Follow the Science, Unless it Leads Where You Don’t Want to Go

Researchers in California have published the results of a study evaluating the effectiveness of so-called “gun violence restraining orders” (a.k.a. “extreme risk protection orders” or “red flag” orders). Assembly Bill 1014, was enacted in California in 2014, and since then, 19 states and the District of Columbia have adopted similar laws.

Authors of the study, Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law, include Garen Wintemute, the director of the University of California Firearm Violence Research Center and a “key contributor” who helped draft AB 1014.

Very briefly, these laws create a mechanism that allows a family member, police officer, or some other third party (in California, this includes coworkers, school employees, and teachers) to file a petition in court, supported by allegations that the person named in the petition, at some point in the future, poses a danger to themselves or others by possessing or having access to a firearm. If the court is satisfied that there is some potential of future harm, it issues an order authorizing police to take away all firearms the person owns or controls, and prohibiting the person from possessing or acquiring firearms while the order is in effect. The initial court process may be “ex parte” (without any notice to, or an opportunity to respond by, the affected person) or a full hearing on notice. In California, the ex parte order has a minimum duration of 21 days. Once confirmed in a full hearing, the “temporary” order is in effect for up to five years, although orders may be renewed indefinitely.

The researchers examined whether implementation of the California gun violence restraining order (GVRO) law was associated with decreased rates of “firearm assault” or firearm self-harm between 2016 (when AB 1014 took effect) and 2019. They compared the post-GVRO rate of firearm violence in San Diego County (chosen because it had a “high GVRO uptake” or incidence of GVROs) with the estimated outcome in a synthetic control unit (a combination of California control counties weighted to match the firearm violence trend in San Diego, 2005-2015, as closely as possible). The researchers “hypothesized that the GVRO law would be associated with a reduction in firearm violence.”

The results, though, showed that the GVRO law had no impact – “we found no evidence that GVRO implementation was associated with decreased firearm assault or firearm self-harm at the population level in San Diego.” The researchers sought to qualify this result by noting that the findings could be “partially explained by access to firearms through the underground market,” or “could reflect a true absence of association or limitations of our study; further research is needed to determine which of these is the case.”

Continue reading “”

More People Dead as Gun-Control Fails in New York State

Time and again we’ve seen crazy murderers target unarmed citizens in New York City and New York State. A few weeks ago, a black man deliberately attacked white people on the New York City subway. We saw a white teenager deliberately go hunting for blacks and Jews in Buffalo last week. Sadly, the response of New York politicians is the same each time. Despite the extraordinary gun-control laws already in place, New York Democrats think the solution is to disarm more law-abiding citizens. It is hard to look at violence but it is more dangerous to think that more ink-on-paper will keep us safe next time.

Continue reading “”

What he also wants is for the reinstitution of the Obammy era program of listing Veterans and Social Security recipients who get their monthly payments sent to a fiduciary who manages the person’s finances to be entered as a prohibited people in NICS.


In Buffalo, Biden calls for gun control that’s already law and didn’t work

Joe Biden brought his confusing anti-gun rhetoric to Buffalo, Tuesday – a city still grieving the loss of 10 good souls who were cut down Saturday by a hell-bound madman.

Even though most of the victims have yet to be buried, Biden didn’t hesitate to use the solemn occasion as an opportunity to advocate for more gun control, in this case another federal “assault weapon” ban.

“There are certain things we can do,” Biden told the grieving crowd. “We can keep assault weapons off of our streets. We did it before and violence went down.”

Even the FBI has acknowledged that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that Biden referenced, which was a part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, did little to deter or prevent crime.

Besides, New York already has a stringent “assault weapon” ban, as well as every other anti-gun law Biden has ever called for. They’re codified into state law, yet none of them worked.

The mass murderer was not stopped by New York’s SAFE Act, which bans AR-15s and similar weapons. The state’s ban on standard-capacity magazines didn’t stop him, nor did the New York’s mandatory background check requirement or its Red Flag gun-confiscation law.

New York State Police were called to the gunman’s high school last June because he threatened to commit a mass shooting during the school’s graduation ceremonies. He was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for an evaluation, and was released after a day and a half. However, this did not trigger New York’s red-flag law, which should have stopped him from purchasing a firearm.

Rather than infringing upon the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, Biden should focus on why yet another mass murderer was “known to law enforcement,” yet no action was taken before he began killing people.

Why New York’s ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Didn’t Stop the Buffalo Massacre
The problem is not sneaky entrepreneurs who sell accessories; it’s legislators who ban guns based on functionally unimportant features.

The suspect in the mass shooting that killed 10 people at a Buffalo grocery store on Saturday used a rifle that was widely described as an “assault weapon.” With certain exceptions that don’t apply here, that category of firearms is illegal in New York. Yet The New York Times reports that the shooter legally bought the rifle from a gun dealer in Endicott, New York. How is that possible?

It turns out that the rifle, a Bushmaster XM-15 ES, was not an “assault weapon” at the time of the purchase, but it became an “assault weapon” after the shooter tinkered with it. The details of that transformation illustrate how arbitrary and ineffectual bans like New York’s are.

Continue reading “”

Gun Owners Need to Think Like Supply Chain Managers Before the Next Ammo Shortage.

During the two years that COVID-19 has altered American life, we have seen shortages of goods ranging from toilet paper and N95 masks to semiconductors and new cars. The supply chain disruptions that fueled those shortages often followed a general pattern.

  • Unexpected demand caused booming sales for a given product.
  • Retailers and manufacturers depleted their inventories of that product.
  • Supply chain bottlenecks such as temporary Covid-related factory closures or delayed shipments prevented firms from replenishing their inventories, leading to stockouts, rationing, and higher prices.
  • With their resources and options limited, manufacturers and retailers streamlined their offerings, focusing on their most popular products while abandoning niche items.

While gun and ammunition supply chains are unique in some ways, they have experienced many of the same problems and trends seen in other industries during the pandemic.

Below, we examine how gun and ammo supply chains performed in the face of massive demand and outline supply chain principles that will help gun owners prepare for future shortages.

Firearm Supply Chains

Guns

When uncertainty looms, demand for guns surges. Anxiety over election outcomes, civil unrest, and increasing crime rates all fuel demand spikes. In fact, the connection between gun prices and the federal election cycle is strong and predictable enough to be classified as an economic law. But the COVID-19 pandemic raised the bar considerably.

Many gun buyers seem worried that the exponential spread of COVID-19 will lead to a season of hard-to-find essentials — of illness-related disruptions in the grocery supply chain — with angry have-nots out to steal from the haves.

From the Washington Post . . .

Speaking to the Charlotte Observer, a North Carolina [firearms retailer] said, “Our new motto is, ‘Dedicated to helping you protect your toilet paper.’”

The coronavirus, supply chain disruptions, social unrest, federal economic stimulus, and a lockdown-fueled spike in durable goods spending caused unprecedented demand for guns. FBI mandatory background check records dating back to 1998 show that 2020 and 2021 saw eight of the ten busiest days for background checks and nine of the ten busiest weeks. More than 5 million Americans became first-time gun owners between January 2020 and April 2021.

While some supply chains would have buckled under such pressure — particularly during a global pandemic — the American firearms supply chain performed fairly well. Prices rose, but that was inevitable given record demand. And though some retailers experienced stockouts of popular models, they were often able to offer satisfactory alternatives from various domestic and foreign manufacturers. The robust secondary market for used guns acted as a final backstop for buyers.

Ammunition

While consumers were able to buy guns without too much hassle, finding ammunition proved far more difficult. This is a classic example of how fluctuations can be magnified through a supply chain.

Changes in firearm demand cause even larger changes in ammunition sales. Firearms are durable goods that can be passed down for generations if correctly maintained. And though ammunition has a long shelf life if properly stored, a marksman may go through hundreds of rounds with a single gun during a visit to the range, so each gun sale causes demand for many more bullets.

As new and longtime gun owners reacted to the pandemic’s uncertainty by stocking up on hundreds or thousands of rounds — and media reports about bare gun store shelves fanned the flames — ammunition manufacturers could not meet the demand.

Several factors contributed to the ammunition shortage. For example, while there are dozens of American ammo manufacturers, only four produced primers when the pandemic began. With domestic primer production capacity stretched to its limits and a primer shortage serving as a bottleneck to ammo production, some manufacturers began the lengthy process of sourcing and importing European and Asian-manufactured primers.

Manufacturing and shipping disruptions also interrupted the flow of foreign-made ammunition into the country. And while imports of Russian ammo helped mitigate the shortage early on, the Biden administration restricted those imports in September 2021 as part of its sanctions against Russia for the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin.

While the shortage affected all types of ammunition, eventually popular calibers like 9mm handgun bullets and .223 rifle cartridges were easier to find than some of their more obscure counterparts.

This reduction in product variety (so-called “SKU reduction”) is a typical coping mechanism for stressed supply chains. Managers allocate scarce production capacity to their most popular offerings. You have probably noticed this in your local grocery store: while your favorite brands are still on the shelf, fewer sizes or flavors are available.

The shortage was amplified by ammunition manufacturers’ reluctance to invest too heavily in new productive capacity to meet record demand that will eventually wane. Firms in other industries made similar calculations during the pandemic, but few industries have experienced the severe “boom or bust” cycles ammo companies have seen in recent decades.

Executives who saw massive demand during Barack Obama’s presidency give way to a four-year long “Trump slump” know full well that this too shall pass.

Additionally, it is not too conspiratorial to fault big business collusion for the shortage. Two entities — Olin Corporation and Vista Outdoor — own most major American ammunition companies, so it was fairly easy to unify the industry in choosing “market stability” (and high prices) over new and risky investment in production capacity.

Supply Chain Principles for Gun Owners

The pandemic has dramatically raised public awareness that supply chains exist and can be disrupted. While that was not news to longtime gun enthusiasts who have experienced previous ammunition shortages, we will highlight a few core principles of supply chain management that should help all gun owners weather the next shortage, whenever it may come.

  • Flexibility – When the pandemic began, companies who were able to quickly adjust their manufacturing, sourcing, product development, and shipping plans fared much better than their inflexible competitors. During an ammunition shortage, those who own guns of various calibers and those who have firearms with interchangeable barrels that can accept multiple kinds of ammunition are much better positioned than those who rely on a single type of ammo.
  • Demand Forecasting – Retailers and manufacturers plan their yearly operations using demand data from recent years (though that historical data had little value during what will hopefully be a once-in-a-century pandemic). Once the current shortage ends, recent history suggests that demand will go up when a Democrat is president and down when a Republican is in office. Given ammunition’s long shelf life, it makes sense to stock up when low demand drives down prices.
  • Inventory Management – Just-in-time inventory management is a thing of beauty when it works well, as it generally did during the three decades preceding the pandemic. But recent supply chain disruptions have led some firms to take more of a just-in-case inventory approach that involves holding more safety stock. Gun owners may be wise to follow this trend as well, and keep a bit of extra ammo on hand just-in-case.
  • Procurement Diversity – The pandemic has shown companies the dangers of relying on one region, country, or factory to provide key inputs. Similarly, the ammunition shortage shows that it is important for gun owners to build relationships with fellow enthusiasts and multiple shop owners whom they can rely upon when the next shortage hits.

A final principle for gun owners is to adopt a strategy of total quality management—of pursuing excellence at each stage of the supply chain, from gun and ammunition purchase to firearm cleaning and maintenance after a day at the range.

In the end, the purpose of the firearms supply chain is “rounds on target.” This requires excellence in marksmanship, which in turn requires excellence in training and equipment. Higher-order competence in “delivery” cannot exist without competence in the earlier stages of the supply chain: procurement, and inventory management.

Andrew Balthrop is a research assistant at the University of Arkansas Sam M. Walton College of Business. Ron Gordon is a Supply Chain Communications Specialist at the University of Arkansas Sam M. Walton College of Business. Doug Voss is a Professor of Logistics and Supply Chain Management at the University of Central Arkansas. 

New York state has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and it didn’t make one itty bit of difference, so crap-for-brains Goobernor believes crims will somehow obey more laws.


NY Gov. Wants More Gun Control in State with Tough Restrictions

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul used the weekend mass shooting at a Buffalo supermarket to demand “stronger” gun control laws in a state that already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, and President Joe Biden will fly the city on Tuesday, likely to make the same plea.

According to WIVB News, Hochul told reporters during a Sunday press conference, “I continue to call on Washington to do just some basic things that we’ve done here in New York. I also call on the Supreme Court, which is actually considering rolling back some of the protections that were put in place here to protect New York citizens from gun violence.”

The high court is expected to hand down a ruling on New York’s restrictive “good cause” concealed carry permit requirement by the end of June.

The Associated Press is reporting that Biden and his wife will go to Buffalo to “grieve with the community.” Biden, a perennial gun control advocate during his nearly half-century inside the Beltway, is expected to call for new gun control measures.

Ten people were killed in what authorities are saying was a “racially motivated” attack. The suspect, an 18-year-old, was armed with an AR-15 rifle, according to published reports. There were other guns in his car, WIVB said.

Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday to declare, “So I think people all across this country have to rise up. They have to speak more loudly and more clearly that there must be gun control in this country. This is a uniquely American phenomenon. These mass shootings don’t happen in other countries across the world. We have to ask ourselves — and more than ask ourselves, we have to take action to stop it, to stop it after this Buffalo, New York incident, to make sure that other communities, that other families don’t go through this again.”

WIVB quoted Gov. Hochul acknowledging, “What was used was not purchased legally in the state of New York. The basic gun was, but the high-capacity magazine associated with it had to come from another state because it is illegal in the state of New York. We need a smart national policy. And let’s start with something that’s — what I would say — is in the no-brainer category after Sandy Hook. Shame on this county, shame on Congress at that time, for not passing something as basic as a background check.”

However, Congress years ago passed a background check requirement. The National Instant Check System (NICS) has been in operation since November 1998. New York adopted the SAFE (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act under Hochul’s predecessor, anti-gun Democrat Andrew Cuomo, in 2013.

BECAUSE IT WORKED WELL IN CHICAGO: DEMS SEEK CHICAGO-STYLE GUN CONTROL NATIONWIDE

Lawmakers from Illinois last week introduced bicameral legislation on Capitol Hill that would make unlicensed gun possession illegal.

The move, billed as a way to stomp out gun crime, doesn’t target gun criminals. Instead, the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act would outlaw unlicensed firearm ownership and the transfer of firearms without such a government-issued permit, then direct the U.S. Attorney General to create a federal registry for sales tied to fingerprint-based nationwide criminal background checks.

The measure was introduced in the U.S. Senate as S.4184 by Sen. Tammy Duckworth and in the U.S. House as H.R. 7730 by Rep. Bobby Rush. Both lawmakers are Illinois Democrats with offices in Chicago. Both have been endorsed in the past by a variety of national anti-gun groups, which have given them platforms for support.

According to a hyperbolic joint release by their respective offices, the proposal is modeled in part after the controversial Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card statute. FOID cards are seen by some in the Land of Lincoln as obsolete and, while they haven’t proven to prevent criminals from getting guns, they have sometimes delayed law-abiding citizens from getting them by months. Notably, courts have also found the FOID process flawed and potentially unconstitutional.

Of note, on the trail to the White House in 2020, Joe Biden endorsed such mandatory gun owner licensing as a part of his platform, to the accolade of assorted gun control groups.

BLUF:
It’s time for the U.S. to quit the Programme of Action. And while we’re at it, we should quit the U.N. ammo group and make it clear that, no matter what the U.N. does about bullets, we won’t try to apply its foolish ideas here.

UN Gun Control Program Runs Amok Again

More than two decades ago, the United Nations created a program to curb the trafficking of small arms. It’s done nothing but fire blanks. So now, the U.N. wants to control bullets.

In 2001, the United Nations started the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. Its next meeting will be held in New York from June 27 to July 1.

The Programme isn’t a treaty. It’s a political gathering that’s meant to encourage voluntary cooperation. It meets every other year to produce an outcome document that’s politically (but not legally) binding.

It’s supposed to work by unanimous consent.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

The Programme has achieved very little, if anything. That’s not just my view. The U.N. secretary-general said so in 2008. New Zealand said so in 2012. Its supporters said it was “firing blanks” in 2014. In 2018, the Red Cross said that governments in the Programme talk a lot, but do nothing.

In practice, that suits most of the U.N. fine: All the nations get credit for participating in the Programme while actually doing nothing, while the Programme focuses on peripheral issues, such as 3D-printed guns.

This year, the rumor is that the Programme’s president wants it to focus on banning toy guns. (No more water pistols for your kids, says the U.N.)

If the nations in the Programme genuinely wanted to help control the illicit trade in small arms, it could in theory be modestly useful.

For example, it could seek to eliminate the “Chinese exemption,” under which Beijing is exempt from the requirement to put serial numbers on its firearms, which makes Chinese guns difficult to trace.

But instead, the Programme focuses on irrelevant distractions—and on breaking its own promises.

In 2018, the Programme broke its rule of unanimity to approve an outcome document that added ammo over U.S. protests. The Programme wasn’t supposed to include ammunition. And adding it serves no useful purpose.

The idea of putting numbers on, and trying to trace, individual rounds of ammunition is nonsensical. The resulting database would have trillions of entries.

Most of the Programme’s member nations can’t and don’t even meet their existing commitments. But that didn’t stop the United Nations from adding ammo.

The U.S. does most of the work of running traces on firearms, providing expertise, and giving aid to upgrade foreign recordkeeping through the Programme.

But if the U.S. is going to do most of the work and simultaneously going to have the Programme’s rules broken against it, there’s no reason for us to continue to participate in it.

There are now more good reasons than ever to quit. When the Programme voted to include ammo in 2018, it lined itself up with a U.N. working group. That group’s report came out late last year, and it’s a bureaucrat’s fantasy.

It calls for the negotiation of “a set of political commitments” to “concentrate on through-life ammunition management.” In other words, an entirely new Programme of Action, focused just on ammo.

“Through-life” ammo management may sound innocuous, but isn’t. Here’s what it means, in the U.N.’s own words:

States would reduce security risks by encouraging ammunition producers, where feasible, practicable and consistent with national legislation, to maintain effective accounting and record-keeping systems that permit the retrieval (by serial, batch, or lot number) of detailed sales and transfer records. Ideally, such records should be digital, easily retrievable, and held for as long as feasible.

Translation: The U.N. wants manufacturers of ammo to number their bullets. Then the U.N. wants to track where and to whom every bullet in the world is sold or sent. The U.N. also wants to track who sells to whom. And it wants all those records digitized, easily accessed, and kept forever.

Continue reading “”

1st Lawsuit Over ATF’s Frames & Receivers Rules Filed in Texas

The country’s first lawsuit against the new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rules on privately made firearms (PMF).

A Houston, Texas-based company named Division 80 filed suit against the ATF claiming the new rules would put it out of business. The company was formed in November and didn’t have a website. The company claims to be a manufacturer of 80% kits.

President Joe Biden declared war on what he referred to as “ghost guns.”

He ordered the ATF to create new rules around unfinished frames and receivers. This action was a response to calls by anti-guns to ban kits from companies such as Polymer80. The anti-gun groups were frustrated at what they saw as inaction by the administration.

Biden unveiled the new rule surrounded by anti-gun advocates such as David Hogg in the White House Rose Garden. At the same ceremony, he introduced Steve Dettlebach as his new nomination to head the ATF. The President also made wildly inaccurate claims, such as that cannons were illegal when the Constitution was signed.

Division 80 also points out that the new regulation is vague. The company claims that the new rule is “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.” That sentiment is shared across the firearms industry. Instead of the new rule clarifying the ATF’s opinion on unfinished frames, it muddied the waters.

Division 80 also referenced the ATF revoking all opinion letters. The Bureau’s new rule revoked all issued letters and asked the industry members to resubmit their products to the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) for a new opinion letter. Most in the industry believe that FATD will not approve any new unserialized frames.

Division 80 has put together an all-star legal team to take on the government. Co-counsel for the plaintiff is Cory Lui. Mr. Lui is a high-priced attorney that was the assistant general counsel for Texas Governor Greg Abbot. He is seen as an all-star lawyer in many conservative legal circles.

The legal team has also brought in Michael Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan was a former acting ATF Director under President George W. Bush. He will be used as an expert witness in Division 80’s case. Sullivan isn’t the only high-priced legal expert that Division 80 is bringing in to help win the suit.

Division 80 spared no expense in the suit to directly take on ATF.

The company also brought in former ATF member Rick Vasquez to work on the case. Mr. Vasquez is a former head of FATD and consults for a large part of the firearms industry. He oversaw FATD when the department issued the opinion that a bump stock did not make a rifle a machine gun. He still believes that the reclassification of bump stocks under the Trump administration was wrong.

Division 80 is asking for the federal judge to block the new regulations. This case will be the first case in the country to challenge the ATF’s new receiver rule. Several other lawsuits in different parts of the country will be filed to challenge the new regulations in the coming weeks.

The rule is due to go into effect in August. This suit and other cases are trying to prevent that from happening.

Johns Hopkins researchers peddling debunked data in war on constitutional carry
Study was funded by anti-gun, left wing foundations.

If you didn’t know any better, the headline on a press release published Wednesday by Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health could appear damning: “Study Finds Link Between Dropping Permit Requirement for Carrying Concealed Weapons and Increase in Officer-Involved Shootings with Civilian Victims.”

The Trace — the propaganda arm of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun empire — was as excited and breathless as a young pup in their response to the press release:

“Shootings by police officers increased by 12.9 percent in 10 states that loosened public carry restrictions. That’s according to a new study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health that looked at states which made it easier for people to carry guns without a permit between 2014 and 2020,” they wrote.

The head Johns Hopkins researcher — apparently a well credentialed “gun violence” researcher — sounded as if his team had found a cure for cancer.

“The trend of more states allowing civilians to carry concealed guns without a permit may be influencing the perceived threat of danger faced by law enforcement,” Mitchell Doucette, PhD, MS, assistant scientist in the Bloomberg School’s Department of Health Policy and Management, core faculty member in the Center for Gun Violence Solutions, and the study’s lead author, said in the press release. “This could contribute to higher rates of fatal and nonfatal officer-involved shootings.”

Discerning readers will note Doucette’s use of the words may and could. This may be serious, one could think. It could prove problematic for the 25 states that have passed constitutional carry, right?

Nope.

Turns out it’s all bunk — nothing but a complete load of crap, because the vaunted Johns Hopkins researchers used flawed data from the Gun Violence Archive — a group of anti-gun activists masquerading as researchers that we debunked nearly a year ago.

Continue reading “”

CDC ‘back to old tricks; report takes guns out of context’ says CCRKBA

BELLEVUE, WA – A new report from the Centers for Disease Control focusing on a spike in gun-related violence pulls data out of context and demonstrates how the CDC is “up to its old tricks” under the Biden administration, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“All violent crime was up in 2020, the year on which the CDC research focused,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “But the CDC, which is not a crime control agency, has an unhealthy fixation on trying to make guns the issue, turning the Second Amendment into a public health problem.

“The CDC report showing gun-related deaths is alarming,” he added, “but even more alarming is the return of the CDC under Joe Biden’s administration to its assumed role as a gun control advocacy agency. This is why gun owners support legislation to keep the CDC out of anything remotely connected to firearms policy.”

Gottlieb pointed to data from the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2020 showing an estimated 5.6 percent increase in violent crime over 2019. Aggravated assaults were up by 12.1 percent, and murder and non-negligent manslaughter were up by more than 29 percent, including crimes where guns were not involved. In any given year, he noted, more people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and even hands and feet than are killed with rifles of any kind, yet gun prohibitionists will use CDC data to push for bans on certain types of rifles.

“Maybe the real public health threat are people who commit violent crimes,” Gottlieb suggested. “We don’t see the CDC working on a cure for all the problems that contribute to the uptick in violent crime, such as demonizing and defunding police agencies, reducing police manpower, despair over the economy and rising inflation under Joe Biden, the emotional pressures of job loss and homelessness; all of these factors play into the dilemma. Spotlighting guns is not going to provide a solution, but only a scapegoat to advance a gun control agenda.

“It is no wonder more Americans are buying guns for personal and family protection,” he continued. “And just like clockwork, here comes the CDC with research focusing on guns that appears tailor-made for the gun prohibition lobby’s crusade to add even more restrictions on a constitutionally-protected right. At a time when violent crime is on the rise, we should not be considering new ways to disarm the public.”

“This year,” Gottlieb observed, “courageous, common-sense lawmakers in four states have adopted ‘Constitutional carry’ laws that will allow citizens to arm themselves against violent criminals without having to wait to obtain a concealed carry permit or license. We now have 25 of the 50 states with permitless carry laws, and we nearly had two more—Florida and Nebraska—so let this be a signal to the gun control crowd. People are willing to defend themselves and fight back, because they do not care to become a statistic in some future CDC report.”

The CDC report also noted a slight increase in firearm-related suicide, a subject Gottlieb is very familiar with. Four years ago, he championed a suicide prevention pilot project in Washington State, helping to secure funding for study and intervention, and enlisting the aid of gun shops, gun ranges and firearms instructors and experts.

“The firearms community has stepped up to the plate,” he said. “We’ve advocated for policies that work, and we fight to protect the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. Gun taxes, gun buy-backs and gun bans don’t work, haven’t worked and will continue not working. It’s time for a different approach.”

Analysis: Is California’s Handgun Roster on a Collision Course with the Federal Courts?

The Golden State continues to tempt judicial fate with the administration of its handgun roster law. Before too long, it could wind up costing them in court.
Last Friday, the California Department of Justice announced it is removing all previously approved models of the popular Heckler and Koch (H&K) USP pistols from its handgun roster. It did so without warning or elaboration on the rationale behind the decision.
Gun owners were simply left to speculate as to why a well-established gun maker’s popular handgun, used safely across the country and around the world, could no longer legally be sold in the country’s most populous state.
While this latest move was unexpected, it was not an aberration. Different handgun makes and models have been unceremoniously dropped from the list of state-approved pistols many times since the Unsafe Handgun Act became California law in 2001. There have been 33 models decertified so far this year alone, and that number will only grow as the year goes on.
That’s because ever-increasing requirements for a handgun to meet approval have charted a gradual course toward a total ban on handgun sales in the state.
When the law was signed, a handgun needed to have a manual safety, a loaded chamber indicator, a magazine disconnect mechanism, and pass a drop test to meet approval. In 2007, the California legislature passed a law declaring that a semi-automatic handgun could not be approved unless it was equipped with microstamping technology once such technology was declared feasible.
In 2013, then-Attorney General Kamala Harris (D.) declared that the technology had arrived, despite evidence to the contrary, and the microstamping requirement officially went into effect. Since then, there have been zero new handguns approved to the roster due to the inability of gunmakers to comply with an as-of-yet infeasible technology. Meanwhile, handguns have continued to be removed from the roster for various reasons, resulting in an ever-diminishing supply of legal handguns for civilians to purchase.
A comparison between the California DOJ’s list of recently de-certified handguns to its list of newly approved handguns starkly reveals the trend at hand.
As of the writing of this piece, there are 788 handguns listed as “certified for sale” on the state’s approved handgun list, all of which were manufactured and released at least a decade ago. For context, despite being the second-most restrictive state to utilize a roster system, the Massachusetts approved handgun roster contains roughly 1,100 different options and includes most modern generations of common civilian pistols (including H&K USPs). In states without roster limitations, the options available for civilian buyers number well into the thousands.
When different color offerings are factored in—that’s right, each cosmetic feature offered in a particular model must be individually approved—the number of unique handgun makes and models still legal to buy in California is actually far more limited than the 788 figure would suggest.
Exacerbating this issue is the recently passed Assembly Bill 2847. Set to go into effect in July, the law will automatically remove three previously approved handguns from the roster for every new model the state approves—if it ever does approve another gun.
The addition of this latest roster requirement, a three-for-one swap intentionally meant to further diminish the options for legal handgun purchasing, could finally be the straw that breaks the camel’s back in court.
Previous challenges against the roster regime have proved fruitless for gun-rights advocates. In 2018, the California Supreme Court upheld the microstamping requirement in a challenge brought by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. That same year, the Ninth Circuit upheld both the handgun roster and the microstamping requirement, specifically in Pena v. Horan. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on appeal in 2020.
Since then, however, the court has added an additional originalist justice and has already taken up another Second Amendment case where it looks poised to strike down restrictive laws around gun carry.
It has also inadvertently signaled its willingness to make bold rulings on controversial matters if the leaked Dobbs opinion is any indication.
Add in the new additional three-for-one requirement, and it would seem California’s roster system is due for renewed judicial scrutiny.
A legal challenge in federal court against this new requirement is already underway, and it could provide just the vehicle for this to happen.
A more conservative court newly motivated to take on gun-rights cases could view California’s slow-motion ban on handgun purchasing the same way it has viewed previous attempts at outright handgun bans.

Once again, just like Finestein’s ‘Assault Weapon’ ban.


Congressional Democrats introduce gun licensing bill

The state of Illinois requires every lawful gun owner to get a Firearm Owner Identification Card. You can’t have a gun without out and you have to jump through the hoops to lawfully get one.

They also have the city of Chicago, where violent crime is rampant. It seems gun licensing doesn’t actually help as some want to believe.

In fact, two Illinois Democrats believe it so hard that they want to make it federal law.

May 11, 2022 Press Release WASHINGTON — U.S. Representative Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.) and U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) reintroduced the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act, today, to help reduce firearm violence in Illinois and across the country. This legislation would prohibit unlicensed firearm ownership and the transfer of firearms without a valid firearms license, as well as direct the U.S. Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system and conduct fingerprint-based nationwide criminal background checks — which could have prevented the gunman who killed five people in Aurora, IL in 2019 from acquiring the firearm he used in the shooting.

Of course, it should be remembered that as I noted previously, it hasn’t done jack to stop the violence in Chicago.

Further, the shooter in the Aurora, IL case was a convicted felon who actually passed the FOID background check and NICS check

Whoops.

Continue reading “”

Senators Threaten Court-Packing – Again – As Americans Embrace Their Second Amendment Rights

The unauthorized leak of a draft abortion opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court has Democrats up in arms (again) about packing the U.S. Supreme Court. This isn’t a new argument and one gun control advocates publicly pitched before.

Senators are openly calling for court-packing again and that’s before the Supreme Court has rendered a final opinion on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen or finalized the opinion of the leaked abortion draft decision. Even before the nine justices heard arguments on the New York case challenging the states arbitrary and restrictive “may issue” concealed carry permit criteria, there were calls for court-packing.

U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) filed an amicus brief in NYSRPA v. New York supporting restrictive gun control but took arguments beyond supporting the law with threats to upend the court’s structure. That case was ultimately declared “moot” by the Supreme Court after New York City altered the law to avoid the Court striking down the law.

“Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal,” Sen. Whitehouse wrote.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) led a 2019 letter excoriating court-packing threats and urged the justices to render opinions based on Constitutional interpretations, not public opinion polls. The letter was signed by 53 Republican senators.

“It’s one thing for politicians to peddle these ideas in Tweets or on the stump,” Sen. McConnell wrote. “But the Democrats’ amicus brief demonstrates that their court-packing plans are more than mere pandering. They are a direct, immediate threat to the independence of the judiciary and the rights of all Americans.”

Continue reading “”

Vermont: Suppressor Hunting Bill Passes Legislature

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2022/05/vermont-suppressor-hunting-bill-passes-legislature/#ixzz7T5bejBWa
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

[Yesterday] morning, the Vermont State Senate passed an amended version of S. 281 – legislation that includes a provision to make The Green Mountain State the 41st state to allow the use of suppressors while hunting. The suppressor hunting language, which was championed by Representatives Pat Brennan (R-Chittenden-9-2) and George Till (D-Chittenden-3), was added to S. 281 during the floor debate in the House of Representatives and subsequently passed on May 10th. The bill now heads to Governor Phil Scott (R-VT) for his signature. Once enacted, the new law will take effect on July 1st.

“It is my pleasure to announce that with today’s passage of S. 281, the legislature has taken a tremendous step forward towards expanding the right of hunters to use suppressors in the field,” said Rep. Brennan, Co-Chair of the Vermont Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus. “For the past seven years, law abiding citizens in Vermont have enjoyed suppressor ownership, but their use has been restricted to sport shooting at ranges only. With the passage of S. 281, Vermont outdoorsmen and women finally have the ability to protect their hearing and the hearing of the youth hunting community as well. This bill was a long time in the works, but it has finally come to fruition thanks to the cooperation of many, most especially the Department of Fish and Wildlife and its Commissioner.”

The American Suppressor Association has been fighting for suppressor rights in Vermont for a decade. Over the years we have helped draft legislation, provided written and verbal testimony, and hosted multiple live-fire suppressor demonstrations for legislators, law enforcement officers, and the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. In 2015, legislation introduced by Rep. Brennan legalized the ownership of suppressors in the state, but not their use in the field. Today’s passage of S. 281 brings us one step closer to full suppressor legalization nationwide.

“What Representatives Brennan and Till have accomplished is nothing short of extraordinary,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the American Suppressor Association. “It highlights the value of hard work, persistence, and bipartisanship. There should be nothing controversial about protecting hearing. We could not have asked for better partners in the fight for your suppressor rights.”

Comment O’ The Day
The gun-buying spree was a RESULT of the murder spike and a reaction to the demonstrated knowledge that if mostly peaceful pink-haired Antifa Zombies came crawling through your window, the police would not only be unable to help, but would refuse to do so if the opportunity arose.


The New York Times Uses a CDC Report on Homicides As an Excuse To Attack Private Gun Ownership

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday issued a report on the recent surge in the U.S. gun homicide rate, which rose by a third between 2019 and 2020, from 4.6 to 6.1 per 100,000 residents. The article, which was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, notes that “several explanations have been proposed,” including “increased stressors (e.g., economic, social, and psychological) and disruptions in health, social, and emergency services during the COVID-19 pandemic; strains in law enforcement-community relations reflected in protests over law enforcement use of lethal force; increases in firearm purchases; and intimate partner violence.”

The New York Times predictably plays up that passing reference to “increases in firearm purchases.” The rise in gun homicides, the Times says, “corresponded to accelerated sales of firearms as the pandemic spread and lockdowns became the norm.” The Times explains that “Americans went on a gun-buying spree in 2020 that continued into 2021,” although sales have since returned to their usual level. It cites an estimate by gun violence researcher Garen Wintemute that “there remain roughly 15 million more guns in circulation than there would be without the pandemic.”

In 2017, according to the Small Arms Survey, American civilians owned more than 393 million firearms. Purchases in 2018 and 2019 added an estimated 27 million guns to that stock of weapons. If sales in 2020 had been similar to sales in the two previous years, they would have added another 13 million or so. Assuming Wintemute’s estimate is in the right ballpark, the “gun-buying spree” that worries the Times amounted to a further increase of about 3.5 percent. Although Times reporters Roni Caryn Rabin and  seem to think that’s a plausible explanation for a 33 percent increase in the gun homicide rate, it’s not clear why.

It is demonstrably not true that more guns in circulation automatically results in more homicides. The number of guns owned by Americans rose steadily throughout the period, beginning in the early 1990s, when the U.S. homicide rate fell precipitously, a downward trend that has only recently abated. As the CDC notes, the reasons for the 2020 jump are unclear, although it is widely assumed that the massive disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic had something to do with it.

Continue reading “”