreover, just like last year and the year before, I’ll wager that there will be a concerted effort to elect an establishment candidate for the 76th Director.

This sucks because Anthony is doing yeoman’s work behind enemy lines in New Jersey and Adam (along with Joshua Prince) is leading the legal battles against the phone and a pen, wink and a nod bump stock ban rule as well as the illegal activities of the Pittsburgh City Council. They are in the trenches. They are actually fighting for the Second Amendment in all its glory. I wish I could say the same for the NRA which has given President Trump cover on both the bump stock ban and red flag laws.

Uncategorized

Remington Plans To Appeal Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling To SCOTUS

April 9, 2019 by

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on March 14th that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act did not protect Remington and its fellow defendants in a case brought by families of some of the Newtown murder victims. The split decision allowed the case to go back to the trial court level for adjudication. Given the strong dissent in the case and the way the majority made up a rationale out of whole cloth to support their decision, it was only a matter of time before an appeal was filed with the United States Supreme Court.

Remington filed a motion with the Connecticut Supreme Court yesterday requesting a stay in the decision as they plan to appeal to the SCOTUS.

Remington is filing a Petition for Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court in
accordance with the applicable Rules of the United States Supreme Court. The basis
for jurisdiction in the Supreme Court is this Court’s decision on an important federal
question that conflicts with a decision of a United States court of appeals. U.S. Sup. Ct.
R. 10. Specifically, Remington will ask the United States Supreme Court to consider
and decide whether CUTPA is the type of statute Congress intended to serve as a “predicate statute” under § 7903(5)(A)(iii) of the PLCAA, a violation of which may
deprive firearm manufacturers and sellers threshold immunity against being sued. See
15 U.S.C. § 7902(a) (“A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal
or State court.”). As this Court recognized, “courts that have construed the predicate
exception are divided” on whether Congress intended for violation of statutes, like
CUTPA, to serve as an exception to PLCAA immunity. Soto, 331 Conn. at 136.

The motion goes on to give a legal rationale for the issuance of a stay.

The Court should stay proceedings pending the United States Supreme Court’s
decision to either deny Remington’s Petition for Certiorari or its decision on the merits of
the case. Practice Book § 71-7 provides:

When a case has gone to judgment in the state Supreme Court and
a party to the action wishes to obtain a stay of execution pending a
decision in the case by the United States Supreme Court, that party
shall, within twenty days of the judgment, file a motion for stay with
the appellate clerk directed to the state Supreme Court. The filing of
the motion shall operate as a stay pending the state Supreme
Court’s decision thereon.

If proceedings are not stayed and Remington is required to undergo the costly
and time-consuming burdens of litigation, including further discovery, motion practice
and possibly trial, it will irreparably lose the intended benefit of threshold PLCAA
immunity from suit. The United States Supreme Court has consistently recognized that
“[u]ntil … threshold immunity is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.” Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

According to the Associated Press, Remington has until June to file the actual petition for a writ of certiorari. The same article quotes the attorney for the plaintiffs as saying, “is a matter of law for the state of Connecticut.” Given that the case revolved around the supremacy of Federal law in what is arguably a Federal matter, this is a case that should be heard by the SCOTUS. That is, if they want to preserve the intent of Congress and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.

Uncategorized

Poor Shannon – The Internet Never Forgets

April 9, 2019 by 1 Comment

We know Shannon Watts as the “stay at home” mom (of five) who founded Moms Demand Action as a response to the Newtown school murders. Public relations experts are very good at spinning myths and that first sentence contains a lot of myth befitting the PR expertise of Watts. Stay at home was always debatable and mom of five is true only if you include two step-children who probably lived with their real mom and not dad’s new younger wife.

An article in today’s Wall Street Journal regarding RoundUp weedkiller, Monsanto, and successor company Bayer got me to thinking about Watts’ past corporate affiliations. The article detailed the role that Monsanto played in supposedly objective outside research that said their product RoundUp was safe. You had company scientists reviewing the drafts of outside research and suggesting changes. One wonders what role the public relations experts at Monsanto played in this.

The law firm leading many of the lawsuits against Bayer (which previously merged with Monsanto) is Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman PC. They have now started posting Monsanto emails found during discovery on their website. I haven’t started searching them yet but I do wonder what name I might discover when I do.

For those that are unaware, long before Shannon Watts was the founder of Moms Demand Action and long before her last name was Watts, she was Shannon Troughton and served as the Director of Global Public and Corporate Affairs for Monsanto from 2001 to 2004. That was a pretty fast advancement for someone who graduated Mizzou a mere seven years earlier. It means she was damn good at spin.

Interestingly, the first article I found linking then-Shannon Troughton with RoundUp was in my former hometown newspaper The Greensboro Daily News and Record. It had to do with a lawsuit filed by Syngenta which has a major facility in Greensboro against Monsanto. Both companies produced herbicides and there was a patent battle.

From the article:

Monsanto spokeswoman Shannon Troughton said the company is “surprised and disappointed with Syngenta’s lawsuit, since our business teams were in the midst of discussions on license terms for their new product.”


She said Monsanto is “confident in the validity” of the patents, which the company “will vigorously defend.”


Troughton added, “If Syngenta wants to face an injunction for product sales in the absence of a license, that’s their business decision.”

Another article quoting her talked about Brazil’s ban on GMO seeds like the Monsanto “Roundup Ready” seeds and her wish that Brazil would allow them in the country. While another article quoting her details Monsanto’s legal war against farmers saving seed.

The bottom line is that every time you hear Shannon Watts dancing in the blood of crime victims in her efforts to push gun control “for the children” remember her background. She’s an expert at pushing the narrative and the only narrative that really matters is the one that personally benefits her the most.

Now it is time to start searching those lawsuit emails for hidden gems.

Uncategorized

Bumpstocks Didn’t Get Stay – What To Do Now

April 8, 2019 by 3 Comments

This past Friday the US Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs in Guedes et al v. BATFE and Codrea v. Barr a stay in the bump stock ban rule and referred the request back to the Circuit Court for the DC Circuit.

18A1019 GUEDES, DAMIEN, ET AL. V. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, ET AL.


The application for stay, presented to The Chief Justice
and by him referred to the Court, is denied.


Applicants request that if we deny this application we
grant a limited stay of 120 hours to allow them to come into
compliance with the Final Rule. We refer the issue of such a
stay to the D.C. Circuit for its consideration.


Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch would grant the
application.

So where does this leave the case now?

The Firearms Policy Foundation released a statement by email along with the response of the Circuit Court on Sunday evening. If you do have a bump stock and are a member of one of the organizations such as Florida Carry or the Firearms Policy Foundation, you have until 5pm, Wednesday, April 10, 2019 to legally turn it in.

From FPF:

On Friday, the Supreme Court denied our legal team’s request
for a stay (i.e., postponement) of the ATF’s Final
Rule re-classifying “bump-stock-type” devices as illegal
machineguns while we continue to litigate the various claims we raised
in our lawsuit and in the other consolidated cases. The D.C. Circuit
subsequently ordered the following:

PER CURIAM ORDER [1781463] filed that,
based on the government’s representation that it will not enforce the
Bump-Stock Rule against the named plaintiffs or their bona fide
members before 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 10, 2019, the emergency
joint motion to extend stay order [1781365-2] be denied and the
administrative stay entered on March 23, 2019, and clarified on March
25, 2019, be dissolved. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate
forthwith. Before Judges: Henderson, Srinivasan and Millett. [19-5042,
19-5044]



The Government (DOJ/ATF) has agreed to allow the individual
plaintiffs in Guedes, et al. v. BATFE, et al. and the
organizational plaintiffs’ – i.e., Firearms Policy Foundation, Florida
Carry, Inc., and Madison Society Foundation, Inc. — bona fide members
(as well as the individuals in the consolidated Codrea, et
al. action) to come into compliance with the new Final Rule by
5p.m. on Wednesday, April 10, 2019. The Government also represented
that it “will also retain the bump stocks” that are provided to them
in compliance efforts until our legal action is completely
concluded.


Friday’s Supreme Court decision to deny the stay we requested was
disappointing but not entirely unexpected. But importantly, there is
much litigation left before the cases are disposed of. Our team is
currently working on a petition for en banc rehearing by the
full D.C. Circuit. And we are prepared, if need be, to petition the
U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari (review).


We maintain that the Government’s new rule is unconstitutional and
unlawful. And we will continue to aggressively litigate this case and
work to defend American gun owners from this unlawful ban mandated
by President Donald Trump. Updates will continue to be posted to our
BumpstockCase.com
case webpage.


In an abundance of caution, we wanted to make you aware of how the
Final Rule could affect owners of affected devices. As set forth in
the Final
Rule, 83 Fed.Reg. 66530, and according
to the ATF, a bump-stock-type device owner’s options are:


1) Destroy the bump-stock device according to the ATF’s published
“Bump
Stock Destruction Instructions”; or,


2) Surrender it/them to the “nearest” ATF office. (ATF advises that
it is best to make an appointment beforehand with the nearest ATF
office.) You can find your local ATF field office and their phone
number at https://www.atf.gov/contact/local-atf-offices.


Non-compliance with the ATF’s Final Rule (i.e., continued
possession of a bump-stock-type device) could lead to serious criminal
liability. Individuals (or a company/organization) who
maintain possession of an affected device can be prosecuted for
unlawful possession of a putative machinegun, where he/she/they can be
imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined up to $250,000 (or more in
some cases) per violation.


Chief Counsel Joshua Prince of Firearms Industry Consulting Group,
a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., who is representing
Firearms Policy Foundation and numerous other plaintiffs in
Guedes, et al. v. BATFE, et al., has suggested that
individuals who wish to comply with the ATF’s Final Rule by
surrendering their device to the ATF do so under protest.


As you may be aware, both ATF’s
website relating to bump-stock devices and the Final
Rule, 83 Fed.Reg. 66530, declare that “current possessors also
have the option to abandon bump-stock-type devices at the nearest ATF
office.” In spite of that, however, some reports
(and our own experience) suggest that not all ATF local offices are
accepting bump-stock devices. Thus, you should call the local ATF
office before you travel there to confirm that they are, indeed,
accepting affected devices.


If they are accepting such devices, then make them aware that you
intend to visit their office to surrender your bump-stock device(s)
under protest and inquire as to whether they have any specific
procedures for your entry into the building.


Before you go, you will want to take pictures of your bump-stock
device(s), in case there is ever a question as to the condition, make,
and model of it/them. And you should also consider preparing a letter,
such as the Sample Letter provided below, to advise the ATF that you
are providing them your bump-stock device(s) under protest.


When you go, provide the ATF agent handling your matter with a copy
of the letter and demand that they provide you with a property receipt
that reflects their receipt of your bump-stock device(s) and specifies
the make and model of the device(s). Be aware that they may attempt to
have you sign an ATF 3400.1 Form – Consent to Forfeiture or
Destruction of Property and Waiver of Notice – which you
should NOT sign under ANY circumstance. In the event that
they ask you to sign an ATF 3400.1, inform them that the
only ATF form you are willing to sign is an
ATF 3400.23 – Receipt of Property and Other Items. If they argue at
all with you, politely tell them to review the internal memo that ATF
circulated regarding the right of individuals to surrender
bump-stock-type devices under protest and those individual’s right to
refuse to sign an ATF 3400.1 form.


It would also be prudent to separately document your experience of
the encounter in writing – such as the date and time of your visit,
the location of the ATF office you went to, the names or other
identifying information (ID #, etc.) of all ATF agents or persons you
spoke with, the details of all discussions, and any other information
they told or provided you – and keep it in a safe place.


You can also let our team know if the ATF in any way refuses or
rejects your attempt to comply with the Final Rule. You can submit a
report of your issue to hotline@fpchq.org and/or contact
your attorney for specific legal advice.


In the event that ATF elects to institute a forfeiture action
against your property, they are required to serve you with a copy. If
that happens, you should immediately contact an attorney, preferably
one who specializes in federal firearms law, if you wish to challenge
ATF’s ability to forfeit your property. Again, you can submit a report
of your issue to hotline@fpchq.org, but always
contact your attorney for specific legal advice.


Again, we will continue to aggressively litigate this case and work
to defend American gun owners from this unlawful and unconstitutional
ban.


If you are able, please help support this important lawsuit and our
fight for your rights by making a tax-deductible donation at FightATF.com.

NOTE: This message and its contents are intended to provide
general information only. It is not intended to provide legal advice.
You should always contact your attorney if you want or need specific
legal advice. 

Uncategorized

A Partial Loss In California Mag Ban Case

April 5, 2019 by 2 Comments

The opinion and ruling by US District Court Judge Roger Benitez in the California magazine ban case – Duncan et al v. Becerra – has garnered lots of attention this past week. His ruling was a permanent injunction on California’s ban on the sale of standard capacity magazines. The result has been that the major online retailers such as Palmetto State Armory, AIM Surplus, Brownells, and Midway USA have been inundated with orders for magazines by California residents.

As you might imagine, the State of California and Attorney General Xavier Becerra are not happy campers. They requested an immediate stay on the ruling while they appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This afternoon, Judge Benitez granted a partial stay after weighing the arguments of both sides and trying to satisfy both sides.

From his order:

In layman’s terms, the State of California and the law enforcement agencies
therein will be free to re-start the enforcement of Calif. Penal Code § 32310 (a) and
(b) which currently prohibits, among other things, any person in the state from
manufacturing, importing into the state, offering for sale, giving, lending, buying,
or receiving a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds (as defined by
Calif. Penal Code § 16740). This will continue until the appeal proceedings
conclude or the stay is modified or lifted.

At the same time, the State of California and the law enforcement agencies
therein will remain enjoined (or prevented) from enforcing Calif. Penal Code
§ 32310 (c) and (d) which would have criminalized the simple possession of a
firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds and required disposing of such magazines. This will also continue until the appeal proceedings conclude or the
stay is modified or lifted.

Both parties indicate in briefing that persons and business entities in California
may have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more
than 10 rounds since the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and in
reliance on the injunction. Indeed, it is the reason that the Attorney General seeks
urgent relief in the form of a stay pending appeal. Both parties suggest that it is
appropriate to fashion protection for these law-abiding persons.


THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment is stayed in part
pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment. The permanent
injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) is
hereby stayed, effective 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.


IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the preliminary injunction issued
on June 29, 2017, enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) and
(d) shall remain in effect.


IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the permanent injunction
enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) shall remain in
effect for those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported,
sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of
this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.

Dated: April 4, 2019

Translated this means that standard capacity magazines can’t be sold, made, imported, or given away after tomorrow, Friday, April 5, 2019 at 5:00pm PDT. However, if you bought a magazine, sold a magazine, or otherwise transferred one into California between March 29th and April 5th at 5:00pm, you are still covered by the permanent injunction against the ban. This means you have until 5:00pm tomorrow to receive it. Or take a quick trip out of state – Nevada, Arizona, etc – and be back by 5:00pm with your new standard capacity magazines.

Moreover, further translating, the preliminary injunction prevents prosecution of those who possessed a standard capacity magazine prior to July 1, 2017. They will not be forced to dispose of their magazines to comply with subsection (d).

You can read the relevant penal code here.

Uncategorized

Misleading Headline But Then Again It’s Al Jazeera

April 3, 2019 by

There was an article online with Al Jazeera that had a headline that read, “New Zealand gun lobby backs ban after Christchurch mosques attack”. You are justified in thinking that New Zealand firearms organizations are a bunch of sheep-like wusses if you believed that headline. The only problem is that when you dig further the anonymous author took quotes out of context and ignored actual opposition to the proposals of Prime Minister Jacinda Adern.

It starts with this from the Secretary of the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners:

In stark contrast to the United States, where even the most minor curbs on gun ownership meet ferocious opposition led by the National Rifle Association, New Zealand gun owners agree action is needed.


“We want to support our government in any changes to prevent a terrorist attack from happening in New Zealand again,” said Nicole McKee, secretary of the Council of Licensed Firearm Owners.

That differs from what they are saying now on their Facebook page. They have asked that the consultation period be the normal six months and that a select committee be set up to study it. This has been ignored in the NZ government’s planned bill and COLFO has said:

Today, the Arms (Prohibited firearms, Magazines and Parts) Amendment Bill was released. You had best sit up and pay attention as we are being let down BADLY.

We NEED 100,000 people to step up and state they wish to be able to fire their centre-fire semi-automatic firearms. We NEED you ALL to submit to the select committee and to ask to speak in person. That is the simple key message.

I don’t think that sounds like an organization that is backing the government of New Zealand’s gun control policies. They are also feeling like scapegoats.

Some Licensed firearm owners are feeling they are being made the scapegoat for the
actions of a terrorist, we would like to quote the Prime Minister and say on their behalf ‘We
did not do this’.

Here is what is being banned by the Government of New Zealand’s proposed bill which will carry penalties from 2 to 10 years of imprisonment for violating it.

The Bill inserts new provisions to provide a general prohibition on importing, selling, supplying, or possessing any of the following:


  • a semi-automatic firearm (other than a pistol), with some exceptions:
  • a pump-action shotgun that is capable of being used with a detachable magazine:
  • a pump-action shotgun that has a non-detachable tubular magazine or magazines that can hold more than 5 cartridges or magazines:
  • magazines for shotguns that can hold more than 5 cartridges:
  • magazines for any other firearm that are detachable and can hold—

  • 0.22 calibre or less rimfire cartridges and more than 10 of those cartridges; or
  • more than 10 cartridges and can be used with a semi-automatic or fully automatic firearm:

  • any other magazine that can hold more than 10 cartridges:
  • a part of a prohibited firearm, including a component, that can be applied to enable, or take significant steps towards enabling, a firearm to be fired with, or near, a semi-automatic action.

In the quote from the National Rifle Association of New Zealand referring to only shooting with single shot bolt action rifles, it was taken from the President’s newsletter which contained a number of bulleted items. NRA-NZ is a rifle shooting club that engages in stuff like the Palma Championships and F Class rifle contests. The newsletter notes that they are part of the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners and are letting that organization take the lead in the response to the political situation post-Christchurch mosque attack.

Finally, the COLFO has a number of position papers including this one on what they call “military-style semi-automatics” or MSSAs. From the position paper:

COLFO POLICY


COLFO considers the current licensing requirements for military style semi-automatic firearms meets both the needs of society and firearms owners. The legislation has proved successful in regulating the ownership, use and safe storage of such firearms.


COLFO also believes that MSSAs should be transferable between E endorsement holders and those with a C category endorsement. This would enable bona fide collectors and museums the opportunity to retain or purchase them.


COMMENT


The tragedies that involve mass murder using firearms are normally followed by emotive calls for tighter gun control as people look for a quick fix to feel more secure. It is a fact that those who are diagnosed as mentally ill have little or no respect for any laws let alone firearm laws.


COLFO considers legislating to further restrict firearms possession among law abiding and licensed owners will have no effect on the incidents of violence involving firearms. This has been proven by overseas experience.

I think this conclusively puts a nail in the coffin of the quote implying that they support the NZ government’s plans to ban these firearms.

My final comment is that the number of firearms voluntarily turned in is minimal (less than 50). Despite not having constitutional protections for either free speech or the right to keep and bear arms, it seems many New Zealanders are taking the Gonzales approach – Come and Take It.