Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

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

Via Reddit/r/Firearms.  Liberty Magazine, May 1994.

Specifically, Reddit has the episode as:

Larry King Live: Season 4, Episode 17

Oliver North; comedian Bill Maher.

Show: Larry King Live

Episode number: 17

Air date: January 26, 1994

Some Redditor will eventually get this (even if from a library) and put it on YouTube.  It will be even more embarrassing than it is now, but the damage is done.

So I suspect that Oliver North, a figure head, is in place to encourage military and former military membership in the NRA.  It’s all about money.

The NRA is hoping that folks will remember “War Stories,” the Fox News series.  Most people the NRA should be after don’t watch TV any more, and none of them remember the scandal in which he was embroiled during the Reagan administration.  All they see now if that North wants to take their AR-15s.  That sounds like a real winner in the gun community.

In reality, we have another Charlon Heston.  I’m sure the NRA is comfortable with him, even if the Redditors aren’t.

Charlotte Observer:

Rather than weaseling out with the excuse that this deal (and who knows how many more) was already in the works, Bank of America must pull out of this agreement and deal with the consequences. The bank can use this moment to show true corporate leadership and create a template for bringing about real change in a post-Parkland world.

[ … ]

There is a reason this editorial was sent to The Charlotte Observer and they printed it.  The Charlotte Observer is progressive, and BoA executives all live in this area since the BoA home office is in Charlotte.

It’s never enough, is it?  A progressive corporation who hates liberty deals a blow to gun manufacturers, and yet the controllers want more, and more and more, until BoA is illegally reneging on contractual obligations, banning all gun makers, and purveying bigotry towards gun owners as well.

You see where this is going, do you?  Semi-automatic weapons is just the latest boogey man.  They want them all, bolt action rifles, handguns, everything.  Everything.

This particular controller is being a little impatient, but he wants to strike while the iron is hot.  Even if it doesn’t work out for him, it’s just another lesson in the fact that there is no point of intersection for us, no point at which we can compromise, nothing in common, and nothing worth giving away to the controllers.

This is all-out war with them.  See it that way, whether you want the war of not.  It has come to your doorstep.

David Codrea:

Uncontrolled degenerate control freaks like Mel Reynolds have no say on my rights and never will.

Well yes, I grok the sentiment.  Oftentimes, control freaks are morally degenerate in all kinds of ways since in order to be a consistent control freak, one must jettison belief in God and His moral law.  The statist god is the collective, which ultimately finds itself in “the one” (as I’ve said, for the best study on this, see Rousas J. Rushdoony, “The One and The Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy”).

But the fact is that there are also control freaks out there who aren’t quite so morally degenerate as Mr. Reynolds, at least to the naked eye, and yet they are just as dangerous as Reynolds.  Being a control freak is a morally malady, a sin-sickness that finds its rivers of evil in the soul.

So it is with all controllers – gun controllers, tax-and-spenders, war-mongers, proponents of state medicine – all of them.

Guns.com:

Ohio-based MKS, whose products include Hi-Point Firearms and Inland M1911s, have announced they won’t sell to Dick’s and their affiliates on Second Amendment grounds.

MKS said the recent move by Dick’s to hire a government affairs group for the purpose of gun control lobbying, coupled with the big box retailer’s past choices to destroy their existing inventory of AR-15s and refuse firearm sales to those under age 21 put the two companies at odds when it came to the right to keep and bear arms.

“In recent months, Dick’s Sporting Goods and its subsidiary, Field & Stream, have shown themselves, in our opinion, to be no friend of Americans’ Second Amendment,” said Charles Brown, MKS president. “We believe that refusing to sell long guns to adults under age 21, while many young adults in our military are not similarly restricted, is wrong. We believe that villainizing modern sporting rifles in response to pressure from uninformed, anti-gun voices is wrong. We believe that hiring lobbyists to oppose American citizens’ freedoms secured by the Second Amendment is wrong.”

I doubt MKS sells that much inventory to Dick’s.  But this next one hurts.

NORTH HAVEN, CT – O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc., a leading American firearms manufacturer, announced today its decision to discontinue selling products to Dick’s Sporting Goods, and its subsidiary, Field & Stream, in response to their hiring of gun control lobbyists in April 2018.

Effective immediately, O.F. Mossberg & Sons will not accept any future orders from Dick’s Sporting Goods or Field & Stream, and is in the process of evaluating current contractual agreements.

“It has come to our attention that Dick’s Sporting Goods recently hired lobbyists on Capitol Hill to promote additional gun control.” said Iver Mossberg, Chief Executive Officer of O.F. Mossberg & Sons. “Make no mistake, Mossberg is a staunch supporter of the U.S. Constitution and our Second Amendment rights, and we fully disagree with Dick’s Sporting Goods’ recent anti-Second Amendment actions.”

I have written a note to Mossberg Media Relations as follows.

I have no doubt my readers will ask about whether this decision is determinative and controlling, or just applies to firearms ordered from Dick’s bypassing distributors.  Or another way to ask the question is this.  Will Mossberg enforce this decision with distributors too, requiring them to refrain from selling to Dick’s?

As of this writing I have not received a response.  But it appears as if these two manufacturers aren’t so worried about “a conspiracy in restraint of trade.”  What is Dick’s going to do – fight the lawyers from every gun manufacturer in America?

Good for MKS and Mossberg.  Let’s keep piling it on with other gun manufacturers.  I hope Mossberg’s lawyers can work out not supplying them with existing contracts.

CNBC:

A group of nuns and other faith-based investors won a shareholder vote at Sturm Ruger & Co. requiring one of the nation’s largest gun-makers to prepare a report about the risks of its business.

Ruger’s CEO, Christopher Killoy, said at the company’s annual meeting on Wednesday that the company will comply and prepare the report. “Shareholders have spoken,” he said.

But, he added, the winning proposal “cannot force us to change our business,” and “cannot change what Ruger is about and what we stand for.”

Well, they apparently had enough shareholder power to force this action, which is not good.  I’ll tell you what.  Corporate Ruger had better evaluate massive share buys in the near future in order to prevent even worse things from happening.