Firearm Policy Coalition On The Demands For More Gun Control

The Firearms Policy Coalition released a statement regarding the demand for more gun control following the horrific church shooting at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, Texas. They know that these tragedies are used as a pretext for more gun control.

It should be noted that the killer was convicted at a General Court Martial of a crime of domestic violence and had escaped from a mental institution. Both of these made the killer a prohibited person forbidden to own or purchase firearms. However, neither were reported to the FBI NICS database and he went on to buy firearms at retail and “pass” the NICS check.

From the FPC:

SACRAMENTO, CA (November 7, 2017) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement concerning demands for new gun control following the shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas:

We are deeply saddened by the loss of life and grieve for all those affected by the hand of an evil man in Sutherland Springs, Texas; indeed, we mourn for every man, woman, and child lost to unjust violence and unconscionable circumstance wherever and however they may fall.

In the aftermath of the horrific and illegal premeditated killing at the First Baptist Church we see once more, and quite clearly, that only virtuous people bearing arms can effectively respond to those evil or insane people who, devoid of a moral core, take deliberate actions to kill and injure others when they are at their most vulnerable. And, too, such virtuous people are not limited to those in government service; rather, they are found in abundance throughout our great nation, standing as sheepdogs, vigilant for the cause of peace but prepared to defend life if needed, perhaps even at the cost of their own.

In response to tragedy, some predatory politicians and others like them in the billionaire-backed gun control lobby have demanded, disingenuously, that those who advocate for individual freedoms must participate in some “conversation,” as if they are empowered to unilaterally compel their fellow citizens to do as they wish. But as the observant among us know all too well, their latent—and sometimes patent—desire is for no more dialogue to be had at all, simply that the Second Amendment’s core guarantees against government infringement be reduced unto a dead letter.

We believe the only “conversation” that is genuinely pertinent to their efforts is set forth in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which provides the process for lawfully changing the supreme document of our social contract. All other proposals turn on legislation wrought from the tyranny of the majority; administrative rules and regulations to expand their preferred bureaucracy; and lawless rule by now-fashionable ‘pen-and-phone’ executive fiat. As a reminder to all who promote such dangerous instruments to achieve their gun control goals: Any rule crafted to impinge on Second Amendment rights can just as easily be reframed to limit the rights you hold dear; any offense you might employ against individual freedom today will, at some point, become someone else’s incursion on another liberty tomorrow.

If gun control proponents were honest—and they are by no means honest—they would admit what they really want when they demand a dialogue: for freedom advocacy organizations like FPC, and our law-abiding supporters, to concede ground to them on their terms, and with no reciprocation, so that they may more easily red-line fundamental, individual constitutional rights they do not like. We refuse to participate in their squalid process. We have no moral obligation to aid and abet our opposition, whether physical or philosophical, and we will not do so here.

Law-abiding gun owners are not responsible for evil or insane killers who use firearms, just as peaceable Muslims are not responsible for radical Islamic terrorists flying planes into our buildings and killing thousands, slaying hundreds in bomb blasts, or even running over dozens with vehicles. As we have said before, we reject the notion that good people and our basic rights must suffer for the crimes of the wicked.

We know that modern theories of gun control rely on the existence of three essential components to achieve, through force and attrition, the ultimate goal of a disarmed society: registration of people and property in persistent databases (through background checks and sale or transfer records); ever-expanding categories of prohibited people and items; and responsive confiscation of arms through law enforcement efforts. See, for example, California’s firearm regulatory scheme and associated APPS confiscation program or the New York SAFE Act.

In the final analysis, all roads lead to confiscatory laws with criminal consequences. And those who advocate for gun control would see other peoples’ sons and daughters carry the personal risk of their unchained desire to re-create America into the authoritarian utopia they seek.

To be sure, all constitutional rights have social costs, and the Second Amendment is not unique from other fundamental rights in that respect. But those considerations were weighed and the social interests balanced when we ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791 and, perhaps more importantly, upon re-affirming our commitment to those principles for all people in 1868 when we enshrined the Fourteenth Amendment and ensured their application to states and local governments.

Because of inalienable human rights like the individual right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment, the news media is free to report on uncomfortable or embarrassing matters of national security; editorialists are free to discuss, even encourage, the removal of a sitting president; and those who promote gun control, even in opposition to the ruling party, have the freedom to advocate for those views.

The right to keep and bear arms, like freedom of speech and the right to due process, is a bright line rule that separates the people from servitude. Our nation’s founders wisely took great pains to protect fundamental rights like those contained in the First and Second Amendments in the very textual threads of our social fabric—not because they are benign, but because they are inherently dangerous and necessary to an enduring free Republic.

We recognize that gun control is one growing front of a still-cold but increasingly bitter war between those who desire a powerful government that has the ability to control its people and those who value freedom and individual liberty. But an armed and prepared citizenry—indeed, the unorganized militia—is the first, and perhaps last, line of defense against the deranged, evil, and tyrannical.

Accordingly, FPC believes that Congress should immediately work to remedy or repeal previously-enacted unconstitutional laws and expand statutory protections for those who would safely and responsibly exercise their right to keep and bear arms inside and outside their homes. Dozens of such bills exist today, and they should be passed and signed into law without further delay.

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

BOHICA: Feinstein’s AWB of 2017 Introduced

Democrats live by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s aphorism “don’t let a crisis go to waste” and they are wasting little time in using the church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Today, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced her new and updated Assault Weapons Ban of 2017. It goes well beyond her original bill from 1994. Not content to apply it just to rifles and carbines, it will also apply to semi-automatic pistols that include a threaded barrel. It would also mandate “safe storage” of existing firearms that would be covered under the bill that had been grandfathered. Finally, the bill will limit mag capacity to 10 rounds.

You can read the entire 125 pages of the bill here. While it goes into great detail, Appendix A is rather meaningless as it lists the firearms that are exempted such as the single shot Ruger Number 1.

According to her press release, she is joined in sponsoring the bill by:

Joining Senator Feinstein on the bill are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).

 There are no surprises on that list. Even Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) who represents the relatively gun friendly state of Pennsylvania threw in with the gun prohibitionists a long time ago. I’m sure he rationalizes it by noting that Pennsylvania doesn’t allow semi-autos for deer hunting.

Tweet Of The Day

I haven’t said anything on my blog about the shooting at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs. Part of it because there is more and more coming out. Part of it is because I don’t believe in instant analysis. Finally, part is that I spent the whole weekend taking Massad Ayoob’s MAG-20 Classroom – Armed Citizen’s Rules of Engagement and I am decompressing from that intense experience.

I saw this tweet a bit ago. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum is calling for a lifetime ban on those who “raises a hand against a woman or a child”.

The anti’s are saying some of the stupidest stuff. They are calling for new laws when the laws that would have prevented the church murderer from legally obtaining a firearm were already in place. The problem was that someone in the US Air Force screwed up and didn’t report the results of the general court martial in 2013 to the FBI’s NICS check system. Note that this screw up occurred during the Obama Administration.

Happy Fountain Pen Day!

The first Friday in November has been Fountain Pen Day since 2012. It was started as a day to “embrace, promote, and share the use of fountain pens.”

I have been using fountain pens off and on since elementary school where we had to use Sheaffer cartridge pens for penmanship. They came in a pack with five “washable blue” ink cartridges.

Now I have a wide assortment of fountain pens in my desk, around the house, and elsewhere. Some are cheap Chinese knock-offs, some are older American-made Esterbrooks, some are various German-made Lamy Safari pens, and the list goes on. I even have a couple of old Parker Duofolds in the traditional orangish red with black end caps from the 1920s. I hope to have those restored sometime.

I plan to celebrate Fountain Pen Day by deciding on which two or three fountain pens to take to this weekend’s MAG-20 class to be held in Charlotte. From what everyone who has taken either the MAG-40 or the MAG-20 classroom portion has told me, you will be writing as fast as you can.

If you are thinking of trying out a fountain pen, now is a good day to do it as many vendors are offering specials in honor of Fountain Pen Day. You can find a list of them here. I can personally vouch for Jet Pens and Goulet Pen Company as I’ve dealt with them in the past.

Tweet Of The Day

I found the following amusing though profoundly sad in its implications. At one time the FBI was a very respected institution. Lately it seems they are just another part of the politically-correct deep state who are more concerned with trapping Republicans for minor transgressions than in preventing honest to god, people are gonna die, terrorism.

Ruger Reintroduces The SP-101 In 9mm

The Ruger SP-101 in 9mm Luger (or Parabellum) had become something of a cult favorite with prices to match. Possible reasons for this may have been it was discontinued in 1998 with limited numbers on the market or because 9×19 ammo tends to be cheaper than either .38 Special or .357 Magnum ammo. It was originally available in both the 2.25″ and 3″ barrels and used moon clips to hold the non-rimmed ammo.

This week Ruger answered the prayers of those that wanted a SP-101 in 9mm but didn’t want to pay twice the price of a .38 or .357 Mag model. They have reintroduced the SP-101 in 9mm with a 2.25″ barrel.  MSRP on the reintroduced model is $719 but I’m sure the street price will be significantly lower. Checking gunbroker.com, I see them being sold for as low as $519 plus shipping.

SP-101 in 9mm 

Here are the specs on the reintroduced model:

  • GripsBlack Rubber, Black Synthetic
  • Front SightBlack Ramp
  • Barrel Length2.25″
  • MaterialStainless Steel

 

  • Capacity5
  • Rear SightIntegral
  • Twist1:16″ RH
  • FinishSatin Stainless

 

  • Overall Length7.20″
  • Weight25 oz.
  • Grooves5
  • CA ApprovedNo
  • MA Approved & CertifiedNo
  • Suggested Retail$719.00

I have a 3″ SP101 in .357 Magnum that I bought used a few years ago. With .38 Special wadcutters, it is the ideal gun to introduce new shooters to a center-fire handgun. The weight of the revolver makes it a very soft shooting handgun.

The new or reintroduced SP101 will definitely go on my “have to check it out” list.

CCRKBA On The 49ers

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, takes the 49ers to task for the half million dollar donation to anti-gun efforts. In doing so, he weaves in more football lingo than your average ESPN analyst in an amusing takedown of the hapless 49ers.

In other words, Alan is in the red zone when he steps under center, takes the snap, surveys the defense, and rifles a touchdown pass for the winning score.

From CCRKBA:

BELLEVUE, WA – While the San Francisco 49ers racked up their eighth consecutive defeat over the weekend, the team’s announcement last week that it is contributing $500,000 to gun control efforts just might seal their fate as losers on a different level in the eyes of millions of American gun owners, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“We’re throwing a flag on this play,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “After weeks of protests at various NFL games that have seen players disrespect the National Anthem, resulting in sliding television ratings and fan disapproval, giving a half-million dollars to people who attack gun rights is worse than a clipping penalty.

“The money is earmarked to support legislation in conflict with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” he added. “First the NFL disrespects the National Anthem, and now they disrespect our constitution.”

According to a report on ESPN, the money will also be used to support legislation that not only bans “bump stocks” but will also be aimed at prohibiting “silencers and armor piercing bullets.”

“The Hearing Protection Act might have a chance in Congress,” Gottlieb noted, “but for the Niners to give that kind of money to the opposition amounts to pass interference, and it should cost them more than 15 yards.

“Halfway into the season,” he continued, “San Francisco hasn’t put a single victory on the scoreboard. Now they’ve essentially insulted millions of NFL fans by helping bankroll the gun control effort. That’s like punting on a first down.”

“Professional football is supposed to be a sporting event that entertains and thrills fans,” Gottlieb observed, “not help finance efforts to erode their constitutional rights. Politics is threatening to ruin the games.

“By making this pledge to gun control,” he concluded, “the Niners are definitely off sides.”

A Couple Of Items From The NASGW Show



The National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers holds an annual expo and meeting every Fall. NASGW is the organization for the wholesalers within the shooting and hunting industry. Their expo often provides a sneak peak at new firearms that will be released to dealers in the near future.

Davidson’s is one of the larger wholesalers in the firearms industry. They are headquartered in Prescott, Arizona. They used to be in Greensboro, North Carolina and would open their warehouse for retail sales before Christmas. I remember going to their sales a time or two in the 70s and early 80s.

Davidson’s Gallery of Guns has posted a number of videos of new items on their YouTube page.

Here are a couple of items that caught my eye:

I hope Walther and Mossberg will have both of these firearms available at the SHOT Show’s Industry Day at the Range. I think a 20 gauge Shockwave would be easier on the arm than the 12 gauge version.

Late Friday News No. 2 – From Firearms Policy Coalition

A coalition of firearms and civil rights groups filed an amicus brief supporting the writ of certiorari by the petitioners in Silvester et al v. Becerra. The lead organization in the brief is the Firearms Policy Coalition which was joined in the brief by the Firearms Policy Foundation, the Madison Foundation, and Gunowners of California.

From FPC:

WASHINGTON,
D.C. (October 26, 2017) — Today, counsel for civil rights advocacy
organizations Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy
Foundation (FPF), Madison Society Foundation (MSF) and Gun Owners of
California (GOC) filed a “friends of the court” brief with the U.S.
Supreme Court encouraging their grant of review of a 9th Circuit ruling
that upheld the state’s 10-day waiting period. 
Attorney
Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, a former California deputy attorney general,
authored the brief which argues, among other things, that Supreme Court
review is necessary “to reestablish the rule of law and halt the trend
of judicial obstructionism” that is “jeopardizing” the constitutional
protections of the Second Amendment. 
“This
is not the first time the Ninth Circuit has played ‘fast and loose’
with the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence to fend off
constitutional claims – nor will it be the last if this Court does not
step in,” the brief said.
“Too
many times we have seen courts like the Ninth Circuit treat the Second
Amendment is if it was an unfortunate afterthought rather than a core
part of the Bill of Rights,” noted Jonathan Jensen, FPF’s vice-chairman.
“This case exemplifies everything that is wrong with Second Amendment
jurisprudence today.”
Said
FPC Vice President Alan Normandy, “The State did not prove its case,
but the 9th Circuit jumped through hoops to give them the win anyway.
That kind of a foul ball undermines the integrity of the court system
itself.”
“As
the Supreme Court has held, the Second Amendment is not a second-class
right,” DiGuiseppe explained. “Unfortunately, some lower courts have
used their relative inaction as a signal for defining it however they
prefer, even in contravention to the Court’s precedents. That must not
be allowed to continue.”
A copy of the brief can be viewed or downloaded at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/legal 

Late Friday News No. 1 – From Calguns Foundation

The Calguns Foundation sent out an update on their appeal for certiorari to the US Supreme Court regarding California’s 10-day waiting period on Friday. Silvester et al v. Becerra challenges the 10-day waiting period for those individual who either holds a California issued carry permit or is an existing gun owner who holds a California certificate of eligibility. This case was a win at the District Court level but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision. They bizarrely held that even existing firearms owners need a 10-day cooling off period.

From Calguns:

WASHINGTON,
D.C. (October 27, 2017) – A Second Amendment lawsuit out of California
is drawing attention at the Supreme Court and support from multiple
groups, said gun rights group The Calguns Foundation, which joined
Second Amendment Foundation and two individuals on a petition in
September seeking the Court’s review of a Ninth Circuit ruling that
upheld the state’s 10-day waiting period laws when they are enforced
against law-abiding gun owners after they pass a rigorous background
check.
Last
month, the respondent California Attorney General Xavier Becerra waived
his right to reply to the petition. But on September 29 the Supreme
Court ordered the State to reply; on October 24, the Court granted the
State of California an extension of time to file that reply, making the
new deadline December 1. Adding support for the case, multiple briefs
have been filed in support of the petitioners, encouraging the Supreme
Court to grant review and overturn the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
In
a brief authored by preeminent constitutional scholars Ilya Shapiro and
Trevor Burrus, the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Cato Institute
presented a strong case for the Court to grant certiorari.  The brief
argues, among other things, that intermediate scrutiny “means something
different in almost every circuit [court of appeal] when applied to the
Second Amendment” and that the Ninth Circuit “abused petitioners’
fundamental rights by misapplying intermediate scrutiny.”
And
in another brief, former California Deputy Attorney General Raymond M.
DiGuiseppe argued on behalf of a coalition of Second Amendment advocacy
groups—including Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation,
Gun Owners of California, and Madison Society Foundation—that Supreme
Court review is necessary in this case “to reestablish the rule of law
and halt the trend of judicial obstructionism” that is “jeopardizing”
the constitutional protections of the Second Amendment. “This is not the
first time the Ninth Circuit has played ‘fast and loose’ with the
Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence to fend off constitutional claims
– nor will it be the last if this Court does not step in,” the brief
said.
Attorneys
Douglas A. Applegate and George M. Lee of the San Francisco-based law
firm Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP filed a brief for the
Crime Prevention Research Center, a research and education organization
led by the renowned economist Dr. John Lott, arguing that “the standards
applied by the lower courts vary widely” and that “the Ninth Circuit
reversed the evidentiary findings of the trial court and supplanted the
evidence that the trial court received and weighed with its own
non-empirical views of what it thought was reasonable.”
“We
are pleased that other groups have recognized the serious flaws in the
Ninth Circuit’s approach,” explained Erik S. Jaffe, the petitioners’
Supreme Court counsel. “The results-driven analysis in the opinion below
not only does violence to the Second Amendment, but does violence to
the rule of law and respect for the courts. We are hopeful that the
Justices, whatever their views on the scope of the Second Amendment,
will recognize that the decision below is well out of bounds of any
reasonable reading of Supreme Court precedent or standards for
intermediate scrutiny and will take the necessary steps to ensure the
fair administration of justice in Second Amendment cases.”
In
2014, Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii—nominated to the
bench by then-President Clinton—held that California’s waiting period
laws were unconstitutional as applied to three categories of gun
purchasers after undertaking significant discovery, depositions, and a
three-day bench trial.
But
in 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
bizarrely ruled that even a person legally carrying a concealed handgun
as he buys another gun at retail, and who passes a further background
check, needs to be “cooled off” for another 10 days before exercising
his Second Amendment rights and taking possession of a
constitutionally-protected firearm.
Brandon
Combs, an individual plaintiff in the case as well as the executive
director of institutional plaintiff The Calguns Foundation, said that
the briefs made excellent arguments and further supported the petition
for review. “The Supreme Court has everything that it needs in a case
with an excellent trial record teed up here to save the Second Amendment
from hostile lower courts.”
“We are grateful to these amici
organizations and their counsel for their support of this case and
standing up for constitutional principles,” concluded Combs. 
A copy of the Silvester petition to the Supreme Court and the amicus briefs can be viewed or downloaded at https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/silvester.