Cris Cox used to be the NRA’s former political director and chief lobbyist.


New gun group launches to fill NRA vacuum

Anew gun rights group is launching a six-figure ad buy in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, focusing on the millions of Americans who became gun owners during and after the COVID pandemic.

Why it matters: The NRA — the longtime premier gun-rights group in the U.S. — cut its political spending from $54 million in 2016 to $29 million in 2020, according to OpenSecrets data. It has reserved $1.3 million in ad spending in 2024, according to AdImpact.

  • The Secure Our Freedom Alliance, a 501(c)4 organization, isn’t looking to compete with existing firearm groups, but wants to fill what it sees as an urgent need to address gun owners this election cycle.
  • By some estimates, post-pandemic, there are some 22 million new gun owners.

The big picture: The goal is to convince new gun owners, especially women and minorities, that their rights are under attack by the Biden administration and progressive politicians.

  • “Our purpose is to win the hearts and minds of the American public to protect the right to self-defense,” said Chris Cox, a senior adviser to the new group and the NRA’s former political director and chief lobbyist.
  • “Every American family has a right to protect themselves and their homes from violent criminals, and the right to choose the method of self-defense they deem best,” he said.

Zoom in: The NRA, founded after the Civil Wardeclared bankruptcy in 2021 and tried to reincorporate in Texas.

  • But its influence and its revenue has dwindled.
  • Along with robust advertising and lobbying campaigns, the NRA’s president, Wayne LaPierre, was also spending lavishly on clothing and travel, inviting a lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) for improperly using charitable contributions.
  • LaPierre resigned from the organization in January of this year. In February, he was found liable for misspending $5.4 million of the group’s money by a New York jury.

What they are saying: “Between now and November, NRA will be strategically targeting key states to reelect President Trump and stop Kamala Harris from taking her radical gun confiscation agenda to the Oval Office,” said Doug Hamlin, NRA executive vice president and CEO, in a statement to Axios.

  • “We will be engaging with our millions of members and gun owners to elect pro-freedom candidates up and down the ballot,” he said.

Driving the news: The ads by the new group are directed at younger voters, as well as women and minority gun owners, with an emphasis on self-defense.

  • “Our neighborhood, it’s not so good,” says the mother in one 30-second commercial, as she’s tucking her daughter into bed.
  • “She is my responsibility and I will protect her,” she says, locking away a handgun on her nightstand.

Another ad shows a young woman at the shooting range with her father. She then holsters her pistol and heads out on a run by herself.

  • “As a woman, I made the decision to always be ready.” she says. “To carry a gun is my freedom and my right.”

The bottom line: “We are going to make the case to the American public that he [Biden] is wrong, anti-gun liberals are wrong, and that the right to self-defense is fundamental to every law-abiding American,” Cox said.

Harris-Biden inner circle have almost no business experience — no wonder Americans are hurting

In her one and only interview of the presidential campaign, Kamala Harris claimed she is “very proud” of the economy she and Joe Biden have presided over for almost four years.

Her rosy view of their management of inflation echoes Biden’s tone-deaf boasts about what a great job he’s done, while Americans struggle to pay for groceries.

“I’m very proud of the work that we have done that has brought inflation down to less than 3%,” Harris told CNN last week.

Considering they inherited an inflation rate of 1.4%, and their reckless spending propelled it to a peak of 9.1% in June 2022, that’s not exactly something to boast about.

Harris said she is “proud” of the Biden administration’s record on the economy. Will Lanzoni/CNN

Biden and Harris ignored warnings that the $1.9 trillion “American Rescue” spending package would overstimulate the economy at precisely the wrong time, just as we were emerging from pandemic lockdowns in March 2021.

Their reckless disregard of economic reality turbocharged consumption and drove inflation to 40-year highs.

But at least Harris had the sense not to declare Bidenomics a “success” when prompted to do so by interviewer Dana Bash.

“There’s more to do,” she admitted. “But that’s good work.”

What exactly that “good work” would entail is a mystery, considering Harris still doesn’t have a single policy on her website, refuses to do interviews like a normal candidate, and is relying on compliant journalists to walk back her most whacky ideas.

But what policies she has divulged so far are not promising: Soviet-style price controls to address food inflation — which she attributes to “price gouging” — and $25,000 handouts to first home buyers which will simply push up the price of real estate are two of her brain explosions.

In her embarrassingly brief CNN interview, to which she insisted on bringing wingman Tim Walz for emotional support, Harris muttered something vague about an “opportunity economy” being her “day one” priority.

But nobody has a clue what she means. One way of assessing how a Harris presidency would affect the economy is to look at the economic competence of her advisers and other administration personnel, many of whom are likely to play a role if she is elected.

Alarmingly, a new report titled “Amateur Hour” from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity shows that most of the administration’s top officials have zero experience in business.

Economists Stephen Moore and Jon Decker have analyzed the work records and résumés of the top 66 officials who deal with economic policy, regulation, commerce, energy and finance and found 58 percent have virtually no business experience.

That includes Biden, Harris and Vice Presidential nominee Walz, none of whom has worked off the public teat. (A dubious tale Harris once told about working at McDonald’s while in college doesn’t count.)

Moore and Decker found that the average business experience of administration appointees is only 3.1 years and the median years of business experience is a big fat zero.

“The vast majority of the Biden-Harris economic/commerce team members are professional politicians, lawyers, academics, community organizers, or government employees.”

Only 12% of Biden-Harris appointees have extensive business experience, defined as 10 or more years in the private sector.

“Amateur Hour” is an update of a similar report Moore and Decker produced in 2022, but this time they have focused on six of Harris’ economic and finance advisers and found they have a “disturbingly low level of business/finance background . . .

“The total number of years of business experience for these top six staffers was 14.

“They combined for an average of 2.3 years and, once again, the median was zero years.”

Only one of the top six Harris appointees, her chief of staff, Lorraine Voles, had extensive business experience and only two had any business experience at all.

The average business experience of Biden-Harris appointees is well behind the record of President Donald Trump’s cabinet officials during his last year in office, who had an average of 13 years of business experience.

A new report from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity found that most of the Biden-Harris administration’s top officials have little to no business experience. Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post

“If history is any guide, it is likely that if Kamala Harris is elected president, many if not most of the Biden top officials will have positions of power in her administration — though possibly in different appointments and agencies …

“Based on the personnel that Harris has surrounded herself with, we would expect a continuation of the anti-business agenda that we have seen under Biden — and perhaps worse.”

Without management experience or economic competence, key officials in the administration have bungled their portfolios.

The authors single out Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, the former small town mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who has presided over a $6 billion program to build half a million electric vehicle stations — which has produced fewer than 20.

The report highlighted Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s failure to build promised electric vehicle charging stations. Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, the former Michigan governor, “has had a hard time with reporters even citing very basic energy statistics that calls into question her familiarity with the critical national energy issues she is overseeing.”

Granholm has said that she doesn’t have “a magic wand” to deal with rising gasoline and home heating costs, but her department has “helped kill vital pipelines and energy production and drilling facilities that could [help] alleviate the crisis.”

Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, a lawyer with little business or health care experience “botched the billion-dollar program for free COVID testing kits and has de-emphasized treatments for COVID that could have saved lives.”

Many Biden-Harris officials seem to be more interested in pursuing progressive social policies objectives than in expanding the economy, the authors say.

Neera Tanden, the head of the Domestic Policy Council, career experience is solely in political campaigns and nonprofits. AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File

For example, Lail Brainard, Biden’s choice as vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, “wants climate change and gender equity issues to be concerns and priorities of the nation’s central bank [and] wants banks to stop lending to oil and gas companies.”

Phillip Jefferson, an economist at Davidson College, is now Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve Board with no private sector experience. “This might explain why the Fed has failed in its mission over the past four years to keep inflation low and the dollar stable.”

Neera Tanden, who heads the administration’s Domestic Policy Council, has spent her entire career working for political campaigns and nonprofits.

Moore and Decker point to a few exceptions, such as Biden’s newish chief of staff Jeff Zients, who has over two decades of experience in venture capital, tech, and health care, and Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, who worked for 11 years as a successful venture capitalist.

Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo recently claimed she wasn’t familiar with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ downward revision of its recent jobs report. Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post

However, Raimondo beclowned herself last month when she told ABC News she wasn’t “familiar” with the Bureau of Labor statistics downwards revision to its latest jobs report of a staggering 800,000 jobs. Raimondo tried to claim it was “misinformation” from Trump.

Doubling down on the administration’s progressive proclivity for wealth redistribution, higher tax rates on the rich, more regulation, more social welfare and climate-centric energy policies, a President Harris is a bleak prospect for the country’s economic wellbeing.

Polls show most Americans believe the economy is headed in the wrong direction, but there’s no hope on the horizon if she wins.

NRA CEO Doug Hamlin sent a letter to staff today announcing the group has retained former Solicitor General Noel Francisco of Jones Day to handle its ongoing First Amendment fight with former New York financial regulator Maria Vullo. So it looks like Brewer Law finally got fired.


Image

Al Hammond Urges Hamlin To Fire Brewer

NRA Director Al Hammond has sent a letter to the members of the Board of Directors encouraging them to support NRA EVP Doug Hamlin and to encourage Hamlin to fire Bill Brewer and his law firm. From everything I’ve read and everything I’ve heard, Hamlin as EVP has the authority to hire and fire any and all vendors including Brewer. While some are strongly holding to the theory that only the Special Litigation Committee has that power, I think ultimately that they are in error.

From Al Hammond’s letter to the BOD:

Subject: Letter to Support Doug Hamlin to Terminate Bill Brewer

Fellow NRA BOD members,  We have come to a critical time in the history of the NRA.  Myself having worked for the NRA for close to 30 years and then joining the BOD I have never seen this association in such dire straits financially and continuing down a path dooming our beloved NRA. We have to take a stand and turn this organization around. 

The first step is to terminate Bill Brewer and his legal team and allow our elected CEO/EVP to do his job without constraint.  I have sent a letter to Doug Hamlin encouraging him to do so and I would ask you to consider sending one in support of Doug as well. My letter is below.

Now is the time to stand and be counted and help rewrite history as being part of the patriots who saved not only the NRA but our Country. We owe this to our NRA members, our Country and our children to continue to protect these rights every day.  Now is your chance to be heard. Please send Doug Hamlin a support letter for all the good work he has accomplished and continues to do for our NRA everyday.

Best Regards

Al Hammond

NRA BOD

Hammond then goes on to release the letter he sent to Doug Hamlin in encouragement. You may remember that some of the cabal had referred to Hamlin as the “interim EVP” which he is not. I presume that was because they preferred a more compliant EVP and one not associated with the reformers.

From that letter to Hamlin:

Doug,

As a member of the National Rifle Association Board of Directors my fiduciary responsibility is to represent our members and promote and protect this great association.

With the continuation and constant legal maneuvering by the Brewer law firm to keep the NYAG law suite and other lawsuits without a resolution it is time to terminate and replace our current legal counsel and replace them with our own internal legal counsel and/or another outside legal counsel firm who can get the job done.

We have paid the Brewer firm in excess of 190 million dollars and we can no longer afford this high priced counsel with dismal positive results.  We are cash strapped and the current legal counsel and our President, Bob Barr, along with the entire Special Litigations Committee seem to have turned a blind eye and insist we continue to use Bill Brewer for not only the NYAG case but other pending cases and any new legal cases we enter into.  Enough is enough.

As the duly elected CEO/EVP you have the full authority to decide on any legal counsel moving forward and termination of any currently being utilized.  I fully support and ask you to dismiss the Brewer Firm from any and all lawsuits currently and any moving forward. Our members have had enough of their hard earned money and the support they have given being squandered on poor legal representation.

Thank you for all that you have done and continue to do to bring back the NRA to what it should be and let’s build a bigger and stronger NRA  working together.

Best Regards

Al Hammond

NRA BOD

Andrew Arulanandam Heads To Idaho

Andrew Arulanandam has officially submitted his papers to retire from the NRA effective September 1st. Doug Hamlin, CEO and EVP, sent out this announcement this morning.

Andrew Arulanandam – a valued member of our NRA team for the past 24 years, will be retiring effective September 1, 2024 to pursue a new opportunity.  Andrew has been an integral part of our organization consistently demonstrating dedication, expertise, and a commitment to professionalism and excellence.  Please join me in expressing the NRA’s deep gratitude and best wishes to Andrew.

Doug Hamlin

Executive Vice President/CEO

National Rifle Association of America

After being promoted from being the NRA’s head PR flack to the Executive Director of General Operations and then becoming Interim EVP after Wayne resigned, I was a bit surprised that that he was allowed to stick around after Doug Hamlin was elected EVP. This is especially true given how Arulanandam fronted for the cabal. That said, it was probably easier to return him to his position in PR with the understanding he would be retiring in a few months. I don’t know whether this allowed him to qualify for the NRA’s old pension but that is neither here nor there. I also don’t know whether his salary was reduced from $450,000 when he returned to the old job.

While the NRA hopefully has seen the last of him, the people of Idaho are getting him back.

Governor Brad Little announced the appointment of Andrew Arulanandam as the new director of the Idaho Lottery and the Idaho State Liquor Division. Arulanandam will take over following the retirement of Jeff Anderson, who had led both agencies until July….

In his new position, Arulanandam will lead two agencies that generate significant economic activity for Idaho. In 2023, the Idaho Lottery and Idaho State Liquor Division returned over $210 million to support state programs such as schools and infrastructure.

Arulanandam will begin his new role in September.

It should be noted that Arulanandam was the Executive Director of the Idaho GOP among other Idaho-based positions before he started working for the NRA. He is also a 1992 graduate of Boise State University.

The house cleaning at the NRA continues as now Arulanandam joins Tyler Schropp in the former NRA employee category. I certainly hope there will be more to come including a certain outside counsel.

The Houthis have defeated the US Navy

Operation Prosperity Guardian (OPG) was set up in December 2023 in response to the Houthi attacks on commercial shipping passing through the southern Red Sea. The aim was to provide a unified international front that would both deter the Houthis from further attacks and reassure the shipping companies who due to reasons of risk and associated insurance costs were already starting to take the long route round the Cape of Good Hope.

The problem was, it didn’t work. The Houthis were not deterred and continued taking pot shots at anyone and everything from ships with the most tenuous links to Israel, to Iranian grain carriers to Russian dark fleet oilers. For relatively little effort and money, they achieved their desired end states of ‘improved local influence’ and ‘challenging international shipping’ almost immediately. Their line that they would stop if there was a ceasefire in Gaza convinced only a few.

This led to Operation Poseidon Archer starting in January 2024, with US and UK counterstrikes on Houthi targets. But as Saudi Arabia proved between 2015 and 2023 (and repeatedly told us) trying to disable the Houthis by kinetic strikes is like punching smoke, and so it proved.

None of these efforts were helped when the EU formed a splinter coalition called Aspides so as not to associate with the US posture in Israel. The West’s inability to agree on how to perform a relatively basic task did not go unnoticed by potential adversaries. It was certainly noticed by the shipping companies we were trying to reassure.

Since January, not only have the attacks steadily increased in number, they have diversified too. Drones and cruise missiles were accompanied by hijackings and ballistic missiles. April saw the first use of a surface drone and there has been a steady increase in this method since.

Recently the Houthis have started following up their attacks with small arms fire from fast boats and the last few weeks have seen the amount of attacks increase above what was an average of 2.5 a week.

Even Russia doesn’t want to risk it at the moment. Earlier this month, Russian tankers Arpus and Arlan, which could have gone through the Suez Canal, instead transferred their oil into the Gold Pearl – too big for the Canal – and she duly went round the Cape.

Continue reading “”

If they’re pushing such disconnected message, perhaps it’s because their brains (what they have of them) are disconnected from reality

If Biden Saved the Economy, Why Do We Need Price Controls?

Democrats are pushing a jarringly disconnected economic message.

Biden “recovered all those millions of jobs that [Donald] Trump watched slip away,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) declared. Biden “rebuilt the economy” after the pandemic put it “flat on its back,” intoned Sen. Chris Coons (D–Conn.), a longtime Biden stan.

Biden himself put the cherry on top. “We’ve had one of the most extraordinary four years of progress ever,” the president said. “We gone from economic crisis to the strongest economy in the entire world,” he claimed, pointing to job creation figures, economic growth, higher wages, and “inflation down, way down, and continuing to go down.”

If so, someone should probably tell Vice President Kamala Harris about all that.

Just four days ago, Harris outlined plans for gigantic government interventions in the economy, including price controls. In what was billed as the first major policy speech of her hastily assembled campaign, Harris promised to implement the “first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries” and to take other actions to empower the federal government to “bring down costs.”
(There’s been some debate in the days since her speech about whether it is fair to say Harris has called for price controls, but economist Brian Albretch has laid out clearly why she in fact did, writing that “any policy that gives the government the power to decide what price increases are ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’ is effectively a price control system. It doesn’t matter if you call it ‘anti-gouging,’ ‘fair pricing,’ or ‘consumer protection’—the effect is the same. When bureaucrats, not markets, determine acceptable prices, we’re dealing with price controls.”)

Continue reading “”

NRA, SAF File Brief In Case Concerning Carry Across State Lines

Massachusetts restrictive gun laws continue to come under well-deserved fire because of their failure to respect the Second Amendment.

We reported over the past week how gun owners have started an initiative petition to put a repeal of the new sweeping gun law on the statewide ballot and about the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) donating $100,000 to the Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) to help fund that group’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law. Now two gun-rights groups have filed an amicus brief in another Massachusetts case challenging the state’s permit law that restricts lawful gun owners from carrying a firearm in the state.

The case involves New Hampshire resident Dean F. Donnell, Jr., who was stopped by police in Massachusetts and charged for carrying a firearm without a license. In the case named Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Donnell, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed their 38-page brief explaining their interest as that of their members’ ability to travel with firearms legally across state lines, to use them for lawful purposes.

“There is no historical tradition that justifies the non-resident licensing scheme now in place in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Looking back, a government license has not been required to exercise the right to carry arms. Such licenses came into existence only in the late 19th Century, and they applied only to the concealed carry of firearms. Open carry was unrestricted.”

In the brief, NRA and SAF argue that the law doesn’t meet the second Bruen standard of proving a historic precedent exists for such a restriction.

“When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the government must justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the brief states. “Because the Supreme Court has already held that the Second Amendment’s plain text protects carrying handguns publicly for self-defense, the Commonwealth bears the burden of justifying its regulation with historical tradition. It has not and cannot do so.”

The brief further argues that no historical tradition exists that justifies the Commonwealth’s nonresident licensing scheme.

“Historically, nonresidents traveling in a state were treated no worse than residents with regard to firearm carry,” the brief states. “If they were treated differently under the law, it was generally to exempt travelers from carry restrictions—not to subject them to more onerous burdens than residents. Moreover, a government license was not historically required to exercise the right to carry arms; carry licenses that applied to free citizens were not enacted until the late-19th-century and applied only to concealed carry, leaving open carry unrestricted.”

Adam Kraut, SAF executive director and one of the attorneys in the case, said the act of just getting  permit puts a huge burden on non-resident gun owners.

“New nonresident license applications require an in-person appointment in Massachusetts, necessitating an extra (unarmed) trip to the Commonwealth—which, especially for residents of distant states, becomes a barrier to entry that may be financially untenable,” Kraut said.

The NRA and SAF conclude in the brief that since the law violates the Second Amendment, the district court’s order of dismissal should be confirmed.

Federal Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Takings Lawsuit Against the CDC’s Covid-Era Eviction Moratorium.

The 2-1 decision overrules a trial court decision that went the other way, and could set an important property rights precedent.

On Wednesday, in Darby Development Co. v. United States, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (which reviews takings claims against the federal government ruled that a takings lawsuit against the 2020-21 federal eviction moratorium can proceed. In so doing, it overruled a trial court decision by the Court of Claims, which I criticized here. The decision could well end up setting an important takings precedent.

In September 2020, during the Covid pandemic, the Trump Administration Centers for Disease Control (CDC) imposed a nationwide eviction moratorium, claiming that it would reduce the spread of the disease. The Biden Administration extended the moratorium multiple times.

In August 2021, the eviction moratorium was invalidated by the Supreme Court because the CDC lacked proper statutory authority to institute it. But, in the meantime, numerous landlords suffered financial losses, because they could not evict tenants who weren’t paying rent.

Some of the property owners filed a lawsuit arguing that the eviction moratorium violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay “just compensation” whenever it takes private property. As I explained at the time, their position was backed by the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which held that even temporary physical occupations of property qualify as “per se” (automatic) takings requiring compensation.

In May 2022, the US Court of Claims dismissed the takings lawsuit against the CDC moratorium on the perverse ground that there was no taking because the CDC’s eviction moratorium was never properly “authorized.” In other words, the government could escape takings liability because its actions were illegal! The recent Federal Circuit decision reversed that ruling.

Continue reading “”

Running For NRA Board Of Directors
August 9, 2024 by John Richardson

Some people already know this but I am running for the NRA Board of Directors. For a long time I thought I could be most useful outside looking in and reporting on what I saw. I think that is still valuable. Nonetheless, after much discussion between the Complementary Spouse and myself, I decided to take the plunge.

As to why I would submit myself to this, the answer is simple. Someone has to do it and better that the one doing it comes primed for reform. We in the Second Amendment community need a viable NRA. By viable, I mean one that can still put the fear of God in politicians, that will train people in proper firearm use and safety, and that will, in conjunction with other 2A groups, litigate the hell out of gun control laws.

Thanks to my friend Todd Vandermyde, my name has been submitted to the Nominating Committee. Likewise, I have submitted his name in nomination. I have returned the documentation that they have requested and the committee will be meeting in the last part of August to review those names submitted. Obviously, with the parties meeting on August 12th to hammer out the final court order the entire procedure may change. One interpretation of the interim court order is that anyone who met the qualifications – a Life Member of five years – will have their name on the ballot. We shall see.

Regardless of what the Nominating Committee or the court decides, I plan to run by petition. Ideally, I would be a dual-nominated candidate. My rationale is that a candidate who gets on the ballot by petition is there because the members want him or her there. Given my goal is to serve the members to the best of my abilities, that is as it should be.

Continue reading “”

Federal Judge Tosses Majority of Mexico’s Lawsuit Against Gun Makers

For the second time, a federal judge in Massachusetts has dismissed the vast majority of Mexico’s lawsuit against multiple U.S. gun makers that accuses the companies of knowingly and willfully facilitating cartel violence south of the border. U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor first threw out Mexico’s complaint in 2022, opining that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act precluded Mexico’s lawsuit, but the litigation was reinstated by the First Circuit Court of Appeals a short time later.

Now Saylor has once again dismissed the case against six of the seven gun makers sued by the Mexican government, ruling that the plaintiff has been “unable to muster sufficient proof to establish a sufficient relationship between the claimed injuries and the business transactions of any of the six defendants in Massachusetts.”

The core question for jurisdictional purposes is whether Mexico’s claims against the six moving defendants “arise” from their business transactions in Massachusetts. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, § 3(a).

As to those defendants, the connection of this matter to Massachusetts is gossamer-thin at best. The government of Mexico is obviously not a citizen of Massachusetts. None of the six moving defendants is incorporated in Massachusetts, and none has a principal place of business in Massachusetts.

There is no evidence that any of them have a manufacturing facility, or even a sales office, in Massachusetts. None of the alleged injuries occurred in Massachusetts. No Massachusetts citizen is alleged to have suffered any injury. And plaintiff has not identified any specific firearm, or set of firearms, that was sold in Massachusetts and caused injury in Mexico.

Furthermore—and despite the generous use of the word “defendants” throughout—the complaint does not actually allege the existence of a joint enterprise, joint venture, or civil conspiracy among the various defendants. There is no question, therefore, that personal jurisdiction must be proved separately as to each of the six moving defendants.

At its core, plaintiff’s jurisdictional theory is based on statistical probabilities.

Its reasoning may be characterized as follows:
(1) each of the six moving defendants sold firearms to distributors and retailers in each of the 50 states;
(2) each of the six defendants sold some (undetermined) number of firearms to Massachusetts-based distributors or retailers;
(3) some (undetermined) number of the firearms that were sold by each of the six defendants nationwide were illegally trafficked to Mexico;
(4) some (undetermined) number of the firearms that were trafficked to Mexico caused injury there; and therefore
(5) at least some of the firearms sold by each of the six defendants to Massachusetts entities must have caused injuries in Mexico.

Mexico’s legal team, which includes former Brady Campaign attorney Jonathan Lowy (who now heads up an outfit called Global Action on Gun Violence), brought in an economist to try to estimate the number of guns that were originally purchased in Massachusetts but were trafficked to Mexico. The judge, however, wasn’t persuaded by what she found.

To do so, she relied upon two principal datasets: a set that recorded the manufacturer of certain firearms recovered in Mexico between 2010 and 2021, and a “trace and recovery” dataset created by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF”) concerning firearms recovered in Mexico between 1989 and 2001.

She then used that data to estimate the number of firearms that she believes were likely trafficked into Mexico after a Massachusetts sale over the last ten years. 

As explained below, however, that report is problematic in multiple respects—beginning with the fact that Congress has prohibited the use of the ATF data in any civil action, and thus a critical foundation of her opinion must be disregarded.

Furthermore, her opinion stops short of estimating the number of firearms manufactured by each defendant that actually caused an injury in Mexico—a critical link to connect defendants’ business in Massachusetts to plaintiff’s claims. Under the circumstances, her opinion is not sufficient to prove the necessary jurisdictional nexus.

That’s embarrassing for the gun control activists, or at least it would be if it didn’t give them a new talking point about Congress tying the hands of “gun safety advocates” when it comes to using ATF data. As far as the Mexican government is concerned, however, Saylor’s ruling is a total loss. The only remaining defendants are Smith & Wesson, which was headquartered in Massachusetts during the time period in question, as well as a wholesaler who wasn’t a part of this particular request to dismiss the case.

While Mexico’s lawsuit, which seeks $10 billion in damages from gun makers, isn’t completely dead, Saylor’s ruling is a big step in that direction. The final blow to the litigation could come from the Supreme Court, which is set to consider the gun companies’ appeal of the First Circuit ruling that reinstated the lawsuit in its September 30th conference. As the gun makers argued in their cert petition:

To be clear, Mexico’s complaint does not include any groundbreaking factual revelations, nor does it uncover any secret dealings between the cartels and America’s firearms companies.

Instead, Mexico’s suit challenges how the American firearms industry has openly operated in broad daylight for years. It faults the defendants for producing common firearms like the AR-15; for allowing their products to hold more than ten rounds; for failing to restrict the purchase of firearms by regular citizens; and for refusing to go beyond what American law already requires for the safe production and sale of firearms.

In Mexico’s eyes, continuing these lawful practices amounts to aiding and abetting the cartels. According to Mexico, American firearms companies are liable because they have refused to adopt policies to curtail the supply of firearms smuggled south—such as making only “sporting rifles,” or combining sales to those with a “legitimate need” for a firearm (as defined by Mexico).

This lawsuit is basically an attempt to allow the Mexican government to impose its own preferred gun control policies on the U.S. firearms industry by blaming gun makers for cartel violence.

SCOTUS should grant cert and dismiss the case altogether, but we won’t know if the Court will grant cert for another few months.

July Gun Sales Up, NICS tops 1 Million Each of Last 60 Months in a Row

All signs point to Americans continuing to reach for their wallets when it comes to practicing the right to keep and bear arms

Last month was the fifth highest July on record in terms of federal background checks for likely over-the-counter gun transfers since the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System was established over 20 years ago.

The unadjusted figure of 2,021,235 checks conducted through NICS last month is 1.7 percent higher than the unadjusted FBI NICS figure of 1,987,650 in July 2023.

Crunching the numbers for last month by the National Shooting Sports Foundation to remove gun permit checks and rechecks, the adjusted figure stands at 1,064,790, which is a 4-percent bump compared to the July 2023 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,023,903.

But perhaps the biggest piece of news when looking at last month’s NICS figures is that July 2024 marks the 60th consecutive month – five solid years – that has exceeded 1 million adjusted background checks in a single month.

And with America headed into a contentious election cycle where one side is on record advocating strict gun control and the other is kind of dialing it in when it comes to gun rights, you can likely expect those figures to keep on climbing.

Courts Attacking Second Amendment Right to Legally Acquire Firearms

There’s an interesting – if not devious – trend emerging in some Second Amendment cases. The first step of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen test is to ask whether the conduct at issue is covered by the text of the Second Amendment which protects a pre-existing “right to keep and bear arms.”  Some lower courts in purporting to apply the Bruen test are upholding gun control laws by holding that you do not have a Second Amendment right to buy a firearm.

That’s intellectually dishonest, to say the least. The ability to freely approach the gun counter to legally purchase a firearm is paramount to exercising the Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. There is no “keeping” of firearms if there is no legal right to lawfully acquire those same firearms. The ramifications of this flawed legal reasoning are self-evident. The government could simply ban the buying (and selling) of firearms and therefore eviscerate the Second Amendment all without infringing upon the right.

Right to Buy

The most recent example comes from New Mexico, where a federal district court judge refused to preliminarily enjoin the state’s seven-day waiting period for purchasing a firearm. There were several serious concerns with this decision, including the judge’s determination that the lengthy waiting period doesn’t constrain the rights to keep and bear arms. The judge contended that the waiting period only minimally burdens the “ancillary right to acquire firearms.”

That might come as news to an individual facing imminent threat to their safety or even their life. A woman who is the victim of domestic violence who considers purchasing a firearm to protect herself and her family could argue that the state’s seven-day waiting period is a seven-day ban on her ability to lawfully keep and bear arms when she knows there’s a threat to her life.

Continue reading “”

New York judge declines to appoint monitor for NRA, bans former CEO Wayne LaPierre from working with group
Ruling came amid four-year legal battle between gun rights group and New York state

A New York judge on Monday decided not to assign an outside monitor to oversee the National Rifle Association (NRA), but banned Wayne LaPierre, the former CEO of the gun rights group, from employment with the organization for ten years.

The split decision from Judge Joel Cohen came on the final day of arguments in the second stage of the civil trial of the NRA brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Cohen said appointing a monitor to oversee the NRA wasn’t a correct remedy, saying it would be “time-consuming, disruptive and will impose significant costs on the NRA without corresponding benefits.”

He also voiced concerns about potential government intrusion into the gun rights organization.

“Today’s developments validate the NRA’s reform efforts and commitment to good governance – and recognize the First Amendment stakes of this case,” NRA attorney William A. Brewer III said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “Based on the record established at trial, the court rejected the NYAG’s request for a monitor.”

LaPierre said appointing a monitor to oversee the NRA’s finances would be the “equivalent to putting a knife straight through the heart of the organization and twisting it.”

“General James will have achieved her objective to fulfill that campaign promise of, in effect, dissolving the NRA for a lack of money and a lack of members,” he said.

In a statement, NRA President Bob Barr said the group is committed to improving its “good governance.”

NY Attorney General Letitia James during an inauguration ceremony in 2019
Attorney General of New York, Letitia James, vowed to take on the NRA and called the group a “terrorist organization.” (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)

“As the NRA committed to the court, we will continue to pursue improvements to our commitment to good governance,” Barr said. “We thank the board for its support and salute our loyal members. Freedom prevails, again.”

LaPierre resigned from the organization earlier this year, citing health reasons. James brought a corruption case against the former CEO, who was accused of siphoning millions of dollars from the NRA to fund a lavish lifestyle complete with trips on private jets and other luxury gifts.

Prior to being elected, James vowed to take on the NRA and called the group a “terrorist organization.” The NRA has accused James of weaponizing her office to target the group.

In 2020, she brought a lawsuit accusing NRA leadership of violating state and federal laws to divert millions of dollars to their own pockets.

A jury ordered LaPierre to repay almost $4.4 million to the organization, while the NRA’s retired finance chief, Wilson “Woody” Phillips, was ordered to pay back $2 million.

Following Monday’s ruling, NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Doug Hamlin said the group plans to move “full speed ahead” with its mission.

“We have a mission to fulfill and elections to win up and down the ballot,” he said. “This is a major step toward rebuilding the trust of the members, donors, industry, and our staff.”

Still In Denial

NRA President Bob Barr sent out an email to the Board of Directors this afternoon. It noted that the bench portion of the New York trial was coming to a close on Monday, July 29th. The gist of the email which is below is that there is no need for a special monitor, it is invasive and detrimental to the NRA, and that since 2018 the NRA has cleaned up its act. Barr went on to say he was not fully quoted with regard to recouping the $4 million plus owed to the NRA by Wayne LaPierre. In that, he may be correct.

said in late May that Barr had the ability to regain the trust of members and to reassure the court that a special monitor was not needed through his committee appointments. I said it needed to be transparent and that Mssrs. Cotton and Coy must never be allowed to remain on the Audit and Finance Committees. I also suggested that members of the Four for Reform ought to be considered for important committee assignments.

Disappointingly, Barr all but assured that Judge Cohen will feel that he has no option but to appoint a special monitor with his committee assignments. First, not only was Charles Cotton allowed to remain as chair of the Audit Committee but was added to the Ethics Committee as the chair. Second, David Coy remains as chair of the Finance Committee. Third, the anti-reform Cabal holds all the chair and vice-chair positions on the major committees for whom appointments have been made public. Only Rocky Marshall of the Four for Reform was given a major committee assignment and “Gang of 12” reformers are in a minority on all the committees. Barr had a chance but in my opinion he blew it.

Barr and, by extension, the Board are still in denial. They can say they have made changes and point to the hiring of a Chief Compliance Officer among other things. They can say their expert witnesses all testified to improvements, to not needing a special compliance monitor, and that this is the “new” NRA. The NRA publications can write about the NRA’s “new direction” and run headlines saying “the future of the NRA is bright.”

What they fail to understand is that the rank and file members of the NRA don’t trust them. Trust, once lost, is hard to regain. Hopes were raised at the last Board meeting with the election of ostensible reformers to major positions and then the committee assignments dashed that hope. We see that the people that allowed Wayne and his pack of grifters to get away with it for years are still running things. We read that the NRA has paid at least $182 million in legal fees to Bill Brewer and his minions all the while thinking what that money could have done for the Second Amendment. We know the members voted for a Chief Compliance Officer but then hear it whispered about how he has blown off serious whistleblower complaints. And the list goes on.

I could go on but I think I’ll just post the email and let you, the reader, come to your own conclusion.

From Bob Barr as sent out by John Frazer:

Dear Board of Directors,

As you know, the NRA is nearing the end of “phase two” of the trial proceedings versus the New York Attorney General (NYAG). The bench trial began on July 15, and will conclude on Monday, July 29. As reported to the board on July 4, a focal point of the proceedings is the NYAG’s pursuit of a court-appointed monitor with sweeping powers. On behalf of the Special Litigation Committee (SLC), please note that the NYAG’s court filing, Exhibit O, reflects an invasive measure that we believe is absolutely detrimental to the Association and its mission.

Of course, it is no surprise that the NYAG, who filed suit to dissolve the NRA, is peddling its “version” of the story. However, the trial testimony has shown that, beginning in 2018, the NRA undertook to prevent any override of its financial controls. Extensive testimony has clearly established the NRA’s commitment to good governance. Importantly, there has been no evidence that the NRA is not appropriately managing its assets; and there is no ongoing or persistent violation of its internal controls – all alleged by the NYAG.

Our senior staff members, board members, and experts offered powerful testimony regarding our heightened commitment to compliance training, and the important role played by our Chief Compliance Officer and our Internal Auditor. As such, we believe there is no need for the court to impose invasive equitable relief. Doing so would have a chilling effect on our organization’s ability to fulfill its mission and cultivate grassroots support, donations, and public goodwill. For these many reasons, I am optimistic we will achieve a positive outcome for the NRA and its millions of members.

On Thursday, the court heard testimony from Daniel Kurtz, the former New York State Assistant Attorney General-in-Charge of the Charities Bureau. He testified that he sees “New York State both persecuting and prosecuting the NRA,” and noted the NYAG’s pursuit of a monitor is “crazy, unprecedented.” He added, “There’s never been a situation, to my knowledge, in which a monitor has been appointed to reform the nonprofit governance of an organization” – equating New York’s pursuit of the NRA to McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare of the 1940s and 1950s.

In closing, know that no board officer, including myself, has ever suggested the NRA would not seek to recover any final awards owed to the NRA by individual defendants. At trial, I testified that I assumed the NRA was still finalizing its plans in this regard. My full testimony (conveniently not publicized via “X” and other social media platforms) explained this is because no final awards have yet been confirmed, and the NYAG bears the responsibility to pursue the recoveries in question. The NYAG is responsible for securing the awards because of her standing as the plaintiff in these proceedings. The NRA, of course, is committed to holding the NYAG’s feet to the fire and pursuing every dollar to which it is entitled, period. 

The bottom line is, I remain optimistic that despite attempts to distort the NRA’s commitment to good governance, the court appreciates and understands our record. The NRA and its many witnesses have presented a true picture of the Association – one that is dedicated now and in the future to achieving the best interests of our members in all we do.

Thanks,

Bob Barr, President 

Federal Judge Tosses Lawsuit Blaming Gun Companies for D.C. Shooting

In April, 2022, a 23-year-old from Fairfax, Virginia opened fire from a Washington, D.C. apartment, injuring four people before taking his own life. One of the victims of the shooting filed a $75 million lawsuit several months later that sought to blame a number of companies in the firearms industry responsible for the crime, including Daniel Defense, Magpul Industries, and Vista Outdoors.

In her initial complaint, Karen Lowy and her attorneys claimed that the companies “have deceptively and unfairly marketed their assault rifles, rifle accessories, and ammunition in ways designed to appeal to the impulsive, risk-taking tendencies of civilian adolescent and post-adolescent males—the same category of consumers Defendants have watched, time after time, commit the type of mass shooting that unfolded again at the Edmund Burke School.”

Now a federal judge has thrown out the lawsuit, ruling that Lowy failed to back up those claims with facts.

Here, a third party bridges the alleged causal chain between defendants’ conduct and plaintiffs’ injuries. At the beginning of the alleged causal chain, defendants marketed their weapons and weapons accessories to potential consumers in Virginia.

At the end, Shooter injured plaintiffs by firing at an elementary school. This chain relies on Shooter, a third party not before the Court, to link defendants to plaintiffs’ injuries.
Accordingly, to establish standing against defendants, plaintiffs must allege that defendants’ conduct had a determinative or coercive effect upon Shooter’s actions.

Much of plaintiffs’ complaint concerns defendants’ marketing to Virginia residents generally and “young men like the Shooter,” id. { 57, but few paragraphs allege the effect of defendants’ marketing on Shooter specifically.

To link Shooter’s actions to Defendant Daniel Defense, LLC, for example, plaintiffs plead that Daniel Defense “advertised to Virginia residents such as the Shooter,”  and allege “[upon information and belief, the Shooter relied on Defendant Daniel Defense, LLC’s advertisements to purchase the DDM4 V7 rifle and DD magazine.”

These allegations fail for two reasons.

First, concerning Shooter’s reliance on defendants’ marketing, plaintiffs’ allegations are conclusory. Generally, a plaintiff may plead “based on ‘information and belief if such plaintiff is in a position of uncertainty because the necessary evidence is controlled by the defendant.”

But, like all other allegations, allegations pled upon information and belief “may not be wholly conclusory.” If “not supported by any well-pled facts that exist independent of [plaintiffs’) legal conclusions,” allegations pled upon information and belief fail.

Such is the case here: no factual allegations in the complaint support the conclusion that Shooter relied on defendants’ marketing. The complaint does not suggest defendants control such evidence of Shooter’s reliance and does no more than speculate that Shooter, like other young men in Virginia, observed defendants’ advertisements.

Without more support, these pleadings fail to raise plaintiffs’ right to relief above the speculative level and can proceed no further.

Second, viewed most optimistically, plaintiffs allege that Shooter relied on defendants’ advertisements when choosing to purchase defendants’ products. The Court cannot transform that allegation into an allegation that defendants’ marketing had a “determinative or coercive effect” on Shooters’ decision to shoot at plaintiffs. While the bounds of Article III’s causation requirement may at times seem opaque, “[c]ausation
makes its most useful contribution to standing analysis in circumstances that show a clear break in the causal chain.

Here, the actions of a third party injured plaintiffs. As explained above, completing the causal chain requires plaintiffs to allege
defendants’ conduct had a determinative or coercive effect on that third party’s injurious actions. This complaint, however, fails to make that allegation.

Maybe defendants’ advertising coerced Shooter to purchase defendants’ products (and that allegation, as discussed above, is speculative), but absent is any allegation that defendants’ advertising coerced Shooter to attack the elementary school. Without that allegation, plaintiffs’ alleged causal chain is incomplete, and plaintiffs lack standing against these defendants.

U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton went on to say that even if Lowy had been able to produce evidence that the shooter was motivated to shoot people because he saw a gun ad, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would have precluded the case from going forward. I’m glad to see that Hilton didn’t solely rely on the PLCAA in his decision to dismiss the case against these companies, but instead highlighted the vacuous nature of the claims that the shooter must have been goaded into his criminal activity by the marketing of companies like Daniel Defense and Magpul.

The only person to blame for this shooting is the shooter himself, and because he took his own life Lowy won’t be able to get justice in a criminal court. As frustrating as that undoubtedly is, it doesn’t justify scapegoating gun, ammo, and accessory companies for his crimes, and Judge Hilton made the right call in dismissing Lowy’s lawsuit.

House Oversight Chairman Investigating White House Collusion in Chicago’s GLOCK Balk

The head of the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee isn’t playing games when it comes to The White House avoiding answers to questions about potential collusion with antigun groups to target GLOCK, Inc., with a frivolous lawsuit.

Last week, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee James Comer (R-Ky.) fired off a letter in response to The White House’s political gamesmanship. In short, Chairman Comer demanded that Stefanie Feldman, the Director of The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, quit stalling and provide answers over “potential collaboration” between Biden administration officials and Everytown for Gun Safety.

Chairman Comer announced an investigation into potential collusion between the Biden administration, gun control groups and the City of Chicago to bring a lawsuit against GLOCK, Inc., alleging the company is responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms when criminals unlawfully attach an illegal “switch” to handguns. The Oversight Committee learned that White House officials met privately with GLOCK representatives to demand a design alteration to their handguns.

Special-Interest Backed Lawfare

“On the very day the suit was filed, Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt posted on X, ‘Federal officials recently contacted Glock to discuss implementing new ways to modify Glock pistols to make it harder for Glock switches to be installed. Rather than help, Glock falsely insisted there is nothing they can do.’”

Chairman Comer said this indicates that Everytown had inside access to White House meetings. The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is staffed by a former Everytown lobbyist, Rob Wilcox. Letters demanding more information were sent to Steven Dettelbach, Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention Director Stefanie Feldman.

Chairman Comer sent these letters demanding answers on June 14. Instead of answering those questions, White House Deputy Counsel Rachel Cotton responded by making counteraccusations that Chairman Comer was shilling for the gun lobby. Cotton provided no answers, only listing off the Biden administration’s gun control efforts and goals, adding Congress “should open a real investigation into an actual danger to our communities: the proliferation of illegal devices that convert handguns into machineguns in a matter of seconds.”

That’s a purposefully misleading attack on not just the House Oversight Committee but also GLOCK. The illegal devices are “autosears,” which are illegal to possess, illegal to attach to a firearm and illegal to use without compliance with the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). Cotton, as an attorney, should know that these aren’t produced by GLOCK or any other firearm manufacturer. In fact, they are largely illegally imported from China or illegally manufactured by individuals.

Continue reading “”

NRA Wants ‘Homecoming,’ But 2A Advocates Need A Better Reason Why

The National Rifle Association is a shadow of its former self. The depredations of Wayne LaPierre have left a lasting scar on the organization and while it’s entirely possible for it to regain it’s former clout and even surpass that degree of influence, it has a lot of work to do before we get to that point.

The recent board elections took a few steps in that direction, with some reform-minded candidates winning elections and taking their seats to help guide the NRA forward.

But is that enough?

A piece by Doug Hamlin, the executive vice president and CEO of the NRA, suggests that he thinks it is.

This is why, in my short time now as your association’s executive vice president/CEO, the message I have been bringing to those who will report what we say honestly is that now is the time for an NRA homecoming.

The NRA is an extension of your family. That is how I feel when I attend an NRA event. I feel the love, the camaraderie, the shared ethos from like-minded citizens who know this freedom cannot be taken for granted.

I also feel the shared understanding that we know we are the good citizens. We are the exact opposite of the criminal elements in our society, though that is how President Joe Biden (D) and others who share his politics paint us.

So, yes, it is time for our former members to come home. It is time for the 22.3 million people who decided to become first-time gun owners since the 2020 election to join the NRA. The previous mistakes made by former leadership and the money-wasting endeavors you’ve read about are things of the past. We have top-notch accounting practices that are responsible and transparent.

As we head together toward the critical 2024 election, I am asking all of you to talk to your friends, family and more. We all need to reach out. We need to show people by example, as only NRA members can, who we are. Tell them about the need to gather within this civil-rights association to defend our American freedom. But also tell them about all the resources and benefits the NRA brings to members, such as:

Hamlin goes on to note the many things the NRA does that have nothing to do with lobbying, and these are all valid and vital.

But is that enough of a reason why anyone should rejoin the NRA, to answer Hamlin’s call for a homecoming?

The truth of the matter is that the NRA isn’t a family, church, or high school that people had deep ties to and still feel those ties. It’s an organization that many poured blood and treasure into working with, only to see them squander it and let someone enrich themselves at the members’ expense. They joined and volunteered, but still had to answer phone calls wanting more money, then saw it go toward fancy suits and expensive homes that did nothing to help our rights.

Yes, the NRA has taken some steps forward, but the case needs to be made that those sins of the past not only will not be replicated but cannot.

Oh, there’s no doubt the NRA does all kinds of good work. They did that under LaPierre’s tenure as well, though. Those programs aren’t controversial, at least among the gun rights supporters.

And if you’re calling for a homecoming, that’s who you need to talk to.

Hamlin talks about the mainstream media’s misrepresentation of what the NRA does, and yes they do, but we all know this. We don’t listen to the mainstream media. Not on stuff like this.

Until then, I don’t see people flocking back into the arms of the NRA despite whatever else the organization has going on.

There are too many other groups out there doing good work, particularly in regard to our Second Amendment rights that don’t have the baggage. Yeah, they might not have the extensive non-political programs the NRA has, but they also haven’t had their head honcho enrich themselves at the expense of those programs, so a lot will consider it a wash.

If Hamlin wants this homecoming, he and the rest at the helm of a sinking ship have to show they’re doing more than bailing water. They have to show they fixed the hole in the hull.

So That’s Why Chicago Dropped Its Lawsuit Against Glock

Earlier today we reported on the city of Chicago’s odd decision to quietly drop its joint lawsuit with Everytown Law against gunmaker Glock, which came with no fanfare or press releases… unlike the announcement of the lawsuit earlier this year.

Shortly after our story was published, the gun control outfit did issue a press release; this one touting its new and expanded lawsuit against the gun maker. I’m not going to give them the traffic by linking directly to the press release, but you can find it at Everytown Law’s website if you want to take a look. Here’s the most pertinent piece of their statement, however:

The City of Chicago, alongside Everytown Law and Motley Rice LLC, announced the expansion of the City’s first-of-its-kind lawsuit against Glock, the manufacturer of the most popular handguns in the United States. Three additional defendants were named in the complaint submitted yesterday in Cook County Circuit Court – Glock Ges.m.b.H, the Austrian Glock entity and part owner of the U.S. Glock subsidiary, and two Chicago-area gun stores on Glock’s roster of preferred dealers, Eagle Sports Range in Oak Forest, Illinois and Midwest Sporting Goods in Lyons, Illinois.

… The City seeks a court order requiring Defendants to cease sales and marketing of easily converted Glock pistols to Chicago civilians and an order requiring Eagle Sports Range to stop marketing Glocks modified with an auto sear at its location and online. The City also seeks penalties for these actions. The City first filed its lawsuit against Glock in March of this year, and Glock removed the case to federal district court. The City is now filing its expanded lawsuit after voluntarily dismissing the federal court action.

In their latest complaint, Chicago and Everytown Law claim that Eagle Sports Range is actually “marketing a Modified Glock to its customers”. Reading further, however, it sounds like the range is merely offering customers the opportunity to rent and shoot full-auto firearms on-site.

From the beginning, a major component of Eagle Sports Range’s business plan has been promoting its “full auto experience,” which allows customers to rent machine guns and fire them at its indoor range (a range which it has allowed convicted felons to use).

As part of its “full auto experience,” Eagle Sports Range markets the use of a Modified Glock at its range. Eagle Sports Range customers can thus “demo” a Modified Glock at the store’s range, purchase a semi-automatic Glock from the store’s inventory, and then easily and illegally modify their new Glock pistol at home with an auto sear purchased off the internet.

I doubt very much that Eagle Sports Range is offering an illegally modified Glock for use at its range, though if the company has a Type VII FFL it could legally modify a pistol to fire full-auto without running afoul of the law. But as even the city of Chicago reluctantly admits, it would be against the law for any customer to modify a Glock of their own to shoot full-auto. In fact, it’s a crime punishable under federal law by up to ten years in prison.

The only traces of Eagle Sports Range’s “full auto experience” that I’ve been able to find online are a YouTube video from 2017 that’s wracked up a grand total of less than 4,000 views in the seven years it’s been online, and a press release from that same year announcing that the range had a “Glock 18, a Short Barrel M4, AK47, or a 9MM Carbine” available to rent and use at the range itself. The Glock 18 isn’t a “modified Glock”, however. It’s produced as a full-auto pistol; one not available for sale to average consumers.

Chicago and their partners at Everytown Law are trying to stop city residents from being able to purchase some of the most common and popular handguns in the country, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that they’re playing fast and loose with the facts.

I’m looking forward to seeing Glock’s response to the latest iteration of the litigation, as well as what Eagle Sports Range and Midwest Sporting Goods have to say about the legal attacks on their businesses, but keep in mind that this lawsuit could be just the first round of a broader strategy to ban semi-automatic handguns.

As we’ve previously reported, about a dozen blue-state AGs have sent what amounts to a pre-litigation demand letter to Glock, and the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention has reportedly been pressing the ATF to issue a rule classifying Glocks as machine guns as well. The Supreme Court may have nixed a handgun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment, but the gun control lobby is clearly searching for a way to enact a sweeping gun ban regardless of what the Court has to say about it.