Month: December 2010

Uncategorized

Cook County’s Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban – Adopted in 2006

December 5, 2010 by 1 Comment

Yesterday, I posted a notice from the Illinois State Rifle Association that the First District Appellate Court had ordered briefs from both parties in Wilson et al v. Cook County et al. This was a case challenging the constitutionality of the Cook County, Illinois ordinance called the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban. I thought it might be helpful to be able for people to read the ordinance in question.

NOTE: This was adopted in 2006 – this is not something new.

DIVISION 4. – BLAIR HOLT ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN [11]

Sec. 54-211. – Definitions.
Sec. 54-212. – Assault weapons and large capacity magazines; sale prohibited; exceptions.
Sec. 54-213. – Destruction of weapons confiscated.
Secs. 54-214—54-240. – Reserved.

Sec. 54-211. – Definitions.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Assault weapon means:
(1) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a large capacity magazine detachable or otherwise and one or more of the following:
(A) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;
(B) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(C) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;
(D) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or
(E) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;

(2) A semiautomatic pistol or any semi-automatic rifle that has a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

(3) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
(A) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(B) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;
(C) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
(D) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator; or
(E) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

(4) A semiautomatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:
(A) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;
(B) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(C) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;
(D) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; or
(E) An ability to accept a detachable magazine;

(5) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

(6) Conversion kit, part or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person;

(7) Shall include, but not be limited to, the assault weapons models identified as follows:
(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
(ii) AR-10;
(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;
(iv) AR70;
(v) Calico Liberty;
(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;
(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;
(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;
(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;
(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
(xi) Saiga;
(xii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;
(xiii) SKS with detachable magazine;
(xiv) SLG 95;
(xv) SLR 95 or 96;
(xvi) Steyr AUG;
(xvii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
(xviii) Tavor;
(xix) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or
(xx) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:
(i) Calico M-110;
(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;
(iii) Olympic Arms OA;
(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or
(v) Uzi.

(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:
(i) Armscor 30 BG;
(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;
(iii) Striker 12; or
(iv) Streetsweeper.

“Assault weapon” does not include any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or satisfies the definition of “antique firearm,” stated in this section, or weapons designed for Olympic target shooting events.

Detachable magazine means any ammunition feeding device, the function of which is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.

Large capacity magazine means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, but shall not be construed to include the following:
(1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds.
(2) A 22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

Muzzle brake means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.

Muzzle compensator means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.

(Ord. No. 93-O-37, § 6-1, 10-19-1993; Ord. No. 93-O-46, § 6-1, 11-16-1993; Ord. No. 94-O-33, 7-6-1994; Ord. No. 99-O-27, Pt. 3(6-1), 11-23-1999; Ord. No. 06-O-50, 11-14-2006.)

Sec. 54-212. – Assault weapons and large capacity magazines; sale prohibited; exceptions.
(a) No person shall manufacture, sell, offer or display for sale, give, lend, transfer ownership of, acquire or possess any assault weapon or large capacity magazine. This subsection shall not apply to:
(1) The sale or transfer to, or possession by any officer, agent, or employee of Cook County or any other municipality or state or of the United States, members of the armed forces of the United States; or the organized militia of this or any other state; or peace officers to the extent that any such person named in this subsection is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess an assault weapon and/or large capacity magazine and does so while acting within the scope of his or her duties;
(2) Transportation of assault weapons or large capacity magazine if such weapons are broken down and in a nonfunctioning state and are not immediately accessible to any person.

(b) Any assault weapon or large capacity magazine possessed, sold or transferred in violation of Subsection (a) of this section is hereby declared to be contraband and shall be seized and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 54-213.

(c) Any person found in violation of this section shall be sentenced to not more than six months imprisonment or fined not less than $500.00 and not more than $1,000.00, or both.

(d) Any person who, prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine prohibited by this section shall have 90 days from the effective date of the ordinance to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution hereunder:

(1) To remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from within the limits of the County of Cook; or
(2) To modify the assault weapon or large capacity magazine either to render it permanently inoperable or to permanently make it a device no longer defined as an assault weapon or large capacity magazine; or
(3) To surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the Sheriff or his designee for disposal as provided below.

(Ord. No. 93-O-37, § 6-2, 10-19-1993; Ord. No. 93-O-46, § 6-2, 11-16-1993; Ord. No. 94-O-33, 7-6-1994; Ord. No. 99-O-27, Pt. 3(6-2), 11-23-1999; Ord. No. 06-O-50, 11-14-2006.)

Sec. 54-213. – Destruction of weapons confiscated.

(a) Whenever any firearm or large capacity magazine is surrendered or confiscated pursuant to the terms of this article, the Sheriff shall ascertain whether such firearm is needed as evidence in any matter.

(b) If such firearm or large capacity magazine is not required for evidence it shall be destroyed at the direction of the Sheriff. A record of the date and method of destruction an inventory or the firearm or large capacity magazine so destroyed shall be maintained.

(Ord. No. 93-O-37, § 6-3, 10-19-1993; Ord. No. 94-O-33, 7-6-1994; Ord. No. 99-O-27, Pt. 3(6-3), 11-23-1999; Ord. No. 06-O-50, 11-14-2006.)

I certainly can see why this ordinance was challenged. Under its provisions, a Ruger 10/22 with a Barracuda stock becomes an assault weapon. It utilizes a detachable magazine, Ramline and Butler Creek make greater than 10 round capacity magazines, and the Barracuda stock is a thumbhole stock.

Then there are pistols that are outlawed right up front such as the Ruger Charger and some models (711 and 712) of the Mauser C-96 as both utilize magazines that attach outside the pistol grip.

As to shotguns, the Saigas are a no-no and then there is that mega-assault weapon the Rossi Circuit Judge. The Circuit Judge has a rotary cylinder. Put a extension tube on your Remington 870 in order to compete in 3-gun competitions and you have an assault weapon.

This ordinance is a joke – it was a feel good measure passed by a county Board of Commissioners that didn’t have a clue. And still doesn’t.

Uncategorized

A Revolver for the Elephant Hunter

December 5, 2010 by

Any pistol that comes in either .600 Nitro Express and .458 Winchester Magnum is more pistol than I’d want to either carry or, to be frank, even shoot. That said, if you are in the market for an elephant pistol – literally – here you go – The Austrian-made Pfeifer-Zeliska .600 Nitro Express Revolver.

Here are the prices and specs on it:


Price VAT incl. 13.840,- EUR


Technical data:

 Calibre: .600 Nitro Express or .458 Win Mag.
 Muzzle velocity: 462 m/s,Full metal jacket 900 grain
 Muzzle energy:      6.230 joule
 Weight: 13.23 lbs
 Capacity: 5 rounds
 Barrel length: 13 inch
 Overall length: 21.65 inch
 Features: browned special steel. As every revolver is an individual product we can satisfy every customer wish.  

Converting the price into U.S. Dollars, this pistol sells for $18,501. Kynoch Cartridges still loads the .600 Nitro Express and sells new cartridges for $180 for a box of 5 or $36 a piece. However, if you are spending over $18,000 for a pistol why quibble over the price of ammo!
For a full review of this pistol by someone who has actually shot it, go to Tony Roger’s website where he has a full review of it. He says the recoil actually isn’t as bad as one would expect putting it similar to a 500 S&W Mag. He has a lot more pictures and details on this monster revolver.

H/T Weapon-Blog

Uncategorized

In Illinois Gun Rights News…

December 4, 2010 by 1 Comment

This was just announced this morning by the Illinois State Rifle Association:

ISRA SUPPORTED SUIT AGAINST COOK COUNTY SUCCEEDS IN STATE SUPREME COURT

A case brought against Cook County, challenging its “Assault Weapon” ban passed in 2006, has finally been decided favorably for the ISRA backed Plaintiffs. The case of Wilson, et al. vs Cook County et al., was returned to the State Appellate Court pursuant to the Supreme Court’s exercise of its judicial authority, and the First District Appellate Court has been ordered to vacate its decision and reconsider the case based on the recent decision in McDonald vs. City of Chicago. McDonald was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in which ISRA was one of the Plaintiffs.

In a move that surprised all parties to the litigation, the First District Appellate Court ordered both plaintiffs and defendants to file simultaneous briefs in 15 days, with no Reply briefing allowed. The Appellate court’s Order came within days of the Supreme Court’s issued mandate, which directs the Appellate Court to vacate and reconsider.

The purported “assault weapons,” as defined under the very broad and vague terms of the subject County Ordinance, include numerous semi-automatic handguns and rifles, including the Ar-15, M -1 Carbine, Smith & Wesson P99 pistol, Smith & Wesson 22A, Browning BAR Longtrack, Winchester Super X Rifle, and the Mini-30 Ranch Rifle. just to name a few Since the lawsuit was filed in early 2007. the enforcement of the Ordinance has been at a virtual stand-still, and the objective of the ISRA to see that this unwarranted ban is overturned with finality. A supplementary brief is being filed and the decision of the Appellate Court is expected soon. If required, ISRA is prepared to back this case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 On September 29th, the Illinois Supreme Court sent this back to the First District Appellate Court with an order to vacate its original decision and to reconsider it in light of the McDonald case. They said:

No. 109314 – Matthew D. Wilson et al., petitioners, v. Cook County, etc., et al., respondents. Leave to appeal, Appellate Court, First District.
(1-08-1202)
Petition for leave to appeal denied.

In the exercise of this Court’s supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, First
District, is directed to vacate its order in Wilson v. Cook County, case No. 1-08-1202(08/19/09), and reconsider the matter in light of McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (06/28/10), to determine if another result is warranted.

Uncategorized

Camouflage Isn’t Going To Help You If You Are Stupid

December 3, 2010 by

The video above is from a presentation by retired Army LtCol. Tim O’Neil who is considered the father of digital camouflage. He gives some of the theory behind camo and ends with “camouflage isn’t going to help you if you are stupid.” In other words, the world’s best, most innovative camo still won’t hide you if you can’t sit still.

For more on his work, read this post by Christian Lowe in the KitUp blog.

Uncategorized

Federal Suits Against California AB962 Dismissed

December 3, 2010 by 6 Comments

Today, U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England dismissed both suits brought against the State of California challenging their restrictions on handgun ammunition that go into effect on February 1, 2011. In both suits, he ruled that the claims failed on ripeness grounds. In virtually identical opinions, Judge England said:

Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe for review. They cannot demonstrate any current harm or a sufficiently immediate concern. No one can yet anticipate how California’s bill will affect Plaintiffs and/or their business. No case or controversy exists at this time. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ case is DISMISSED without prejudice, and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss … is DENIED as moot.

AB 962, the Anti-Gang Neighborhood Protection Act of 2009, is a California law that bans anything other than face-to-face transactions in handgun ammunition starting on February 1st.

The first suit brought against this law was State Ammunition et al v. Lindley which challenged the law on the grounds that it was impermissably vague, that it interfered with interstate commerce, and that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. A version of this lawsuit had been brought prior to the McDonald decision. That version was voluntarily dismissed and then refiled in July to take advantage of the McDonald decision.

The second suit, Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association et al v. Lindley, also alleged that AB 962 interfered with interstate commerce. However, they took a fairly innovative approach when they argued that the law violated the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, which prohibits states and local municipalities from interfering with carriers’ rates, routes, or services.

A third suit, Sheriff Clay Parker et al v. State of California, was filed in state court and is not effected by Judge England’s orders.

In his orders, Judge England noted that ripeness claims are a question of timing. He cited Supreme Court precedent regarding ripeness:

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the ripeness doctrine aims “to prevent the courts, through premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements.” Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prod. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580 (1985) (citing Abbott Lab. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 (1967)).

He goes on to add that while the Declaratory Judgment Act does grant Federal courts the power to “declare rights and other legal relationships” in cases within its jurisdiction, the case must be constitutionally ripe. That is, “that is the facts demonstrate there is a controversy ‘of sufficient immediacy and reality.’ ” He concluded that it was too early to judge the impact of AB 962 and therefore dismissed the cases.

I would anticipate that after February 1, 2011 when the law becomes effective, both of these cases will be reintroduced in Federal court challenging AB 962. Until then, it is up to the state courts to deal with this matter.

The order dismissing State Ammunition et al v. Lindley can be found here and the order dismissing OOIDA et al v. Lindley can be found here.

UPDATE: Dave Hardy of Arms and the Law blog had this to say about the ruling in an e-mail he gave me permission to share:

Rather strange ruling. Ripeness doesn’t key upon “is the law presently applicable?” It’s more along the lines of whether the rule is presently ambiguous and delay might clarify the issues by,for example, letting the agency administering do some interpretation of it, or giving the court a more concrete setting. Where the statute is clear, there’s no difference between deciding its constitutionality now and doing so in a couple of months. The very brevity of the court’s order is suggestive … while I like short rulings, the present fad is to hand down 20-30 page opinions on almost any ruling. List facts in excruciating detail, summarize everyone’s arguments, devote a few pages to the standards for a motion to dismiss which everyone knows and are probably cut and pasted from a stock ruling, and then after 10-15 pages, finally explain the decision.

Then there’s the practical end — appeal an error and spend a year and a beaucoup of money and time, or just re-file in two months

Uncategorized

For Glock Fanboys

December 2, 2010 by 3 Comments

Pictures are starting to show up on the Internet of a new after market slide release for Glocks designed by Larry Vickers of Vickers Tactical. It will be for Glocks in 9mm and .40 S&W. The new slide release will be closer in design to the slide release for the S&W M&P, have a more positive surface for faster reloads, and sized for use by all hand sizes.

The new slide release will be made by TangoDown Products and is scheduled to be released within the next few weeks.

From Soldier Systems

Left – original; Right – new Vickers Tactical

Shown without slide

View from above and to the rear.

H/T Soldier Systems

Uncategorized

A Cruel Game

December 1, 2010 by 3 Comments

The Brady Center is engaged in a cruel game with Texas Tech freshman James D’Cruz. As the lead plaintiff in two lawsuits sponsored by the NRA, he has become the prime target of the Brady Center. The lawsuits challenge respectively the Federal prohibition on sales by FFL’s of handguns to 18-20 years olds and the denial by the State of Texas of Concealed Handgun Licenses to non-veteran, non-military 18-20 year olds.

As Sebastian at SnowFlakesInHell has noted, they have mischaracterized his Facebook page as filled with “angry, violent Facebook postings”. They are now using pictures from his Facebook page in a fundraising campaign.

It is as I say above a cruel game that the Brady Center is playing with D’Cruz. If he complains about it, he will be portrayed as a whining teenager not ready to handle adult responsibilities like being a Concealed Handgun Licensee. If he does not respond to the mischaracterization, they will feel free to continue to vilify him as violent and angry. He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Still, given they are going to savage him one way or another, the best thing he probably can do is to do nothing and keep leading the exemplary life that he has led in the past.

I wonder how Paul Helmke would have reacted if his daughters Laura and Kathryn had been attacked when they were 18 like he and the organization he heads are doing to James D’Cruz. I am sure that like any good father he would have been rather angry about it – as well he should.

So then why is it OK to demonize and vilify a young Hispanic male who has led what seems to be an exemplary life and is now a freshman in college?