Taliban – You Don’t Need Weapons For Personal Protection

As the Taliban consolidate their power in Kabul, Afghanistan, they have started going door to door collecting weapons from private citizens.

From Reuters:

Taliban fighters in the Afghan capital, Kabul, started collecting weapons from civilians on Monday because people no longer need them for personal protection, a Taliban official said.

“We understand people kept weapons for personal safety. They can now feel safe. We are not here to harm innocent civilians,” the official told Reuters.

The Taliban also believe in a strict interpretation of Muslim law including women should not leave their homes unless accompanied by a male relative and to be fully covered in a burqa. There are numerous stories of how they have killed or beaten innocent women as they moved back to power.

This leads me to ponder on the the conundrum facing American gun prohibitionists like Everytown, Moms Demand Action, Giffords, and the Brady Campaign. On the one hand you have a group that brutally subjugates women like it was the 7th Century. On the other hand, they want to ban the private possession of firearms saying, in essence, the state will protect you.

Choices are tough.

Quote Of The Day

Charles C.W. Cooke, editor of NationalReview.com and recently naturalized American citizen, had this to say about the gun control industry’s flipping out about 3-D printing and self-made firearms.

Psychologically, though . . . in one fell swoop, a large number of people have realized that their aspirations for gun control are DOA. They have realized that the technology was well beyond what they had imagined. They have realized that there is nothing magical about firearms, and that there is nothing remarkable about their manufacture. They have realized, that is, that their crusade is effectively over. Thanks to the explosion of technology that is supposed to be on their side, the tide is rushing in without respect to their royal persons. And they don’t like that one bit.

He’s absolutely correct. No matter what they say to the media or what they say to gullible judges or say on the floor of Congress about “plastic guns”, their real fear is becoming irrelevant and that is why they are fighting this tooth and nail.

Will This Be Considered A School Shooting?

It seems any act of violence with a firearm in or near a school is considered a “school shooting”. It matters not that the act of violence had nothing to do with the school, happened after hours, or involved no one affiliated with the school as either the shooter or the victim(s).

By now many, if not most, have seen the shootout during a car chase between Las Vegas Metro Police and two suspects in black Ford Expedition. All the major mainstream news channels have shown video from it. The shootout featured one officer shooting at the fleeing suspects through his windshield. This was after the suspects started shooting at the police chasing them. If you are like me, you worried that he would have permanent hearing loss.

You can watch and listen to the chase from the body camera footage of Officer William Umana who is a 17 year veteran of LVMPD.

At the end of the chase you can see the SUV crash into a wall. That wall is part of Howard Hollingsworth Elementary School in Las Vegas.

Thus the question will be do the gun control prohibitionists and their media allies consider this a “school shooting”?  Obviously it isn’t but that hasn’t stopped them in the past.

Not Smart Business (Corrected)

The Illinois State Rifle Association issued the following urgent correction this afternoon regarding the benefit car wash:


On June 5, 2018, the Chicago Tribune’s Naperville Sun ran a story in which the leader of a west suburban gun control organization reported that she was holding a car wash to benefit gun control behind the Bill Kay Chevrolet auto dealership. Naturally, the wording of the article would lead readers to believe that Bill Kay was affiliated with the benefit car wash.

Bill Kay Chevrolet has since contacted the ISRA to report that the dealership is not affiliated with the car wash. Likewise, the Tribune has, on June 11, re-released their story with clarifying language that accurately identifies the location of the benefit car wash.

Now that the Tribune has corrected its article, the ISRA is advising its members that the Bill Kay Auto group is no way involved in the car wash and that gun owners should feel free to keep Bill Kay in mind when shopping for a new or used vehicle.

Bill Kay Auto Group is not so dumb after all. They will NOT be the sponsor of the car wash and is not involved in any way.

Nonetheless, the neo-Red Guard aka Hogg and Co. is coming to Illinois.

Original post below

If you were a gun owner in the Chicagoland area would you really want to support a chain of car dealers that is sponsoring a benefit for anti-gun group? I didn’t think so.

The Illinois State Rifle Association sent out an alert about a benefit car wash being held by Bill Kay Chevrolet for Friends Who March of Naperville, Illinois. The dealership is part of the Bill Kay Auto Group which has a number of dealerships around the Chicago area.

From ISRA:

A west suburban auto dealership will be holding a benefit “car wash” to support gun control legislation that, if passed, promises to empty your gun safe. Bill Kay Chevrolet, located on Ogden Avenue in Lisle, will be the site of the June 16th car wash. The event will reportedly kick off at Noon and end around 3:00 PM.

The beneficiary of the Bill Kay event is a cell of extremist gun controllers based in Naperville, IL. The radical group is known for organizing harassment activities against attendees of the DuPage Gun Show and for inciting near-riot conditions during a raucous anti-constitution, anti-freedom demonstration in Downers Grove last March. The gun control group has, as its objective, the banning and confiscation of your lawfully-acquired firearms.

As law-abiding gun owners, we shouldn’t be supporting businesses or other organizations that support and sustain attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights. The Bill Kay Auto Group has chosen to align itself with the gun controllers in their war against your rights as an American citizen. Bill Kay Auto Group’s overt support for gun control should carry consequences.

The Bill Kay Auto Group operates a number of dealerships throughout the Chicagoland area. Those dealerships represent a variety of brands – not just Chevrolet. So, the next time you go shopping for a vehicle, or when booking auto maintenance, remember that Bill Kay is not your friend. Vote with your feet – shop elsewhere.

The Chicago Tribune has more on the event and the featured guests of Friends Who March:

The Naperville town hall is one of the 50 stops on the 20-state Road to Change tour being conducted by David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez, Cameron Kasky, Jaclyn Corin and about two dozen other students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., who experienced the mass shooting at their school in which 17 people were killed in February.

The students reached out to Jax West, president of Friends Who March, to organize a town hall event in the western suburbs because she helped host a March For Our Lives event in Downers Grove…

In addition to the town hall, West is planning a voter drive during a car wash Downers Grove North High School students are hosting with the Parkland students from noon to 3 p.m. June 16 behind the Bill Kay Chevrolet, near Ogden Avenue and Interstate 355 in Lisle.

The League of Women Voters of Downers Grove, Lisle and Woodridge will register people to vote at the event.

The Road to Change tour officially kicks off June 15 in Chicago, where Parkland students be joining a Peace March led by students from St. Sabina Academy.

There is no word if Father Pfleger of St. Sabina’s and his armed guard will attend the car wash or “Peace March”. Also there is no word whether David Hogg and his neo-Red Guard minions will make a pilgrimage to the grave of Saul Alinsky while in the Chicago area.

YouTube’s New Policy Is Aimed At The Gun Culture

A day or so ago YouTube changed their policies regarding firearms. This is in addition to earlier changes to policy that banned the showing of bump fire stocks as well as the demonetization of many firearms-related YouTube channels.

Here is the new official policy:

Policies on content featuring firearms

YouTube prohibits certain kinds of content featuring firearms. Specifically, we don’t allow content that:

  • Intends to sell firearms or certain firearms accessories through direct sales (e.g., private sales by individuals) or links to sites that sell these items. These accessories include but may not be limited to accessories that enable a firearm to simulate automatic fire or convert a firearm to automatic fire (e.g., bump stocks, gatling triggers, drop-in auto sears, conversion kits), and high capacity magazines (i.e., magazines or belts carrying more than 30 rounds).
  • Provides instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition, high capacity magazine, homemade silencers/suppressors, or certain firearms accessories such as those listed above. This also includes instructions on how to convert a firearm to automatic or simulated automatic firing capabilities.
  • Shows users how to install the above-mentioned accessories or modifications.

Report content that violates this policy
You can report videos that you believe violate this policy by flagging the video.

Instructions on manufacturing ammunition? That is called reloading and has been a part of the shooting sports since time immemorial.

Instruction on manufacturing homemade silencers/suppressors? Those would be legally called Form 1 suppressors or silencers and are perfectly legal provided the $200 tax is paid along with the requisite background check. I currently have two Form 1’s approved and am deciding on how I want to proceed.

Insofar as reporting inappropriate videos, the gun prohibitionists have been trying to sabotage some of the more successful firearms-related YouTube channels. It has happened to Hickok45 and to others.

YouTube is a subsidiary of Google. Both are private companies entitled to set their own policies and discriminate against the gun culture if they so wish. This is not a constitutional issue as the First Amendment concerns only governmental abridgement of free speech. In the days of bulletin board systems (BBS) and private forums, this was not a real major issue. However, as social media has been increasingly aggregated into a few major corporate players – Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google – their censorship is a problem. Unfortunately, there are not currently many viable alternatives. Full30 is great but it is limited. MeWe hasn’t really taken off as a Facebook alternative. The list goes on.

I suggest downloading those YouTube instructional videos that you like. There are plenty of ways to do it and I’m sure you can find them on the Internet. Content creators would be advised to back up their channels.

Probably the best comment on backing up a channel was this by Othais of C&R Arsenal.

Or you can go full bore like Ian and Karl.

UPDATE: Bloomberg Technology is covering this and included this comment from InRange TV aka Ian and Karl.

InRange TV, another channel devoted to firearms, wrote on its Facebook page that it would begin uploading videos to PornHub, an adult content website.

“YouTube’s newly released released vague and one-sided firearms policy makes it abundantly clear that YouTube cannot be counted upon to be a safe harbor for a wide variety of views and subject matter,” InRange TV wrote. “PornHub has a history of being a proactive voice in the online community, as well as operating a resilient and robust video streaming platform.”

If anyone knows about streaming video it is the porn industry!

The Mask Is Off

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

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018 (HR 5087) on Monday and he has 167 co-sponsors as of now. They are all Democrats.

He says in his press release:

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2018 will prohibit the sale, transfer, production, and importation of:

· Semi-automatic rifles and pistols with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine;
· Semi-automatic rifles with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds;
· Semi-automatic shotguns with a military-style feature;
· Any ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds;
· And 205 specifically-named and listed firearms.

The bill has almost a hundred pages of long arms that would be exempted under the bill. It is as if the authors of the bill took a bunch of back issues of Gun Digest or Shooters Bible and just copied them. Appendix A features such firearms as Purdy side by side shotguns, Holland and Holland double rifles, and Ruger M77 bolt actions. It does, to be fair, include some Ruger 10/22s.

The meat of the bill is in the definitions.  Here is the definition of “semiautomatic assault weapons” which then follows a multi-page list of listed firearms.

‘‘The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’
means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

‘‘(i) A pistol grip.
‘‘(ii) A forward grip.
‘‘(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable  stock.
‘‘(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
‘‘(v) A barrel shroud.
‘(vi) A threaded barrel.

‘‘(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed
magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

‘‘(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

‘‘(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

‘‘(i) A threaded barrel.
‘‘(ii) A second pistol grip.
‘‘(iii) A barrel shroud.
‘‘(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
‘‘(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

‘‘(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

‘‘(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any 1 of the following:

‘‘(i) A folding, telescoping, or detachable

‘‘(ii) A pistol grip.
‘‘(iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.
‘‘(iv) The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
‘‘(v) A forward grip.
‘‘(vi) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.

‘‘(G) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

‘‘(H) All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof: (long list starting with AKs and going from there)

It continues after naming a bunch of shotguns and pistols in sub paragraphs I and J:

‘‘(K) All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms, including TNW M2HB and FN M2495.

‘‘(L) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraphs (A) through (K) can be assembled.

‘‘(M) The frame or receiver of a rifle or shotgun described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (F), (G), (H), (J), or (K).

The bill goes on further to ban the sale, import, possession, transfer, or manufacture of “semiautomatic assault weapons” after the date of the enactment of the bill. It would grandfather those in circulation made before that date. Moreover, the ban would not apply to the military, police, armed guards, etc. or in other words, “only ones”.  Indeed, retired LEOs could be sold their “semiautomatic assault weapon” upon their retirement.

The bill would ban “large capacity ammunition feeding devices”. These are defined as “a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.”

There is a safe storage requirement for grandfathered “semiautomatic assault weapons” that requires them to be inaccessible to prohibited persons.

Finally, the bill would require any grandfathered “semiautomatic assault weapons” to be transferred through a licenses dealer. There are a few other things in the bill such as appropriations for gun buy-backs and notification requirements on the part of dealers if a prohibited person attempts to buy a grandfathered “semiautomatic assault weapon”.

As I’m reading paragraphs A and D, if the firearm in question could take a detachable magazine and any one of the listed items, then it is a “semiautomatic assault weapon”.  That would include virtually all semiautomatic rifles and pistols as you have replacement stocks, replacement threaded barrels, etc. that would make the rifle or pistol thus fall into this category. If you think I’m reading this wrong, feel free to correct me. The exceptions, of course, are those specifically listed by model in Appendix A. However, even those could become one of those evil “semiautomatic assault weapons” if you replaced the stock with a pistol grip stock or had the barrel threaded.

What also is not said explicitly in this bill is that you could not use a suppressor on any post-ban gun unless it attached by a means other than threading on to the barrel. Thus, this bill indirectly would put a crimp on what is in reality a safety device.

I posted a meme the other day talking about raising the age to 21 to buy a rifle. With a little rewording and replacing a standard wooden stocked Ruger 10/22 with one that has a threaded barrel, the meme still stands. They want you to think its only one thing but they mean its everything.

The Need To “Act”

I received a text this afternoon from the Brady Campaign regarding the mass casualty event in Las Vegas. They are urging people to contact Congress and ask for more gun control. You can see the screenshot of it below.

Let’s look at what we know and what we don’t know.

Do we know the name, age, and race of the murderer?

Yes. However, I make it a policy of this blog never to grant mass murderers the pleasure of having their name become infamous. He was a white male aged 64.

Do we know the number of victims?

Yes. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the latest count is 58 killed and at least 515 wounded.

Do we know why the murderer did this?

No. As far as it has been reported, there has been no manifesto, no suicide note, and no indications as to why the murderer decided to commit this evil act.

Is it terrorism related?

While ISIS has claimed responsibility for this calling it a lone wolf attack by someone who had recently converted to Islam, the FBI has discounted this. However, as Andrew McCarthy at the National Review noted, the murderer did terrorize the community.

Do we know what type of firearm or firearms he used?

No. They have been variously reported as .223 and .308 caliber rifles along with the AK-47.

How many firearms did he have?

Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo told the press officers found 10 rifles in the murderer’s room. The Wall Street Journal reports, however, the number at 18-20.

Did he have fully automatic rifles?

The best answer is maybe. He may have had a full-auto rifle or he may have had a bumpstock or GAT crank. There is debate on this and no one has reported conclusively on this issue. He was reported to have been a multi-millionaire with multiple homes and two airplanes. He could have afforded to buy legal NFA machine guns but we don’t know.

Do we know how the murderer obtained his firearms?

No. Update: ABC News reported on their evening news that at least some of the firearms were purchased from a gun store in Mesquite, NV after the requisite NICS check. They are not a Class 3 dealer.

Do we know how the murderer died?

Yes. He committed suicide as the police were breaching the door to his room.

Did the murderer have a criminal record?

No. His late father, however, was a convicted bank robber and had been on the FBI’s Most Wanted List. The father had escaped from Federal prison and did try to run down FBI agents with a car. He died in 1998.

What firearms law would have prevented this?

Put bluntly, none. The killer had a clean record and had no reported history of mental illness. He would have passed even the strictest of background checks including those required to purchase NFA items. Moreover, given his financial resources, he could have obtained any sort of weapon on the black market. A determined lone wolf with his resources will always be able to cause death and destruction. In this case it seems the killer put a good deal of planning and money into getting the right location at the right time.

Policy made in haste rarely is good policy. We should resist any and all efforts to use this tragedy as the basis for new gun control laws. The Rahm Emanuel “never let a tragedy go to waste” days should be over and they should stay over.

Ben Shapiro at the Daily Wire puts it very well in this post from earlier in the day.

How They Really See Us

Twitter sends me tweets by email that they think I might find of interest. This was one of them. It led to a video being promoted by the Campaign to Close the Gunshow Loophole (sic). The video short is called “Guntown” and is produced by Los Angeles-based Rogue Kite Productions.

Ostensibly “Guntown” is a parody of open carry and “good guys with a gun”. While it is a parody, I think if you look deeper this is how the gun prohibitionists actually see those who believe in armed self defense.

As the Nazis did with the Jews, if you can dehumanize a group of people then you can begin to persecute them with little or no consequence. The gun prohibitionists consider us a threat because we are individualistic, believe in providing our own self defense, and are not reliant upon the state. In their eyes, we are the untermenschen because we haven’t accepted the “greater truths” that they as enlightened people hold. These “greater truths” include such falsehoods as the state should hold the monopoly on violence and the state is here to protect you.

We need to watch these stupid little videos and read their tweets and Facebook posts. Only by knowing what lies the enemies of self defense, responsible gun ownership, and liberty are promulgating about us can we counter them. Forewarned is forearmed.

How The Gun Prohibitionists Reacted To Gorsuch’s Confirmation

The anti-civil rights gun prohibitionists wasted little time in reacting to the news that the US Senate had confirmed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court to succeed the late Antonin Scalia. Using terms like “NRA puppet masters”, “lapdogs”, and “radical position on the Second Amendment”, they vented their angst and anger due to the realization that the Second Amendment will not be marginalized as it would have been with a Justice Garland.

Oh, where to start with the whiny bitching, oh where to start. I might have started with the Everytown Mommies Demanding Illegal Mayors but they have posted no response. I guess Shannon Watts is still more worried about the dress code for people flying on United buddy passes than she is on the Supreme Court. Thus, I guess I should start with the Brady Campaign as they have been around the longest.

From Dan Gross at the Brady Campaign:


WASHINGTON – Brady Campaign president Dan Gross issued the following statement after the Senate upended longstanding rules to force through Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation as Supreme Court Justice. The corporate gun industry spent millions to pressure senators to confirm Gorsuch by any means necessary.

“The gun industry spent big to ram their SCOTUS pick through the confirmation process, and the industry’s lapdogs in the Senate bent over backward to give the lobby its money’s worth. All eyes, especially ours, will be on this new justice. We’ll hold Gorsuch and the senators who sold out his seat accountable for any decision he makes that puts gun industry profits ahead of the right of all Americans not to be shot. We will continue to fight and be the voice of the 93 percent of Americans who demand sensible solutions to prevent gun violence.”

Moving on to Gabby Giffords and her Americans for Responsible Solutions (sic) where Peter Ambler released their statement:

“The United States Senate just voted to confirm a justice whose views do not reflect the values and priorities of the American people. Throughout the confirmation process, Judge Gorsuch avoided giving meaningful answers on a range of topics, including the Second Amendment. Despite persistent questioning, he refused to acknowledge that the Second Amendment, like all constitutional rights, was ‘not unlimited’—a point the landmark Heller decision made explicitly. This is serious cause for concern and suggests that he would be willing do the gun lobby’s bidding and prioritize his own political agenda over an open-minded, fair interpretation of the law. When a groundswell of opposition to Judge Gorsuch’s nomination surfaced, Senate Republicans changed rules—instead of the nominee—in order to make sure he was confirmed. Americans deserve better. We deserve justices on the Supreme Court who respect the Second Amendment while also recognizing that reasonable regulations that reduce gun violence do not violate anyone’s constitutional rights.”

Also from their coalition partners the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (sic), Robyn Thomas had this to say:

“Anyone concerned about public safety in America should be concerned that today the Senate voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. More than once in his time on the Tenth Circuit, Gorsuch voted to weaken the federal law that has prohibited felons from possessing guns for the past 50 years, a law that has saved thousands of lives and enjoys near-unanimous support among Americans and elected officials on both sides of the aisle. Even Justice Scalia, arguably the most conservative Supreme Court justice in modern history, spoke out in favor of reasonable firearms regulation, including the prohibition on felons possessing guns. Gorsuch’s radical position on the Second Amendment is far outside the mainstream, and his presence on the Supreme Court demonstrates just how important it is that we stand up for the commonsense, proven solutions that we know save lives.”

Given it is Friday and you probably need a laugh, both Ambler and Thomas were referred to as “gun safety experts”. When I see their Range Safety Officer certifications, then I’ll believe that they are gun safety experts. In the meantime, I’ll just consider them charlatans pushing more gun bans and confiscations.

Finally, there is the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic). I see they haven’t really changed their rhetoric much since Ladd Everitt left them for greener pastures with George Takei and his group. Some things never change and CSGV’s statement shows that they are as pathetic as ever.

CSGV Statement: Senate Breaks the Rules to Confirm NRA’s Nominee

Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation is a low point in American legislative history

Washington, DC (April 6, 2017) — Today, the United States Senate paved the way for the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch as Supreme Court justice by invoking the “nuclear option” — a move that blatantly disregards precedent and ends the ability to filibuster the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice.

This confirmation is legislators’ latest gift to the National Rifle Association (NRA), who played a significant role in Gorsuch’s nomination and spent $1 million in advertising to ensure his confirmation.

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Executive Director Josh Horwitz released the following statement:

“Trump and his NRA puppet-masters now have a reliable vote in Neil Gorsuch. This stolen seat was one that the gun lobby invested in, and NRA leaders now expect a return on that investment. Between their unprecedented obstruction of Merrick Garland and their willingness to fundamentally change the rules, Mitch McConnell and his unscrupulous colleagues have shown they will stop at nothing to give the NRA what they want.”

Given all this nonsensical rhetoric, I think it would be helpful to follow the advice of Kevin Creighton and Michael Bane to read Dan Gifford’s article “Rebranding the Gun Culture”. As much as I make fun of the gun prohibitionists, I know that there are many in the mainstream media and the Northeastern power elite that will give them the time of day. For this reason, we need to fight them smarter and more effectively. We need to come up with effective terms to combat their use of “gun lobby” and “NRA puppets”.

Lawsuit In Connecticut Against Remington Et Al Dismissed

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.