Connecticut

Uncategorized

Stag Arms Leaving Connecticut

June 8, 2019 by 1 Comment

The Stag Arms’ Board of Directors announced that they plan to relocate the company out of New Britain, CT. The new location has not been finalized yet.

The full text of the announcement was posted on Facebook:

Today, Stag Arms announced that its Board of Directors has decided to relocate the company from its current facility in New Britain, CT, as part of its strategic initiative to significantly improve the overall customer experience. The location of Stag’s new headquarters has not been finalized but the Board has narrowed down the options to a short list of vibrant communities where there is significant support for the firearms industry.

Stag Arms President, Anthony Ash, stated: “Not since the founding of our Company in 2003 have there been so many great things happening at once. We began our journey with a commitment to bring customers innovative products with uncompromising quality through 100% American Made components. We pioneered the left-handed Modern Sporting Rifle and from Day 1 we have backed all of our rifles with Infinite Shot Barrel and Lifetime Transferable Warranties. Our recent release of our newest product line of PXCs, Stag’s innovative multiple pistol caliber AR, continues the tradition.”

Mr. Ash further stated, “Stag is creating a seamless, integrated value chain that will incorporate best practices from design and engineering, to manufacturing, omni-channel customer engagement, fulfillment, and service. The pieces are in place and we are ready to transition production and fulfillment operations immediately from a narrow facility-based approach in New Britain to a distributed eco-system.”

The Board expects to finalize the location of the headquarters in the next few months and the company then will begin the process of relocating sales and remaining back office functions to the new headquarters location.

Back in 2013 Stag almost moved to either Houston or Myrtle Beach, SC. Then company CEO Mark Malkowski made the decision to remain in Connecticut due to expense involved with the move. You may also remember that PTR Industries left the same area of Connecticut about that time for Aynor, SC.

Ownership of Stag Arms changed hands in 2016 due to running afoul of BATFE regulations. Malkowski and Stag pleaded guilty to charges involving unregistered machine guns. As part of the plea deal, Malkowski was forced to sell the company and was banned from the industry. White Wolf Capital bought Stag Arms and added it to their portfolio which also included Ballistic Advantage, VG6 Precision, and Aero-Precision.

New Britain town officials were not surprised by the announcement.

New Britain Mayor Erin Stewart said the announcement “comes as no surprise.”

“We have known for many years that Stag has been courted by other states following the passage of more stringent gun laws here in Connecticut,” she said in an emailed statement. “Quite frankly, I’m surprised it took this long.”

While none of the potential locations have been named, I’m going out on a limb here and saying it won’t be Tacoma, Washington which is the home of Aero-Precision given the recent changes in Washington State gun laws. More likely, is a relocation nearer to Ballistic Advantage which is in a suburb of Orlando, FL.

Uncategorized

Democrat State Party Platforms – Colorado To Georgia

September 19, 2018 by

This is a  continuation of my series of posts pointing out the political platforms of the individual state Democrat parties on firearms, gun control, and the Second Amendment. Remember, this is the official position of the Democratic Party in each state and you can expect Democrats to work to enact laws along these lines.

Colorado

Colorado Democrats have an explicit gun control agenda in their platform. Moreover, firearm restrictions come up in other areas such as schools and National Parks and Forests.

Firearms and Gun Safety
We agree with individual ownership of firearms for hunting and personal safety, but also believe that firearms should be
regulated as follows:

1. Ban assault weapons, bump stocks, and high capacity magazines.
2. Enact universal background checks federally.
3. Enact restrictions: Must be 21 and must demonstrate competency with firearms to purchase a firearm.
4. Prohibit the possession and purchase of firearms by people with violent criminal offenses or on terrorist watch list.
5. Except for security personnel, ban firearms on K-12 schools, college campuses and allow cultural institutions to ban
firearms on their premises.
6. Enact Extreme Risk Protection Order law, which would allow families and law enforcement to seek a court order to
temporarily disarm a person who is dangerous to themselves or others.
7. Enact criminal penalties when adults fail to properly store firearms and minors gain access and harm themselves or
others.
8. Restrict firearms use in National Forest to designated areas, except during hunting season.
9. Allow the CDC and other government agencies to conduct gun violence research, and properly fund.

With regard to making schools gun-free zones, the Colorado Democrats say:

We oppose guns in school, more guns would make our schools less safe and but all (sic) students and staff at increased
risk of becoming a victim of gun violence.

Finally, with regard to public lands and wildlife, it says, “We support the restriction of shooting in National Forests and Parks.”

Connecticut

As you might expect, Connecticut Democrats support gun control and make great claims for it. They don’t go into great detail so they must assume all the post-Newtown restrictions have been accepted.

Guns

Connecticut Democrats are proud to stand behind common sense gun violence prevention measures. As a result, Connecticut has one of the lowest gun death rates in the country.

Gun violence in our urban centers needs to be addressed. This can be supported through incentivized proactive measures such as buybacks, and reinforcing “no questions asked” protections where appropriate in order to get guns off the streets.

Connecticut can do more. There is progress to be made in the areas of Domestic Violence and Extreme Risk protections as these scenarios are a source of mass shooting violence and gun suicide.

Delaware

 The Delaware Democrats’ platform adopts the usual buzzwords such as “common sense” and “weapons of war” without going into too much detail.

Preventing Gun Violence: Gun violence is taking far too many lives in Delaware.
Delaware Democrats support common sense gun safety measures while
respecting responsible gun ownership. We will build on successful efforts at the
state level and proposed efforts at the federal level to get weapons of war away
from criminals and off our streets, while preserving the Second Amendment rights
of law-abiding gun owners.

Florida

 The Florida Democrats have a list of their “values” on their website instead of a platform. In addition to a statement on guns, they also have a separate “gun violence prevention” fact (sic) sheet.

Preventing Gun Violence

“Proud NRA sellout” Adam Putnam and his Republican party would rather give guns to people who shouldn’t have them than enact comprehensive gun control policies. The Republican Party’s dependence on the NRA for money is why they refuse to enact policies that a majority of Floridians support. Unlike Republicans, Democrats support banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and a 3-day waiting period for gun sales. Democrats realize that this isn’t about taking away the rights of responsible, law abiding gun-owners. This is about making our state safer so that there isn’t another shooting in Parkland, Pulse, or anywhere else in Florida. Florida has endured 4 mass shootings in 18 months because of Republicans’ refusal to implement common sense gun reform. Let’s make sure there isn’t a 5th.

Georgia

Georgia Democrats don’t seem to have adopted a party platform since 2011. It is probably for this reason that their platform makes no reference to firearms or “gun violence” (sic).  The only real item I could find is a 2013 press release supporting then President Obama’s efforts at gun control post-Newtown including magazines bans and assault weapon (sic) bans.

I will have to assume that they will support the gun control platform of Stacey Abrams who is their nominee for governor.

As Governor, Stacey will:

  1. Fight for common-sense gun reforms including universal background checks, repeal of campus carry, and extreme-risk protection orders
  2. Support protections and services for victims of domestic violence
  3. Invest in mental health services
  4. Support community and hospital programs to stop the cycle of gun violence



Stacey’s Record:

  1. Opposed legislation which required that guns confiscated in crimes be returned to the street
  2. Opposed campus carry
  3. Received only Ds and Fs from the National Rifle Association
  4. Endorsed by Moms Demand Action and Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence

Uncategorized

Lawsuit In Connecticut Against Remington Et Al Dismissed

October 17, 2016 by 4 Comments



A lawsuit brought by some of the families of children killed in Newtown, CT has been dismissed. The lawsuit sought to find Remington, their distributor Camfour, and the dealer Riverview as having been guilty of “negligent entrustment” for selling the Bushmaster AR-15 used by the killer. Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis found that the claims put forth by the plaintiffs did not meet one of the six exceptions found in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. She issued her ruling on this past Friday afternoon.

The basis of the lawsuit was on the legal theory of negligent entrustment. That is, did the defendants give, sell, or “entrust” their product knowing full well that it would be misused or had the high potential to be misused. An example of negligent entrustment would be loaning your car to a friend to pick up some more beer when you knew he had been drinking. In this case the plaintiffs argued that an AR-15 was so dangerous and so “assaultive” that it should never have been sold to “civilians”.

In determining her decision, Judge Bellis examined whether the actions of the defendants constituted negligent entrustment under Connecticut state law and then pursuant to the PLCAA. After first examining the history of negligent entrustment and relevant court cases both in Connecticut and outside of it, she first concluded that the actions of Remington and their fellow defendants did not give rise to negligent entrustment.

In the present case, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ entrustment of the firearm to the respective entrustees was negligent because the defendants could each foresee the firearm ending up in the hands of members of the an incompetent class in a dangerous environment. The validity of the argument rests on labeling as a misuse the sale of a legal product to a population that is lawfully entitled to purchase such a product. Based on the reasoning from McCarthy, and the fact that Congress has deemed the civilian population competent to possess the product that is at issue in this case, this argument is unavailing. To extend the theory of negligent entrustment to the class of nonmilitary, nonpolice civilians – the general public – would imply that the general public lacks the ordinary prudence necessary to handle an object that Congress regards as appropriate for sale to the general public. This the court is unwilling to do.

 Accordingly, because they do no constitute legally sufficient negligent entrustment claims pursuant to state law, the plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment allegations do not satisfy the negligent entrustment exception to PLCAA. Therefore, unless another PLCAA exception applies, the court must grant the defendants’ motion to strike.

McCarthy, which Judge Bellis references, was a case brought by Carolyn McCarthy against Olin for selling Black Talon cartridges. Her husband’s murderer had used these Winchester cartridges in his killing spree on the Long Island Railroad. The McCarthy case was dismissed under the PLCAA.

Though Judge Bellis did not need to consider whether the defendants’ actions constituted negligent entrustment under the narrower definitions set forth by the PLCAA given they failed to meet the broader standard set under Connecticut state law, she did so in the “interest of thoroughness” and to provide further support for her decision.

After examining the plaintiffs’ case in the light of the more limited definition of negligent entrustment, Judge Bellis concluded that the immunity provided by the PLCAA prevailed. She also examined the plaintiffs’ argument that the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act allowed them to bring this action as an exception to PLCAA due to a violation of a state statute. This, too, was dismissed.

Although PLCAA provides a narrow exception under which plaintiffs may maintain an action for negligent entrustment of a firearm, the allegations in the present case do not fit within the common-law tort of negligent entrustment under well-established Connecticut law, nor do they come within PLCAA’s definition of negligent entrustment. Furthermore, the plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUPTA) to bring this action within PLCAA’s exception allowing lawsuits for a violation of a state statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms. A plaintiff under CUPTA must allege some kind of consumer, competitor, or other commercial relationship with a defendant, and the plaintiffs here have alleged no such relationship.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the court grants in their entirety the defendants’ motions to strike the amended complaint. 

Judge Bellis’ opinion ran to 54 pages. I surmise that one of the reasons she took so much time to lay out her arguments for approving the motion to strike is so that it will withstand scrutiny by an appeals court. The plaintiffs’ have vowed to appeal this ruling.

As might be expected, this ruling was attacked by both Hillary Clinton and the gun prohibitionist lobby. Clinton quickly released a tweet saying it was “incomprehensible that our laws could protect gun makers over the Sandy Hook families. We need to fix this.” Robyn Thomas of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (sic) attributed the decision to “the gun lobby’s destructive grip on Washington.” Lest anyone forget, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was enacted in 1995 as a response to multiple municipal lawsuits seeking to destroy the firearms industry through litigation. It also provides only limited immunity and not a blanket immunity against negligence.

Uncategorized

Stag Arms May Not Be Leaving Connecticut

April 27, 2014 by 4 Comments

I stopped by the Stag Arms booth at the NRA Annual Meeting on Friday. Given that their CEO, Mark Malkowski, had previously said they were leaving Connecticut and that the choice had come down to either the Houston area or Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, I wanted to find out if there had been any movement on that. Of course, I was hoping to hear Myrtle Beach.

If the company representative with whom I spoke is correct, there won’t be any movement. As in, they have decided to stay in Connecticut. He said they have four facilities in the New Britain area and they have decided it will be too expensive to move. The irony of this situation is that the firearms they manufacture can’t be sold in that state.

I should caution that this didn’t come from Mark Malkowski but rather from a representative at their booth. I will be following up with an email to the company to get confirmation.

Uncategorized

Shew V. Malloy Will Be Appealed

February 5, 2014 by 2 Comments

On Thursday, Senior US District Court Judge Albert V. Covello ruled that despite being “in common use” the State of Connecticut could impose an assault weapons (sic) and magazine ban. This ban had been challenged by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League in the case of Shew et al v. Malloy et al. Today the CCDL announced that a formal notice of an intention to appeal had been filed.

From their release:

HARTFORD – Just one day after receiving an adverse ruling from the lower federal court on their
Second Amendment challenge to Connecticut’s new firearms law,
the plaintiff-firearms owners and organizations filed a formal notice of their intention to appeal the ruling. In addition to following the U.S. Supreme Court precedents in the renowned cases of
Heller
and
MacDonald,
the lower federal court deciding the case was bound to follow recent precedents of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. To date, the Second Circuit has upheld laws that place greater restrictions on the right to bear arms than have courts in federal circuits in other parts of the country. It is these diverging views of the Second Amendment on issues that were not resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Heller
and
MacDonald
that make it likely that the Supreme Court will decide to hear one or more Second Amendment cases in the next few years.


Although the legal conclusions did not go their way at this initial stage of the litigation, the lower court did make factual findings that gun owners view as favorable. For example, the court found that certain of the newly banned firearms, such as the popular AR-15, are in
“
common use
”
for lawful purposes throughout the nation. The AR-15 type modern sporting rifle, which is newly classified as an
“
assault weapon
”
under the legislation, is the leading type of firearm used in national shooting matches and in other competitions sponsored by the congressionally established Civilian Marksmanship Program. The court also
found that banning such commonly used firearms places a “substantial burden” on fundamental Second
Amendment rights.

 The photo below was posted on their blog announcing that they planned to appeal the decision. I think they have it right.

Uncategorized

A Loss In Connecticut

January 31, 2014 by 5 Comments

Senior District Court Judge Alfred V. Covello ruled in favor of the State of Connecticut in upholding their assault weapons ban and other restrictions. The case, Shew et al v. Malloy et al, was brought by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and others challenging the law enacted after the Newtown shootings.

Gun control advocates were buoyed Thursday by a federal court decision in Hartford that upholds Connecticut’s toughest-in-the-nation assault weapons ban, calling it a constitutionally valid means of balancing gun rights and the government’s interest in reducing gun violence.


“The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional,” senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in a decision published late Thursday. “While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control.”

Just quickly glancing over the opinion that can be found here, it appears that Judge Covello used intermediate scrutiny to decide in favor of Connecticut and relied upon the 2nd Circuit’s ruling in Kachalsky v. Cacace.

From the article in the Hartford Courant, it appears that Judge Covello bought into much of the anti-gun nonsense that Connecticut used to defend the law.

Covello, agreeing with the plaintiffs, concluded that the weapons and magazines are commonly owned and legally used in Connecticut and elsewhere. But he parted company with the plaintiffs when he wrote that the state’s ownership and sales ban is justified when the government’s goal of reducing violence is measured against the ban’s impingement on Second Amendment rights.

The Second Amendment rights of gun owners are adequately protected by the large number of alternate weapons that can be used for protection, hunting and sports events, he wrote.

On several occasions, Covello adopted the state’s arguments that assault weapons are designed, not for cosmetic purposes, but for “lethality.” And he referred to an affidavit by a state expert who asserted that “Connecticut’s bans on assault weapons and large capacity magazines, and particularly its ban on (large capacity magazines), have the potential to prevent and limit shootings in the state over the long run.”

Covello was appointed to the bench for the District of Connecticut by Pres. George H. W. Bush in 1992.

Uncategorized

NSSF’s Lawsuit Against Connecticut’s SB 1160 Dismissed

December 4, 2013 by 2 Comments

Chief District Court Judge Janet Hall dismissed the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s lawsuit which sought an injunction against Connecticut’s new gun control law on Monday. Hall, a Clinton appointee, dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Procedure which states that a plaintiff must have standing to bring a case. She agreed with the State of Connecticut’s claim that the NSSF did not have standing to challenge SB 1160.

The case which was brought in July of this year sought to have Connecticut’s draconian gun control law – SB 1160 – invalidated because the state did not follow its own legislative rules when it claimed an “emergency certification” exemption. Normally a bill in Connecticut must be available to be read by state legislators for two legislative days before it can be voted upon. An exemption can be granted in emergency situations if the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tem certify in writing the necessity for the emergency exemption along with the supporting facts. In this case while they did certify the emergency they failed to state any facts to support their certification. (See items 18 through 33 in the plaintiff’s complaint.)

Judge Hall states that the NSSF would have standing to challenge the gun control law’s impact on its members but not to challenge the defects in the legislative process that led to the bill being passed. She found that the NSSF’s complaint was a “generally available grievance against government” which other courts have found not to confer standing.

Here,
the
claimed
pecuniary injury
make
s
NSSF a
proper party to
challenge gun control legislation. That injury, however,
does
not make
NSSF
—
or any
other
member of the public
aggrieved
only incidentally
by
procedurally defective
legislation
—
into a proper party to challenge
the
defects
in legislative process.

Judge Hall goes on to say:

Because
the pecuniary injury asserted as the basis for NSSF‟s standing is
unrelated to
the rights of democratic participation in the legislative process that NSSF
seeks to vindicate, the court lacks the authority to adjudicate the
claims put forward in
this
case
. Accordingly,
the case must be dismissed
for lack of standing.

She concludes by granting the state’s motion to dismiss and by stating that based upon the NSSF’s written and oral pleadings that they “would be unable to replead to satisfy the standing requirement.”

The NSSF is reportedly studying the decision and weighing its options.

Uncategorized

So Freaked Out By Open Carry That He Gets Arrested

September 18, 2013 by 10 Comments

I’m neither a proponent nor opponent of open carry. I don’t tend to do it because I want to keep the bad guys guessing. That said, if you want to open carry that is your option. If you do, I promise I won’t be like Robert Gursky of Glastonbury, Connecticut.

According to this story in the Hartford Courant, Mr. Gursky was so freaked out by a gentleman legally open carrying at his local bank that he slid the teller a note that said “gun”. The teller did what he or she was trained to do – they hit the silent bank robbery alarm.

Mr. Gursky was arrested for breach of peace and has to appear in court next week. And the man open carrying? He was interviewed by the cops who determined that he possessed his firearm legally and that was that.

There is something to be said for poetic justice.

H/T BearingArms.com

Uncategorized

NSSF Sues Connecticut Officials In Federal Court

July 8, 2013 by 1 Comment

The National Shooting Sports Foundation filed suit today in US District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that Connecticut leaders led by Gov. Dannel Malloy (D-CT) misused the emergency certification exception in order to pass gun control. The lawsuit contends the use of the emergency certification exception was invalid as it violated both Connecticut state statutes and the Connecticut Constitution. Moreover, they contend the action violated due process protections under both the Connecticut and the US Constitution. They are seeking to have SB 1160 declared void and unconstitutional and to enjoin the state and its officers from enforcing the provisions of SB 1160.

The NSSF is represented in this case by the Renzulli Law Firm and their own General Counsel Lawrence Keane.

The release from the NSSF regarding the case is below along with links to the complaint.

Firearms Industry Files Suit Alleging Process Used to Pass Gun Regulations Violated Connecticut Statutes and Constitution

NEWTOWN, Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, today filed suit in federal court for the District of Connecticut alleging that Gov. Dannel Malloy and the leadership of the Connecticut General Assembly misused the so-called “emergency certification” exception to circumvent the safeguards of the normal legislative process and in violation of Connecticut statutory law in order to pass Senate Bill 1160, a package of strict gun-control regulations.

The suit further alleges that enactment of the new law violates fundamental due process rights guaranteed by both the Connecticut and United States Constitutions. NSSF is asking the court to declare the law invalid and issue an injunction prohibiting its enforcement.

“A 139-page bill was assembled behind closed doors, bypassing both the public hearing and committee processes, and quickly sent to floor votes on the same day in both the House and Senate where legislators did not have adequate time to even read the bill. The governor then signed the package into law the next day. All of this is in violation of guarantees citizens are supposed to have under Connecticut State Statutes and protections in our State and U.S. Constitutions for which our forefathers fought,” said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel, NSSF. “Our suit focuses on this abuse of process that has resulted in enacted law that does nothing to improve public safety, while resulting in adverse effects on law-abiding citizens, manufacturers, retailers and sportsmen’s organizations.”

The filing can be accessed at http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/NSSFComplaint-FILED_070813.pdf.

The Connecticut Law Tribune recently editorialized on this topic. That editorial can be accessed at http://ctlawtribune.com/PubArticleCT.jsp?id=1202608974608

Uncategorized

CT Gov. Malloy Continues War Against Gun Owners

July 3, 2013 by 1 Comment

Peter Kuck is the longest serving – and most pro-gun – member of the Connecticut’s Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. This board reviews denials of pistol permits by local police chiefs. It is Mr. Kuck’s pro-gun rights stance which has made him a target of Gov. Dannel Malloy (D-CT) who it appears is trying to oust him from the board. Members of the board serve a term coterminous with the governor who appointed them and Mr. Kuck’s appointment is now considered terminated.

“This is a continuing attempt to put their thumbs on the balance of justice,” Kuck said after learning that Malloy was seeking nominees to succeed him on the board that hears appeals from residents who are denied pistol permits or whose permits are revoked.

Andrew Doba, a spokesman for Malloy, said Kuck’s spot on the board is not the only one on the governor’s radar. “We are currently reviewing all of the expired terms on the board,” Doba said. “The governor has made no secret of his efforts to improve public safety. Clearly, his work on the gun violence prevention bill was a huge step forward. But making sure the spirit of that law is reflected in the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners must be a part of that effort as well.”

Kuck’s record on the board — he votes to overturn local police chiefs and grant pistol permits more consistently than any other board member — was the subject of a story last week in The Courant. The following day, Malloy sent a letter to the group that nominated Kuck.

The Hartford Courant story about Mr. Kuck from last week can be found here.

There are seven members of the board which is appointed by the governor. However, the law creating the board specifies that certain organizations such as the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, the Connecticut State Rifle and Pistol Association, and Ye Connecticut Gun Guild are given representation on the board. These organizations submit nominations to the governor’s office for appointment. Mr. Kuck is the representative of Ye Connecticut Gun Guild and is their treasurer. Representation of different constituencies is meant to provide a variety of perspectives to the board.

Malloy’s efforts to oust Kuck have angered gun rights groups in the state.

“This is yet again a brazen attack on the rights of the people of Connecticut,” Rich Burgess, president of Connecticut Carry, said in a statement. “Governor Malloy is simply not satisfied with his overreaching and unconstitutional gun ban implemented in April. Now he is using alternative means to try and remove rights from law abiding people by denigrating a good man.”

The last time Ye Connecticut Gun Guild was asked to submit names for the board they submitted one name. It was that of Mr. Kuck and they are expected to do the same again.