Uncategorized

When Books Get Guns Wrong

February 9, 2023 by 11 Comments

One of my biggest pet peeves is reading a book and then the author writes something stupid about firearms. I don’t mean when he or she calls for gun control which is stupid in and of itself. I mean when the details about the firearm are so egregiously wrong that I want to throw the book against the wall. You find it in novels ranging from thrillers to who-done-its.

I think we’ve all read books where the protagonist pulls his Glock and pushes the safety off. Ummm, safety? I have new examples and both are by the same author.

I am reading a series by Mark A. Hewitt featuring a former Marine pilot named Duncan Hunter as the leading man who now contracts to fly a heavily modified Lockheed YO-3A Quiet Star for the CIA. Hewitt gets the facts about the plane correct especially in the limited number. Reportedly only 11 were ever manufactured for the military. They were designed to be low-level, ultra-quiet observation prop planes that only flew at night to find the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War.

So why if he can get all those details correct, does he write this?

One by one, the four security women extracted their service weapons and racked the slides of their .38 Berettas to chamber a round. Once locked and loaded the weapons were safetied and returned to the holsters on their hips.

P. 287, No Need to Know, Mark A. Hewitt

A .38 Beretta? Does he mean the Model 38?

Obviously not as it could never be “holstered”. I think what he means is one of the small Beretta semi-autos like the Beretta 85 FS Cheetah in .380 ACP.

There is this from when his protagonist Hunter is about to face off against two ex-Libyan special forces killers.

He unclipped and withdrew the Colt Python from his shoulder holster. Once it was cocked and had the safety off, he switched on the laser light, his finger rested on the trigger. He strained to see the red dot of the targeting laser…

p.420-421, Shoot Down, Mark A. Hewitt

Now tell me where the safety is located on that Python! While there are laser grips for revolvers, I am still trying to find one for the Python. I know Crimson Trace doesn’t make one nor does Viridian.

What gets me about Hewitt in particular is that he is a former military pilot who spent 21 years in the Marine Corps and has a graduate degree from the Naval War College. He also worked with the US Border Patrol, the Air Force, and what appears to be the CIA. While planes are definitely his thing, if he was a Marine officer he went to the Basic School where he would have learned a little bit about firearms.

If there is an author out there who wants or needs to include firearms in his or her novel and is unsure of the details, ask me or any of my gun blogger friends who are published authors. I know any one of us would be more than willing to help you get it right. We don’t want to read dumb stuff about guns anymore than you want to look ignorant.

Deal?

Uncategorized

SCI Convention

February 9, 2023 by 3 Comments

The Complementary Spouse and I will be attending the Safari Club International convention in Nashville in two weeks.

There will be exhibitors from all over the world including firearm companies, optics companies, and the like. This will be in addition to the many, many outfitters from Africa, Alaska, Canada, the continental US, and a multitude of other locations.

If there is any exhibitor or vendor you would like us to check out, please let me know in the comments. Here is a link to all the exhibitors.

Uncategorized

NRA Finances And An Interesting Proxy

February 9, 2023 by

The blog NRA In Danger has posted another look at the NRA’s finances by former director Rocky Marshall. As I noted in introducing his guest post on this blog, he has significant expertise in examining a company’s or organization’s finances. Rocky brings up the concept of industry related metrics as a way to validate financial forecasts. As it is, he holds that the NRA’s forecasts for revenue are unrealistic and have no substantiating business plan to validate them.

From Rocky at NRA In Danger:

A Realistic Projection: The obvious relationship most closely associated with NRA revenues are U.S. Gun sales¹. In reviewing US gun sales data, NRA Revenues will increase or decrease as gun sales vary from year to year. From 2004 through 2019, the NRA received on average $25 for every gun sold in the United States.  However, after the breaking news of corruption in 2019, the NRA revenue dropped 48% to $13/gun sold.

The ratio of NRA Revenue/US Gun Sales is a useful metric because revenue for the NRA can be easily calculated for 2023 with a high degree of certainty.  Based on the current declining trend of US gun sales, it is projected that total US gun sales will be similar to historical (pre-covid) norms of roughly 13 million guns sold². With this in mind, a quantifiable estimate of projected revenues for the NRA in 2023 is $169 million (13 million guns sold at $13/gun). 

The NRA is projecting $230 million in revenue, which would equate to $18 for every gun sold in the US.  This is the same group that also planned $241.2M for last year and missed this estimate by $36M. The NRA estimates are not based on any practical industry metrics or upon a viable business plan to increase revenue; but, instead are misleading the BOD once again into a false premise.  

Using firearm sales as a proxy in the metric is interesting and makes sense. Both actual gun sales and actual NRA revenue are known from government reports. Actual gun sales are found from the Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report submitted to BATFE and the NRA”s revenue is reported on the IRS Form 990. Forecasts on future firearm sales do come from the NSSF and the industry in various forms. The FBI’s NICS data could be used but, as we know, it isn’t a direct correlation with firearm sales. The NSSF-adjusted numbers would be more accurate.

When comparing the ratio of NRA Revenue/US Gun Sale for the pre-2019 and post-2019 time periods, there is another factor in play that was not mentioned. Pre-2019, it was often the case that if you purchased a new firearm from one of the major manufacturers, it would come with a coupon entitling the buyer to a free one-year membership in the NRA. I know Taurus offered this and I seem to remember getting the same offer from Marlin and Ruger. I also remember the Ruger campaign where they would donate $1 for each firearm sold if they reached the 1 million mark. That was in the 2012-2013 timeframe. The key point here is that the industry seems to have backed away from the NRA once the dirty laundry started coming out.

The second part of Rocky’s post on NRA In Danger deals with the cost of corruption in terms of lost revenue. Read the whole thing as Rocky provides hard numbers of the revenue drop and the amount is shocking. Suffice it to say, the longer that Wayne remains as CEO/Executive VP of the NRA, the more potential lost revenue.

Uncategorized

Cartoon Of The Day

February 8, 2023 by 3 Comments

I found this on MeWe posted by a friend.

Reinterpreting regulations in such a way as to make possession of an item a felony is the modus operandi of the BATFE. They did it with bump stocks and they are doing it now with pistol braces.

It is now up to the courts to push back on this. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals did it with Cargill v. Garland. There are now at least four cases before US District Courts challenging the BATFE on their new pistol brace rule. Fingers crossed that the judges will do the right thing.

Uncategorized

The Same Old Blah, Blah, Blah

February 8, 2023 by 4 Comments

I’m sorry but I just can’t watch Joe Biden bloviate on TV. I know it is the State of the Union speech which is supposed to be important but really isn’t. Thus, I went to the White House website to see what he was going to say about firearms. It is easier to read his words than to hear him shout them on TV.

From his prepared remarks:

Do something.

That was the same plea of parents who lost their children in Uvalde: Do something on gun violence.

Thank God we did, passing the most sweeping gun safety law in three decades.

That includes things that the majority of responsible gun owners support, like enhanced background checks for 18 to 21-year-olds and red flag laws keeping guns out of the hands of people who are a danger to themselves and others.

But we know our work is not done.

Joining us tonight is Brandon Tsay, a 26-year-old hero.

Brandon put off his college dreams to stay by his mom’s side as she was dying from cancer. He now works at a dance studio started by his grandparents.

Two weeks ago, during Lunar New Year celebrations, he heard the studio’s front door close and saw a man pointing a gun at him.

He thought he was going to die, but then he thought about the people inside.

In that instant, he found the courage to act and wrestled the semi-automatic pistol away from a gunman who had already killed 11 people at another dance studio.

He saved lives. It’s time we do the same as well.

Ban assault weapons once and for all.

We did it before. I led the fight to ban them in 1994.

In the 10 years the ban was law, mass shootings went down. After Republicans let it expire, mass shootings tripled.

Let’s finish the job and ban assault weapons again.

C’mon, man. Don’t you know that the firearm arm used in Monterrey Park was banned in California years ago?

I do agree that Brandon Tsay is a hero for stopping the murders. On that we can agree.

As to the so-called Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, why are we treating 18-21 year olds like second-class citizens? We are OK with sending them to war in faraway places with fully automatic weapons to fight and die for this country so why are they treated differently. They can vote, they can enter a contract, they can be imprisoned as adults, and, in most states, they have reached the age of majority.

With regard to red flag laws, they make a mockery of due process. More importantly, if the person is so dangerous to either themselves or to us, why are they still out on the street? As seen in both Europe and in Wisconsin, a killer or terrorist with a vehicle can kill a lot of people.

Finally, mass shootings are rare events. They are aberrations. They are black swans. Yes they do happen but they are not the norm. Moreover, rifles including “assault weapons” (sic) are one of the least used weapons in homicides. They lag even fists and feet.

I’m sure Joe got some cheers from the left side of the aisle for his comments. But that is all he should get.

Uncategorized

Is Body Armor Protected By The Second Amendment?

February 7, 2023 by 10 Comments

Existing California law makes it a felony for a convicted violent felon to purchase, own, or possess body armor. A new bill before the California Assembly would change this so as to make it a felony to commit a violent felony with a firearm while also wearing body armor. Unfortunately, the California Assembly would also make it a misdemeanor for anyone to purchase or possess body armor as well to sell it or deliver it. AB-92 Body armor: prohibition does make exceptions for people in certain professions such as law enforcement, the military, building inspectors, and security guards. However, the average homeowner or non-exempt business owner who wants such protection is out of luck.

The sponsor of AB-92, Rep. Damon Connolly (D-San Rafael), made this claim in support of the bill.

“Simply put, the widespread availability of military-grade body armor helps mass shooters and criminals kill more people,” Connolly said in a statement. “It is clear that the sale of body armor has empowered violent criminals, including mass shooters, to harm, kill, and prolong their rampages. This ongoing and unnecessary epidemic of violence must be stopped and AB 92 will help protect innocent bystanders and our peace officers.”

I was alerted to this new bill by a blog post I was sent from Spartan Armor Systems. I agree with the author of this post that such a bill would not make the average public safer. What really caught my eye in this post was the claim that such a ban would be unconstitutional. That spurred some research on my part.

The Second Amendment says, in part, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Justice Scalia in DC v Heller went to great lengths in his opinion to show that “the people” was much more than merely the militia. He said the strong presumption was that the Second Amendment was a right that is “exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.” Thus, it should be assumed that any law which restricts possession of an item to a select class of individuals is suspect.

But would body armor be considered “arms” in the meaning of the word when the constitution was ratified?

Spartan Armor Systems Concealable IIIA Certified Wraparound Bulletproof Vest

The answer is yes. Justice Scalia helpfully points out a couple of early definitions of arms as it would have been understood by James Madison and the other architects of the Constitution.

First, from Dr. Samuel Johnson in his Dictionary of the English Language, 1755, (online edition):

Arms. n.s.without the singular number. [arma, Lat.]

1. Weapons of offence, or armour of defence. (emphasis added)

Second, from Timothy Cunningham in his A New and Complete Law Dictionary, 1764:

Armour or Arms, (Arma) In the understanding of law, are extended to anything that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another. (emphasis added)

In both cases, arms were understood to be more than weapons of offense such as a sword or a musket. Arms could also be a means of defense that was meant to be worn. Thus, a suit of armor or even a chain mail vest would have been understood to be arms at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment.

From Wikimedia Commons

If one applies the newer standard of text, history, and tradition as expressed by Justice Thomas in NYSRPA v. Bruen, it seems obvious to me that body armor would be a constitutionally protected “arm” that one could keep (possess) and bear (wear).

One would hope that wisdom might prevail in the California Assembly but that often is fleeting.

Uncategorized

“You Can’t Solve Something Like This With A .45”

February 2, 2023 by 6 Comments

There is a 2022 movie called Vengeance starring B. J. Novak from The Office. It is described as a darkly comic thriller about a podcaster who travels from New York City to West Texas to investigate the death of a girl he briefly hooked up with. Her family thought it was more and has welcomed him with open arms.

In one scene, the family matriarch is giving her opinion on what it will take to solve this.

You have to love Texas, Texans, and Texas matriarchs.

Right now Vengeance is available for free on Amazon Prime. If you don’t have Prime, you can get a 30 Day Trial for only $3 using this link. (commission earned)

Uncategorized

Chief Judge Says No To Illinois

January 30, 2023 by 2 Comments

Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel of the Southern District of Illinois just said “no” today to the attempt at judge shopping by the State of Illinois. She transferred both Langley v. Kelly and FFL-IL v. Pritzker to Judge Stephen McGlynn. Judge McGlynn is the judge of record in Harrel v. Raoul.

In addition, the magistrate to whom Barnett v. Raoul had been assigned ordered that case transferred to Judge McGlynn.

I had posted about the attempt by the State of Illinois to game the system earlier today. They had first pulled a state court case to Federal court and then tried to have it be the lead case. Their argument was that it was the first case filed anywhere. However, precedent in the district stated that consolidated cases should be assigned to the judge of the case with the lowest number. Here that would have been the joint SAF, FPC, and ISRA case of Harrel v. Raoul.

I applaud the Chief Judge for abiding by the longstanding precedent in the District for assignments in consolidated cases.

Uncategorized

Tweet Of The Day

January 30, 2023 by 1 Comment

The New York Times is bemoaning the fact that all those gun control laws in California do nothing to stop mass casualty events.

The reply by “JustynWS” nails it – do you treat the symptom or do you treat the cause.

Uncategorized

Legal Gamesmanship In Illinois AWB Cases

January 30, 2023 by

While I was in Las Vegas at the SHOT Show, I listened to Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation discuss some of their 43 pending cases. He went into particular detail about the SAF and co-plaintiffs’ challenge to the recently passed assault weapon (sic) and magazine bans in Illinois. What was particularly interesting was the decision on which district of Illinois to file the case, Harrel et al v. Raoul et al, and the goal of being the first case filed challenging the new law. Alan said the Southern District of Illinois tended to be better which is why it was filed there. He also noted that if, as he expected, the cases would end up being consolidated the lead case would be Harrel v. Raoul as it was the lowest numbered case. Finally, he said that by the luck of the draw that the judge assigned to the case, Judge Stephen McGlynn, was appointed to the court by President Trump.

Since Harrel was filed on January 17th, two other cases were filed challenging the new Illinois ban. Furthermore, another case was moved from state court to Federal court at the request of the State of Illinois.

Barnett et al v. Raoul et al was filed on January 24th. The lead counsel is Paul Clement and the plaintiffs include the National Shooting Sports Foundation. This case is also being financially supported by the NRA according a post on ILA’s website. Filed the same day was Federal Firearm Licensees of Illinois et al v. Pritzker et al. The lead attorney in this case is California gun rights attorney Chuck Michel. Plaintiffs include GOA, Guns Save Lives, and Gun Owners Foundation as well as other individual and business plaintiffs.

Langley et al v. Kelly et al was originally filed in Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Crawford County, Illinois. Kelly, the Director of the Illinois State Police, moved to have the case transferred from state court to the US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. This removal was granted on January 23rd. Note however, that it has a higher case number than Harrel. This case as well as Barnett and FFL-IL were all originally assigned to Senior Judge J. Phil Gilbert who subsequently recused himself. Langley and FFL-IL has now been reassigned to Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel. She was appointed to the bench by President Obama. The Barnett case has, for the time being, been referred to a magistrate judge.

Under Rule 42(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the court can consolidate the cases if they involve a common question of law or fact. Given all four cases are challenging the same law, I think there would be grounds to do so.

Here is where it gets interesting and you start to see the legal gamesmanship. The State of Illinois through its filings in Langley is pushing to have the cases all consolidated under it as Chief Judge Rosenstengel, an Obama appointee, would be the judge hearing the case. The presumption is that an Obama appointee would be more favorable than a Trump appointee such as Judge McGlynn. Mind you, judge shopping is frowned upon.

From the state’s motion filed on January 26th:

This Court typically consolidates cases into the lower-numbered case, which is typically the earlier-filed case. In this instance, however, the present case was initiated in state court on January 13, 2023—before Harrel, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, and Barnett were filed on January 17, 24, and 24, respectively—and removed on January 23. In comparable circumstances involving removed cases, this Court has consolidated into the higher-numbered case. See Spurgeon v. Pac. Life Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106366, *4 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2007) (consolidating into the higher-numbered case because lower-numbered case may have been removed prematurely). Because this case was the first-filed in any forum, state or federal, Defendant Brendan Kelly respectfully requests that Harrel, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois,
and Barnett be consolidated here.

Thomas Maag, attorney for the plaintiffs in Langley, responded on January 27th. He first said:

The Defendant Kelly, who in the experience of undersigned counsel, rarely actually removes cases to federal court, due to the perceived fear of the state that doing so may waive sovereign immunity, did, in fact, remove this case to federal court, obviously thinking this Court a more favorable forum that its own state courts. That is Defendant Kelly’s right, but it is interesting.

Maag goes on to add that the longstanding precedent in the Southern District going back to the time it was part of the Eastern District of Illinois is, with few exceptions, to consolidate in the lowest numbered case which would be Harrel. He notes that the more substantive reason for doing this is to avoid judge shopping. I think a strong argument could be made that this is indeed what the State of Illinois is seeking to do.

He concludes that the plaintiffs in Langley are not taking a position on whether or not to consolidate. However, if consolidation were to occur, it should be “into the lower case number of file in this Court, which is 23-cv-141-SPM” which is the Harrel case.

To conclude, it seems obvious that the State of Illinois is is trying to game the system to get a more favorable judge. While the attorneys in Harrel, Barnett, and FFL-IL have not filed motions objecting to the Illinois motion, it would be my considered guess that they would prefer it be lowest numbered case (Harrel) with the original judge assigned to that case (McGlynn).

UPDATE: See my later post where Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel transferred this case and FFL-IL to Judge McGlynn.