Uncategorized

Uncategorized

NSSF Sues Sunnyvale, California Over New Gun Ordinance

December 11, 2013 by 6 Comments

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, US Firearms Company LLC, and Eric Fisher filed a lawsuit Monday in Santa Clara County (California) Superior Court seeking to enjoin the enforcement of a new gun ordinance. The ordinance requires sellers of ammunition to keep logs of purchasers, bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and requires the reporting of a firearms theft to the police within 48 hours. The ordinance was passed in a special city election with great support from Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors.

The lawsuit contends that the ordinance violates both state and Federal laws as well as being preempted by California state law dealing with firearms. The plaintiffs are seeking a temporary restraining order, a preliminary and permanent injunction, and a writ of mandate prohibiting its implementation as well as requiring notice to the police that the law is invalid.

The NSSF’s release on the lawsuit is below:

NEWTOWN, Conn. — the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms industry, has filed a lawsuit against the City of Sunnyvale, Calif. and the Sunnyvale City Council to prevent an ordinance passed in November from being enforced that is detrimental to responsible and law-abiding firearms retailers doing business within city limits.

In the complaint, NSSF and U.S. Firearms Company LLC, a local retailer, are challenging portions of the city’s newly enacted gun-control ordinance that violates and is preempted by state and federal law and that imposes an onerous regulatory burden on firearms retailers including requirements that they keep ammunition sales logs and personal information on their customers and that expands and duplicates an existing reporting requirement for lost or stolen guns.

“Retailers in Sunnyvale must be federally licensed and already comply with a myriad of state and federal laws in operating their businesses. These businesses should be entitled to operate under the same rules, not a patchwork of different and conflicting local laws across California,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “It is unjust to ask retailers within the Sunnyvale city limits to collect sensitive personal information from customers who easily can drive a few miles to a store in another city where such information is not required. Surely, no demonstrable public safety benefit is achieved and only law-abiding businesses are penalized.”

The lawsuit seeks to enjoin enforcement of the Sunnyvale ordinance.

The San Jose Mercury News reports that the NRA will be filing a similar lawsuit in Federal district court.

The NRA had threatened to sue even before Measure C was approved, and the group’s West Coast counsel, Chuck Michel, intends to file that federal lawsuit Monday, a spokesman for Michel said Tuesday. Michel last month filed an NRA-supported suit against San Francisco over a similar ban on high capacity magazines.

But Sunnyvale taxpayers won’t foot the bill because of the offer of (San Francisco law firm) Farella Braun + Martel to defend the city against the gun-related lawsuits for free.

Farella Braun + Martel has 137 attorneys and is headquartered in San Francisco with a satellite office in Napa Valley. The Legal Center to Prevent Gun Violence (sic), formerly the Legal Center Against Violence, gave them their “Outstanding Pro Bono Contribution” award in 2009 and 2010.

Uncategorized

ATF 41P: Deadline For Comments Is Monday At 11:59PM EST (Updated)

December 11, 2013 by 1 Comment

Back on September 9th, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives issued a proposed rule and opened the comment period. The proposed rule would require Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) signoff for all NFA transfers including ones for trusts, partnerships, and corporations. As we all know, in many areas, this is impossible to obtain and people go to NFA or gun trust route for just this reason.

The comment period is coming to an end tomorrow (Monday, December 9th) at 11:59pm EST. As of Saturday, BATFE has received 7,291 comments on the ATF 41P. From what I can tell, the overwhelming majority are firmly opposed to this proposed rule.

The American Silencer Association has an excellent page up on how to comment along with templates for your comments. I used one of their templates and then modified it.

Robb Allen at Sharp As A Marble has posted his comment which is much shorter and to the point. There are some variations in the comment section. I think any or all of them would make worthwhile comments to submit.

Jeff Know of The Firearms Coalition has his organization’s comment up here. They are pointing people to attorney John Pierce’s site for examples of short comments as well as some background information on the rulemaking effort. Mr. Pierce has nine suggested comments.

It is too late to mail a comment by the US Postal Service but it sure isn’t too late to use the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Just ID as being for ATF 41P.

All you need to do is cut and paste one of the suggested comments from the links above. It will push up the number opposing it and make it harder for the BATFE to justify going through with this nonsensical proposal.

Or at least it should!

UPDATE: The number of submissions as of Sunday night was 8,124. That means they received 833 comments or more than 10% of the total yesterday. Let’s see if we can double that today!

UPDATE II: The comments are now closed for ATF 41P.  David Codrea’s National Gun Rights Examiner column from Tuesday points to one of the more important submissions. It is from the Firearms Industry Consulting Group of the Prince Law Firm. The submission, which can be downloaded in its entirety here, is over 500 pages including appendices. The comment was submitted on Monday to the Federal and does make reference to a number of the earlier comments submitted.

David notes that:

The FICG comments raise serious questions about both ATF’s compliance with established rules and the law, as well as about the Bureau’s relationship with leaders of the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association, which filed the petition ATF says prompted the rulemaking change proposal in the first place.

Joshua Prince, one of the two principal authors of the submission, says that the BATFE’s actions with regard to the rulemaking give plenty of cause for judicial review if the rule is adopted.

While our Comment may seem massive to some, with funding, a thorough Comment with evidentiary support, including expert affidavits, reports, and analysis, would have likely been almost double in size. Nevertheless, ATF’s failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act in a number of ways will allow for judicial review, if ATF decides to move forward with promulgating any final rule. If ATF is inclined to move forward with any final rule, it’s best course of action is to start anew and correct all of its violations of law. But, we know ATF won’t do that, because it cannot admit when it violates the law.

Hence, the Firearms Industry must prepare to fund the necessary litigation to invalidate any final rule.

Given the BATFE’s predilection for bending or breaking the law and with the Democrats’ packing of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, this rulemaking bears a lot of attention as it goes forward.

Uncategorized

Comment Of The Day

December 10, 2013 by 5 Comments

The Senate passed the extension to the Undetectable Firearms Act early yesterday evening. It passed without any extra riders to the everlasting consternation of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

The comment of the day comes from Emily Miller on Facebook who takes note of the fact that President Obama is out of the country attending the funeral of the late South African president Nelson Mandela.

Since Obama is out of the country tonight, the White House will use the autopen to sign the 10-year plastic gun ban extension so it doesn’t lapse. So he’s using a fake signature to ban a gun that doesn’t exist.

Uncategorized

California Waiting Period Fails To Meet Constitutional Muster

December 9, 2013 by 2 Comments

Senior Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii denied Attorney General Kamala Harris’ Motion for Summary Judgment today and indicated that California’s 10-day waiting period probably is unconstitutional when viewed under either intermediate or strict scrutiny.

The CalGuns Foundation which along with the Second Amendment Foundation brought the case
challenging the 10-day waiting period is extremely pleased by this development as noted in their press release below.

I’ll have more after I’ve had to read the ruling. Sebastian at Shall Not Be Issued has some comments on the case here. Likewise, Professor Eugene Volokh has his analysis of the decision here.

From CalGuns:

Federal Judge Says California Attorney General Kamala Harris Wrong on Gun Control Laws

Court denies Harris’ arguments and agrees with gun rights group The Calguns Foundation, says state’s firearm waiting period laws fail to meet Constitutional muster

ROSEVILLE, CA — In a rejection of California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ stance on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, Senior Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii denied Harris’ motion for summary judgement today in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by The Calguns Foundation, indicating that California’s 10-day “waiting period” gun laws are likely unconstitutional.

“The fact that a federal judge saw these laws for what they are — baseless restraints on the exercise of a fundamental civil right — is monumental,” explained Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “California’s waiting period laws for those who own guns is not Constitutional and this order really underlines the point.”

In his order, Judge Ishii said that Harris has “not presented sufficient evidence to show that the [10-day waiting period laws] passes either intermediate or strict scrutiny.”

About the laws being challenged in the case, named plaintiff Jeff Silvester of Hanford, California, said, “I have a license to carry a loaded firearm across the State.It is ridiculous that I have to wait another 10 days to pick up a new firearm when I’m standing there in the gun store lawfully carrying one the whole time.”

“This is certainly an exciting development in Second Amendment case law,” noted Brandon Combs, an individual plaintiff in the case and the Executive Director of The Calguns Foundation. “If our Constitution means what it says, then California’s gun waiting period laws have to be overturned and law-abiding people must be allowed to exercise their rights without irrational infringements.”

Regardless of the final decision at the district court, the case is virtually certain to end up at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and possibly even the United States Supreme Court.

“Cases like this one will define the limits of government regulations on firearms and Second Amendment rights,” said Combs. “We look forward to making sure laws like California’s waiting period are properly scrutinized by the courts.”

Judge Ishii was appointed to the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of California by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

A full copy of the Court’s December 9, 2013, order may be viewed at http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/?p=1683.

The press release announcing the lawsuit and case docket may be viewed at http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/?p=1024.

UPDATE: Here is the correct link to the Court’s Dec. 9th order denying the motion for summary judgment.

Uncategorized

Cerberus Capital May Have Found Investor For Its Gun Business

December 9, 2013 by 2 Comments

A report in today’s Wall Street Journal states that Cerberus Capital may have found an investor for its firearms business. The unidentified investor and/or lender would hold a minority stake in the business large enough that Cerberus could let some of its investors sell out their stakes.

But Cerberus hasn’t reached an agreement with a buyer. The sales process has been complicated by several factors, including subsequent high-profile shootings and financing issues for some possible bidders, the person familiar with the matter said. Some offers were lower than what Cerberus thought was fair, the person said. In addition, some private-equity firms looked at the company but dropped out in early September, the person said.

Cerberus had originally sought around $1 billion for the business, a person familiar with the matter said. The new planned deal, including about $200 million in a credit facility, values the business at around $1.2 billion.

Freedom early on attracted interest from gun makers such as Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. and Sturm, Ruger & Co., people familiar with the matter have said.

Meanwhile, business at Freedom, which was already profitable, has improved. Freedom reported that revenue for the quarter through September rose 46% from a year earlier to $347.1 million as its earnings nearly doubled to $31.2 million.

In the post-Newtown shootings hysteria, Cerberus announced that it would sell its Freedom Group firearms business which includes brands such as Remington and Bushmaster. This was, in part, a reaction to the shooter using a Bushmaster rifle which he took from his mother after he murdered her.

The California State Teachers Retirement System – the largest teachers’ pension fund in the country – is one of the investors who is trying to get out of the investment fund. My guess is that there are other public pension funds who are also trying to sell their stakes in Cerberus because they don’t want to deal with pressure from their holier than thou members.

Uncategorized

Remington Looking At Georgia?

December 9, 2013 by 1 Comment

Georgia is home to both Glock and Daniel Defense. It is also being considered by Beretta who was reported to have scouted a central Georgia location earlier this year. Now it appears that Georgia officials are working hard to convince Remington Arms to relocate from Ilion, New York to their state.

State Sen. Burt Jone (R-Jackson) discussed this in a Q&A session with the Butts County Partners for Smart Growth this past week. Butts County is midway between Atlanta and Macon along Interstate 75.

Jones, R-Jackson, said that while Beretta has narrowed its focus to two Georgia locations — not in Butts County — the Remington Arms Company is considering relocating from New York, where its Ilion Firearms Plant and Custom Shop is located. He said state officials are working to try to bring the plant to Georgia and he’s hoping to land it in his district, possibly his home county.

Jones discussed the possibility during a question-and-answer session after his remarks Thursday to the group Partners for Smart Growth.

Remington, he said, “is looking to leave New York due to taxes, due to the unions, due to all the factors that run businesses away from your community, and they have zeroed in on the state of Georgia as being one of the states that they’re considering.”

He said he is working to get Butts County and District 25 on a list of “potential landing spots” for Remington.

“It could mean literally thousands of jobs for a community, wherever it might land,” Jones said.

It may only be wishful thinking on the part of the state of Georgia and Sen. Jones that Remington would leave New York. However, it is a fact that the NY SAFE Act has cost that state jobs. American Tactical and Kahr Arms are relocating out of state and others have decided any expansions will be made in outside of New York.

UPDATE: Tom at Fill Yer Hands reminded me that Heckler & Koch has operations down in Columbus, Georgia.

H/T Tim Glance

Uncategorized

Best Comment On The NFL’s Denial Of Daniel Defense’s Super Bowl Ad

December 8, 2013 by 9 Comments

David E.  Petzal, rifle editor of Field and Stream, writing in The Gun Nut blog on F&S’s website had what I consider the best comment on the controversy over the NFL’s denial of the Daniel Defense Super Bowl Ad.

It’s possible that this is nothing more than hypocrisy. But the real reason, I think, is that the NFL is trying to protect its investments. The oversized guy who crashes his $150,000 custom SUV into a house and breaks down the door with his fists to strangle the family inside may be someone’s number one draft pick, and all those millions his team spent on him would go right down the drain if some terrified homeowner shot him in self-defense.

And we can’t have that now, can we? It’s…un-American.

That is truly snarky….and I love it!

Uncategorized

How Pro-Gun Are You If You Get Money From Gabby’s New PAC?

December 8, 2013 by 4 Comments

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) is not doing too well with North Carolinians right now. The latest Elon University poll from late November reports that only 37% of registered voters approve of her job performance. By contrast, 43.5% of registered voters disapprove of her job performance. Much of this is related to her support for ObamaCare.

This may explain why she wants to be identified with hunters and anglers. In early November she introduced S. 1660 which is “To protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting, and for other purposes.” Interestingly, 4 of the 5 co-sponsors are Democrats facing tough re-election fights in 2014. The bill actually does some good stuff such as exempting excise tax trust funds from budget cuts and providing money for public shooting ranges.

Hagan makes a big point about coming “from a family of lifelong hunters” as if this assures voters of her support for the Second Amendment. Hagan voted in favor of the Manchin-Toomey amendment back in April. As I said then and I will say again, any Red State Democrat who says they support the Second Amendment and then voted for Manchin-Toomey is lying to you.

As reported yesterday in Politico, USA Today, and Shall Not Be Questioned, the former Gabby PAC has been renamed the Rights and Responsibilities PAC. The PAC is funded with nearly $300,000 from her old campaign account. The goal of the PAC is to funnel campaign money to both Democrats and Republicans who “share her views on gun control” according to a story from late yesterday in USA Today. Of course, whether Gabby has the wherewithal to form her own views is an issue for another day.

So who is one of the first to get money form the Rights and Responsibilities PAC?

Giffords’ Rights and Responsibilities PAC is funded by money left over in the Arizona Democrat’s campaign account. The new PAC will start by contributing to the campaigns of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., Sen. Sue Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., said Pia Carusone, a senior Giffords adviser.

All supported a measure fashioned by Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., that would have required background checks on all commercial sales of guns. That provision and other major gun-control measures failed to pass Congress this year, despite widespread calls to overhaul the nation’s gun laws after 26 children and adults were gunned down last December at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

So how pro-gun are you really if you get money from Gabby’s gun control PAC? I think the answer is obvious – not much. Just like Hagan lied about you getting to keep your old health insurance, her support of the Second Amendment is also suspect. The only question in my mind is when soon-to-be former Mayor Bloomberg digs into his own deep pockets and contributes to Kay Hagan.

Uncategorized

Purl Harder!

December 7, 2013 by 1 Comment

One of the more unusual propaganda posters published after the attack on Pearl Harbor has to be the one below.

 

It is trying to encourage the women of America to do their part by knitting wool socks and sweaters for the fighting men. You will notice that the knitting needles form the “V for Victory”.

The poster above is part of the collection of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History.

Uncategorized

A True Hero From December 7, 1941

December 7, 2013 by

“Battleship Row in Flames” by John Hamilton

In looking for material for today’s post on the 72nd anniversary of the Imperial Japanese Navy’s attack on Pearl Harbor, I came across the story of Wesley Ruth. Mr. Ruth lives in Matthews, North Carolina and is one of the older survivors of that day at age 100. At the time, he was a young Navy ensign assigned to an unarmed photography squadron as a pilot. He was having breakfast that Sunday morning when the attack began. When he saw the Japanese bombers, he jumped into his convertible and drove to the north end of Oahu to get a handle on what was happening.

“I was about a quarter-mile from the Arizona and I saw the Arizona bombed. There were powder pellets about the size of my finger that flew that distance, from the ship to me, coming down on me just like snow.”

Worried the Japanese would spot his convertible and strafe him, Ruth said, he headed for the airfield and passed the clinic on his way. “I could see a number of dead bodies on the lawn.”

After arriving at the airfield, Ruth was assigned to a reconnaissance mission:  find the Japanese fleet. His plane was a Silkorsky S-43 which the Navy had renumbered as the JRS-1. The S-43 or Navy JRS-1 amphibian was primarily used as a passenger plane by Pan American Airlines for trips to Cuba and Latin America. It was nicknamed the “Baby Clipper”. Ruth was to fly 250 miles north and 10 miles east along with a copilot and three observers to find the Japanese. His armament for this mission were three bolt-action Springfield rifles given to the guys in the back of the plane. The JRS-1 would have been easy pickings for any Japanese Zero but Ensign Ruth had a mission and he did it.

For this mission, Ensign Ruth was award the Navy Cross. His citation reads as follows:

The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Navy Cross to Wesley H. Ruth, Lieutenant, Junior Grade [then Ensign], U.S. Navy, for extraordinary heroism in operations against the enemy while serving as Pilot of an airplane, and for extraordinary courage and disregard of his own safety during the attack on the Fleet in Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii, by Japanese forces on 7 December 1941. Although contact with the enemy meant almost certain destruction and despite lack of armament in this type of plane, Lieutenant, Junior Grade, Ruth voluntarily piloted a JRS amphibian plane, with only Springfield rifles, in search of and to obtain information of the enemy forces. At a point two hundred miles north of Oahu, Lieutenant Ruth did contact an enemy aircraft and only through prompt and extremely skillful handling of his plane did he succeed in escaping and returning to Pearl Harbor. Lieutenant, Junior Grade, Ruth’s outstanding courage, daring airmanship and determined skill were at all times inspiring and in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

While his citation says they encountered an enemy aircraft, Ruth in his interview says they didn’t encounter anything. It really doesn’t matter in the long run. Taking off in an unarmed plane – I don’t count the guys with the Springfield rifles – and completing his mission knowing the whole time he was a sitting duck is heroic enough for me.

Ensign Ruth went on to complete a Navy career of 20 years and retired as a Commander.  I can only hope that his final few years are easy ones because he already did the hard part 72 years ago.