Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Every Picture Tells A Story, Part Three

October 15, 2015 by 11 Comments

Four years ago Rob Vance and I collaborated on a post showing the progress of concealed carry from 1986 through 2011. The post was anchored by a graphic that showed the growth in shall-issue carry and constitutional carry as a percentage of the United State population. At that time, approximately two-thirds of all Americans lived in a state that allowed either shall-issue or constitutional carry. In other words, shall-issue had become the new normal as it continues to be.

Effective October 15th, Maine becomes the seventh state to have constitutional carry. Rob thought now would be a good time to revisit this advancement of freedom and gun rights. I agree because that two-thirds of all Americans in 2011 has become three-fourths of all Americans in 2015.

As Rob explains:

The sea change in the legal status of concealed carry in the United States described below in graphic form follows a still ongoing grass roots effort at the state level, yet with national implications. There is now a fundamental recognition by the American public that giving advantages to criminals over law-abiding citizens, by means of law, is a logical and moral error. This realization has driven the liberalization of state level laws regarding concealed carry since Florida led the way in the modern era beginning in 1987. Twenty-six years later, Illinois became the last state with a de jure ban on concealed carry – passing “shall issue” legislation allowing legalized concealed carry for its citizens as a result of losing Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan in the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals. First permits under the new law were issued in 2014 in that state. The restoration of this fundamental freedom will continue by legislation where we can and by litigation where we cannot.

The two biggest changes shown in the graphic below are the addition of Illinois to the shall-issue column and the growth of constitutional carry from just two small states (Vermont and Alaska) to a total of seven today.

Rob and I are working on an update to Every Picture Tells A Story, Part Two as well as new effort called The Next Wave. This new effort will examine the growth of constitutional carry and its chances in states where it has been introduced but either not passed or vetoed by the governor.

Given that neither Rob nor I believe in hiding our data nor how we put things into categories, you can see it in this appendix.

As of October 15, 2015 here’s the box score in detail state by
state:
Unrestricted Carry States (5.1 %
US population)
Alaska,
Arkansas, Arizona, Kansas, Maine (as of 10/15/15), Vermont, and Wyoming
Shall Issue States (67.5 %
US population)
Alabama,
Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin
May Issue States (27 %
US population)
California (some counties are
effectively No Issue, and others are much more permissive), Connecticut (*since
2013 I have accounted this as May Issue, as local conditions have changed from
permissive to much less so), Delaware, District of Columbia (obviously not a
state, but treated as one for this analysis), Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island
No Issue State (.4 %
US population)
Hawaii (the legal status of Hawaii
is such that while permits are legally available, none are issued, which is why
it is counted as No Issue in this analysis, rather than fitting into the May
Issue category which it’s legislation warrants).
A word or two on definition of terms used in this analysis/graphic:
UNRESTRICTED: no permit is required
to carry a concealed firearm, aka Constitutional Carry
SHALL ISSUE: permit required but
the state is obligated to issue a permit if the applicant meets certain
criteria (age, no felony record, no drug arrests, etc.); i.e., the state has no
discretion.
MAY ISSUE: permit required but
local authorities (e.g. sheriffs’ offices) have discretion in the form of
requirements above and beyond what the state requires.
NO ISSUE: private citizens are
effectively prohibited from carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home
Find the detail data here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QxBfs9acTUH8hL1OtkitcivuCzr4IQKjKOQ4_obK61c/pubhtml
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
http://legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm
Thanks also to Jeff Dege at 
http://www.gun-nuttery.com.
Uncategorized

Brady’s Response To Badger Gun Win

October 15, 2015 by

I probably should have looked for the Brady Center’s response to the outcome of the Badger Guns’ case but just didn’t want to hear them gloat.

There are some things there were not said in the press release below. First and foremost is the fact that Brady Center attorneys Jonathan Lowy and Alla Lefkowitz were removed from the case and censured by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for legal improprieties.

Second, the “89 people dying every day from guns” statement by Dan Gross gives the impression that all 32,000 plus of those deaths were the direct result of the illegal use of a firearm as well as that firearm being sold improperly by a Federally license dealer. However, the reality is that that number includes suicides, hunting accidents, criminals shot and killed by the police, and, yes, people who were murdered. According to the latest mortality data from the CDC, there were 11,208 homicides using a firearm in 2013. There were 41,149 self-inflicted deaths in 2013 of which about half involved the use of a firearm. As Dan Gross and the coterie of public health researchers in the pockets of the anti-rights movement know, adding suicide numbers grossly distorts the real issue.

Third, the use of the term “gun companies” gives the impression that a straw purchase is the fault of the manufacturer. This, of course, is incorrect. In this case, if the FFL was truly negligent, then the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act worked as intended because negligent acts are not protected by it.

So with that being said, here is what the Brady Center had to say:

WASHINGTON, DC – In a landmark decision, a Milwaukee jury yesterday found Badger Guns responsible for the illegal sale of a gun that was used to seriously injure two police officers. Lawyers from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence brought the case in 2010.

Until now, the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act has made such victories all but impossible, providing gun companies unique legal protections in many cases when they negligently sell or make a gun that ends up being used in a crime.

Dan Gross, President of the Brady Campaign & Center to Prevent Gun Violence said: “This case should serve as a warning to all gun dealers who resort to irresponsible and unsafe business practices. You must be responsible corporate citizens or the Brady Center will hold you accountable. With 89 people dying every day from guns, Americans have had enough of the special rules that make gun companies richer and place ordinary people in danger of being shot and killed.”

The Milwaukee jury awarded over $5 million to the two police officers, finding Badger Guns responsible for the sale to a straw purchaser because the store knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the sale was illegal.

Jonathan Lowy, Director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project, who successfully argued against the dealer’s motions to dismiss and summary judgment, said: “Two brave officers and an extraordinary trial lawyer, Pat Dunphy, made history yesterday, and they made America a safer place. Most gun dealers are decent, responsible business people who already do what they can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But to those dealers who choose to irresponsibly supply and profit from the criminal market, the message from Milwaukee is clear: protect people over profits, or you will have to pay the consequences to your victims.”

The Brady Center, along with the law firm of Cannon & Dunphy of Brookfield, Wisconsin brought the lawsuit in 2010 on behalf of two police officers injured in the line of duty, Bryan Norberg and Graham Kunisch. Patrick Dunphy tried the case for the officers, assisted by Brett Eckstein.

Uncategorized

History Freebies

October 14, 2015 by 3 Comments

The African Bush Wars have always intrigued me. Whether it was in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), Angola, Mozambique, or South West Africa (now Namibia), you had Communist-backed insurgencies, guerrilla warfare, and effective counter-insurgency campaigns. It was kind of like seeing the Vietnam War set in southern Africa but without the massive involvement of the United States.

Today I stumbled across a website that has a number of free e-books available for download. What makes it most interesting is that you have books from both sides. You have analyses of the impact of the Soviet and Cuban advisors, you have a book written by a Cuban about his perspective on the air war in Angola, you have many books from the South African perspective, and the list goes on.

The website also has one of the most extensive collections of books on the African Bush Wars for sale.

Bush War Books and the free downloads can be found here.

Uncategorized

Bad Apple Lawyers Win One In Milwaukee

October 13, 2015 by

The Brady Center won one this afternoon in Milwaukee. A jury decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against Badger Guns in a lawsuit that was supported by the Brady Center. The lawsuit accused Badger Guns of being negligent for allowing a straw purchase. The firearm purchased was later used to shoot two Milwaukee police officers. The jury awarded the police officers $5 million.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The high-profile case, only the second of its kind nationwide, went to the jury of eight women and four men late Monday afternoon and deliberations continued Tuesday. They deliberated for nine hours.

Officer Bryan Norberg and former Officer Graham Kunisch were shot by Julius Burton during a routine stop on Milwaukee’s near southside in June 2009. A month earlier, Jacob Collins bought the gun at Badger Guns for Burton, who was too young to buy a handgun from a store. Burton paid Collins $60. Burton is serving 80 years while Collins already finished his two years in federal prison.

Norberg and Kunisch allege in their 2010 suit that Badger Guns, its predecessor, Badger Outdoors, and the owners of both broke the law, were negligent in sales practices and conspired to keep the operation going when federal regulators recommended revoking the license.

The case is the second to make it to trial since a federal law passed granting immunity to gun dealers and manufacturers. The law has exceptions, including allowing plaintiffs to sue if they can show evidence of illegal gun sales. The first such case to go to trial ended in victory for an Alaskan gun store his summer.

The conspiracy allegation by Kunisch and Norberg is aimed at how the store went from being Badger Outdoors to Badger Guns in 2007.

Badger Guns lost its FFL in 2011 for reasons unrelated to this straw purchase.

According to a report on the case by Pierre Thomas of ABC News, the defendants do plan to appeal the verdict.

Brady Center attorneys Jonathan Lowy and Alla Lefkowitz had been forced to withdraw from this case for violating Wisconsin Supreme Court rules of conduct for attorneys.

UPDATE: A commenter on Facebook, Anthony aka The Packetman, pointed out quite correctly that the BATFE would have brought criminal charges against the owners of Badger Guns if they thought they had a winnable case. They didn’t.

It should also be pointed out that the standard of proof in a civil trial is much less than in a criminal trial. It only requires a preponderance of the evidence to win unlike in criminal cases which requires beyond a reasonable doubt.

Uncategorized

“Guns Kill. Diseases Kill. It’s A Public Health Issue” – John Hockenberry

October 13, 2015 by 3 Comments

John Hockenberry, host of NPR’s The Takeaway, interviewed Tom Gresham of Gun Talk last Thursday. The interview was polite if a bit contentious. The contentiousness came due to the closed mind of Hockenberry who, by the way, had interviewed Piers Morgan about guns the day before. Tom was asked to be on the show because he has the largest, nationally syndicated radio show devoted to guns in America.

Tom discussed his interview on Sunday’s Gun Talk. He noted that he spoke with Hockenberry for approximately a half hour while what was aired was less than eight minutes.

During the interview the topic of the funding of “gun violence” (sic) research at the Centers for Disease Control came up. Tom said he wasn’t opposed to funding research at the CDC if it wasn’t done with a preconceived outcome. That is when Hockenberry equated guns with ebola. Tom responded, somewhat incredulously, “You are equating guns with ebola?” Hockenberry responded, “Guns kill. Diseases kill. It’s a public health issue.”

You can listen to the whole interview below:

It is interesting to note that some of Hockenberry’s liberal listeners were not impressed with how Hockenberry handled things. There was this comment by “Jenny from Connecticut”:

This is the most disappointing segment of this show I’ve ever heard, and it’s one that will forever change how I feel about The Takeaway and John Hockenberry. He wasn’t interested in having a real conversation with his guest; he treated Mr. Gresham like some ignorant bloodthirsty redneck and refused to engage in a conversation. (By the way. Mr. Hockenberry, studying ebola is NOT just like studying gun violence. Ebola is most definitely deadly and likely to result in one’s death. Guns are not 100% guaranteed deadly; they have to be misused by a person to kill. Comparing gun violence to a highly virulent disease is just plain ignorant. You were so hell-bent on showing how superior you are to Mr. Gresham that you clearly couldn’t think straight.)

I say all this by way of disappointment. I am a good, anti-gun liberal (who also grew up with people who used guns safely and sanely, and I do believe that is possible) but more and more I hear commentary like this: “Oh, I’m such a smart liberal who knows guns kill and you are some dumb hillbilly I can condescend to.” It cheapens the debate and will never get us to a place of safety.

Another listener, “James from Philly” had this to say:

Really sounded like Mr. Hockenberry let too much of Piers “Musket” Morgan rub off on him before interviewing Mr. Gresham. That was an incredibly unprofessional interview on Hockenberry’s part and rather than discuss the points Tom Gresham was making (and he was stating facts) he devolved into some strange passive-aggressive theme where he anthropomorphized firearms and mischaracterized Tom’s statements, demonstrating the Mr. Hockenberry was more interested in peddling gun control laws for their own sake rather than weighing the real merits and seeing why such laws do nothing that they are promised to do. Journalistic integrity is becoming a rarity, even on NPR.

Hockenberry did have his supporters:

Tom LI: How can anyone seriously argue that the presence of a gun doesn’t embolden certain personalities to use the device suddenly and emotionally..?


Mary from Nor Cal: THANK YOU!!!!! You are one of the only honest, forthright and outspoken journalists out there. Thank you for your show! Regarding guns – handguns need to be banned. We are the only covalized county that allows gun ownership and it is long past time to change that.

Moving beyond the show to Hockenberry himself, I find it interesting that for someone confined to a wheelchair since 1976 that he is so anti-gun and anti-self defense. I wonder what he would say to my friend Kurt Hofmann who, like Hockenberry, is a paraplegic confined to wheelchair. Kurt, gun blogger, the former St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner and current S.W.A.T. Magazine columnist, came to gun rights when he found that Illinois would not let him defend himself with a firearm outside the home. That would be an interesting conversation to say the least!

Uncategorized

Doctors For Responsible Gun Ownership Respond To Dr. Carson’s Suggestion

October 13, 2015 by

I had the opportunity to sit down with some of the physicians involved in Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership while at the recent Gun Rights Policy Conference. I was impressed by their dedication to gun rights and am glad that they are on our side.

Last week presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson hinted his possible support for the creation of a database of “dangerous people” to reduce mass shootings by preventing such people from gaining access to firearms. Dr. Carson further stated he does not oppose repealing the ban on federal funding for gun research at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Timothy Wheeler, director of DRGO, has released an open letter to Dr. Carson on these issues. Dr. Wheeler was one of the physicians who testified before the House Appropriations Committee back in 1996 about the CDC’s misleading research and its anti-gun advocacy.

The open letter is below:

Dear Dr. Carson:
As a nationwide group of fellow freedom-loving health care professionals, we are glad to see your candidacy for President.  We are gratified to have seen a change in your public statements on firearm policy since you entered the primary race. Along the way you have apparently become educated in the demographics and political philosophy of the American right to keep and bear arms.  These are things your otherwise extraordinary career may not have prepared you for, and we thank you for making the effort to learn them.
Still, your recent remarks supporting restoration of funding for gun research to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) make us wonder if you know why Congress reined in the CDC’s gun control research in the 1990s.
Part of the mission of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership is to guard against biased, agenda-driven advocacy science that attacks the right of gun ownership under the guise of legitimate science.  Unfortunately, gun control advocates at the CDC long ago assumed a central role in funding and supporting such advocacy science.  And as you know, research motivated by a political agenda is not real science at all.
I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House Appropriations Committee in 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. We presented testimony documenting the CDC’s political agenda against gun ownership. Further, we showed the committee evidence of misuse of taxpayer money to fund gun control advocacy:
  • The CDC funded research culminating in numerous medical journal articles. The articles invariably proclaimed gun ownership to be a public health hazard. The most controversial was “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home,” (New England Journal of Medicine 329, no. 15, October 7, 1993). Its authors claimed that keeping a gun in the home increased the risk of becoming a homicide victim.
  • The authors incorrectly used a case control method to claim a causal relation between gun ownership and homicide risk. They improperly generalized from a highly selection-biased study group of inner city homicide victims to gun owners across the country, even in rural and low-crime areas.
  • In an official 1993 CDC publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, senior CDC administrators proposed allowing only police, guards, and the military to have guns. As an alternative they proposed the outright prohibition of gun ownership (see page 19 of original document).
  • In 1995 CDC grant money was used by the Trauma Foundation, a group of San Francisco gun control activists, to publish a newsletter promoting gun control. The CDC-funded newsletter advised readers to “organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites” and to “work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby’s political clout.”
  • The director at that time of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, Dr. Mark Rosenberg, has repeatedly made derogatory public statements about gun ownership. In a December 9, 1993 Rolling Stone interview Director Rosenberg was quoted as saying he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”
We would not be surprised if you are unaware of the valid reasons for Congress’s defunding of CDC firearms research. Most major media outlets refuse to mention that history in their many protests about the defunding, since they are almost all unapologetic supporters of strict gun control.
More detail on the history of Congress’s defunding of the CDC is available at DRGO’s website in the three-part series titled “Public Health Gun Control: A Brief History”.  Broader commentary and documentation of the public health community’s deliberate campaign against gun owners is available at the website. We invite your critical review. And we wish you the best in the months to come.
Yours truly,
Timothy Wheeler, MD
Director
Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
A Project of the Second Amendment Foundation
Uncategorized

September NICS Checks Hits Record Levels

October 13, 2015 by 1 Comment

There seems to be a strong correlation between what comes out of the mouths of anti-gun rights politicians and rising NICS checks. Both President Obama and semi-presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton have recently said they admire the Australian model. Translated this means the confiscation and destruction of those firearms they don’t like which is the majority of firearms out there.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation reported their adjusted NICS checks for September yesterday along with the third quarter 2015 statistics. Suffice it to say, they hit records for the highest month and highest quarters on record.

The September 2015 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 1,071,945 is the highest September on record for the 17-year-old system, with an increase of 4.7 percent compared to the September 2014 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,024,272. For comparison, the unadjusted September 2015 NICS figure of 1,786,743 reflects a 23.4 percent increase from the unadjusted NICS figure 1,447,485 in September 2014.


The third quarter 2015 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 3,050,432 is the highest third quarter on record – a 7.8 percent increase over third quarter 2014.

You can see this graphically below:

What impresses me about these statistics is that they have surpassed similar periods in 2013 which was the immediate post-Newtown surge. Beyond the political rhetoric I’m not exactly sure what is responsible for this growth. The attendance at the local gun show this past weekend did not seem extraordinary and the number of AR15s for sale seemed to be down. However, on a personal note, I did get a message from one of the Complementary Spouse’s cousins asking for help in purchasing a firearm. He noted that he’d never owned a firearm but felt he should be armed.

As always, these NSSF-adjusted NICS checks do not have a direct correlation with sales. Several states use the NICS system for the issuance and continued inspection of concealed firearm permits. Moreover, the CCW permits from many states can be used as a substitute for a NICS check. This said, the adjusted NICS checks do show sales trends and they seem to be trending up again.

Uncategorized

Great To See A Detective Special Reviewed

October 12, 2015 by

Colt hasn’t been making the Detective Special since the latter part of the 1990s. Still there are a lot of old ones hanging around. Heck, one is even in my gun safe.

Hickok45 did a review of an earlier edition Detective Special in .32 Colt NP that was published today. He did a good job on it. He is absolutely correct about the Colt trigger and stacking. It really does stack when shooting it double-action.

You have to wonder how much it would cost to make one of these revolvers nowadays. Probably too much to be economically viable.

Uncategorized

CMP Will Be Able To Sell Surplus 1911s If Obama Signs The Bill

October 12, 2015 by 2 Comments

I reported back in May that Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) had proposed that the Civilian Marksmanship Program be allowed to sell surplus 1911 pistols. Currently, it is costing the Department of Defense approximately $200,000 annually to store them.

The House passed the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2016 with Rep. Rogers’ amendment in it. However, the version passed by the Senate did not contain the provision authorizing transfer of these pistols to the CMP. Given this and other differences, the NDAA FY 2016 had to go to a conference committee to iron out the differences.

In what can only be considered a win, the Senate acceded to the House’s wishes and agreed to a pilot program.

Transfer of surplus firearms to Corporation for the Promotion of
Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety (sec. 1087)

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1085) that
would authorize the transfer of surplus firearms to the Civilian
Marksmanship Program (CMP).

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes with a clarifying amendment that
establishes a pilot program limited to .45 caliber handguns and
restricts the amount of handguns that can be transferred to the
CMP to no more than 10,000 units annually. Additionally, it
requires the CMP to provide a report to Congress after the
conclusion of the pilot program, obtain a federal firearm
license to conduct any and all handgun sales, and adhere to all
local, state, and federal laws in respect to handgun sales.

It’s a start.

 The conference report was sent to both houses on September 29th. The House voted 270-156 to accept the conference report on October 1st. This past Wednesday, October 7th, the Senate likewise voted to accept the conference report by a vote of 70-27.

Going over the list of senators who voted for and against the conference report you see some oddities. For example, notoriously anti-gun Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) voted for the conference report. Conversely, pro-gun rights Republicans like Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) voted against it. That said, I imagine their votes had nothing to do with the CMP provision and everything to do with other things within the NDAA FY 2016.

I do have one caveat:  the bill still must be signed by Barack Obama. I have not kept up with the politics of this bill to see whether he plans to sign or veto it.

I have no idea what the cost will be or the condition of the surplus 1911s. That said, I think it is time for me to start assembling my CMP qualification portfolio and join a CMP club like the Garand Collectors Association. If you are a member of the Glock Sport Shooting Foundation, you qualify as it is a CMP-affiliated club.

H/T Rob Reed

Uncategorized

Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others In California

October 11, 2015 by 3 Comments

California SB 707 was signed today by Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA). The bill prohibits gun owners from carrying concealed or otherwise on school property. The bill also make it against the law to have a single round of ammunition in your possession on school grounds regardless of whether you have a firearm. Brown ignored more than 40,000 letters and petitions from gun owners requesting that the veto the law.

The law exempts law enforcement officers including retired law enforcement. This latter part treats retired law enforcement as a special class even though the 9th Circuit struck down a law giving them special treatment back in 2002.

The Firearms Policy Coalition was one of the leading groups against the law and had hoped that Brown would veto it. I expect that they will file suit in due time to overturn this law.

They put out this release today:

SACRAMENTO – Today, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 707, prohibiting gun owners issued a license by their local police chief or sheriff from carrying handguns for self-defense on California school grounds. It also subjects those with a carry permit, issued only after passing a strict, fingerprint-based background check and agency-approved training course, harsh new criminal liability for merely possessing a single round of ammunition on the grounds of any school or college campus, even if they don’t also possess a firearm.

Brandon Combs, the President of Firearms Policy Coalition, stated, “This is not just an attack on our Second Amendment rights, it is an attack on the most vulnerable in our society. Victims of domestic violence and stalking, judges, prosecutors, and public defenders who have a carry license will now have to leave their registered self-defense handguns at home when picking up their children at school, leaving them without the necessary protection from violent criminals.”

As introduced in February, SB 707 would have broadly eliminated carry on campus for virtually everyone except on-duty police or others specifically authorized to assist in an emergency. But the powerful law enforcement lobby immediately reacted to the gun control bill by offering their full support — in exchange for preservation of existing exemptions for law enforcement retirees. They later cut deals to add in even more special exemptions, including for retired police reservists. Combs believes that this is blatantly unconstitutional.

“The Ninth Circuit decided well over a decade ago that retired police officers are no different than retired plumbers for the purposes of gun laws,” explained Combs. The 2002 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down a California law that gave retired law enforcement officers special exemptions from the Assault Weapons Control Act was reinforced in a 2010 legal opinion issued by then-Attorney General Jerry Brown.

In the opinion, Brown explained that “Silveira teaches that it is….a peace officer’s role as a law enforcement agent that provides a rational basis for distinguishing between a peace officer and a private citizen for purposes of possessing and using assault weapons. A retired officer is not authorized to engage in law enforcement activities.”

Additionally, Firearms Policy Coalition members and supporters submitted over 40,000 letters to the Governor’s office urging a veto of SB 707.

Combs concluded, “It is unfortunate that the Governor has ignored the will of his constituents, common sense, and his own legal opinion. We will now focus on preparing the lawsuit we promised we would file against this unconstitutional law.”


Gun owners who wish to support the SB 707 litigation can donate at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/california/sb707.