Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

NRO:

Renowned Second Amendment lawyer Stephen Halbrook detailed this history in a 2012 article for the Fordham Urban Law Journal. And now, in his book Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France, he explains how French gun policy evolved over the centuries — and the consequences it had under the Nazi-puppet Vichy regime during World War II. A sequel of sorts to Halbrook’s Gun Control in the Third Reich, the book drives home the important lessons that gun control is a key element of the oppressor’s toolkit, that guns are incredibly useful for those resisting oppression, and that even the most draconian gun-control measures are far from perfectly effective.

It cannot prove, of course — and doesn’t purport to — that a stronger French tradition of gun rights could have radically altered history, or that America’s more libertarian gun policies strike the right balance among all the relevant priorities. What it does do is force readers to entertain a simple question: When a hostile and brutal power takes over, do you want your countrymen to have guns at hand, or not? Certainly this question weighed heavily upon the minds of the American Founders, and certainly its answer counts for something.

Going into World War II, the French citizenry was not particularly well-armed. An 1834 law had banned “war” weapons, essentially restricting civilians to shotguns, hunting-caliber rifles, and some handguns. In 1935, amid violent political upheaval, the government required the registration of non-hunting guns. Meanwhile, a French hunting organization estimated that there were about 3 million hunting guns in the country in 1939, when its population was something like 40 million.

Germany occupied the northern half and Atlantic coast of France in 1940, making short work of the French armed forces and taking 2 million soldiers prisoner in the resulting armistice. In France as elsewhere, the Nazis made it a priority to disarm the population when they arrived, hanging signs threatening harsh punishment — up to and including the death penalty — for those who refused to turn in their guns.

Of course they did.  Just like ISIS did when they captured new territory.  All gun controllers are like Nazis and ISIS.

WWAY.com:

Effective at 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday, the transportation or possession, or the sale or purchase of any dangerous weapon or substance, while off one’s own premises, is prohibited, the town says.

H/T reddit.  According to the NC DOJ, “Pursuant to North Carolina’s Emergency Management Act (Chapter 166A of the General Statutes) local governments may impose restrictions on dangerous weapons such as explosives, incendiary devices, and radioactive materials and devices when a state of emergency is declared, but may not impose restrictions on lawfully possessed firearms.”

Furthermore, “Upon the possession, transportation, sale, purchase, storage, and use of gasoline, and dangerous weapons and substances, except that this subdivision does not authorize prohibitions or restrictions on lawfully possessed firearms or ammunition.”

The mayor of the city is a criminal, and so is the CLEO if he enforces this edict.  This isn’t over – this is just beginning, and this hurricane will be over at some point.  We’ll push on this until we get satisfactory answers or resolution.  It’s simply not acceptable to have Katrina style gun prohibitions.  Never again.

The Daily Signal:

The state of Louisiana recently held some members of the corporate social police accountable for discriminating against law-abiding Americans.

By a vote of 7-6, the State Bond Commission excluded Citigroup and Bank of America from the running for a lucrative state contract. Our reason for doing so: these corporations had introduced bank policies that restrict legal access to firearms and bank misrepresentations on those policies.

While our governor and his allies sided with these anti-gun corporations, conservatives stood together to protect the Second Amendment rights of Louisiana citizens.

Citigroup and Bank of America’s policies were grotesque attempts to capitalize on the tragedy in Parkland, Florida. In the wake of the tragedy, they proudly and publicly announced plans to restrict the distribution, manufacture, and purchase of firearms.

When called to task by our commission this past spring, these “too big to fail” companies asserted that they had no policies restricting the availability of firearms to law-abiding citizens.

When asked to defend these positions a second time, Citigroup and Bank of America then attempted to convince us their policies would have minimal effects on Louisianans, stressing that they were specifically tailored to either a particular age group or class of firearm.

A “particular class of firearm.”  Translation: BoA doesn’t think you have the right to own an AR-15, or any semi-automatic firearm, for that matter.

This is more than mere showcasing or theater.  This is a big deal, as you know BoA wanted this deal.  And the AG stood up not only to the elitist corporations, but to the own governor of his state.

Perhaps there’s a good future for Mr. Jeff Landry in politics.  I hope so.  We need more like him.

The Washington Post:

Witnesses said they heard volleys of gunfire, and one said that a woman was shot as she entered the bank building’s lobby. There were people screaming, “Shooter! Run — leave!” in Fountain Square, a park that often hosts concerts, dancing, and food trucks.

How sad.

Now.  Wouldn’t this have gone down better if, after hearing gunfire, someone had been able to yell, “Shooter, unholster, present, kill?”

Where darkness, lies and injustice find a home.

One redditor remarks, “My god, shes like Voldemort’s soul wrapped up in McGonagall’s grandmother’s body.”

Indeed.

And is it is a wizard or a witch?  And does it really matter if it’s both at the same time?

So much for repeal of the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act, or the legalization of class 3 weapons.  Remember when we were discussing that at the beginning of the Trump administration?

Fortune.com:

In November 2016, I wrote an open letter requesting that gun owners not bring firearms into our stores, offices, or facilities, even in states where it’s permitted by law. This was following an incident in one of our stores in which a customer accidentally shot and injured himself while trying on a pair of jeans. While that was bad, it could have been worse: The bullet could have killed him, another customer, or one of our employees.

In the days after I published that letter, I received threats to our stores, our business, and even on my life. It was unsettling. But these personal attacks pale in comparison to the threats that activists and survivors from Parkland, Sandy Hook, and daily incidents of gun violence face every time they speak up on this issue.

As president and CEO of a values-driven company that’s known the world over as a pioneer of the American West and one of the great symbols of American freedom, I take the responsibility of speaking up on the important issues of our day very seriously. We can’t take on every issue. But as business leaders with power in the public and political arenas, we simply cannot stand by silently when it comes to the issues that threaten the very fabric of the communities where we live and work. While taking a stand can be unpopular with some, doing nothing is no longer an option.

That’s why Levi Strauss & Co. is stepping up our support for gun violence prevention. You may wonder why a company that doesn’t manufacture or sell guns is wading into this issue, but for us, it’s simple. Americans shouldn’t have to live in fear of gun violence. It’s an issue that affects all of us—all generations and all walks of life.

That would be nice if it was true.  At a recent business meeting of cowboys in another city, I noticed they were all wearing Wrangler, not Levi Strauss.

Go back and try again, or admit that your apparel is worn by California hippies and not cowboys.

She upbraids him in typical fashion.

Reuters:

Funds run by BlackRock Inc and Vanguard Group backed all directors at gunmaker Sturm Ruger & Co Inc despite the company’s rare rejection of talks with the world’s top asset managers, disclosures to regulators on Thursday showed.

The votes by the gunmaker’s largest investors stood in contrast to support BlackRock and Vanguard gave to a measure calling on Sturm Ruger to report on the safety of its products, which passed over the board’s objections at the company’s annual meeting on May 9.

Neither BlackRock nor Vanguard would discuss in detail their votes at the meeting …

Sturm Ruger declined to comment on the filings by the funds with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday. BlackRock holds about 18 percent of shares outstanding, followed by Vanguard, with about 10 percent.

Both fund firms rarely vote against directors, and say critical votes may come only after companies fail to respond to shareholder concerns …

Investors and activists with a range of views about gun control said the asset managers’ split tickets seemed to reflect an approach designed to appeal to young investors concerned with social issues, without alienating clients who own guns or pushing Sturm Ruger’s board too quickly.

[ … ]

BlackRock spokeswoman Tara McDonnell said via email it takes a case-by-case approach to its engagement and voting “because doing so encourages change over time and promotes responsible business practices that align with the financial interests of our clients.”

Next up, Beth Baumann at Townhall.

A group of 11 Catholic groups came together to purchase stock in Smith & Wesson. The group purchased 200 shares, the minimum number required to for shareholders to demand reports from the company. Now, they want the gun manufacturer to provide a report that details what the company is doing to promote “gun safety measures” and “produce safer gun and gun products.”

According to an SEC filing, which is submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), here’s what the group wants to see from Smith & Wesson:

Shareholders request the Board of Directors issue a report by February 8, 2019, at reasonable expense and excluding proprietary information, on the company’s activities related to gun safety measures and the mitigation of harm associated with gun products, including the following (emphasis mine):

Shareholders request the Board of Directors issue a report by February 8, 2019, at reasonable expense and excluding proprietary information, on the company’s activities related to gun safety measures and the mitigation of harm associated with gun products, including the following:

• Evidence of monitoring of violent events associated with products produced by the company.
• Efforts underway to research and produce safer guns and gun products.
• Assessment of the corporate reputational and financial risks related to gun violence in the U.S.

The resolution asks American Outdoor Brands Company (AOBC) to report on activities underway to mitigate the risks that its products may be misused in criminal acts of gun violence. Contrary to what the company suggests, AOBC has both the responsibility and capacity to play a more active role in how its products are used; the requested assessment and reporting are the first steps towards acceptance of this responsibility.  As a result of several high profile mass shootings in the past year, most recently the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, gun violence is increasingly being seen as a public health crisis with extraordinary human and financial costs.

Importantly, events of gun violence have led to mounting public backlash against gun makers and retailers including calls for boycotts, divestment and demands for gun safety regulation at both the federal and state levels. This environment presents serious business risks which demand a meaningful response from AOBC. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights make clear the corporate responsibility to seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.

AOBC has a responsibility to mitigate potential impacts through improved monitoring of its distribution and retail sales channels and enhanced reporting on research and development efforts to improve the safety features of its consumer products. The resolution does not request that AOBC produce smart guns or other specific products; nor does it call for the company to endorse a gun control regulatory or policy agenda. The resolution does, however, ask for reporting because existing disclosures of current risk mitigation measures are seen as insufficient for investors to assess their effectiveness.

BlackRock and Vanguard haven’t given up.  They’re playing the long game with Ruger.  Smith & Wesson has now been introduced to social justice warrioring 2.0  Version 1.0 saw them agree to Bill Clinton’s gun control and almost go out of business.

This updated version is smarter than that.  It’s an attack from the inside.  I’ve said before that any firearms manufacturer who goes public with its stock is vulnerable to this kind of pressure, unless the board of directors and employees own a majority of the stock and the corporation rules and bylaws are constructed to suppress this kind of pressure.

Ruger isn’t in the clear, no matter what the CEO says.  Smith & Wesson are at the very beginning of this new grand experiment in gun control.  The board of directors and financial folks had better get busy buying stock and amending the bylaws.

Of course, there are smaller firearms manufacturers who can build and sell firearms, but it would be a shame to see Ruger and Smith & Wesson go out of business.

The Trace:

Investigators have released information on the weapons carried by the gunman who opened fire at a Florida video game tournament this weekend, killing two and leaving another nine victims with bullet wounds: He was armed with two handguns, a 9mm and a .45 caliber, both recently purchased from a licensed dealer.

The fact that the assailant wielded a common semiautomatic pistol, the staple of the contemporary American firearms market, would seem to make this most recent gun rampage an outlier among the mass shootings that have elicited opposition to the assault-style rifles that have become closely associated with such attacks. But the numbers show that it instead makes the carnage at Jacksonville Landing routine.

The Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (ALERRT) Center at Texas State University has studied active-shooter rampages for reports commissioned by the FBI. The FBI defines an active shooter as someone who kills or attempts to kill people in a confined or populated area. “Active shooter” is a more expansive category than mass shooting, which applies only to incidents that result in a minimum number of casualties. The term “active shooter” can apply to more targeted attacks as well as unsuccessful attempted mass shootings.

According to data compiled on 200 such attacks from 2000 through 2015, the ALERTT team found that pistols, not rifles, were the primary weapon used by the majority of active shooters …

Pistols were the most common weapon regardless of whether active shooters struck schools, businesses or churches. The perpetrator of one of the deadliest mass shootings in history, the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, was equipped solely with pistols.

Well then.  We must ban all pistols.  We mustn’t allow the people to defend themselves with – pistols.

Reuters:

Dick’s Sporting Goods reported a bigger-than-expected drop in quarterly same-store sales on Wednesday and forecast further declines this year, hit by tighter gun controls and a drop in Under Armour sales.

Shares in the company fell as much as 10 percent after it posted a 1.9 percent drop in same-store sales, bigger than analysts’ average estimate of a 0.62 percent dip.

Dick’s was one of the first retailers to stop selling assault rifles and high-capacity magazines as well as bar the sale of guns to people under age 21 following a massacre at a Florida high school in February.

The company had predicted that its hunting guns business would be pressurized by the change in policy but said the move should also attract more people to its stores.

Yep.  That’s what they said alright.  Somehow I doubt that this has anything to do with Under Armour sales.

I can’t think of a better company to be struggling.  Schadenfreude, I think they call it.