Monday, August 20, 2018

Canadian Rangers Retire Lee Enfield


The Canadian Army has used the SMLE or Short Magazine Lee-Enfield rifle in .303 British since the Boer War. Until this last week, their volunteer Arctic-based Canadian Rangers were still using it. However, it has now been replaced by the Colt Canada C19 bolt action rifle which a modified Tikka T3 CTR built under license.

Canadian Rangers drilling with their Lee-Enfields


As to why the Rangers used the SMLE for so long, the National Post has this from an arms expert at the Canadian War Museum:
The Lee-Enfield’s powerful .303 cartridge was famous for killing enemy soldiers with one shot, and it’s equally good at stopping a charging polar bear.

Its wood stock makes it uniquely resistant to cracking or splitting in extreme cold. The rifle is also bolt-action, meaning that every shot must be manually pushed into place by the shooter. This makes for slower firing, but it also leaves the Lee-Enfield with as few moving parts as possible.

“The more complicated a rifle gets … the more prone you are to problems with parts breaking or jamming in a harsh environment,” said Eric Fernberg, an arms collection specialist at the Canadian War Museum.

“It might seem old-fashioned … (but) the retention of the Lee-Enfield by the Canadian Rangers was a wise choice for their role and environment.”





According to the Department of National Defence, the surplus rifles will be split between Army Cadets, museums, and the Rangers who wish to buy them.
The Lee Enfield Declaration of Surplus was approved by VCDS on January 21, 2015. Approximately 9,500 rifles will be transferred to the CAF Cadets, mostly as non-functional rifles, to complement their entitlement of drill and training rifles. Another 5,000 rifles approximately, will be offered to serving Canadian Rangers individuals as a donation/gift to preserve heritage. Up to 50 rifles will be offered to CAF affiliated museums and units as display artefacts.
I guess this means that few, if any, of these Enfields will be headed south of the border.

You can see the replacement C19 in the photo below. It will come with the Pelican case and has the Canadian Rangers shield on the laminated stock.




A Judge Who Believes The Rules Matter


It is refreshing to see a state judge who believes the rules matter when it comes to a voter initiative. Thurston County (Washington) Superior Court Judge James Dixon is that kind of judge.

This past Friday he threw out the 300,000 signatures collected on petitions on Initiative 1639 which would entail another round of gun control in Washington State.  Judge Dixon found that the print on the forms was too small to be read and that the petitions did not clearly state what would be the changes in the law. He ordered the Secretary of State's office to stop certification of the ballot initiative.

Among the things the initiative would do is raise the age to purchase a modern semi-auto sporting weapon including .22 rifles to age 21, require a firearm safety training course, and mandate safe storage. The petition process was started by the Alliance for Gun Responsibility and funded primarily by high tech billionaires such as Paul Allen.

As you might expect, the Alliance for Gun Responsibility is appealing this to the Washington State Supreme Court. Moreover, as their CEOs comments make clear they are not happy campers.
"The right of Washingtonians to make changes to our laws via initiative has been part of our state's history for more than 100 years and is fundamental to the Washington we know today," (Renee) Hopkins said. "Today's decision tossed out the signatures of more than 378,000 voters, and undermined the rights of the citizens of this state in favor of the interests of the gun lobby. It's not right, and we will continue to fight."
Actually, it was the Alliance for Gun Responsibility's playing fast and loose with the established rules regarding the form and style of initiative petitions that undermined the petition and not anything the judge did. I guess they thought with all the money that they had the court would just roll over for them.

As you might expect, Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation who sued as a private citizen was very pleased with the result.
“A few billionaires donated millions of dollars to buy the signatures to get this fraudulent initiative on the ballot,” Gottlieb observed. “But they couldn’t buy the Court.”

“The initiative process has no place for deceit and deception,” Gottlieb said. “The so-called Alliance for Gun Responsibility acted totally irresponsible in circulating this initiative to the voters and it not only cost them millions of wasted dollars but their credibility as well.”
The NRA had also sued along with Alan Gottlieb and the ruling is in response to both lawsuits. Chris Cox of the NRA-ILA had this to say:
“The National Rifle Association is glad to see the court today recognized how negligent, if not worse, gun control advocates were in their signature-gathering for this ill-advised ballot initiative,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “We got involved because I-1639 tramples on the rights of Washington state voters, and because the way these anti-gun activists went about pushing their agenda was egregious. We applaud this decision, and will remain vigilant in protecting the constitutional freedoms of all Americans.”
It is good for gun rights to see the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation working together in Washington State. They are also co-plaintiffs in two more lawsuits challenging efforts by Seattle and Edmonds to circumvent the state's strong preemption laws on firearms regulations.

Friday, August 17, 2018

Some Good News To Begin The Weekend


You may remember seeing pictures and video of the collapsed rickhouse at Barton's 1792 Distillery in Bardstown, Kentucky. Initially it was only half of the rickhouse and then, before it could be safely shored up, the other half collapsed. However, all that good bourbon is not lost.

The distillery has begun the process of recovering as many intact barrels as possible, repairing the leaking ones, and discarding the ones that can't be saved. According to gobourbon.com, the Sazerac subsidiary is sorting the barrels into three categories:
  1. Barrels that don’t need repair are recorded and removed from the pile to continue aging.
  2. Barrels that are leaky or damaged are moved to a coopering area to be repaired.
  3. Barrels that are beyond repair are dumped into a holding tank and discarded.
The distillery has not released any information on how much has been saved.

The following two videos show the recovery process. The first video was provided by Barton's 1792 Distillery.







There is no word whether or not the distillery is going to release the bourbon from the collapsed rickhouse, Warehouse 30, as a special release similar to what their sister company Buffalo Trace did after a tornado took the roof off of Warehouse C. That release, E. H. Taylor Warehouse C Tornado Surviving bourbon, now goes for over $1,000 per bottle on the secondary market.

Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Injunction Sought In California "Assault Weapon" Registration Lawsuit


As I reported about a month ago, a coalition of California gun rights groups, the SAF, and individual plaintiffs sued Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D-CA) and the California DOJ over their computer system failures which made timely registration of "assault weapons" impossible. This coalition has now added four more plaintiffs in an amended complaint and is moving for a preliminary injunction.

More details are in the release sent out this afternoon. You would think that in California of all places that you could find competent IT professionals who could get a registration system not to crash. I guess not.


BREAKING: Gun Owners, Civil Rights Groups Seek Injunction in California “Assault Weapon” Lawsuit

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and his DOJ botched the “assault weapon” registration program, putting thousands of gun owners at risk of felony charges. Gun owners and civil rights advocates are crying foul – and taking them to court.

SACRAMENTO, CA (August 15, 2018) — Attorneys for seven California gun owners and four Second Amendment advocacy organizations announced today that they have filed an amended complaint and a new motion seeking a preliminary injunction in the civil rights lawsuit Sharp, et al. v. Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al. over the California Department of Justice’s failures surrounding the ‘bullet button assault weapon’ registration program. A copy of the court filings can be viewed or downloaded online at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/sharp
The amended complaint added as plaintiffs four additional gun owners who were denied their rights by the DOJ, and also added the DOJ’s Chief of the California Justice Information Services Division, Joe Dominic, as a defendant. The motion seeks to enjoin sections of the Penal Code relating to so-called “assault weapons,” including provisions that subject the possession or transportation of such firearms to serious criminal liability, including potential felony imprisonment and property seizure, “throughout the pendency of this case, or until” the plaintiffs and gun owners like them “have had a reasonable opportunity, as determined by the Court, to register the qualifying firearms through a functional registration system.” 
The plaintiffs argue that the DOJ had a legal duty to provide a functional registration system throughout the registration period, but that they were unable to exercise their own rights and legal duties “due to the Defendants’ actions and failures, including but not limited to the inaccessibility, defects, and/or non-functionality of the DOJ’s CFARS-based registration system.” Because of that, the plaintiffs argue, the State violated their civil rights protected under the state and federal constitutions and denied them their statutory right to register their firearms to avail themselves of legal protections against harsh criminal laws. 
“[As we argue in our motion], this is about the injustice of forcing people to comply with a law, and then depriving them of the means to do so,” said attorney George Lee, lead counsel on the case. “It is simply unconscionable that the Attorney General would even think about enforcing a law where his Department’s own failures led to many people’s inability to register their firearms in the first place.” 
In a declaration filed with the court, the plaintiffs’ technical expert said that “it is very clear” the problems experienced by the plaintiffs and others across the state “were caused by either the DOJ’s CFARS servers being overloaded and/or possibly by one of the State of California datacenters itself being unavailable due to network routing or overload issues.” 
“This is fundamentally a simple lawsuit about a troubling issue. Attorney General Becerra and his DOJ had one job to do: Provide a functional system for gun owners to use in registering their eligible firearms. But instead of doing their jobs, they created a huge new mess for law enforcement and put innocent people and lawfully-owned property at serious risk,” explained Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. 
“This unjust California government-created problem must be stopped immediately,” commented Second Amendment Foundation Founder and Executive Vice President, Alan Gottlieb. “Gun owners should not be put at risk due to state regulatory incompetence.” 
“The bottom line is that California cannot have it both ways. If the state is going to require registration of firearms, it cannot make that process illusory and set people up for confiscation of their property,” said Gene Hoffman, chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “Here, Becerra and DOJ failed to perform their duties, failed gun owners, failed the Legislature and Governor Brown, and failed the people of the State of California.” 
Elaborating on the case, Combs explained, “Because of Becerra’s and DOJ’s disastrous, incompetent, and possibly malicious handling of one simple task, now thousands of gun owners are at risk of having their guns seized or destroyed, or going to jail, simply for driving to the gun range with a firearm that they legally acquired years ago.” 
“It is beyond clear that Attorney General Becerra is so distracted by federal issues and President Trump that he’s completely forgotten to fairly and properly enforce the laws of his own state – and to protect the civil rights of innocent people first and foremost,” Combs said. 
“These plaintiffs and others like them should not have to face a district attorney or jury in a criminal trial because Attorney General Becerra and DOJ set them up from day one,” said Jonathan Jensen, vice-president of Firearms Policy Foundation. 
The civil rights lawsuit is supported by The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF). The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys George M. Lee and Douglas Applegate of San Francisco-based Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP, as well as Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, a former California deputy attorney general and prosecutor. 
Californians who tried to register their firearms as “assault weapons” before July 1 but were unable to, or who suffered a privacy breach at DOJ, should contact the organizations’ Legal Action Hotline immediately at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline or by telephone at 855-252-4510. 
Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, through advocacy, legal action, education, and outreach. 
Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms. 
The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights. 
Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Monday, August 13, 2018

Forgotten Weapons: Garand Primer-Activated 1924 Trials Rifle


In this video, Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons looks at one of John Garand's early rifles. The Model of 1924 Trials Rifle was primer-activated. That is, the primer would come out of the pocket in the brass and push a small piston back. This would serve to unlock the bolt and the autoloading process would go on from there.

This is the first that I've ever heard about such a system and I find it both intriguing and horrifying. Intriguing because it simplifies the barrel of the rifle - no gas ports needed - and horrifying because of the potential for failure or worse.


Saturday, August 11, 2018

Larry Tribe Believes In Free Speech (When He Agrees With It)


Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe is one of those liberal lions in academia. He's put out leading books on the Constitution, testified before Congress, advocated for free speech, and is a hypocrite.

What was that last part?

Hypocrite as in saying he is an advocate for free speech but doesn't believe that code is free speech.




This from a guy who argues that it would be wrong for the FCC and Congress to regulate violent TV programs as it would violate free speech. He has also has written law articles entitled "The Metatheory of Free Speech".

Tribe's argument in the Everytown amicus brief is that code is not protected because it isn't "expressive" and because its purposes are the "widespread violations of federal and state law".

Sorry but just because you are the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School doesn't mean you are right.

Free Speech And Banned Books


There is a long history of banning books both here in the United States and abroad. Books that come to mind are D. H. Lawerence's Lady Chatterley's Lover, Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, and a whole host of others. In more recent times, the Supreme Court has rejected efforts to ban books just because someone didn't like it. See Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982)

Here is a book that you need to buy that many in the gun control industry would like to see banned. It is called The Liberator Code Book: An Exercise in Free Speech. The book is exactly what it says it is - the 3-D printing code for the Liberator pistol in book form. Think of the $15 cost of this book as a donation to the advancement of free speech.

Years ago, the US government tried to control an encryption program called Pretty Good Privacy or PGP which was freely available on the Internet for download. They started a criminal investigation of Phil Zimmerman who was its creator for exporting "munitions without a license". Starting to sound familiar to what the government wanted to do to Cody Wilson? It should. What Zimmerman did that stymied the government's efforts was to have the entire source code published as a book by MIT Press. The code could then be read by OCR programs and voila! While the government can and does control the export of munitions, it does not control the export of books.

Fast forward to this year. The US Department of Justice realized that they could not win a free speech case against Defense Distributed and advised the State Department to come to an agreement with Cody Wilson et al. The State Department took this wise advice, signed the settlement, and US District Court Judge Robert Pitman dismissed the case with prejudice on July 30th. Dismissing the case with prejudice means that neither party can reopen the lawsuit.

As I've written before, the attorneys general of 21 states are now suing in Federal court in Washington State to prohibit Defense Distributed from sharing the code. Judge Robert Lasnik granted them a temporary restraining order. However, that order only applies to the Trump Administration, Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Conn Williamson. As you should know by now, a coalition of four California-based gun rights groups set up www.codeisfreespeech.com and have published the code for the Liberator and other firearms on the Internet. They have had hundreds of thousands of downloads since the site went live despite the efforts of Amazon Web Services and Facebook.

This has always been a free speech case despite what the gun control industry, the anti-civil rights state attorneys general, and the gullible media would have you believe. Printing the source code in a physical book serves to doubly reinforce that.

As Sean Sorrentino notes on Facebook, this book leaves the anti-civil rights attorneys general two arguments:
1. "Banning digital code files that can be used to manufacture and object is fundamentally different than banning a physical book that holds the same exact information."

or

2. "We must also ban this book."
Even anti-gun judges are not going to look too favorably upon either argument and the US Supreme Court certainly will not.

So go buy the book!


Thursday, August 9, 2018

A Relatively Unknown Battle Of WWII


Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons discusses a rather unknown (in the greater scheme of things) battle between the Germans and the French Resistance during WWII. The battle for Vercors was the climatic battle between the Resistance and the Germans which took place in 1944. The battle took place in southeastern France in a region that is had a mix of mountains, high cliffs, and high plateau also known as the Prealps or foothills of the Alps.

Roughly a month after the battle, the American armored forces arrived in Grenoble and the Germans were gone. While the Allies provided some supplies to the Resistance, it really wasn't enough to fight over a combined arms force of glider troops, armor, grenadiers, SS, and turncoat Ukranian anti-partisan forces.

Ian does for the Battle of Vercors what he is known for doing for rare and little known firearms. He explains it in detail and leaves you knowing more than you did before.



Changes Coming To NSSF Leadership


Steve Sanetti has been President and CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation since 2008 and was President of Sturm, Ruger before that. The NSSF has announced a succession plan for when Sanetti retires at the end of 2019. Joseph Bartozzi, Executive VP and General Counsel of Mossberg, will become the new President of NSSF on September 10, 2018 with plans that he assume the CEO role on Sanetti's 2019 retirement.




Bartozzi has been with Mossberg for the last 32 years in a variety of positions. He is also the Chairman of the Board of SAAMI and is a NRA certified RSO. You can read more about Bartozzi in the NSSF's announcment below.

From NSSF:
NEWTOWN, Conn. — The Board of Governors of the National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the trade association to the firearms industry, today announced that O.F. Mossberg & Son’s Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Joseph Bartozzi, will be the organization’s next President. Bartozzi will assume his new duties Sept. 10, 2018.

Joseph BartozziCurrent President and CEO Steve Sanetti will stay on in his CEO capacity through his retirement at the end of 2019, at which point Bartozzi will take over those additional duties.

Bartozzi has spent the majority of his career with Mossberg, joining the company in July 1986. His time with Mossberg included a wide variety of positions, including Quality Engineer, Quality Manager, Product Service Manager, Director of Technical Services, Director of Manufacturing Operations and Corporate Attorney.

Bartozzi currently serves as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI); Treasurer and Member of NSSF’s Board of Governors; Board Member and Chairman of the Governance Committee of the Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports (CAHSS); Committee Member for the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM); and Technical Advisor to the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners (AFTE). He is also certified as a Range Safety Officer (RSO) by the National Rifle Association. Bartozzi was nominated for the 2013 “Person of the Year” by SHOT Business magazine, a nomination reprised in 2014.

In 2015, Bartozzi was admitted to the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court. A member of the Connecticut and Maine State Bar Associations, he holds three professional certifications from the American Society for Quality (ASQ), and he is a member of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME).

“The Board of Governors agreed that Joe’s unique set of experiences and skills will provide NSSF and the firearms industry with the strong leadership needed to ensure we can continue our mission of promoting, protecting and preserving hunting and the shooting sports for generations to come,” said Robert Scott, Vice Chairman of Smith & Wesson and NSSF’s Board of Governors Chairman.

“I have known Joe Bartozzi for more than 20 years, on both personal and professional levels, and I believe he is an exemplary choice for this important position,” said Sanetti. “I know that he will work extremely hard to further our mission for the benefit of our industry and its customers, and I am very much looking forward to working together with Joe during this transitional period in the coming year.”

“I’ve had a tremendous career thus far at Mossberg, one for which I’m most thankful,” said Bartozzi. “As difficult as it is to leave that fine organization after 30 years, it is an honor to now take on a leadership position that will work to successfully conquer the challenges and seize the opportunities before us for the benefit of all our industry members.”

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Maybe I Missed Something - Aren't Newspapers Supposed To Support The First Amendment?


When I grew up in the 60s and 70s in Greensboro, North Carolina, our local newspaper, the Greensboro Daily News, supported free speech. It had editorialized against the Speaker Ban Law which banned anyone with Communist Party connections from speaking on a state university campus. It featured great editorial writers like Jonathan Yardley and Edwin Yoder who went on to win the Pulitzer Prize later in their careers. The editor was Bill Snider who would get crosses burned in his yard for his support of civil rights.

So you can imagine my feeling when I read one of their most recent editorials arguing against free speech in the name of safety. It began:
Imagine a gun you could build in the privacy of your home in much the same way that you assembled model cars and planes as a youth.

A few clicks of a mouse and — voila! — you’re in business.

We have the know-how. We have the technology. And we should have the common sense not to use it.
You know where this is going. The unsigned editorial in the News & Record (combination of the old Daily News and Greesboro Record) was applauding the move by Attorney General Josh Stein (D-NC) to join the lawsuit in Washington State seeking to prevent Defense Distributed from publishing its files of code for 3-D printing and CNC machining.

No matter that these have been on the Internet since at least 2013 and thousands of us have copies of those files on our computers. No matter that it is 100% legal to make your own firearm so long as you are not a prohibited person and it is not a fully automatic firearm. Of course, they didn't tell you that part in the editorial. Nor did they say that it would cheaper and easier to go to Lowe's for parts and Harbor Freight for tools to make your own more substantial firearm.

As I commented on the story on their website:
When a news organization ostensibly dedicated to a free press AND to free speech editorializes against speech it doesn't like - and make no mistake computer code is speech - it sets a horrendous precendent. What speech will you next want to subject to prior restraint? Will it be conservative speech by an African-American like Mark Robinson? Or will it be something said by a pro-life teen?

Where does it stop? You don't have to like what is said and you can argue against the ideas contained in that speech. However, in our somewhat free society it should and must be allowed.
It is a bad precedent for any news organization to argue for censorship of free speech. The Greensboro Daily News and Record editorial staff ought rightly to be ashamed of themselves.

Sunday, August 5, 2018

Proud To Be A "Gundamentalist"


I learned a new word today - gundamentalist. From what I can tell from the Reuters' story, it means those of us who want the NRA to fight harder and compromise less. If that is the case, then I'm a proud gundamentalist.

The Reuters story in question is about the effort to get Adam Kraut elected to the NRA Board of Directors and the efforts of those for and against Adam. You may remember that I both solicited petition signatures and endorsed Adam for the Board. As to why this story is being published months after the NRA Annual Meeting in Dallas is anybody's guess.

From the article:
Adam Kraut, a gun rights lawyer, fell about 4,000 votes short of the 71,000 needed for election, but earned 5,000 more than the previous year, a sign of the growth of the Second Amendment purists within the NRA known to many as “gundamentalists.”

With opinion polls showing U.S. public support for more gun control growing in the wake of mass shootings in recent years, the NRA is facing internal pressure from this little-known force that is demanding that the leadership concede zero ground to gun-control advocates.

Its rise has rattled the NRA leadership and threatens the association’s ability to hold on to moderate supporters and to make compromises that might help fend off tougher gun control measures, according to some of the two dozen gun-rights activists, policy experts and gun-control advocates interviewed for this story.
The article does make mention of the attack on Adam by Marion Hammer and the unofficial but really official backing of an alternative candidate for 76th director.

The article is worth reading and is generally accurate. According to a post by Adam on Facebook he was interviewed multiple times for the article. He has also started receiving hate mail from barely literate anti-gunners.

I will conclude by saying that if Adam Kraut decides to subject himself to the board election process again he has my full support.

Friday, August 3, 2018

Interesting Tidbit: The Staten Island Connection To The Defense Distributed Case


I stumbled across an interesting connection to Staten Island, NY - the forgotten borough - in the case pitting the the anti-gun attorneys general of Washington and a few other states against SAF and Defense Distributed. Both Judge Robert Lasnik who approved the temporary restraining order and attorney Josh Blackman who is representing Defense Distributed grew up in Staten Island.

Blackman is a graduate of the Staten Island Technical High School which was established in 1988. Judge Lasnik graduated from Port Richmond High and is a member of their Hall of Fall.  This 2011 profile of Lasnik in the LA Times discusses his love of Bob Dylan and how it impacted "his soul" with regard to civil rights while growing up on Staten Island.

I find this Staten Island connection interesting because my mother grew up there, my grandfather was the Tax Assessor for the Borough and County of Richmond, and my cousin Tom still lives in my grandparents' house. Moreover, a good part of summer and every Christmas from the time I was born in 1957 through about 1980 was spent on Staten Island.

I also find it intriguing that the person who had his soul impacted by the music of Bob Dylan with regard to civil rights is the one who curtails free speech. Conversely, the attorney who grew up there as it became a conservative enclave in a sea of blue is the one fighting for free speech.

Thursday, August 2, 2018

Amazon Forces CodeIsFreeSpeech.com Off The Air (Its Back Up!)


From the Firearms Policy Coalition's Facebook page:


The comment from FPC:
Check out the takedown demand by Amazon Web Services about our http://codeisfreespeech.com/ initiative. We aren't party or subject to any restraining order. Are tech #oligarchs caving? Democracy dies in darkness -- when Amazon and Jeff Bezos censor speech.
This is what you get when you go to CodeIsFreeSpeech.com:



Please bear in mind that the groups behind CodeIsFreeSpeech.com were NOT prevented by court order from publishing this information and that it is available damn near anywhere you want to search on the internet. I guess when it comes down to it free speech is considered a convenience and not a right when it comes to the wants and needs of billionaire oligarchs.

UPDATE: I have an email into Brandon Combs of the Firearms Policy Coalition for more on the story.  The New York Daily News ran a story about the website saying it was put up by a "group of California gun nuts".  Jennifer Van Laar has more on the story at Redstate.com including comments that FPC et al were moving the files to different servers.

UPDATE II: CodeIsFreeSpeech.com is back online again!

From The Annals Of The Stupid Party


When it comes to protecting the Constitution and the First Amendment right of free speech, I have come to understand that the longer a politician is in Washington, DC the less that they remember their oath of office.

Every US Representative takes the following oath:
I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
While the oath has changed since the first Congress, it has always included a line stating that the elected representative will support the Constitution.

I read yesterday that Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, had sent a letter to President Trump urging action on "3-D printed guns." The letter says in part:

As you know, the State Department recently reached an agreement with Defense Distributed that will allow the Texas-based company to publish blueprints for making 3D-printed guns on its website. This settlement requires the government to change export restrictions that have long been in place to prevent this sensitive technical data from getting into the hands of those overseas that would do us harm.

I am very concerned that the distribution of these blueprints could allow terrorists and international criminal organizations to manufacture guns that can’t be detected at current security checkpoints in airports, schools, and public buildings. These weapons will not be tagged by serial numbers, making them challenging to trace. This also could undermine U.S. laws that seek to stop the flow of weapons into war-torn countries, and other places where regimes use violence to retain power.

It is critical that our laws keep pace with technology. We can’t give terrorists or violent criminals an easier path to obtaining deadly weapons. I stand ready to help support your Administration in efforts to bolster our national security.
The hyperbole in this letter is astounding as is the stupidity. The thought that rebels and terrorists in  "war-torn countries" would want a 3-D printed "plastic gun" when they could have a functioning AK-47 or M-16 made in the Khyber Pass is ridiculous. A quick Google search on "M16 blueprints pdf" returns 377,000 hits.  As to detection, if the nudie scan machine at the airport's TSA checkpoint can detect a slip of paper in my pocket, it would be able to detect a "plastic gun".

It is at this point I should mention that Royce has decided not to run for re-election to his seat in Congress where he has served since 1993. He is also "A-rated" by the NRA.

Lame duck or not, NRA A-rated or not, Ed Royce took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic' and swore that he would bear true faith and allegiance to it. Defending the Constitution includes defending free speech and attempts at prior restraint. Royce for all intents and purposes agrees with trampling on the Constitution when it serves his political interests.

In a just world, Royce would be forced to resign. Within the Beltway, he will be applauded for his "courage" and rewarded with a fat consultancy come January 2019.

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Quote Of The Day


Charles C.W. Cooke, editor of NationalReview.com and recently naturalized American citizen, had this to say about the gun control industry's flipping out about 3-D printing and self-made firearms.

Psychologically, though . . . in one fell swoop, a large number of people have realized that their aspirations for gun control are DOA. They have realized that the technology was well beyond what they had imagined. They have realized that there is nothing magical about firearms, and that there is nothing remarkable about their manufacture. They have realized, that is, that their crusade is effectively over. Thanks to the explosion of technology that is supposed to be on their side, the tide is rushing in without respect to their royal persons. And they don’t like that one bit.

He's absolutely correct. No matter what they say to the media or what they say to gullible judges or say on the floor of Congress about "plastic guns", their real fear is becoming irrelevant and that is why they are fighting this tooth and nail.

Clinton-appointed Judge Ignores Constitution And Issues TRO Against Defense Distributed (Updated)


US District Court Judge Robert Lasnik, a Clinton appointee, held an emergency hearing this afternoon in Washington State concerning a request for a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent Defense Distributed from publishing their files effective tomorrow. The TRO was sought by the Attorneys General of Washington State, Connecticut, Maryland, Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.

From the docket entry:
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Robert S. Lasnik- Dep Clerk: Kerry Simonds; Pla Counsel: Jeff Rupert, Jeff Sprung, Kristin Beneski, Todd Bowers; Def Counsel: Joel Ard, Josh Blackman, Eric Soskin, Tony Coppolino; CR: Nancy Bauer; Time of Hearing: 2:00 p.m.; Courtroom: 15106; Motion Hearing held on 7/31/2018 re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by State of Washington. The Court addresses the parties. After hearing the arguments of counsel, and for reasons stated on the record, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and schedules a hearing for 8/10/2018 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 15106 before Judge Robert S. Lasnik. An Order shall issue. (KERR) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
It is quite questionable whether Judge Lasnik actually had the authority to issue such an order. Moreover, it is also questionable whether the plaintiffs had any standing in this case. Of course, none of this has stopped activist judges determined to stop any and all actions decided by the Trump Administration.

As attorney and law professor Josh Blackman stated in his initial letter to the court:
For reasons we will explain in a supplemental pleading—filed seriatim to accommodate the rapid pace of this litigation—the Plaintiffs cannot succeed on the merits: the State Department’s actions are not subject to judicial review, the duty to notify Congress has not yet been triggered, and the Commodity Jurisdiction procedure simply does not apply. See Exhibit D.

Fortunately, the bedrock principles of the First Amendment make this case much easier. A finding that a constitutional right “‘is either threatened or in fact being impaired’. . . mandates a finding of irreparable injury.”7 And “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”8 Outside of court papers, the Attorney General of Washington bluntly acknowledged the purpose of his litigation: to “make it as difficult as humanly possible to access this information.”9 That statement against interest, by itself, is enough to deny the Temporary Restraining Order in its entirety.

The Plaintiffs can challenge the proposed rule in due time when it is finalized. But they cannot mount a collateral attack in order to censor speech.
Blackman goes on to say in a subsequent letter that the District Court for the Western District of Washington lacks "subject matter jurisdiction."

This ruling illustrates even more poignantly that Brett Kavanaugh needs to be confirmed sooner than later to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy.

UPDATE: Judge Robert Lasnik did issue a seven page opinion to accompany his temporary restraining order. It can be found here. As it is, he bought the argument of Washington State et al in its entirety and ignored the free speech issues completely. The only mention of the First Amendment was with reference to the original complaint filed by Defense Distributed and SAF.

From the ruling:
Plaintiffs have also shown a likelihood of irreparable injury if the downloadable CAD files are posted tomorrow as promised. A side effect of the USML has been to make it more difficult to locate and download instructions for the manufacture of plastic firearms. If an injunction is not issued and the status quo alters at midnight tonight, the proliferation of these firearms will have many of the negative impacts on a state level that the federal government once feared on the international stage. Against this hardship is a delay in lifting regulatory restrictions to which Defense Distributed has been subject for over five years: the balance of hardships and the public interest tip sharply in plaintiffs’ favor.
Declan McCullagh writing at Reason.com notes:
Absent from Lasnik's 7-page ruling is any consideration of the First Amendment implications of censoring information about building firearms. This has been legal since before the United States was founded; Reason's special Burn After Reading issue even includes helpful instructions for constructing a handgun from legally available parts.

Crucially, also absent from the opinion is any recognition of the difficulty of censoring information once it's already been published to the web.
The files, as I call them, Freedom Files, are now widely available on the Internet if not available currently at www.defcad.com.

"You Can't Stop The Signal, Mal"





As I noted earlier this evening, Judge Robert Lasnik issued a temporary restraining order preventing Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Conn Williamson from posting code files for 3-D printing and CNC machining of certain firearms. However, once the genie is out of the bottle, it's out. Or in this case, once the code "escaped" to the Internet, it's out and there is not a damn thing the gun control lobby, the gun prohibitionists, ideologue state attorney generals, or Constitution-ignoring judges can do about it.

Tonight, a new website was established by a coalition of civil and firearms rights groups has been set up and it has a number of files pertaining to 3-D printing and CNC machining on it. The site is called CodeIsFreeSpeech.com. I would encourage everyone to go to that website and download each and every file on it. You may never use the file nor even have a desire to engage in making your own firearm. Nonetheless, the more copies of each and every one of these files that out in the ether of the Internet, the less likely any attempt to stop it will be successful. Think of them as Freedom Files.

The coalition of groups behind this new website issued this release announcing the website - which by the way is up and running - and their intent behind doing so. None of these groups were parties to any of the lawsuits concerning the files of Defense Distributed.

SACRAMENTO, CA (July 31, 2018) — Tonight, the organizations and individuals behind
CodeIsFreeSpeech.com, a new Web site for the publication and sharing of firearm-related speech, including machine code, have issued the following statement:

Our Constitution’s First Amendment secures the right of all people to engage in truthful speech, including by sharing information contained in books, paintings, and files. Indeed, freedom of speech is a bedrock principle of our United States and a cornerstone of our democratic Republic. Through CodeIsFreeSpeech.com, we intend to encourage people to consider new and different aspects of our nation’s marketplace of ideas – even if some government officials disagree with our views or dislike our content – because information is code, code is free speech, and free speech is freedom.

Should any tyrants wish to chill or infringe the rights of the People, we would welcome the opportunity to defend freedom whenever, wherever, and however necessary. Hand-waving and hyperbole are not compelling government interests and censorship is not proper tailoring under the law.

There is no doubt that Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed have inspired countless Americans to exercise their fundamental, individual rights, including through home gunsmithing. Through CodeIsFreeSpeech.com, we hope to promote the collection and dissemination of truthful, non-misleading speech, new and evolving ideas, and the advancement of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

CodeIsFreeSpeech.com is a publicly-available Web site for truthful, non-misleading speech and information that is protected under the United States Constitution. The purpose of this project is to allow people to share knowledge and empower them to exercise their fundamental, individual rights. CodeIsFreeSpeech.com is a project of Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, The Calguns Foundation, California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, and a number of individuals who are passionate about the Constitution and individual liberties.

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, through advocacy, legal action, education, and outreach.

Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (www.calffl.org) is a 501(c)6 nonprofit organization serving its members and the public through direct and grassroots issue advocacy, regulatory input, legal efforts, and education. CAL-FFL’s membership includes firearm dealers, training professionals, shooting ranges, licensed collectors, others who participate in the firearms ecosystem.

Monday, July 30, 2018

Punching Back Twice As Hard


With the settlement in the Defense Distributed and SAF's lawsuit against the State Department, the gun prohibitionists have gone bonkers. They realize, correctly I might add, that the ability to make one's own firearm is the death knell for gun control. Particularly egregious have been the actions of the Attorney General of New Jersey, Gurbir Grewal, and the City Attorney of Los Angeles, Michael Feuer. Both have sent threatening letters to Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed demanding he not put his CNC and 3-D printing files online.

In response, Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit yesterday in US District Court for the Western District of Texas naming both of these individuals in both their official and individual capacities. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against their treats as well as for compensatory damages due to lost advertising fees and attorney fees. I anticipate the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will be added to this suit as they have sought a temporary restraining order to prevent Defense Distributed from making their files available to Pennsylvania residents. As with LA and New Jersey IP addresses, those from Pennsylvania will be blocked for the time being.

The complaint says that the defendants have waged "an ideologically-fueled program of intimidation and harassment" against Defense Distributed. It goes on to say:
Alas these state and municipal officers from across the country cannot veto Defense Distributed’s constitutionally-protected and federally-licensed speech. The Defendants’ threatened legal actions violate the First Amendment speech rights of Defense Distributed and its audience, including SAF’s members; run afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause; infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of those who would make use of the knowledge disseminated by Defense Distributed; constitute a tortious interference with Defense Distributed’s business; and are in any event, federally pre-empted by Congress’s export control laws as well as Defense Distributed’s export license, by which the State Department has explicitly authorized the speech that the Defendants are seeking to silence. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorney fees.
The actions of the officials of New Jersey, Los Angeles, and now Pennsylvania are an assault on the First and Second Amendments. Moreover, the suit alleges their actions interfere in matters where Federal law is supreme including interstate commerce and export control law. It should be noted that this court has already turned down an attempt by a coalition of gun prohibitionists groups to interfere in the settlement between Defense Distributed and the State Department.

The attorneys for Defense Distributed are Alan Gura and Prof. Josh Blackman.

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

The Green Wall Between NC And Tennessee


I had to meet with a couple of clients today in the Tri-Cities area of Tennessee and Virginia. Driving up Interstate 26 and crossing into Tennessee at Sams Gap (Elevation 3,760) it struck me that the border between Tennessee and North Carolina is essentially a green wall of mountains from the south to the north. You can see some of the ridges of my drive on this webpage and in the picture below.

In TN looking NW towards Johnson City
When I cross the state line on Interstate 40 from Haywood County, NC to Cocke County, TN, I have to drive through the Pigeon River gorge. Again, it is a green wall.


It is no wonder that the Appalachian Trail runs along the state line for about 200 miles.

The roughness of the borderlands between the two states got me to thinking about how determined and hardy the first white settlers who crossed from NC to TN must have been. It is no wonder that the state of Tennessee (or the State of Franklin) was settled first by Virginians and not by North Carolinians.
The first settlement in Tennessee; that is, the North Holston settlement in the present county of Sullivan, and the South Holston settlement, on the Watauga, in the present county of Washington, were effected between the treaty of Hard Labor in 1768, and the experimental survey of the Virginia-North Carolina line in 1771, while all the territory so settled was still believed to be a part of Virginia. There are geographical reasons sufficient to explain why the founders of these settlements should have come, in the main, from Virginia rather than from North Carolina. In the first place, the Blue Ridge that separates Virginia from Tennessee numbers among its range of towering hills Mt. Mitchell, the highest peak east of the Rocky Mountains, and was at that time almost impassable.a Even as experienced and able woodsman as James Robertson, when crossing the range in 1770, was lost in the trackless mountains and wandered, without food, for fourteen days; and finally owed his extrication to his good fortune in meeting up with some hunters, who relieved his distress and enabled him to reach his home in safety. On the other hand, the Appalachian Valley was an easy and natural route from Pennsylvania and Virginia to the Southwest. When the watershed changed from the Alleghany Mountains to the Blue Ridge, it left the valley open, like the mouth of a funnel, to empty the population from the eastern watershed in Virginia to the western watershed in North Carolina; whose north line had not yet been located and was still unknown.
Until I read this, I didn't realize that the westward migration into Tennessee actually was more of southwestward migration and not due west from the coastal plains and Piedmont sections of North Carolina. Nonetheless, those early settlers of the Volunteer State, whether from Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, or North Carolina were hardy men and women and I salute them.



Tuesday, July 24, 2018

A Win For Carry In The 9th Circuit


I know you are probably saying, "what the hell? The 9th Circuit?" It is true. Today the 9th Circuit issued its opinion in Young v. State of Hawaii. The 2-1 decision found that the Second Amendment does protect the right to openly carry a firearm in public for self-defense. You will remember in Peruta v. San Diego that the 9th Circuit ruling en banc said there was no constitutional right to carry concealed in public and that the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari on appeal.

From Reuters:
The ruling issued by a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, came a year after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule either way on the carrying of guns in public.

Two of the three 9th Circuit judges voted to reverse a decision by the U.S. District Court in Hawaii that state officials did not infringe on the rights of George Young, the plaintiff, in twice denying him a permit to carry a gun outside.

“We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in Tuesday’s ruling. “But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
 I would be extremely surprised if this decision does not go to an en banc hearing in the 9th Circuit.

I have not had time to read the whole decision but you can read it here.

Monday, July 23, 2018

Tidbit From Judge Kavanaugh's Questionnaire


All nominees for Federal judicial nominations submit answers to a standardized questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee. The questionnaire has answers to questions regarding everything from date of birth and education to significant cases in which the nominee participated.

The questionnaire for Judge Brett Kavanaugh has been received by the Senate Judiciary Committee is now online. Scanning through it I found this tidbit. Question 13 (i) asks the nominee to provide citations to significant opinions that he or she authored on federal or state constitutional issues.

Number one on Judge Kavanaugh's list is his dissent in Heller II (Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Circuit, 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). These citations are not listed in chronological order which would seem to indicate that Judge Kavanaugh considers this dissent one of his most important opinions.

I like that and it speaks well to where he stands on the Second Amendment. It gives me hope that future Second Amendment cases might just get a hearing once Judge Kavanaugh becomes Justice Kavanaugh.

Sunday, July 22, 2018

What Wonderful Dissents In Mance V. Holder (now Sessions)


Mance et al v. Holder et al was a case brought in Texas that sought to overturn the Gun Control Act of 1968's ban on the sale and immediate transfer by FFLs of handguns to out of state purchasers. It was a win at the District Court level when Judge Reed O'Connor of the Northern District of Texas ruled that part of the Gun Control Act unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the government appealed their loss to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and won in January. The plaintiffs including the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms appealed and sought an en banc review.  This was turned down in an 8-7 vote that was released on Friday.

What is most notable about this loss are the dissents from this decision. They make it abundantly clear that there are still some appellate level judges who value the Second Amendment.

Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, had this to say in part:
Simply put, unless the Supreme Court instructs us otherwise, we should apply a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text and history—as required under Heller and McDonald— rather than a balancing test like strict or intermediate scrutiny.
Judge Elrod then ends her dissent with a quote from Judge Brett Kavanaugh's dissent in the Heller II case.

Following Judge Elrod's dissent is one from Judge Don Willett that is, in my opinion, absolutely wonderful. I won't quote the whole thing but I feel like it.
Constitutional scholars have dubbed the Second Amendment “the Rodney Dangerfield of the Bill of Rights.” As Judge Ho relates, it is spurned as peripheral, despite being just as fundamental as the First Amendment. It is snubbed as anachronistic, despite being just as enduring as the Fourth Amendment. It is scorned as fringe, despite being just as enumerated as the other Bill of Rights guarantees.

The Second Amendment is neither second class, nor second rate, nor second tier. The “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” has no need of penumbras or emanations. It’s right there, 27 words enshrined for 227 years.
The core issue in this case is undeniably weighty: Does the federal criminalization of interstate handgun sales offend We the People’s “inherent right of self-defense?” This merits question turns upon a method question: What level of judicial scrutiny applies to laws burdening the Second Amendment? In other words, when the government abridges your individual gun-ownership rights, how generous is the constitutional strike zone?
Judge Willett goes on to note that this case deals with a matter of exceptional importance and that it adds a significant methodological component in how Second Amendment cases should be decided - tiers of scrutiny vs. "text, history, and tradition".

Finally, Judge James Ho takes issue with what he calls a prophylactic ban saying it is not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. He also states that he would have voted to affirm the District Court's judgement. His dissent may also be one of the first times the word "hoplophobia" was used in a decision.
No one disputes that the Government has a compelling interest in preventing dangerous individuals from purchasing handguns. But as the district court held, and the panel properly assumed, handgun restrictions must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Law-abiding Americans should not be conflated with dangerous criminals. Constitutional rights must not give way to hoplophobia.

The ban on interstate handgun sales fails strict scrutiny. After all, a categorical ban is precisely the opposite of a narrowly tailored regulation. It applies to all citizens, not just dangerous persons. Instead of requiring citizens to comply with state law, it forbids them from even trying. Nor has the Government demonstrated why it needs a categorical ban to ensure compliance with state handgun laws. Put simply, the way to require compliance with state handgun laws is to require compliance with state handgun laws.

The Government’s defense of the federal ban—that state handgun laws are too complex to obey—is not just wrong under established precedent, it is troubling for a more fundamental reason. If handgun laws are too complex for law-abiding citizens to follow, the answer is not to impose even more restrictive rules on the American people. The answer is to make the laws easier for all to understand and follow. The Government’s proposed prophylaxis—to protect against the violations of the few, we must burden the constitutional rights of the many—turns the Second Amendment on its head. Our Founders crafted a Constitution to promote the liberty of the individual, not the convenience of the Government.
I would love to see this case come before the Supreme Court with a Justice Kavanaugh on it. I doubt he would need to recuse himself just because his own words were quoted in the dissents.

Friday, July 20, 2018

Will This Be Considered A School Shooting?


It seems any act of violence with a firearm in or near a school is considered a "school shooting". It matters not that the act of violence had nothing to do with the school, happened after hours, or involved no one affiliated with the school as either the shooter or the victim(s).

By now many, if not most, have seen the shootout during a car chase between Las Vegas Metro Police and two suspects in black Ford Expedition. All the major mainstream news channels have shown video from it. The shootout featured one officer shooting at the fleeing suspects through his windshield. This was after the suspects started shooting at the police chasing them. If you are like me, you worried that he would have permanent hearing loss.

You can watch and listen to the chase from the body camera footage of Officer William Umana who is a 17 year veteran of LVMPD.


At the end of the chase you can see the SUV crash into a wall. That wall is part of Howard Hollingsworth Elementary School in Las Vegas.

Thus the question will be do the gun control prohibitionists and their media allies consider this a "school shooting"?  Obviously it isn't but that hasn't stopped them in the past.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

SHOT Show Expanding


The Las Vegas Review-Journal is reporting that the SHOT Show will be expanding their venues in order to allow more exhibitors. While the Sands Expo Center will still be the primary location through 2027, they will expand to the MGM Grand Convention Center in 2020 and to the planned Caesars Forum in 2021.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation recently signed a contract with MGM Resorts International and Caesars Entertainment Corp. to bring the four-day trade show to their future convention spaces, said Chris Dolnack, senior vice president and chief marketing officer for the Connecticut-based foundation.
The SHOT Show has a number of companies on a waiting list for either exhibition space or for the chance to expand their booths. Currently, they have about 1,000 companies waiting for space according to Chris Dolnack who heads the SHOT Show. The amount of space will expand from 650,000 square feet of exhibition space to over 950,000 square feet of space by 2021 when the Caesars Forum comes online.

Scheduled to open in December 2018
Dolnack made the point that the SHOT Show is not just firearms companies but also ammunition, optics, and other manufacturers.
Exhibitor growth is coming from cartridge, equipment and optics manufacturers as well as producers of accessories, he said. More than 400 equipment manufacturers exhibited at the show this year.

“By further diversifying the show and having a larger number of new companies, we will attract retailers every year that may currently come every other year,” Dolnack said by telephone on Tuesday.

“No one ever walks into a show and says ‘show me what is old.’ This will give retailers the opportunity to see several hundred new companies and pick up some more products.”
The Caesars Forum is expected to cost approximately $375 million and open sometime in 2020. The Forum will be located behind LINQ with the Flamingo and Harrahs on either side of it.

Artist rendition from Caesars Entertainment
 I would imagine that the convention industry in Las Vegas is pretty excited by this. If you think about it, you will now include most of the length of the Strip in the SHOT Show. It will be anchored by the Sands Expo on the north and the MGM Grand Convention Center on the south with Caesars Forum occupying a mid-Strip location.

I think this is a great expansion but the amount of walking will increase exponentially. I know I usually walk miles daily at the SHOT Show and this will only increase it. I still wish they'd consider holding it in Orlando or other eastern US location but given the contract with Sands goes through 2027 I can keep wishing.

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Do You Want Sunday Hunting On Game Lands In NC?


The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is conducting an online survey now through the end of August to determine if there is interest in opening up certain public game lands to Sunday hunting. The restriction on Sunday hunting with a firearm had been in place since 1869. However, in 2015, the General Assembly removed this restriction from private land. In 2017, the General Assembly gave public land managers including the Wildlife Resources Commission the authority to implement new options for hunting on public lands including game lands.

My own feelings are that banning Sunday hunting on game lands discriminates against those for whom their Sabbath is a day other than Sunday. This would include Seventh Day Adventists and Jews among others. Furthermore, the average work week is Monday through Friday which leaves Saturday as the only hunting day for many people. Finally, it is in the public interest to encourage the growth of the hunting population for a variety of reasons including not the least of which that hunters support conservation management with their licenses and ammo purchases.

To take the survey, go here. I see no restriction that says it is limited to North Carolinians.