Oh! The Horror!

Magpul donated 1,000 30-round PMags for the NRA to give out to those who attended the January 13th NRA rally at the Virginia State Capitol. Duane Liptak, Magpul’s Executive VP, is a member of the NRA Board of Directors. Bear in mind that a magazine ban is one of the agenda items for anti-gun Democrats in the Virginia General Assembly. A magazine ban, I should add, that has no grandfathering.

Giving out 30-round PMags was reminiscent of what Magpul did for rallies in Vermont in 2018 and in Colorado in 2013. In other words it was nothing new. Nonetheless, the gun prohibitionists at the Cult of Personality known as Giffords have their panties in a wad over this.

Gun rights advocates from around the country are urging armed protesters to descend on Virginia’s capital before the General Assembly’s first legislative session of 2020 to stop Democrats from passing gun-control bills.

The NRA is even getting involved by offering to hand out 30 round magazines to protesters for free if they show up.

Tweet from the NRA: EMERGENCY AIRLIFT: @Magpul_HQ sent us 1,000 30 Round PMAGs to hand out tomorrow in Richmond to NRA members who show up to fight Northam's extreme gun ban! We'll see everyone TOMORROW at the General Assembly Building in Senate Sub-Committee Room1 on the 5th Floor at 8am!

A 30 round magazine was used to shoot this organization’s co-founder, Gabby Giffords, kill six people and injure 12 others in Tucson.

First off no magazine of any size can be used “to shoot” anyone. A magazine is merely a container. It, more importantly, just like a firearm is an inanimate object that cannot do anything unless it is used by human being.

In Ms. Giffords’ case, the murderer in Tucson had a Glock pistol as his weapon of choice. He did have a Glock 18 knock-off magazine that jammed when he was reloading allowing heroic bystanders to end his rampage.

The killer bought it legally after passing a FBI NICS check. That he was able to pass such a check despite evidence of mental issues was due to the failure of school authorities to report his behavior and due to the Pima County Sheriff’s Department ignoring his actions. The latter was due to a friendly relationship between the killer’s mother and Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.

Giffords and other such organizations who send out these pleas for money rely on shock value and the decay of memory with regard to past events. That it is dishonest has never stopped them in the past and won’t stop them in the future. Fortunately, there are both the Internet and those of us with long memories to set the record straight.

Lawsuit Against Deerfield (Illinois) AWB Makes Fox And Friends

Richard Pearson, Executive Director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, was interviewed this morning on Fox and Friends regarding the lawsuit that ISRA and the Second Amendment Foundation have filed against the Village of Deerfield, Illinois. The lawsuit seeks a restraining order against the village’s recently enacted assault weapons (sic) and high capacity (sic) magazine ban on the grounds that village doesn’t have the authority to do so under Illinois state law.

You can see the video of the interview here.

SAF, CalGuns, Firearms Policy Coalition, And Others Sue California Over Mag Ban

News of this was released this afternoon while I was in the Annual National Firearms Law Seminar and didn’t have my computer handy. A coalition of groups including the Second Amendment Foundation, the CalGuns Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Firearms Policy Foundation plus seven individuals filed suit challenging the state’s ban on standard capacity magazines. The suit was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California.

From the news release sent out by the CalGuns Foundation:

FRESNO, CA (April 28, 2017) — Today, attorneys for 7 individual gun owners and 4 civil rights advocacy organizations have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the State of California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds “on their own behalves, and as representatives on behalf of the class of individuals who are or would be affected by the Large-Capacity Magazine Ban.”
The civil rights case, captioned as William Wiese, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, and is supported by civil rights groups The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF)
A copy of the lawsuit’s complaint and its exhibits can be viewed or downloaded here.
Last year, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill 1446 (SB 1446), which changed state statutes to completely ban law-abiding people from possessing all “large-capacity” firearm magazines as of July 1, 2017. Following that, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 63 (Prop 63) “Safety For All Act” gun control initiative—which also contained language banning “large-capacity” magazines—was passed by voters in the November general election.
Prior to Proposition 63 and SB 1446, thousands of law-abiding Californians could possess legally-owned (“grandfathered”) large-capacity magazines, but now must remove them from their possession or ownership in the State by July 1 at their own expense or face criminal liability and fines.
The plaintiffs believe that the State’s ban violates their constitutional rights, including their fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms protected under the Second Amendment, because magazines are “an intrinsic part of all semi-automatic firearms” and “are not merely individual pieces of personal property, but rather, are intrinsic and inherent constitutionally-protected parts of constitutionally-protected firearms.”
In a “Finding of Emergency” for related firearm magazine regulations it had sought to issue in December (attached to the complaint as Exhibit A), the California Department of Justice admitted that “[t]here are likely hundreds of thousands of large-capacity magazines in California at this time” and that the “Department therefore expects many gun owners to be affected by the new ban.”
In addition to its Second Amendment claims, the lawsuit “further challenges the Large-Capacity Magazine Ban statutory scheme which would…. subject thousands of law-abiding gun owners to criminal liability and sanctions, and subjecting their lawfully-possessed personal property to forfeiture, seizure and permanent confiscation, without due process or compensation.”
The case also includes vagueness challenges, one of which centers on the confusion surrounding the State’s two active—but very different—chaptered versions of Penal Code § 32406. A number of exemptions to the ban are found in the active Section 32406 that was enacted under SB 1446, but the active version of Section 32406 enacted by California voters under Prop 63 contains far fewer exemptions.
“California’s magazine ban laws violate the constitutional rights of law-abiding people in many ways,” said attorney George M. Lee, a partner of the plaintiffs’ San Francisco law firm Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP. “Not only does the ban infringe on Second Amendment rights, but it is clearly now a taking of private property. In fact, as we contend in the complaint, it amounts to a de facto confiscation.”
Lee also takes issue with the way the new magazine ban affects people who have lawfully possessed “grandfathered” magazines since before the original ban on importation in 2000. “As a part of the legislative compromise associated with that original ban, owners of those grandfathered magazines were specifically exempt from the law,” he said. “The Legislature is basically reneging on that deal made many years ago.”
“The State of California’s ban scheme stands for the proposition that most any personal property can simply be taken away from you or forced out of your possession without due process or just compensation by legislative fiat,” commented CGF Chairman Gene Hoffman. “Today it’s firearm magazines, but tomorrow it will most certainly be some other constitutionally-protected private property.”
“Enforcement of this ban,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “would immediately place thousands of law-abiding California gun owners in jeopardy of criminal liability and subjects their personal property to forfeiture, seizure and permanent confiscation, which is government taking, without due process or compensation. We cannot allow that to go unchallenged.”
“California’s magazine laws will turn many thousands of good, law-abiding people into criminals,” said Brandon Combs, president of FPC and chairman of FPF, “but do nothing to advance public safety.
“While California’s political leadership might prefer some kind of police state without any Second Amendment or property rights, we believe that the Constitution takes their policy preferences off the table. This lawsuit is one of many that we hope will help restore fundamental freedoms in the Golden State and across the nation.”
Douglas A. Applegate, also of Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP, joins Lee on the case as co-counsel.

This plus the NRA lawsuit is a good start.

NJ Senate Votes On Mag Limitation And Gun Ban Tomorrow (updated)

The NRA-ILA sent out an alert advising that the New Jersey State Senate will vote on SB 993 tomorrow (Monday, May 12th) at noon. They are asking the people in NJ call or email their state senator and request that they vote against this bill.

From the NRA-ILA:

On Monday, May 12, the New Jersey Senate is scheduled to consider Senate Bill 993
at noon.  As previously reported, S.993 seeks to restrict the maximum
capacity of ammunition magazines from 15 to 10 rounds and ban certain
popular firearms.  Under the guise of public safety, anti-gun
politicians continue their efforts in Trenton to erode the Second
Amendment rights of New Jersey residents.  New Jersey is one of only a
few states which already has a magazine restriction, and another
arbitrary limit will have no impact on crime or criminals.  Instead,
this legislation demonstrably favors criminals who prefer to prey on
unarmed victims.



Senate Bill 993 is scheduled to be considered by the full Senate at noon on Monday, May 12.  It is more important than ever to call and e-mail your state Senator and respectfully, yet insistently, urge him or her to vote AGAINST S.993.  Contact information for state Senators can be found here.


If you would like to tune into the Senate debate on S.993, you can do so by clicking here.

The bill would exempt tube feed .22LR rifles from the 10 round maximum. It would also allow both current law enforcement officers to carry 15-round magazines while off-duty and it would extend this same “courtesy” to retired law enforcement officers.

The kicker part of the bill is this:

14. (New section) Any person who legally owns a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds or a large capacity ammunition magazine as defined under subsection y. of N.J.S.2C:39-1 which is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition on the effective date of P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill) may retain possession of that rifle or magazine for a period not to exceed 180 days from the effective date of this act. During this time period, the owner of the semi-automatic rifle or magazine shall:

a. Transfer the semi-automatic rifle or magazine to any person or firm lawfully entitled to own or possess that firearm or magazine;

b. Render the semi-automatic rifle or magazine inoperable; or

c. Voluntarily surrender the semi-automatic rifle or magazine pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-12.1

UPDATED: Sebastian is reporting that the bill passed the NJ Senate on a 22-17 vote. It now goes to Gov. Chris Christie who has never been a friend of gun owners. However, he does have Presidential aspirations and this could help our cause. Now is the time to start pressuring him. His online contact address is here.

Hickenlooper Seeks Political Cover With Signing Statement

When Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) signed into law Colorado’s forthcoming ban on standard capacity magazines, he took a page from Presidents Bush and Obama and issued a signing statement with the bill. The signing statement notes that Gov. Hickenlooper consulted with the Colorado Attorney General’s Office on the bill and how it should be construed narrowly by law enforcement.

This is nothing but an attempt to push off some of the blowback he is receiving or will receive about this law on to the Republicans. No Republican legislator voted for this law and were adamant in their opposition to it. However, Colorado’s Attorney General, John Suthers, is a Republican. In my opinion, Attorney General Suthers should not provide any political cover to Gov. Hickenlooper and should tell him the law says what it says. It will only be when Colorado voters realize just how draconian this law really is that they will turn out the Democrats responsible for it.

Narrow enforcement of this law may make it tolerable over time. Strict enforcement of the law, despite the harm it will do, will turn this law into a 21st Century Intolerable Act and force its repeal. It will also make court challenges more likely to win especially if the “readily converted” provision makes many firearms unusable.

The signing statement is below:

STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER

ISSUED MARCH 20, 2013 UPON THE SIGNING OF HB13-1224

In signing HB13-1224, we acknowledge that some have expressed concerns about the vagueness of the law’s definition of “large-capacity magazine.” By its terms, the law does make illegal any magazine manufactured or purchased after July 1, 2013, that is capable of accepting, or is designed to be readily converted to accept, more that 15 rounds of ammunition. Similar language is used in other states’ statutes limiting large-capacity magazines. We know that magazine manufacturers have produced and sell magazines that comply with these other state laws that limit large-capacity magazines and we are aware of no successful legal challenges to those laws. And when a Colorado-based magazine manufacturer came to us to share their concerns about the vagueness of the definition of “large-capacity magazine” contained in the original version of the bill, we worked with the bill’s sponsors to fine-tune the definition to make it more precise.

We also have heard concerns about the requirement in the law that a person who owns a large-capacity magazine prior to the law’s enactment may legally possess that magazine only as long as he or she “maintains continuous possession” of it. We do not believe a reasonable interpretation of the law means that a person must maintain continuous “physical” possession of these items. Responsible maintenance and handling of magazines obviously contemplates that gun owners may allow others to physically hold and handle them under appropriate circumstances. We are confident that law enforcement and the courts will interpret the statute so as to effectuate the lawful use and care of these devices.

In considering the language of HB13-1224, we have consulted with the Office of the Attorney General and we concur with its advice that the large-capacity magazine ban should be construed narrowly to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. We have signed HB13-1224 into law based on the understanding that it will be interpreted and applied narrowly and consistently with these important constitutional provisions.

To this end, today we are directing the Colorado Department of Public Safety to consult with the Office of the Attorney General and others, as necessary, with respect to the interpretation of HB13-1224’s large-capacity magazine ban, and then to draft and issue, to law enforcement agencies in the State of Colorado, technical guidance on how the law should be interpreted and enforced. This work should be done by July 1, 2013, the law’s effective date.

Hickenlooper Signs Colorado Mag Ban

Today, in a move that guarantees that Colorado will lose at least 200 jobs, Governor John Hickenlooper (D-CO) signed three gun control bills. Among these bills was HB 1224 which bans magazines with a capacity greater than 15 rounds or that could be readily converted to hold more than 15 rounds.

Lawmakers and guests applauded as Hickenlooper signed the bills. The governor looked solemn.

The bills thrust Colorado into the national spotlight as a potential test of how far the country might be willing to go on new restrictions after the horror of mass shootings at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school and Aurora movie theater.

“I am happy the governor is signing common-sense legislation that reduces gun violence in our communities by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic violence offenders and the seriously mentally ill,” said Democratic Rep. Rhonda Fields, who represents the district where an assailant opened fire July 20 during a midnight showing of “Dark Knight Rises.”

Whether it was meant to be symbolic or not, the signing comes eight months to the day after the shooting in a movie theater in Aurora, CO.

UPDATE: Michael Bane issued a warning to gun owners who either live in Denver and its adjacent towns or in Boulder. On today’s Downrange Radio podcast, Michael, citing private conversations with his friends in law enforcement, warned that police in Denver and Boulder will be enforcing the Colorado Magazine Ban to the letter of the law. Listen to his podcast for more info. Frankly, it would make me very hesitant to visit the Denver/Boulder area.

Could You Slant The Poll Wording Just A Bit More?

The Colorado State House passed their standard capacity magazine ban by a vote of 33 to 31. Every Democrat save three voted for HB 1224.

This led the Denver Post to set up an on-line poll asking whether or not Magpul should follow through on their promise to leave the state if HB 1224 is enacted into law. It asks, “If Colorado passes legislation banning the possession of high-capacity gun magazines, should Colorado-based manufacturers of such magazines leave the state?”

Look at the language of the Yes vote:

Yes. Let them carry through with their recent threats to leave. Colorado doesn’t need them here.

Could you slant it any more than this?

Now look at the language of the No vote in the poll:

No. HB 1224 makes it clear they could still legally produce high-capacity magazines to sell elsewhere, and Colorado needs the jobs.

Now think about that – if the legislature really believes a product is so dangerous and so injurious to the public safety that it must be banned in the state, then why on Earth would you allow it to be produced and then put into interstate commerce?

As the Republican Minority Leader noted:

House Minority Leader Mark Waller, R-Colorado Springs, said it was “absolutely inconsistent” for Democrats to have added an amendment to the bill in an attempt to keep Erie -based gun magazine manufacturer Magpul from leaving the state. The amendment says manufacturers could still make high-capacity magazines for out-of-state sale.

“Apparently, they (high-capacity magazines) are not instruments of destruction when they’re purchased outside the borders of Colorado,” Waller said.

 Unless a few Democrats in the State Senate show some spine and defeat the bill, Magpul will be moving. If I were an industrial recruiter in another state, I’d be putting my package together right now. It really is a sad state of affairs in the Centennial State.

Magpul Draws Their LIne In The Sand

Magpul has made it more than just talk. If the Colorado legislature passes the mag ban law, they will be moving. Going with them will be one of their major subcontractors Alfred Manufacturing. They made the official announcement a couple of hours ago on Facebook.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
MAGPUL INDUSTRIES ANNOUNCES IT WILL LEAVE COLORADO IF GUN BILL PASSES

MOVE WOULD COST STATE 600 JOBS, $85 MILLION

Denver, Colorado – February 15th, 2013 – Magpul Industries, an Erie, Colorado, based manufacturer of firearms accessories, announced today that it will be forced to leave the state if House Bill 1224, which would ban standard capacity magazines, becomes law. The announcement was made to Governor Hickenlooper, state legislators, members of the media, and in a full-page advertisement to appear in the Denver Post on Sunday.

Richard Fitzpatrick, Founder, President, and CEO of Magpul Industries, said that regardless of any amendments that may be worked into the bill, he will no longer be able to continue to do business in Colorado if his core product is made illegal.

“Our company could not, in good conscience, continue to manufacture our products in a state where law-abiding citizens are prohibited from purchasing and owning them. ” Fitzpatrick said. “The passage of this bill will do nothing to enhance public safety, but will force us to immediately begin taking our business to another state.”

A proponent of the bill argued that with the amendment language, the choice to stay or leave was up to Magpul. Fitzpatrick responded, “Our relationship with our customers across the country would be severely damaged if this bill passes and we stay. We’ve already heard word of potential boycotts if that happens. They (legislators) really need to understand that our customer base is as passionate about freedoms as we are, and staying here if this bill passes would cripple the company. Make no doubt about it…we have no choice, and would be forced to leave in order to save the business.”

Magpul cited the example of the Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show, which was canceled earlier this year after the organizers announced that it would not permit a popular category of firearm, like the ones Magpul makes accessories for, in the show. Public outcry from the customer base forced exhibitors to withdraw from participation, causing the cancellation of the show, and an estimated loss of $70 million of show revenue for hotels, restaurants, merchants, and other businesses in Pennsylvania, where the show was to be held.

Magpul Industries directly employs 200 people, supports another 400 supply-chain jobs, and contributes over $85 million annually to Colorado’s economy. Doug Smith, Chief Operating Officer for Magpul, says that it is a difficult position to be in. “We could choose to stay in a state that wants our jobs and revenue, but not our products, and lose half the jobs we are fighting to save, or potentially the entire business, when our customers stop buying. Or, we can take the company and those 600 jobs out of Colorado to continue our growth and the growth of American manufacturing in a state that shares our values. This is not really a choice. It’s an unfortunate and inevitable result of the actions of the Legislature if this bill passes.”

Magpul was started over a decade ago by Fitzpatrick, a former U.S. Marine. It has become one of Colorado’s fastest growing businesses, successfully marketing its products to American and allied military forces, police departments, sporting goods stores, and thousands of responsible private citizens. Fitzpatrick says that the rich western culture and strong values of individual freedom and responsibility, traditionally found in Colorado, were one of the reasons the company chose to remain in the state.

“It is heartbreaking to me, my employees, and their families, to think that we will be forced to leave,” Fitzpatrick said. “But if HB13-1224 passes, we will simply have no choice.”

 See this earlier post on ways to contact Gov. John Hickenlooper. On his Twitter feed, Hickenlooper keeps talking about growing the economy and adding jobs. Losing 600 jobs due to ineffectual, liberal feel-good legislation will give Colorado negative job growth. I’d emphasize that among other things.

This Is Why You Need More Than An Arbitrary Ten Rounds

The gun prohibitionists tell us we don’t need more than 10 rounds in a magazine as if they are THE experts in self-defense and home defense. Tell that to the mother who shot an intruder five times as he cornered her and her twin nine year-old children. Though the criminal is now in the hospital in critical condition, he was still able to leave the scene on his own two feet.

While I’m a big revolver fan, I realize that they have their limitations and this story illustrates it. I’m not going to second guess this woman’s choice of weapon as it worked for her but it could have turned out much differently if there were multiple attackers.

The next time someone tells you that no one needs that much capacity, ask them what would have happened to this mother and her children if there had been two, three, or even four intruders. Do they really think the intruders would have let them live after seeing their friend shot? I certainly don’t think so and I certainly don’t think mothers and their children should be sacrificed on the altar of gun control because some politician felt the need “to do something”.