Larry Correia – Mr. Monster Hunter himself – has forever changed how I will perceive the trigger on any firearm that I own. In an exchange with a sci-fi blogger who is both anti-gun and a lawyer for the Federal government, Larry had this to say on Twitter:
by
I find that when a bad guy tries to take your gun away you should pull the Felon Repulsion Lever. @AaronPound @Fuelneve
— Larry Correia (@monsterhunter45) June 19, 2014
Larry does have a way with words.
I spent yesterday in Murphy, North Carolina on business. Murphy is famous as the second half of a familiar North Carolina phrase, “from Manteo to Murphy”, used to describe the width of the state. That distance, by the way, is 474 miles as the crow flies or 545 miles by road.
I was driving to my first appointment of the day when I came around a curve on US Hwy 64 and saw this huge billboard. I didn’t have time to stop then but circled back after the appointment to take a picture.
The store’s slogan is “Refills or reloads, we have you covered”. If I lived in McCaysville or nearby in the tri-state area, I think I might rather deal with them than a CVS or Walgreens.
I just saw a press release this morning about fellow gun blogger Kevin Creighton. He blogs at Misfires and Light Strikes. He is now the new marketing manager for Osage County Guns in Belle, MO. He says he’ll be hanging up his blog and taking over the blog at Osage County Guns.
The official announcement in The Shooting Wire is below:
Osage County Guns Hires New Marketing Manager
Belle, Mo – Osage County Guns is pleased to announce the hiring of Kevin Creighton as their new Marketing Manager. In addition to his long history of success in online marketing for companies such as IBM Direct and Hawaii.com, Kevin is also a well-known gunblogger and is an active competitor in both practical pistol and 3 gun.
Kevin joins Osage County Guns as Marketing Manager to expand their online presence and continue their tradition of first-class customer service. “Osage County Guns is known for how well they treat their customers, and I’m looking forward to continuing that tradition of service by developing their website into the premiere source of information on safe and responsible gun ownership.”
John Dawson, Vice President said “Customer satisfaction is always our goal at Osage County Guns, and Kevin’s wealth of experience and industry knowledge makes him a key addition to our team. We’re excited to add someone like Kevin who is both a part of the vibrant firearms community on the Internet and also has had a long and successful career in online marketing. Our priority has always been to provide an online experience that meets and exceeds the needs of today’s gun owner and we see his addition as an essential part of our future growth.”
Good for Kevin. Now if he can convince Osage County Guns to carry CZ pistols…..
noun
1.
a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2.
a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3.
(formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4.
an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
adjective
5.
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.
Former First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, and now wannabe Evita* Hillary Clinton participated in a town hall meeting sponsored by CNN on Monday. During that event, she was asked a question regarding gun control. She said she was in favor of re-instituting the ban on “assault weapons”(sic) as well as a magazine ban.
Mrs. Clinton then accused those of us who still believe in the Bill of Rights of not only being a minority but, in so many words, terrorists.
Clinton said that while she’s “well-aware that this is a hot political subject,” she thinks there should be “a more thoughtful conversation” on gun control.
“We cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes a majority of people,” she said.
I don’t consider myself a terrorist nor do I think you do either. Moreover, I don’t believe the majority of people in the United States are for gun control or any of the other measures that Clinton would like to see enacted.
As my friend Kurt has said more than once, to be despised by the despicable is an honor.
* Eva Peron aka Evita only achieved power in Argentina on the back of her husband Col. Juan Peron. Likewise, Hillary’s claim to power seems to be that she married – and stayed with him despite his philandering ways – President Bill Clinton. As such, she is the American Evita who now aspires (again) to the Presidency.
The comment of the day comes from an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily. The subject of the editorial was the supposedly lost emails from former IRS official Lois Lerner. She is the IRS official who “took the Fifth” before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee with regard to her actions against Tea Party groups. Lerner has also been charged with contempt of Congress but the prosecution of that charge would have to come from the Department of Justice run by Eric Holder.
With regard to Holder, the editorial had this to say:
As in Watergate, more than a few individuals warrant prosecution and incarceration. But that would have to come from Eric Holder’s Justice Department, an organization shown to be as corrupt as the IRS.
Watergate’s John Mitchell was the first attorney general to be convicted and imprisoned due to illegal activities. We suggest that he shouldn’t be the last.
I quite agree. I can think of many reasons that Attorney General Eric Holder should be tried but first and foremost among them would have to be Operation Fast and Furious. Unlike Watergate, two Federal law enforcement officers and over 300 Mexican nationals have been murdered as a result of those guns walked by ATF agents.
The attorneys for the plaintiffs in Doe v. Harris have filed for a preliminary injunction to prevent the California Department of Justice from enforcing its new policy regarding multiple modern handgun purchases by Curios & Relics FFL holders. This lawsuit is being backed by the CalGuns Foundation and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL).
The motion for the injunction looks at both the legislative and administrative history of California Penal Code Sec. 27535. This law prevents most Californians from purchasing more than one handgun within a 30-day period of time. However, there were a number of exemptions to this restriction written into the law. Included in the exemption are those people who hold both a Curios and Relics FFL and who hold a California DOJ issued Certificate of Eligibility. The legislative and administrative history makes clear that the exemption provided for this class of people extends beyond the purchase of C&R handguns to all handguns including modern handguns.
On May 8th of this year, the longstanding policy was changed when the DOJ Bureau of Firearms sent a letter to all FFLs in California stating that the exemption for C&R FFL holders only applied to handguns deemed curios or relics under Federal law. This change is alleged to be in violation of the California Administrative Procedures Act as no notices nor hearings were held before the change was implemented.
The declarations in support of the motion are interesting reading. This is especially true of the one submitted by Dr. Ken Lunde as it includes emails back and forth in 2005 concerning the interpretation of the law with regard to the exemption. Of particular note is the attached Exhibit 3 which is an email from Deputy AG Alison Merrilees noting that it was the Bureau of Firearms long-standing policy to exempt “all firearms purchases by C&R licensees from the provisions of 12072(a)(9)(A) [the “one gun a month” limit] , even if the firearms are not curios and relics.” This exhibit proves the importance of keeping all emails so as to provide a paper trail when dealing with bureaucrats and firearms.
The hearing on the motion has been set for July 8th.
Further comments on the motion by Gene Hoffman of CalGuns and Brandon Combs of CAL-FFL can be read in the release below:
(Sacramento, CA – June 11, 2014) – Two California gun owners, Paul Gladden and “Alvin Doe”, have filed for an injunction against defendants Attorney General Kamala Harris and Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms chief Stephen Lindley seeking to prevent them from enforcing a policy that denies the sale of handguns to licensed and background-checked Californians.
On May 8, 2014, the DOJ’s Bureau of Firearms sent a letter notifying firearms dealers in the state of a new enforcement policy that prevents Californians who hold both a federal firearms license and a state Certificate of Eligibility, or “COE”, from purchasing more than one handgun in a 30 day period. A COE requires a full fingerprint-based background check and state monitoring of the certificate holder’s criminal record.
According to gun rights groups The Calguns Foundation and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the lawsuit’s backers, the new policy represents a 180-degree departure from the DOJ’s prior policy of allowing such purchases. Reinforcing the groups’ allegation that the gun policy has shifted under Attorney General Harris is a statement by former DOJ Firearms Division Deputy Attorney General Alison Merrilees. In a 2005 email, Ms. Merrilees said that “it is [DOJ’s] long-standing policy” to exempt “all firearms purchases” made by licensees such as plaintiffs from the “one gun per month” limit, “even if the firearms are not curios and relics.” Ms. Merrilees is now deputy chief of staff to Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, who most recently authored AB 1014, a bill that would allow “anyone” to ask a court for a “Gun Violence Restraining Order” and “firearm seizure warrant.”
In the latest court filing, the lawsuit’s plaintiffs say that they are “likely to prevail on the merits” of the lawsuit and “seek a preliminary injunction to block the DOJ from continuing to enforce its erroneous interpretation of state law.” The brief also declares that “[i]t is this Court’s obligation to strike [the DOJ’s policy] down.”
In addition to the gun owners’ argument that the DOJ is wrongly interpreting the law, they say that the policy “is also void because the DOJ failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) before its adoption.”
The APA is “designed to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the adoption of state regulations and to ensure that regulations are clear, necessary and legally valid,” according to the California Department of Administrative Law.
Gene Hoffman, chairman of CGF, explained that “the law is clear and unambiguous: properly-licensed and background checked Californians like Paul Gladden are entitled to purchase as many handguns as they like within any 30-day period.”
“Ms. Harris is improperly substituting her own anti-gun rights policy preferences for black-letter law,” he went on to note.
CAL-FFL President Brandon Combs mirrored Hoffman’s concerns.
“Not only is her policy way off target, Attorney General Harris is setting a tremendously poor example as the state’s highest law enforcement officer,” he said. “Government officials should never act with such blatant disregard for the law and civil rights.”
The motion for preliminary injunction is expected to be heard by Sacramento Superior Court Judge David I. Brown (Department 53) on July 8 at the 800 9th Street courthouse in Sacramento. More information about the case, including all case filings, can be viewed or downloaded at http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/litigation/doe-v-harris/.
The Second Amendment Foundation in conjunction with Commonwealth Second Amendment filed suit today against Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. The suit was filed in US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suit challenges Coakley enforcement of consumer protection laws that prevent the sale of some handguns. The law in question requires a “load indicator” on handguns which is rather vague.
For example, 3rd and 4th generation Glocks are banned but other handguns with a similar extractor-based load indicator are allowed.
From SAF’s release on the lawsuit:
SAF SEEKS INJUNCTION AGAINST MASS. HANDGUN SALES REGULATIONS
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation, joined by Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc., two commercial dealers and six private citizens, filed a lawsuit today in federal court in Massachusetts, seeking an injunction against the State Attorney General’s enforcement of state consumer protection regulations that prevent the commercial sale of certain semiautomatic handguns.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, asserts that the regulation requiring a “load indicator” on a semiautomatic handgun is “unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous” because it does not define what this device is, or what it is intended to do.
“We’re asking the court to put a stop to what we believe is arbitrary enforcement of the regulation, because it deems 3rd and 4th generation Glock pistols lack an ‘effective load indicator’ device,” said SAF Founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “How can anyone design something when there is no description, or explanation of exactly what such a device is supposed to do and how it is supposed to do it?”
SAF General Counsel Miko Tempski, coincidentally a Glock factory certified armorer, added, “Our individual plaintiffs want to buy Glock pistols and our retail plaintiffs would be delighted to sell the firearms, but the regulation is being enforced by Attorney General Martha Coakley with no real foundation, because there are no specifics about the device in the regulation. Essentially, it appears the enforcement is pretty much on a whim.
“If the interpretation of the regulation is unclear to the AG’s office and to experts,” Tempski added, “no reasonable person in Massachusetts can know which guns are allowed.”
Adding to the dilemma, according to the lawsuit, is the fact that the 3rd and 4th generation Glock pistols at the center of the dispute have an extractor-based load indicator that reveals at a glance whether there is a cartridge in the chamber. This is virtually identical to extractor-based load indicators on competing pistols from other manufacturers, all of which are legal in Massachusetts.
“We’re hopeful that we can get this resolved rather quickly because the way the regulation is currently being enforced makes absolutely no sense at all,” Gottlieb stated.
The case is Draper et al v. Coakley. The complaint can be found here.
More about the case can be found on the Comm 2A website.
Aaron at The Weapon Blog is his usual efficient self and has compiled this month’s list of firearm and outdoor related giveaways. You can find it here.
In the handgun category, you will find a number of Berettas, Swiss-made Sphinx pistols, a Boberg, and a Ruger Commander-sized 1911 among the items.
The rifle category has its usual assortment of AR-15/M-4s, the newish Ruger 762, an IWI Tavor, and the Barrett 99.
You will also find a ton of stuff in the Accessories or miscellaneous category ranging from cleaning accessories to a Zombie Factor Bug Out Bag to a Parker compound bow.
If you enter any of these contests, take a moment and leave a thank you to Aaron in the comments section. Compiling such a list takes some time and I really appreciate the work he has done.
Shannon Watts of Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors is trying to make a big deal out of the salary received by the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre. She posted a tweet on Saturday asserting that Wayne made the big bucks while she, in an attempt at gun control sainthood, had zero salary.
My salary is zero dollars; Wayne paid millions: “What #NRA Pays #WayneLapierre To Sell Guns” http://t.co/e5b9K4Lsc9
— Shannon (@shannonrwatts) June 8, 2014
She may be correct in her assertion that she receives no salary. That doesn’t mean she is not compensated for her efforts to infringe on our Second Amendment rights.There are many ways to be compensated for your work that isn’t salary.
For example, if you look at the Form 990 for Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors for both 2011 and 2012 you won’t find any salary payments to then-Executive Director Mark Glaze or a listing of him under their highly compensated employees. However, you will find payments of $210,000 and $220,000 respectively to The Raben Group which was his long-time employer. Mr. Glaze was certainly compensated but it wasn’t with “salary” from Bloomberg.
Likewise, I think if you search long enough or when we finally get the 2014 Form 990 for Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors you will find substantial payments to an outside consulting group. Further investigation will probably show some sort of affiliation with Shannon Watts.
Of course, Shannon Watts could be the 21st Century’s version of Joan of Arc but for gun control instead of France. She could be doing this all out of altruistic sense of duty. I don’t believe that for a minute and I doubt any one reading this would either. She and her husband John may be “one-percenters” but they never have seemed to be the sort to do anything for free.
There is some very valid speculation that one of the reasons that Moms Demand Action merged with MAIG was to avoid having to file a Form 990 for 2013. The merger took place in December 2013 so their finances would be subsumed under that of MAIG. Of course, this assumes that MDA received their 501(c)3 determination letter from the IRS and would be required to file the form.
As I said earlier, there are many ways to be compensated for your efforts monetarily that don’t appear as salary. While Shannon Watts may be correct that she doesn’t receive a salary (and that is iffy given her track record with the truth), she is getting compensated for her efforts one way or another.
When the Complementary Spouse got home from work yesterday, she told she had just listened to a report on open carry in Texas that was rather balanced. The report was on NPR’s All Things Considered afternoon news show.
After I listened to it, I agreed. The report by John Burnett interviewed Cory Watkins of Open Carry Tarrant County, C.J. Grisham of OCT, Stephanie Lundy of Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors, and Alice Tripp of the Texas State Rifle Association.
Alice Tripp made the point that open carry of ARs and AKs in restaurants was not helping get open carry of handguns passed in the Texas legislature. She is quoted as saying, “It’s not helpful. It’s not good manners. It’s not thoughtful. It’s not conducive to facilitating the legislative process.”
The report was balanced enough to note that both Republican Greg Abbott and Democrat Wendy Davis were in support of allowing Texans to open carry handguns. Coming from NPR, who woulda thunk it?
You can listen to the whole report at this link. I had tried to embed it but it just wouldn’t work.