Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

We’ve been addressing the issue of a new front in the war on guns, specifically as it relates both to gun manufacturers being squeezed by banks and shareholder actions concerning gun companies.  It’s tempting to see this as a spurious set of events.  The anti-gun lobby sees something that happens to garner attention, and decides to do it again to see if it garners the same attention or effect.

It’s not spurious.  This is all part of a coordinated strategy within the gun controller community.  The Brady Campaign lays it out for us.

As companies have taken positions on climate change, anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, family leave, and other socially responsible causes, it has helped to both place these issues in the forefront of the media and pressure other public and private industry members to adopt the same policies. In recent months, corporate attention has turned to America’s gun violence problem as a recognized public health epidemic that kills 96 Americans and injures another 200 or more each day.

[ … ]

An increasing amount of business leaders, investors, and corporate board members are not only cognizant of the toll of gun violence, but are also determined to lead by example. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Citigroup, Bank of America, Kroger’s, and L.L. Bean, among others, have announced policies that address this uniquely American problem.

Here we see corporations not as products of hard work, innovation, or even skilled workers who need to earn a living by the sweat of their brow.  Corporations are tools and agents of social change, regardless of what it does to the company itself or the value built by hard work over time.  Companies approached by the gun controllers should heed this warning.  The Brady Campaign has told you in no uncertain terms that they don’t care about the health of your company – the only value you add is your assets to be used for the purposes outlined by the controllers.

Aurora. Sandy Hook. San Bernardino. Pulse. Sutherland Springs. Las Vegas. Parkland. For how different these mass shootings were, they all have one thing in common: the shooters chose assault weapons. Shooters are purposefully outfitting themselves with the latest and best military-grade weapons and accessories …

Of course, this was all written prior to the recent shooting in Texas where the shooter used a shotgun and wheel gun, but that won’t change a thing concerning their strategy.  After mentioning Dick’s Sporting Goods, The Brady Campaign outlines some of their recent successes.

Walmart, another major gun retailer, ended its sale of assault rifles in mid-2015, citing low customer demand for weapons of this nature at their stores. Likewise, REI has suspended orders of certain products where the manufacturer is affiliated with a company making assault rifles.

And it’s not just retailers that are making significant changes to their policies on assault weapons. In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting. Bank of America announced it had engaged in “intense conversations” with gun manufacturers, and determined it would cease lending to any companies that make assault weapons for civilian purposes. Additionally, payment processing companies facilitating transactions like PayPal, Square, Stripe, and Apple Pay have all pledged to disallow their services for any firearm sales.

They also mention Blackrock, Citigroup, Fred Meyer, LL Bean, Kroger and other stores who have implemented what they call “gun reform” policies concerning who they do business with.

They go on to outline their proposals for “gun reform,” including [a] a renewed assault weapons ban, [b] an increase in the legal age for purchasing guns, [c] universal background checks, [d] “securing the supply chain,” and [e] advocating publicity for legal “reform.”

They don’t stop there.  They advocate the power of shareholder participation in corporations as well as legal pressure to force gun manufacturers and FFLs to conduct reporting on their political lobbying, their investments in so-called “smart gun technology,” and amusingly, this: “Report on their factual basis for advertisements that suggest guns are effective for personal protection compared to risks associated with gun ownership.”

If it’s easy to see the recent actions by Sturm & Ruger shareholders and Bank of America as spurious, it’s also easy to be dismissive about these efforts.  But make no mistake, these efforts are well funded, and moreover, the controllers have a nexus in the leadership of corporations.  Much of the upper level management, as well as HR and legal departments, has been steeped in collectivist ideology for their entire educational career.  Their world and life view are similar, if not the same.

It’s also easy to respond that “we can buy stock too,” as well as to claim that we or gun manufacturers can function in a bank-less society.  As to those claims, concerning buying stock too, it’s one thing to make boasts, and another to spend the money.  As to the ability to function in a bank-less society, it isn’t readily apparent what form this would take or how it would work.

If more odious gun laws are a direct frontal assault on God-given rights to firearms ownership, this whole effort is a well-coordinated, well-rehearsed, determined and organized enfilade assault.  This is a flaking maneuver, and it’s not apparent that gun owners or even gun manufacturers see this assault or are prepared to defend against it.

Sun Tzu recommended that in war, we “know our enemies.”  Listening to them when they divulge their strategy is certainly part of this.

Prior:

Remington Exits Bankruptcy

Response From Ruger CEO

Henry Repeating Arms On Dick’s Sporting Goods

Analysis Of Ruger Shareholder Vote

The Next Installment Of The War Between Amalgamated Bank And Ruger

Amalgamated Bank Pressures Ruger To Support Gun Control Measures

Please, Please Buy This Gun Company

Bank Of America Simply Hasn’t Shown Enough Contrition For The Gun Controllers Yet

Mossberg And MKS Break Ties With Dick’s Sporting Goods

It’s A Multi-Front Banker War On Gun Owners

This is a new series inspired by reader Michael, updated as time permits and as assisted by readers.  I do not intend for me to do all of the work.

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”
–Heinrich Himmler

“I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons they should join the United States Army, we have them.”
–Gen. Wesley Clark, US Army

“Anyone who wants to possess such a weapon (“assault weapon”) should join the Marine Corps.”
–Oliver North, President of NRA

“We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone.”
–Wayne LaPierre, CEO and Executive Vice President, NRA

“In the aftermath of two of the country’s worst mass shootings, it’s an affront to both our safety as a nation and the common sense of its citizens that Congress would consider actually weakening our gun laws.”
–General Stanley McChrystal, author of the ROE that killed good men at Ganjgal

“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that,” McChrystal explained. “That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.”
–General Stanley McChrystal

For the record, The Captain’s Journal believes that all gun control laws are an affront to God’s created order and denial of rights endowed by our creator by virtue of being created in His image, and a violation and infringement of the constitution of the U.S. and the various states.

St. Louis American:

Sgt. Heather Taylor, a homicide detective in St. Louis and leader of the city’s police association for black officers, considers herself well-informed on crime-related issues. But she hadn’t heard about House Bill 1936 – the “guns everywhere” bill – which would allow concealed guns into places that are currently designated gun-free zones, including churches, college campuses, bars and government buildings.

“What?!” said Taylor, president of the Ethical Society of Police. “You are talking about introducing guns in places where they shouldn’t be. You will see an increase in gun violence in public places.”

Despite the renewed focus on gun laws around the country, many people have not heard about this bill. Even people who are tracking it don’t understand the extent of the legislation.

The EYE asked the bill’s sponsor state Rep. Jered Taylor (R-Nixa) to explain what changes HB 1936 would bring. He said if the bill passes “law-abiding citizens” would be able to conceal carry with or without a permit into the following 10 locations: churches, amusement parks, stadiums, hospitals, casinos, bars, child care facilities, polling locations, local government buildings and state government buildings. The law also lists private schools. These locations were previously considered gun-free zones for civilian concealed carry.

Individuals would have to have a concealed carry weapons (CCW) permit in order to carry into college campuses and the Capitol, Taylor said. And colleges and other institutions don’t have a choice in the matter. The bill states that state, political subdivisions and public institutions of higher learning cannot impose any policies or contractual requirements that would prohibit employees or students from carrying concealed firearms.

“Again I want to reiterate, the locations that are private property locations would have the ability to choose whether or not to allow guns on their property,” Taylor told The St. Louis American. “If they do not want weapons in their establishment, they would simply post a sign, exactly what all other private property owners have to do under current statute.”

Is it dead?

Speaker of the House Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff) has not yet put the bill on the legislative calendar. With the legislative session ending on Friday, May 18, some believe that the bill is dead. The full House would have to perfect the bill, have a third reading and then take a final vote to pass it. Then it would have to pass in the Senate, which is where similar legislation stalled last year.

“It wouldn’t have enough time to even make it through the House at this point,” said state Rep. Michael Butler (D-St. Louis). “It is important to note that the Speaker of the House has held on to the bill and not put it on the calendar since March 29.”

It’s too bad for Missouri that this won’t pass this year, and maybe not ever.  I was going to make a prediction for the sake of comparison with Sgt. Taylor’s prediction.  She said that “You will see an increase in gun violence in public places.”  She further said that “people pushing legislation to make gun laws even more lax and permissive are people who don’t have black and brown kids, relatives or family or haven’t been affected by gun violence at all.”

I was going to predict that the main increase in violence would have been innocent armed men and women (of all skin colors) shooting back at mainly black and brown kids who were trying to perpetrate violence on innocent folk.  Since statistics and data don’t lie.

The “Ethical Society of Police.”  Now isn’t that a hoot.

David Codrea:

“If a cuss word on TV offends you more than pictures of dead children in Parkland or Newtown, then your priories are all wrong,” Davis replied to Tucker Carlson of Fox News. First, that’s a ridiculous argument that presupposes both aren’t offensive, but more illustrative of his mindset is that he presumes to impose his will over all others – a hallmark of all so-called “progressives.”

First, I’m still waiting for someone to deliver death certificates and coroner’s reports of the dead children at Newtown.  I note with some suspicion that the Connecticut Chambers and Governor passed a law right after Newtown that forever sealed those records.

Second, if you believe that the NRA had anything to do with any of the events you listed (Newtown, Parkland), you’re priorities are all wrong, and you apparently (stupidly) believe in the ubiquitous power of the legal system to dictate the behavior of humans who have volitional choice.

MarketWatch:

I’ve mentioned before—and I say this as a guy who’s pro guns and supports the Second Amendment—that demographics and changing consumer behavior are slowly nibbling away at America’s rich gun culture. I believe that we have seen the high-water mark for that culture and it is slowly receding. I emphasize slowly.

This has less to do with who’s in Congress and how much cash the National Rifle Association is stuffing in lawmaker’s pockets—and more to do with something that is harder to see: the fact that the gun base in the United States skews 1) male, 2) white, 3) rural and 4) somewhat lesser educated—all trends that run counter to an America that is 1) majority female, 2) rapidly urbanizing, 3) more educated and 4) less white (white births are now a minority of all U.S. births) than ever before. Data on these evolving trends can be found in the recent “demographics of gun ownership” study by the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan organization based here in Washington.

Stop.  Quick question for my readers.  Do you like being “lesser educated?”  I’m wondering if the author of the article, Paul Brandus, knows how to do Monte Carlo particle transport analysis and solve differential equations.  I do.

And I’m wondering if Paul actually considers those social “science” degrees from state universities an actual education.  But that’s a discussion for another time.

As these changing demographics and consumer habits gradually erode the still-powerful gun culture, its political base is likely to erode as well. Like water running downhill, this is the natural order of things. And if you take this reality and layer it on top of another one—namely, the ongoing fiscal pressure that states and cities across the country constantly face—it suggests that guns and ammunition could be increasingly seen as an undertapped source of revenue.

There are precedents for this. Tobacco, a ubiquitous product half-a-century ago, gradually became politically easier to target and tax as demographics and changing consumption patterns gradually weakened a once all–powerful and unassailable industry.

This culminated in a massive 1998 agreement between tobacco manufacturers and 46 states, five U.S. territories and the District of Columbia, in which the industry agreed to pay billions of dollars a year to those jurisdictions. Those costs were generally just passed on to the declining number of Americans who smoke, which helps explain why cigarette taxes are always going up. This revenue is addictive as nicotine to states, which need every penny they can get; Of course, all this is on top of the current federal tax of $1.00 per 20-pack of cigarettes.

This isn’t to say that the firearms industry isn’t taxed already. Of course it is. But taxes generally haven’t budged in a long time, and are narrowly applied. There’s a federal excise tax of 10% on handguns and 11% on long guns for the import and production of firearms and ammunition—but this hasn’t changed since the tax was first implemented literally a century ago, in 1919. And you may be surprised to know that only two states, per a RAND Corp. analysis, impose special taxes on guns and ammo above and beyond standard sales taxes: Pennsylvania and Tennessee. The former tacks on a $3 surcharge on firearms, while the latter has a $0.10 tax for use, possession, and sales of shotgun shells of metallic cartridges.

[ … ]

Some gun owners say such taxes are an infringement upon their Second Amendment rights. Defenders claim that like tobacco and alcohol, guns can sometimes incur broader costs upon society and therefore must be paid for through usage and consumption fees. Both points of view have merit; this often acrimonious debate will never end.

I don’t see firearms as having any cost at all on society.  I see moral maladies such as rejecting God’s law as having a huge sociological penalty, but Paul’s worldview is likely not amenable to this sort of thought.

Either way, he’s right about one thing.  The “debate” (as he calls it) is acrimonious now, and I can guarantee it will become more so should we be seen as an “untapped source of revenue.”

Prepare for that move as the next step in the multi-front war, gentlemen.  We’re taking enfilade fire.

I had found wording to the effect that Henry Repeating Arms had taken a position on Dick’s Sporting Goods, but was unable to find an authoritative source or URL for this position.  I wrote them and got this reply.

Thank you for your inquiry regarding Dick’s Sporting Goods and for your enthusiastic support of the 2nd Amendment. Henry Repeating Arms has been and always will be an ardent and steadfast supporter of the Second Amendment. Our reputation speaks for itself. We share your concerns about how Dick’s is conducting itself. We are disappointed by their recent actions and puzzled by recent reports. Please note that we do not sell directly to Dick’s or to their Field & Stream stores and that we never have. We sell our firearms to federally licensed wholesale distributors who then, in turn, sell to retailers, a two-step distribution system. Manufacturers who have recently stated that they will stop selling their firearms directly to Dicks cannot control what the distributors sell to Dicks – and neither can we. We are attempting to gain some clarity from Dicks regarding these recent reports and their long-term position on firearm sales. As we continue to investigate and monitor their actions, and as we await more clarity from Dick’s, we are evaluating our options through the two-step distribution system. In the meantime, we have removed their stores from our list of recommended Henry dealers.

Best Regards,
Patrick Hall
Customer Service Manager
Henry Repeating Arms Company
59 E 1st Street
Bayonne, NJ 07002

Thank you for your response Mr. Hall.  I think Dick’s position is clear and I would be very surprised if anything changes.  I think sufficient clarity is available now to make a decision, and so we just watch to see what gun manufacturers do with this information.

Thanks again.

The Washington Free Beacon:

President Donald Trump’s nominee for a seat on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has garnered the disapproval of some Republican senators for his record on First and Second Amendment issues.

Former Republican attorney general of Hawaii Mark Bennett saw senators Ted Cruz (R., Tex.) and Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) break with the rest of the Judicial Committee and vote against his nomination last week. The senators said their decision was driven by a pair of amicus briefs Bennett signed on to opposing landmark gun rights and free speech Supreme Court decisions. The two Republicans expressed skepticism over appointing Bennett to a lifetime position in the federal judiciary given his record, despite Bennett’s assurances that he would abide by binding precedents if confirmed.

Cruz described Bennett’s record as “troubling.”

“He was an aggressive advocate, as attorney general, for gay marriage. He was an aggressive advocate demonstrating hostility to the First Amendment and political speech,” he said in a committee meeting on Thursday. “Most significantly, he has been an aggressive advocate for undermining the Second Amendment.”

Sasse’s office said the senator shares Cruz’s concerns on much of Bennett’s record.

“Senator Sasse has concerns about Mr. Bennett’s advocacy in Citizens United v. FEC and Heller v. District of Columbia,” James Wegmann, a Sasse spokesman, told the Washington Free Beacon regarding the senator’s vote.

Cruz said he was especially worried about Bennett’s decision to sign on to an amicus brief in the Heller case which argued that the Second Amendment was merely intended to protect state militias from federal interference and should not apply to state laws.

“Taking the position in the Heller case that the Second Amendment protects no individual right to bear arms whatsoever,” Cruz said in the meeting. “In my judgement that is an extreme position. It is grossly inconsistent with the text and original understanding of the Second Amendment and, so, I can’t, in good conscience, vote to confirm him for a lifetime position as a court of appeals judge on the ninth circuit.”

Well good.  But wait, here’s the best part.

During his testimony before the committee in April, Bennett said his decision to sign onto the briefs in the Heller and Citizens United cases were based on what he thought were in the best interest of Hawaii at the time.

Not what was constitutional, not what God intended as righteous by virtue of being created in His image, but what he (Bennet) thought was in the best interest of Hawaii at the time.

Because he considers himself to be god.  And note the modifier “at the time.”  Because his mind could change later.  Because right and wrong depends on his mood that day.  There is nothing deontological and fixed about it.

Good Lord.  From under what rock did this creep climb?  Go back, please.  You’re hurting my eyes.

James Wesley Rawles:

AR-15 and AR-10 variants are truly generic and have been sold under more than 120 brand names. The number of ARs (AR-15s, M4s, AR-10s, and variants) sold from 2000 to 2014 was approximately 5,672,900. Since then, AR-15 clones have become even more popular and ubiquitous with approximately 1.2 million more produced in 2015, 1.6 million in 2016, and 1.5 million in 2017. At least 1.2 million will be produced in 2018. It can be assumed that 99% of the ARs produced since the year 2000 are still functional. There were more than 2.3 million other ARs produced for the civilian market between 1962 and 1999. It is safe to assume that at least 95% of those of that vintage are still functional. So the total number of functional ARs in private hands in the U.S. is somewhere around 11 to 12 million. (As of May, 2018.)

Rawles goes on to discuss semi-automatics, pistols, and possible outcomes in the event of a broad, wholesale confiscation effort.

I too think it would be catastrophic for FedGov to engage in such a stupid move.  Many people would perish in such a project.  That’s why I don’t think it will happen.  It won’t go down that way.

What will happen is a nickel-and-dime approach, or if you wish, death by a thousand cuts.  For example, if Congress (and the president signs) a ban on semi-automatic weapons, they won’t make it retroactive.  But what they will do is ban further production of said weapons, and make it illegal to turn over those weapons in estates.  Thus you have an effective gun ban in a generation.

They will force registration of said weapons, and while they won’t go door to door confiscating them if you don’t register them, they will make it illegal to shoot them at ranges without papers.  They will force ID and background checks (and perhaps even registration) to purchase ammunition, and enact criminal penalties for allowing your weapons to be stolen (under the rubric of “gun safety laws”).

I could go on, but you get the picture.  So what gun owners must be willing to do is stop the process by whatever means necessary when the community deems appropriate.

When does this point occur?

By the way, you should make the Survival Blog a daily stop.

Michael:

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”
–Heinrich Himmler

“I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons they should join the United States Army, we have them.”
–Gen. Wesley Clark, US Army

“Anyone who wants to possess such a weapon (“assault weapon”) should join the Marine Corps.”
–Oliver North, President of NRA

I had lamented earlier that I hadn’t seen any good analyses on how many shareholders voted on what, the breakdown of constituency, etc.  That all ends with the reporting of Richard Craver of the Winston-Salem Journal.  Pay attention boys and girls at CNN, MSNBC, and the other crappy pretend journalist outlets.  This is how you do analysis and reporting.

The Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary of Marylhurst, Ore., submitted a “gun safety” proposal. It requires the Ruger board of directors to report “on its activities related to safety measures and mitigation of harm associated with company products.”

The proposals also asked for an update on where Ruger is on developing “smart guns that could significantly reduce accidental shootings and suicides.” Ruger received identical proposals from other shareholders.

Ruger announced at its annual shareholder meeting Wednesday that the proposal passed, but did not provide the vote counts. Ruger had at last count 334 employees at its plant in Mayodan.

The company reported the counts in a required regulatory filing late Monday. Just under 90 percent of its outstanding shares were represented at the meeting.

There were 7.19 million shares voted in favor of the proposal and 3.26 million against, representing 41.2 percent and 18.7 percent of Ruger’s outstanding shares, respectively.

He goes on to explain that the law prevents brokers from voting on matters for clients when there are no instructions from shareholders.

So the bottom line here is that [a] a lot of shareholders voted with the controllers to force the Ruger board to commission a “study” on risks associated with gun manufacturing, and [b] BlackRock owns a lot of stock in Ruger.

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat here.  Ruger had better find a way to cut its ties with corporate America and issue – and buy – enough stock to allow the board and/or employees to have a controlling interest in the company.  These are dangerous times.

I understand the need for capital and thus the issuance of public stock.  But this is a bridge too far and leaves Ruger in a precarious position.  That needs to be fixed as soon as possible.

Prior:

Ruger Anti-Gun Shareholders More Powerful Than We Suspected?

The Next Installment Of The War Between Amalgamated Bank And Ruger

Amalgamated Bank Pressures Ruger To Support Gun Control Measures