Chris Cox

Uncategorized

SAF And NRA File Joint Suit Against Washington State Over I-1639

November 16, 2018 by 2 Comments

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

The Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association have joined together to challenge parts of the recently passed Washington State Initiative 1639 in a federal lawsuit. The initiative contained a laundry list of gun control measures including a definition of an assault weapon (sic) that would include Ruger 10/22s, raised the age to purchase semi-automatic rifles to 21, specified waiting periods, enacted a safe storage provision, includes a $25 tax on each semi-automatic rifle sold, requires law enforcement to verify annually that owners of handguns and semi-auto rifles are legally allowed to own them, and it includes a training requirement.

The initiative was funded in great part by billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg, Nick Hanauer, and the late Paul Allen. The goal, while not state overtly, is to kill out the gun culture in Washington State by making it so onerous and creating such a slippery slope that casual gun owners will just give up. You can hear some thoughts on this from a Washington State resident in Episode 308 of The Squirrel Report podcast.

The lawsuit, Mitchell et al v. State of Washington et al, was filed on Wednesday in US District Court for the Western District of Washington. It is a complaint for both a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief based upon a claim of violations of the Commerce Clause, and the 2nd and 14th Amendment.

The plaintiffs are firearms dealers Daniel Mitchell and Robin Ball, 19 year old competitive shooter Luke Rettmer who is a member of the US Long Range Rifle Under 21 team, 19 year old Army reservist and college student Nathaniel Casey, and recreational shooters Armen Tooloee and Matthew Wald who are 20 and 19 years old respectively. The Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association are the organizational plaintiffs in the case.

The lawsuit focuses in on four aspects of I-1639 which goes into effect, in part, on January 1, 2019 with the remainder going into effect on July 1, 2019. First, it challenges Section 12 of the Initiative’s ban on the sale of semi-automatic rifles to out-of-state residents on the grounds it “impermissibly burdens interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. I § 8 cl. 3.”

Secondly, the lawsuit challenges Section 13 of the Initiative which raises the age to purchase semi-automatic rifles to 21. It seeks a declaration that “by preventing the sale to otherwise qualified adults under age 21 of certain rifles, impermissibly burdens their exercise of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.” They are making this claim on behalf of both the Young Adult Plaintiffs and the Organizational Plaintiffs. It is asserted that no state interest justifies this infringement and that the ban is broader than needed to serve any “possible alleged governmental interest.”

Thirdly, the lawsuit contends that the Section 13 of the Initiative “impermissably burdens” the rights guaranteed to the Young Adult Plaintiffs under Article I Section 24 of the Washington Constitution.

Finally, the lawsuit says that the intention of Washington State Attorney General Robert Ferguson to enforce the provisions of I-1639 and will be acting under “color of law”. Thus, Ferguson will be depriving “plaintiffs of civil rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

The plaintiffs seek to have the challenged portions of I-1639 declared unconstitutional and to enjoin enforcement of the entire I-1639 unless the challenged parts are ruled severable, and if so, then enforcement of the challenged parts.

The complaint in its entirety can be found here.

Both the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association have issued releases regarding this lawsuit.

Alan Gottlieb of SAF had this to say:

“We are also considering additional legal challenges,” SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb confirmed. “We are disappointed that too many Evergreen State voters were fooled into supporting this 30-page gun control scheme, despite overwhelming law enforcement opposition. This initiative is an affront to the constitutional rights enshrined in the Second Amendment and the Washington state constitution, especially for young adults.

“We’re determined to fight this egregious measure because constitutionally-protected rights should never be subject to a popularity vote,” he stated. “The wealthy elitists behind I-1639 want to turn a right into a regulated privilege. This measure was only designed to have a chilling effect on the exercise of a constitutional right by honest citizens while having no impact at all on criminals, and we cannot let it go unchallenged.”

Chris Cox of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action had similar comments:

“The NRA is committed to restoring the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding Washingtonian,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA¹s Institute for Legislative Action. “I-1639 violates the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and puts people at risk. This lawsuit is the first step in the fight to ensure that Washingtonians are free to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense.”…



“The NRA will fight to overturn this unconstitutional initiative. We will not sit idly by while elitist anti-gun activists attempt to deny everyday Americans their fundamental right to self-defense,” concluded Cox.

I, for one, am quite pleased to see the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifles Association working together on this lawsuit and not competing with one another for bragging rights. This is the way it should be.

Uncategorized

A Judge Who Believes The Rules Matter

August 20, 2018 by

It is refreshing to see a state judge who believes the rules matter when it comes to a voter initiative. Thurston County (Washington) Superior Court Judge James Dixon is that kind of judge.

This past Friday he threw out the 300,000 signatures collected on petitions on Initiative 1639 which would entail another round of gun control in Washington State.  Judge Dixon found that the print on the forms was too small to be read and that the petitions did not clearly state what would be the changes in the law. He ordered the Secretary of State’s office to stop certification of the ballot initiative.

Among the things the initiative would do is raise the age to purchase a modern semi-auto sporting weapon including .22 rifles to age 21, require a firearm safety training course, and mandate safe storage. The petition process was started by the Alliance for Gun Responsibility and funded primarily by high tech billionaires such as Paul Allen.

As you might expect, the Alliance for Gun Responsibility is appealing this to the Washington State Supreme Court. Moreover, as their CEOs comments make clear they are not happy campers.

“The right of Washingtonians to make changes to our laws via initiative has been part of our state’s history for more than 100 years and is fundamental to the Washington we know today,” (Renee) Hopkins said. “Today’s decision tossed out the signatures of more than 378,000 voters, and undermined the rights of the citizens of this state in favor of the interests of the gun lobby. It’s not right, and we will continue to fight.”

Actually, it was the Alliance for Gun Responsibility’s playing fast and loose with the established rules regarding the form and style of initiative petitions that undermined the petition and not anything the judge did. I guess they thought with all the money that they had the court would just roll over for them.

As you might expect, Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation who sued as a private citizen was very pleased with the result.

“A few billionaires donated millions of dollars to buy the signatures to get this fraudulent initiative on the ballot,” Gottlieb observed. “But they couldn’t buy the Court.”

“The initiative process has no place for deceit and deception,” Gottlieb said. “The so-called Alliance for Gun Responsibility acted totally irresponsible in circulating this initiative to the voters and it not only cost them millions of wasted dollars but their credibility as well.”

The NRA had also sued along with Alan Gottlieb and the ruling is in response to both lawsuits. Chris Cox of the NRA-ILA had this to say:

“The National Rifle Association is glad to see the court today recognized how negligent, if not worse, gun control advocates were in their signature-gathering for this ill-advised ballot initiative,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “We got involved because I-1639 tramples on the rights of Washington state voters, and because the way these anti-gun activists went about pushing their agenda was egregious. We applaud this decision, and will remain vigilant in protecting the constitutional freedoms of all Americans.”

It is good for gun rights to see the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation working together in Washington State. They are also co-plaintiffs in two more lawsuits challenging efforts by Seattle and Edmonds to circumvent the state’s strong preemption laws on firearms regulations.

Uncategorized

Is The NRA Making A Grand Trade Or Merely Punting?

October 5, 2017 by 7 Comments

Bump fire stocks have come under increased scrutiny since the mass casualty even in Las Vegas where it appears the killer used them in his violent rampage. There have been bills introduced as well as increasing calls for them to be banned. They were originally approved by BATFE during the Obama Administration when it was concluded that they did not convert a semi-auto firearm into a full-auto firearm.

This afternoon the NRA released a joint statement from Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox which called upon BATFE to re-review bump fire stocks and to subject them to additional regulations.

(FAIRFAX, VA) – The National Rifle Association today issued the following statement:

“In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented. Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control. Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks. This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world. In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans’ Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities. To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence.”

This statement leads to the question of the day: is the NRA trading a bump fire stock ban for national right-to-carry reciprocity or are they merely punting in the face of opposition to them from even some in the GOP who had been supportive of gun rights?

The NRA has always engaged in realpolitik in recent years. This may be a case of appearing to be willing to deal on the regulation of one gun-related item in exchange for loosening another. If so, they are trading a novelty item for something rather substantial. My only fear is that they could get out-maneuvered by trying to placate the gun prohibitionists on this one item.

I don’t care about bump fire stocks. I’m never going to buy one or put one on my AR.  However, if bump fire stocks are banned now what is to say that other gun parts such as adjustable stocks or standard capacity magazines won’t be banned later. If you open the door to the ban on one thing, don’t you open the door to the ban of anything firearm related?

UPDATE: Chris Cox of the NRA-ILA went on Fox’s Tucker Carlson Tonight to explain the NRA’s position and to call for national carry reciprocity. I’ll let you make the call whether it is a good idea or not.

Uncategorized

Clowns To The Left Of Me, Jokers To The Right

June 4, 2014 by 7 Comments



The rest of that song by Stealers Wheel goes “here I am stuck in the middle with you.”

That is how I’m feeling about the whole open carry fiasco in Texas. I doubt that there are many readers of this blog that don’t support the extension of open carry in Texas to include handguns. Many states including my own North Carolina have unlicensed open carry.

What is incredibly frustrating is watching Shannon Watts and her fellow gun prohibitionists at Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors making hay out of the bumbling ineptitude of groups like Open Carry Texas. Sonic, Chipotle, and god knows who’s next have issued “Starbucks-style” statement asking the open carry activists to leave them out of the argument.

Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned has done yeoman’s work in examining the folly of their actions. You can read some of those posts here, here, and here. There are more.

The attention whoring of these OC activists has caused such backlash that the NRA issued a statement last Thursday which said, in part,

Yet while unlicensed open carry of long guns is also typically legal in most places, it is a rare sight to see someone sidle up next to you in line for lunch with a 7.62 rifle slung across his chest, much less a whole gaggle of folks descending on the same public venue with similar arms.

Let’s not mince words, not only is it rare, it’s downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself. To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one’s cause, it can be downright scary. It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates.

As a result of these hijinx, two popular fast food outlets have recently requested patrons to keep guns off the premises (more information can be found here and here). In other words, the freedom and goodwill these businesses had previously extended to gun owners has been curtailed because of the actions of an attention-hungry few who thought only of themselves and not of those who might be affected by their behavior. To state the obvious, that’s counterproductive for the gun owning community.

More to the point, it’s just not neighborly, which is out of character for the big-hearted residents of Texas. Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners. That’s not the Texas way. And that’s certainly not the NRA way.

Chris Cox of the NRA-ILA backed away from that statement yesterday saying it was the personal opinion of some unnamed staffer and not the NRA’s official position. He apologized for any confusion it caused. Others such as Charles Cooke of National Review disagreed saying that it was what needed to be said. I think I and the majority of the gun blogging and gun podcast community would agree that it needed to said.

Bob Owens had an interesting observation on this at BearingArms.com. He noted that often in cases like this where a statement is retracted that it is the original statement which reflects the internal thinking of the organization. In other words, it was what we called back in my political science days “signalling“.


As Michael Bane emphasized today in his Downrange Radio podcast, our goal in the gun rights community needs to be winning. We no more win hearts and minds with these open carry demonstrations in restaurants than the US Air Force did with carpet bombing in South Vietnam. I would send a copy of Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People to everyone in the Texas open carry leadership if I could.

I can’t, so in the meantime I will implore them to cut out the narcissistic displays, clean up their websites and Facebook pages, and, as Michael suggested, think before you do stupid. Those of us stuck in the middle would appreciate it.

Uncategorized

NRA-ILA Statement On Manchin-Toomey Defeat

April 17, 2013 by

Chris Cox, head of the NRA-ILA, issued the following statement following the Senate’s defeat of the Manchin-Toomey amendment by 54-46 this afternoon.

Statement from Chris W. Cox on U.S. Senate Defeat of Manchin-Toomey-Schumer Amendment

Today, the misguided Manchin-Toomey-Schumer proposal failed in the U.S. Senate. This amendment would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools.

The NRA will continue to work with Republicans and Democrats who are committed to protecting our children in schools, prosecuting violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law, and fixing our broken mental health system. We are grateful for the hard work and leadership of those Senators who chose to pursue meaningful solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems.

Uncategorized

Open Letter From The NRA-ILA To The US Senate

April 11, 2013 by 1 Comment

Chris Cox of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action released an open letter to the Senate. In it he states that the NRA is “unequivocally opposed” to S. 649. He states that the NRA will oppose any and all attempts to extend background checks, to limit firearms and magazines, or to criminalize private transfers and/or sales. He specifically includes the proposals from Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey issued today.

Dear Senator,

I am writing regarding the National Rifle Association’s position on several firearms-related proposals under consideration in the Senate.

S. 649, the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013”, introduced on March 21, contains a number of provisions that would unfairly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. This legislation would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. The NRA is unequivocally opposed to S. 649.

In addition, the NRA will oppose any amendments offered to S. 649 that restrict fundamental Second Amendment freedoms; including, but not limited to, proposals that would ban commonly and lawfully owned firearms and magazines or criminalize the private transfer of firearms through an expansion of background checks. This includes the misguided “compromise” proposal drafted by Senators Joe Manchin, Pat Toomey and Chuck Schumer. As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools. Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

Rather than focus its efforts on restricting the rights of America’s 100 million law-abiding gun owners, there are things Congress can do to fix our broken mental health system; increase prosecutions of violent criminals; and make our schools safer. During consideration of S. 649, should one or more amendments be offered that adequately address these important issues while protecting the fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners, the NRA will offer our enthusiastic support and consider those votes in our future candidate evaluations as well.

We hope the Senate will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools. Should it fail to do so, the NRA will make an exception to our standard policy of not “scoring” procedural votes and strongly oppose a cloture motion to move to final passage of S. 649.

Should you have any questions on these issues, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 651-2560.

Sincerely,

Chris W. Cox

Uncategorized

Reasonable Gun Control?

February 13, 2013 by 1 Comment

I think Chris Cox of the NRA-ILA hits the nail on the head in this short video. Administration documents show that an effective AWB would require mandatory gun buybacks while universal background checks would require gun registration to be effective. Thanks but no thanks!

After watching this video with Chris Cox and watching Jessie Duff on TV, I think the NRA should reconsider having Wayne LaPierre be the number one spokesman for the NRA. While Wayne has been in the fight for a long time, I think Chris and Jessie give a more up-to-date and appealing face to the gun rights battle.

Uncategorized

Arms Trade Treaty Catches The Attention Of Fox News

July 26, 2012 by

The major media outlets have been rather quiet about the Arms Trade Treaty talks going on at the UN in New York. This short report from Fox News seems to be the first one that I’ve seen on it outside of NRA News.

As part of the the story they interview Chris Cox of the NRA-ILA. Cox pointed out that shotguns, pistols, and rifles are what’s meant by “small arms”.

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Uncategorized

Chris Cox On The Arms Trade Treaty

July 12, 2012 by 1 Comment

Ginny Simone of NRA News interviewed Chris Cox, head of the NRA-ILA, about the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty yesterday. This interview was after Wayne LaPierre spoke to the delegates of the ATT talks and presented the NRA’s position.

Chris made some good points in this interview. Perhaps the best was when he said that “our freedoms shouldn’t be dumbed down to an international standard; the truth is that international standards need to be brought up to United States (levels).” Given that the ATT has countries like Iran in a leadership role I don’t see this happening. That said, Chris is correct.

Another important point that Chris made was that treaties hang around forever until such time as there is a President and Senate willing to ratify it. Unlike a bill passed in one house of Congress that dies at the end of that Congressional session if the other house doesn’t pass it, an international treaty hangs around like a Zombie.

Uncategorized

NRA-ILA On Scott Walker’s Win In Wisconsin

June 6, 2012 by 1 Comment

Chris Cox and the NRA-ILA are celebrating what looks to be an overwhelming victory by Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin recall election. They released this statement a short while ago.

Thanks to your votes and efforts, Scott Walker has won the recall election for Governor in Wisconsin defeating rabidly anti-gun Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

Scott Walker has proven his dedication to the Second Amendment by signing into law right-to-carry legislation, castle doctrine legislation, and the Hunting Heritage Act during his short tenure as Wisconsin’s chief executive. Scott Walker also supported statewide preemption of firearm laws and an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution guaranteeing the individual right to keep and bear arms. In contrast, Tom Barrett has a career-long “F” rating from NRA-PVF and has supported bans on commonly owned firearms, supported exposing hunters to prosecution, and has consistently opposed common sense self-defense legislation.

Your NRA was fully vested in this race with a comprehensive campaign that included tens of millions of online ads and hundreds of thousands of television, radio and print ads before today’s recall election. The media campaign was also supplemented by a concentrated advocacy and get-out-the-vote phone and mail program. All-in-all, almost two million pieces of advocacy mail were sent and phone calls made in this remarkable victory for freedom.

The NRA’s media campaign was complemented with a strong grassroots effort, utilizing field coordinators to conduct literature drops, canvassing and volunteer efforts across the state in the months before the election.

Together we made a difference in this race. But, as always, what mattered most in this race was your vote. Thanks to gun owners in Wisconsin, one of the strongest pro-gun Governors in the country will continue working to support our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I bet the managers of those two Gander Mountain stores which refused to let the NRA-ILA hold their previously scheduled grassroots training sessions are feeling a little stupid right now. I still plan to shop elsewhere given Gander Mountain’s actions.