A Heavy Artillery Salvo Has Been Fired On The NRA

Much of what has been said by politicians about the NRA and everything negative that has appeared recently in the media of any sort should be considered the equivalent of sniping. It might take out one or two people but not the whole organization. That was then.

The office of New York Attorney General Letitia James (D-NY) has now fired what I would consider the preparatory barrage in the effort to dissolve the NRA. As someone noted to me, James is under pressure to act and she did on Friday.

From NPR reporting on the NRA Annual Meeting:

Even as the NRA struggled to handle its internal divisions, an external threat emerged this weekend in the form of a new investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

"The Office of New York State Attorney General Letitia James has launched an investigation related to the National Rifle Association (NRA)," a spokesperson for the attorney general told NPR. "As part of this investigation, the Attorney General has issued subpoenas. We will not have further comment at this time."

The NRA has received a document preservation notice in connection with the investigation being undertaken by the New York attorney general, according to a source familiar with the matter.

The NRA responded to the announcement of the investigation by pledging its cooperation.

"The NRA will fully cooperate with any inquiry into its finances," said William A. Brewer III, an outside lawyer for the NRA. "The NRA is prepared for this, and has full confidence in its accounting practices and commitment to good governance."

 This is serious.

It is even more serious because as evidenced by the NRA Meeting of the Members today too many people think just ignoring it will make it go away. The matter is NOT going away.

Compounding this is the NRA's outside counsel who has a checkered past in terms of legal ethics. He was sanctioned in Texas and his appeal of it was upheld by the Texas Appeals Court last year.

If the NRA is going to use an outside counsel, I might suggest getting the very best - and cleanest - New York non-profit law specialist and let him or her handle it. However, given Brewer's apparent hold on the attention of certain NRA executives, I doubt this will happen.

Knife Rights Will Appeal NY "Gravity Knife" Case To SCOTUS

Knife Rights has announced that they will appeal their long-running case against New York over the definition of gravity knives to the Supreme Court. The case centers around common folding knives that have been the target of enforcement by the NYPD and the Manhattan District Attorney. The victims of this unjust definition have usually been trades people and minorities.

From Knife Rights on their plan to appeal:

Knife Rights' NYC Gravity Knife Case Appeal Headed To U.S. Supreme Court

Knife Rights is going forward with an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States of the Second Circuit's decision in favor of New York City and District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. in our long running civil rights lawsuit over their persecution of pocket knife owners.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg last week granted us a 60-day extension until January 13th, 2019, for submission of our petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Court to hear our appeal.

While our lawsuit against New York City and DA Vance centers on their abusive enforcement of New York State's gravity knife ban against owners of common pocket knives, the focus changes somewhat as it moves to the Supreme Court. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court does not generally agree to hear a case just because any particular decision in a case is unjust, irrational or just plain terrible, all of which describe this ruling in spades.

Beyond settling major constitutional issues, the Court will sometimes choose to resolve differences in the application of Federal law among different Federal circuit courts when its decisions are not applied the same throughout the U.S. The Second Circuit panel's ruling regarding our constitutional vagueness claim in this case opens up that possibility with starkly split decisions between it and other circuits, as well as splits between a number of state courts. The writ explains why this case is important and worthy of the Court's limited time.

A Supreme Court decision to hear the case could affect the implementation and enforcement of a wide spectrum of laws to persons throughout the U.S. It is no longer just about these common folding knives. New York City's enforcement of the state's gravity knife law against common folding knives is now the vehicle to answer the bigger constitutional question at issue. Only if the Supreme Court accepts the case do we get to argue the merits of our particular case as it reflects this bigger issue.

It's always long odds for any case to be accepted by the Supreme Court. However, not making the attempt ensures we lose. And, that would allow very bad precedent to be set in stone.

Taking a case to Supreme Court is an expensive proposition, more so for a small organization like Knife Rights. We still need to raise significant funds for this effort if we don't want to hand a victory to New York Governor Cuomo, DA Vance andr New York City Mayor de Blasio

Please consider a year-end TAX-DEDUCTIBLE donation to Knife Rights to support our efforts at the Supreme Court.  Donate at:  www.kniferights.org/donate/foundation

Democrat State Party Platforms - New Mexico To Ohio

I'm pushing to finish this series before early voting starts in most states. In North Carolina, it starts on October 17th. This group of platforms will include those of the Democrat Parties of New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Ohio. It is an interesting mix composed of three top-10 in population states along with two rather small states.

New Mexico

The 2018 platform of the New Mexico Democratic Party is interesting in that it is upfront about the influence that progressive and leftist groups and politicians have had on it. Of the 31 state platforms I've examined so far, it is the only one that has something like this in it. In a beginning section called "Representation", the platform states:

While this 2018 Platform as a whole is new and original, reflecting New Mexico’s uniqueness and a fresh step forward for the party, it is inspired by language from the 2014 and 2016 New Mexico State Platforms, the 2016 DNC platform, the Santa Fe and Eddy county platforms, Progressive Democrats of America- Central NM Chapter, the Unity Reform Commission, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton Campaign promises, and several Obama era Executive Orders. The 2018 Platform borrows language that aligns with the priorities of organizations who are unaffiliated with the Party but who share similar values and goals including: 350.org, New Energy Economy, Food and Water Watch, Common Cause, Frack Free New Mexico, Taos Pueblo, Public Citizen, Move to Amend, Sierra Club...

 Given this background, it is not surprising to see a whole litany of gun control proposals in this platform under "Public Safety".

• We must expand and strengthen background checks for firearm purchases and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws
• Oppose the sale of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines by reinstating and strengthening the assault weapons ban
• Repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that revokes dangerous legal immunity protections for firearm manufacturers and sellers
• Support the enactment and enforcement of aggressive laws against illegal gun trafficking

As a side-note, this section also has quite a bit about nuclear arms contained within it including challenging the unilateral authority of the President to use nuclear weapons.


New York

New York is home to the NY SAFE Act which was rammed through the legislature in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown murders. Thus, the platform of the New York State Democratic Committee is more of a patting on the back for what they've done than a what we intend to do in the future. The state's gun control laws are already draconian so there is little more that could be added.

In the section of their webpage entitled What We Stand For devoted to firearms they say:

Reducing Gun Violence

When the Sandy Hook tragedy happened, New York Democrats took common-sense action, requiring universal background checks on gun purchases, increasing penalties for people who use illegal guns, setting a penalty of life in prison without parole for anyone who murders a first responder, and establishing the toughest assault weapons ban in the country.

North Carolina

As a lifelong North Carolinian and former Democrat, I'm not surprised by what I've read in the North Carolina Democratic Party's platform. The party that was composed of moderate and conservative Democrats has been fully taken over by the left wing. That trend started in 1972 with the McGovern campaign and went into high gear in the 90s and early 2000s. Some of this was indigenous and a good bit was due to in-migration from the Northeast.

In the section entitled Security and Law Enforcement, it states with regard to firearms:

GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION As Democrats we recognize that there is a serious issue with gun violence in our country, yet we also respect the Constitution’s Second Amendment. We believe the promotion of standards to curtail gun violence is not inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Among the measures we support are strengthening background checks, closing loopholes such as the well-known “gun show loophole,” holding gun manufacturers accountable through repeal of their special immunity status, and keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. We believe that responsible gun owners should not be punished for the wrongdoing of those who seek to do harm, but that we must also take proactive measures to slow and eventually eliminate this epidemic in our country.

Given that the General Assembly no longer really has any pro-gun Democrats, I look at their "respect" for the Second Amendment as a joke. In an earlier section of the platform they state:

We support the fundamental rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and assembly 2016 North Carolina Democratic Party Platform  and the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. We oppose efforts to limit or eliminate these fundamental constitutional rights.

 They are big on the freedom of speech and assembly parts as evidenced by the "Moral Monday" protests but are paying lipservice to the taking of property without due process of law. The red flag law proposed by Rep. Marcia Morey (D-Durham) provides for ex parte orders taking a person's firearms. This means a judge issues an order based upon what a family or household member or LEO says without the person whose guns are being taken being involved in the hearing. It is only days later that the person who is the subject of the order gets to have their day in court.


North Dakota

North Dakota Democrats are moving right along with the rest of the national Democrats in their support of gun control including age discrimination, training requirements for a first time purchase, waiting periods, and universal background checks. The NPL in the name of the North Dakota party is the Non Partisan League which merged with the Democrats back in the 1950s.

From their platform adopted March 17. 2018:

Firearm Safety – The Dem-NPL Party supports common sense regulations regarding the safe use of firearms for North Dakotans.

1. The Dem-NPL supports legislation to close the loophole stating that it’s legal to sell and buy modification kits that can convert semi-automatic weapons into automatic ones.
2. The Dem-NPL supports requiring North Dakota unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows, and private gun dealers to conduct the same instant background checks that licensed dealers need to conduct, using the National Criminal Instant Background Check System.
3. The Dem-NPL Supports school Resource Officers who are trained in law enforcement, and in adolescent behavior.
4. The Dem-NPL supports secure processes for students and adults to anonymously report suspected gun violence behavior, along with organized community forums where groups can share ideas, parents and kids can learn where to turn for help, and training is provided in the community to learn the signs of potential danger, and provides information on how to seek out interventions.
5. The Dem-NPL supports a mandatory Certified Firearm safety training for any first time purchaser of a firearm.
6. The Dem-NPL supports increasing the age to purchase a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21, and require a 3-day waiting period to purchase.

I presume that Item 1 refers to bump fire stocks as any other kit or sear would come under the National Firearms Act. Likewise, there is no such thing as a private gun dealer. You either are a licensed dealer or you are a private individual selling or trading your personally owned firearms on occasion but not as a business. This is an indication to me that whoever wrote this was unfamiliar with federal firearms law.


Ohio

The Ohio Democrats have adopted the national DNC platform as their own and have not written a separate Ohio-specific platform. Therefore, to get an idea of what Ohio Democrats will do let's look at the platforms or issue statements of Richard Cordray who is their candidate for governor and of Steve Dettelbach who is their candidate for attorney general. These seem to me to be the two major offices impacting firearms rights in the Buckeye State.

Cordray says his administration (if elected) would do the following:

1. Require universal background checks
2. Ban the sale of "high-capacity" magazines and bump stocks
3. Raise the age to purchase any firearm to 21
4. Extreme violence protection orders
5. Appoint a "gun violence protection czar"
6. Create "gun violence task forces"

Bear in mind that Cordray was Sen. Elizabeth Warren's handpicked choice to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which should show where he aligns politically.

Dettelbach doesn't mention firearms, gun control, or even "gun safety" on his campaign website. However, in an interview with WOSU Public Media, he says he is for the following:

• Taking guns away from domestic violence offenders
• Restricting guns for people who have an established record of serious mental health problems
• Reinstating the assault-style weapons ban
• Universal background checks

Moreover, in the state where the FASTER program began, he says he is against arming teachers and administrators regardless of whether they were former military or law enforcement officers. He says, "I think this is a politician’s plan quite frankly I mean it doesn’t protect people in any meaningful way it’s more than a day late and much more than a dollar short." I guess he is ignorant of the studies that have shown the speed of response is key to saving and protecting students.

ACLU Finally Stepping Up In NY And California

The state branches of the American Civil Liberties Union in New York and California appear to be stepping up to oppose measures aimed at the gun culture.

First, in California. The ACLU is joining with groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition to oppose AB 1968 which mandates a lifetime ban on firearm ownership by anyone who has been involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility more than once in one year.

In a letter to Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) who is the author of the bill, they said:

“This bill stigmatizes people with a history of mental health issues, and perpetuates the harmful and false stereotype that such people are inherently violent and dangerous."

As AWR Hawkins notes in an article in Breitbart, the bill's approach is essentially the same as that was used to deny Social Security recipients that needed help managing their monies. That is, it didn't differentiate between non-violent and violent behavior and lumped them all together.

Duke University psychiatrist and behavior health professor Jeffrey Swanson had an op-ed in the Washington Post at the time criticizing this lumping together. He said then, "“the vast majority of mentally ill individuals pose no threat to themselves nor to others. Yet the ban stigmatized a broad swath of the mentally ill by treating them as a threat.

Now on to New York where the ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting the NRA in their lawsuit against Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY). To me, this is the more important of the two because the ACLU's defense of the NRA rightly points out the danger of using the administrative state against any organization that is out of favor at the time with a politician.

Reason.com describes the efforts of the Cuomo administration to deny the NRA the ability to obtain banking and insurance coverages.

A timeline prepared by the NRA suggests the intimidation campaign began last fall. The anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety met with New York officials in September 2017; a month later the Department of Financial Services began an investigation that started with a company called Lockton, which administered the NRA-branded personal liability insurance program known as Carry Guard. Despite a 20-year relationship, Lockton responded by abruptly ditching the NRA as a customer in February; so did Chubb and Lloyd's.

Emboldened by this initial success, Maria Vullo, head of the state's Department of Financial Services, sent a pair of ominous letters to all banks, financial institutions, and insurers licensed to do business in New York. Vullo warned companies to sever ties with pro-Second Amendment groups that "promote guns and lead to senseless violence" and instead heed "the voices of the passionate, courageous, and articulate young people" calling for more restrictions on firearms. All companies receiving the letter, she advised, should "review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, and to take prompt actions to managing these risks and promote public health and safety."

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo underlined the regulatory threat in a tweet the next day: "The NRA is an extremist organization. I urge companies in New York State to revisit any ties they have to the NRA and consider their reputations, and responsibility to the public.'"

As a result of those not-very-veiled threats, the NRA says, multiple banks withdrew bids to provide basic depository services. The NRA is also worried about being able to continue producing its NRA TV channel, with hosts including Dana Loesch and Cam Edwards, unless it can obtain normal media liability insurance.

David Cole, the ACLU Legal Director, explained in a blog post why they filed their amicus brief even though they still cling to a collective right view of the Second Amendment.

In the ACLU’s view, targeting a nonprofit advocacy group and seeking to deny it financial services because it promotes a lawful activity (the use of guns) violates the First Amendment. Because we believe the governor’s actions, as alleged, threaten the First Amendment rights of all advocacy organizations, the ACLU on Friday filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the NRA’s right to have its day in court.

His blog post points out that while it may be the NRA that is targeted today, it could be a liberal group that is being targeted tomorrow for "disapproved speech" and that violates the First Amendment.

The amicus brief opposes NY's motion to dismiss the NRA's case. Their argument centers on two major points. First, that the court must consider all circumstances to determine whether or not Cuomo and company threatened adverse actions against the NRA's banks and insurers. In essence, it urges the court to look beyond the "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" wording of the press releases and guidance letters and look to the substance of what was being communicated. That is, if you do business with the NRA we will consider it a reputational risk and make it hard for you to do any business in New York State.

The second argument in the amicus brief is that Cuomo and the other defendants misstated the requirements for a First Amendment claim. The ACLU says the requirements to make a First Amendment claim are rather straightforward and the NRA met the standard. However, the defendants (Cuomo and company) have tried to add some "non-existent requirements on to the test." The brief then takes these apart one after another and finds they have no merit. They conclude that the NRA's lawsuit should not be dismissed and that the case should go forward.

While I don't agree with the ACLU on a lot of things and certainly not their incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment, I do applaud their efforts in both California and New York State. It isn the latter case where I think they've really stepped up in their protection of constitutional rights.

Knife Law Reform In New York Must Wait Another Year

Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) ignored the overwhelming support in both houses of the New York Assembly for reform of New York's gravity knife law and vetoed the bill today. The bill had the support of groups such as the NAACP and the ACLU who normally would not support a pro-2A bill. In this case, they saw the harm that the existing law caused for the average New Yorker.

I guess I could make a joke about Cuomo getting confused on what he was supposed to do after indulging in one too many of girlfriend Sandra Lee's cocktails but what he did was give the average New Yorker the finger.

Knife Rights has the full story below.

Cuomo Sides with NYC Pols - Gives Finger to the People 

Waiting until the last possible moment, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has vetoed Knife Rights' Gravity Knife and Switchblade Reform Bill, effectively giving the finger to New York's legislature that overwhelmingly passed the bill and the large coalition of organizations, many part of his own constituency, which supported the bill. Despite the thousands who called and emailed the Governor to sign the bill, and thanks very much for those who did so, he sided with the disingenuous arguments made by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, NYPD Commissioner James O'Neill and District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., virtually the only ones who opposed the bill. In vetoing this bill he has potentially doomed thousands more to arrest and prosecution for carrying common pocket knives that won't get someone arrested virtually anywhere except in New York City.

Despite Cuomo's avowed commitment to criminal justice reform in New York, this veto clearly shows the lie to that claim.

Next year's session of the New York Legislature is almost upon us and we'll be back again working to fix the state's Gravity Knife law to prevent these arrests and prosecutions. This bill passed with such large majorities in both houses of the legislature that an override of a veto is theoretically possible.

Meanwhile, our five-year-old Federal civil rights lawsuit over the constitutionality of New York City's "wrist flick" test awaits a decision which could settle the issue for certain.

Knife Rights Needs Our Help In New York

New York City is not only one of the most anti-gun jurisdictions in the country but also one of the most anti-knife. Their prosecutions of honest citizens for "gravity" knives is over the top. There is a bill in the New York Senate that would correct many of these abuses by clearly defining both switchblades and gravity knives. A correct definition would eliminate prosecutions for having your average lock-blade knife.

Knife Rights is urging that anyone who lives, works, or merely visits New York to contact Sen. John Flanagan who chairs the Senate Rules Committee and ask him to schedule a vote on S6483A.

Their alert is below:

New York URGENT ACTION ALERT 

CALL or EMAIL TODAY to Schedule S6483A for a Vote

 

The next hurdle to getting Knife Rights' New York Knife Law Reform bill (S6483A) passed to end the widespread persecution of those carrying pocket knives in New York City is to get the Senate Rules Committee to pass the bill so it can be voted on by the full Senate.

If you live, work or travel in New York and New York City, please CALL or EMAIL the Chairman of the Rules Committee, Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan, TODAY and simply deliver the message that you are "calling/writing to respectfully request that Leader Flanagan please schedule S6483A for a vote" and then thank him. Please be POLITE and RESPECTFUL. 

CALL Majority Leader Flanagan TODAY at: 

518-455-2071

EMAIL Majority Leader Flanagan TODAY at: flanagan@nysenate.gov

Again, please be POLITE and RESPECTFUL, just deliver the message: "I am calling/writing to respectfully request that Leader Flanagan please schedule S6483A for a vote," and then thank him. That's it, keep it short and simple and above all BE POLITE and RESPECTFUL.

If Emailing, use the SUBJECT: Please Schedule S6483A for Senate Vote

If you call, they may ask you the city and state where you live, for their call record. If you email, include your city and state. In either case, if you live out-of-state, explain how you work in, or travel to, New York / New York City.

S6483A adds clarifying bias-towards closure exclusions to the state switchblade and gravity knife definitions, similar to that included in the revision to the Federal Switchblade Act that Knife Rights helped pass in 2009. This clarifying exclusion should prevent the bogus Gravity Knife arrests and prosecutions of honest law-abiding individuals in New York City who are carrying common folding knives, tools that are legal to carry everywhere else in the U.S.

Neither Gravity Knives nor Switchblades have a bias towards closure found in common folding knives to keep the blade safely closed in the pocket. Only in New York City has the NYPD and District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. abused the state's gravity knife law to prosecute those carrying simple pocket knives by claiming they are illegal Gravity Knives.

The City's Village Voice newspaper found two years ago that there had been as many as 60,000 gravity-knife prosecutions over the past decade! You can read the Village Voice article at: http://bit.ly/1MiJbvv

Hundreds of innocent pocket knife carriers are being arrested every week!

Meanwhile, our Federal Civil Rights lawsuit against New York City and District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. over these unconstitutional arrests and prosecutions continues with a trial date now scheduled for June 16, which will be just over five years since the lawsuit was filed. The quicker solution is to get S6483A passed.

We Aren't The Suppliers; Thieves Are The Suppliers

Willie Dixie, Jr. is the Special Agent in Charge of the BATFE's Charlotte Field Division. He was interviewed earlier this week by WCNC - NBC Charlotte regarding gun thefts in North and South Carolina.

"We are the supplier of those firearms that end up in the northern cities," Wayne Dixie, Jr. said.

Last year there were 256 guns stolen in South Carolina that ended up in just New York. Another 279 from North Carolina ended up there. And those numbers have been pretty steady over the last five years.

It's not just stolen guns from here that make their way up North, others are bought here legally and make the same trek.

"North and South Carolina are source states…a lot of times people from the North will come down here and purchase firearms here because of lax gun laws."

Sorry SAC Dixie, "we" aren't the suppliers. Thieves and criminal organizations are the suppliers. When examining the BATFE's own gun trace data for New York for 2014, North and South Carolina are not even the top source states. That honor goes to New York itself with five times as many traced guns as either North or South Carolina.

Also, what the hell do you mean by "lax gun laws"? Do you mean that because North Carolina has a greater appreciation for the Constitution (to which you took an oath) that we are "lax"?

Straw purchases are illegal whether done in downtown Charlotte or downtown Manhattan. Moreover, even private sales of handguns in North Carolina require either a pistol purchase permit or a concealed handgun permit to be legal. That pistol purchase permit system, by the way, was instituted by Democrats to keep African-Americans like yourself disarmed.

Your office conveniently proclaims when they have been involved in a conviction of any sort. Despite your so-called surge of FFL inspections started in 2014, I see only one reported set of convictions for either firearms theft or trafficking in the last two years. Indeed, more people were convicted of smuggling cigarettes than firearms if your releases are any indication.

No dealer ever wants to see firearms from his or her store used in a crime. Furthermore, none of them want to see firearms stolen from their store. Gun stores go to great lengths to protect their inventory and, unless I am mistaken, this is part of your inspection process.

You can see SAC Dixie's statements below in his interview with Michelee Boudin of WCNC.

Does Senator Avella Think New Yorkers Are Going To Go All Hutu Or Something?

I read the most ridiculous story in the New York Daily News yesterday. New York State Sen. Tony Avella (D-Queens) wants to ban the sale and possession of machetes in New York. The move is in response to a murder in July in which a machete was used as the murder weapon.

The sale of machetes should be outlawed after several recent attacks, a Queens pol said Wednesday.

State Sen. Tony Avella plans to introduce a bill to ban the possession of the scary blades in New York.

“The fact that anyone can easily purchase this potentially lethal tool is just crazy,” he said.

Smaller knives such as switchblades and gravity knives are already banned and listed as deadly weapons under state law, but machetes are considered the same as butcher knives.

Avella's bill, Senate Bill 3199-2015,  would add machetes to the list of deadly weapons. This puts them in the same category as firearms, switchblades, gravity knives, brass knuckles, and the "pilum ballistic knife". He claims in the justification that it will allow those who use a machete as a weapon will be charged appropriately. Does it really make that much difference if a person uses a "deadly weapon" as opposed to a "dangerous weapon" when they commit a crime?

According to the Daily News this legislation would mean mere possession of a machete could land you in prison for a year.

It is obvious that Sen. Avella is a nanny stater playing to the media with this proposal. Given New York State's ethnic diversity I'm a bit surprised that he didn't make reference to Rwanda and the desire to avoid a genocide as machetes were the weapon of choice of the Hutu against the Tutsi. Or, better yet, to give this a New York context, the Sharks versus the Jets a'la West Side Story. Just substitute machete for switchblade.

Machetes are a tool. I have many of them in various forms, shapes, and sizes. My favorite is one that I inherited from my dad. It is a bolo style machete that I think he picked up in the Caribbean during WWII when he served in the Caribbean Defense Command. The sheath is nicely tooled leather with a pistol belt hook attachment.

This bill is a joke just like its sponsor. Both should be consigned to the dustbin of history. Whether that happens or not only time and public disgust will tell.

Remington Looking At Georgia?

Georgia is home to both Glock and Daniel Defense. It is also being considered by Beretta who was reported to have scouted a central Georgia location earlier this year. Now it appears that Georgia officials are working hard to convince Remington Arms to relocate from Ilion, New York to their state.

State Sen. Burt Jone (R-Jackson) discussed this in a Q&A session with the Butts County Partners for Smart Growth this past week. Butts County is midway between Atlanta and Macon along Interstate 75.

Jones, R-Jackson, said that while Beretta has narrowed its focus to two Georgia locations — not in Butts County — the Remington Arms Company is considering relocating from New York, where its Ilion Firearms Plant and Custom Shop is located. He said state officials are working to try to bring the plant to Georgia and he’s hoping to land it in his district, possibly his home county.

Jones discussed the possibility during a question-and-answer session after his remarks Thursday to the group Partners for Smart Growth.

Remington, he said, “is looking to leave New York due to taxes, due to the unions, due to all the factors that run businesses away from your community, and they have zeroed in on the state of Georgia as being one of the states that they’re considering.”

He said he is working to get Butts County and District 25 on a list of “potential landing spots” for Remington.

“It could mean literally thousands of jobs for a community, wherever it might land,” Jones said.

It may only be wishful thinking on the part of the state of Georgia and Sen. Jones that Remington would leave New York. However, it is a fact that the NY SAFE Act has cost that state jobs. American Tactical and Kahr Arms are relocating out of state and others have decided any expansions will be made in outside of New York.

UPDATE: Tom at Fill Yer Hands reminded me that Heckler & Koch has operations down in Columbus, Georgia.


H/T Tim Glance

NRA News Report On The NY SAFE Act

Ginny Simone of NRA News has been doing a series of in-depth special reports on various issues that impact gun owners. Her latest is a report on the New York SAFE Act and the arrest of Greg Dean. Mr. Dean was arrested for violating the NY SAFE Act when a State Policeman inspected the magazine of  his .40 S&W pistol. The magazine contained 9 rounds or two too many under the NY Safe Act.

Mr. Dean's arrest has gotten some notice. What hasn't gotten as much notice was Columbia County District Attorney Paul Czajka's decision not to prosecute the case.

This Doesn't Make Sense To Me

The Wall Street Journal is reporting this morning that Remington Arms is planning to invest $20 million in an upgrade to its Ilion, New York plant. The news comes from local politicians who had a meeting on Wednesday with the company.

Local media outlets report that three senators and three Assembly members met with Remington officials on Wednesday to discuss what they could do to ensure the company keeps its plant in the Herkimer County village of Ilion, where Remington employs about 1,200 people.

The report goes on to say that Remington themselves has no comment on the news.

Local news station WKTV Utica has more on the story. The story of the meeting of the New York legislators with senior officials from Remington Arms was the lead story on their evening broadcast.




The senior officials involved were Otto Weigl, senior vice president government and legislative affairs, Jonathan Sprole, general counsel, and Paul Merz, Ilion plant manager. This meeting is balanced out by a meeting between Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and Freedom Group CEO George Kollitides in Austin, Texas. Perry tweeted a picture of himself with Kollitides while holding what appears to be a Remington Defense AR-15 and wearing a Remington jacket on March 1st.

As I said in the headline, it doesn't make sense for Remington to invest money in plant and equipment upgrades to the Ilion plant given the NY SAFE law and the anti-gun fervor of New York's Gov. Andrew Cuomo. That said, it could be used as a bargaining chip with the industrial and economic development teams of other states that are seeking to have the plant move to their state.

The reality is that it isn't easy to relocate a plant of the size of the Remington plant in Ilion. While building a new plant in another state or moving the machinery wouldn't be hard,  it would be hard to replicate the workforce. I could see Remington moving the AR, pistol, and semi-auto rifle production out of that plant and leaving the shotgun and bolt-action rifle manufacturing there. In a way that would make sense as the pistol production could be shifted to the Para USA plant in North Carolina and the AR and other semi-auto production could go to a new plant anywhere.

As with all of these things, we'll see.

Gun Permits: OK for Trump But Not For You

I'm sure that People magazine didn't mean to make the case about the inequities in New York's "may issue" concealed carry laws - but they did.

Among the big names licensed to pack heat: Marc Anthony, Robert De Niro, Donald Trump, and his son, Donald Jr., Mets third baseman David Wright, and Martha Stewart's daughter, radio host Alexis Stewart.

Anthony, 42, has a special permit that allows him to carry a loaded weapon in the city, and has a similar permit for Nassau County, where he and Jennifer Lopez have a $2 million home in Brookville.

The article says that celebrities are feeling "vulnerable" due to the ease with which personal information can be found on-line. Excuse me if I don't feel that sympathetic to these poor celebrities. The ordinary New Yorker doesn't employ a publicist to push stories about them in the media and on the Internet. If they are feeling "vulnerable" then celebrities should look at their own behavior.

As to the average New Yorker, they can just forget it. So what if they are vulnerable to thugs, rapists, and murderers, they aren't celebrities so they can just suck it up and deal with their fears.

In Their Own Words - Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov

Over the last few years we have come to know and respect the courage and tenacity of Dick Heller and Otis McDonald (and their fellow plaintiffs) as they fought the District of Columbia and Chicago respectively. We learned that Mr. Heller was an armed security guard trusted to protect the court buildings in DC but not trusted to have a handgun in his home to protect he and his family. Likewise, we came to know Mr. McDonald, a courageous African-American gentleman with a quiet dignity, who just wanted to protect his family with a handgun after being threatened by the drug dealers targeting his neighborhood.

But what do we know about the plaintiffs in the case of Kachalsky et al v. Cacace et al - the Westchester, New York case that challenges New York's pistol permit law? If you depended upon the media or "authorized journalists" as David Codrea calls them, nothing. Absolutely nothing. It is as if post-McDonald the media considers gun rights old news not worthy of their time and talent.

Doing a Google search on Alan Kachalsky, I find that he is an attorney in private practice in Westchester County. Going to Martindale-Hubbell (law directory), I can learn that he is a graduate of New York Law School and that he has been licensed to practice since 1981.

Likewise, doing a similar search for Christina Nikolov, I find that she is the Director of Research for ChartWatchCentral, a web-based service offering technical analysis and research on stocks to investors. I also found out that she is a 1LT in the Civil Air Patrol, a licensed single and multi-engine commercial pilot, and a certified flight instructor.

This is all good information and it tells us that they are solid citizens and accomplished in their professions. But it doesn't tell the how and the why of the lawsuit nor does it tell us what they hope to change with their lawsuit (other than being granted their permits). Because I was curious, I contacted them by email and sent them a set of questions. I got lucky. They were gracious enough to answer my questions. The questions and each of their unedited responses are below.

First, why did you become a plaintiff in this case? What was it that convinced you to take a stand against those who denied you a pistol permit for failing to show "good cause"?

Alan Kachalsky

My story is that for various reasons, I decided a few years ago that it was time to get a pistol permit. I picked up an application in Westchester County, and filled it out as best as I could. I saw the choices for target this, and business carry, and full carry. My purpose was for self-defense, so I applied for a concealed carry permit (only). I filled out the ‘Attachment -full carry’ form which asked me to ‘list all factors which I believe to be relevant to establish proper cause for the issuance of a firearm license for the purpose of full carry.’

I responded:

***********The factors which establish proper cause for the issuance to myself of a Full Carry pistol Permit are: 1) The Second Amendment of the Constitution grants citizens the right to bear arms. As a citizen, I am therefore entitled to exercise my Constitutional right to bear arms. I believe that Constitutional right entitles me to the permit without further the need to establish “proper cause.”

If the issuing agency for some reason requires more than this, then I will cite the fact that we live in a world sporadic random violence might at any moment place one in a position where one needs to defend oneself or possibly others, e.g. random shootings in universities (Virginia Tech), post offices, airline check-in counters, malls, road rage, as well as the run-of-the-mill street muggings and robberies. While the odds of finding oneself in a Virginia Tech type situation are remote, one must reflect that had there been even one armed person, the death toll might have been considerably less than 31 dead. While one never knows what one might do in such situations, it is my belief that it is better to have the option to defend oneself (and others) than not to have the option. As a pilot and a skydiver, I have been trained to handle emergencies, and I have actually handled several emergencies, so it is unlikely that I will respond in a dangerous manner. *********

I submitted the application along with the Affidavits, etc., and crossed my fingers hoping to get it approved.

Much to my disappointment, many months later, I received the decision denying my application on the grounds that I did not demonstrate a need for self-protection beyond that of the general public.

Although I had heard that it was quite difficult to get a carry permit, I felt it was my Constitutional right, and it annoyed me that some bureaucrat had the right to sit and decide whether I demonstrated ‘a need for self-protection. . .” What does that mean anyway? And who gave this bureaucrat the right to sit in judgment and say, no, you don’t have a need . . .

Christina Nikolov

My 2nd Amendment rights were being violated by Westchester County. Whenever I have the opportunity or means to do so, I always take a stand for what I believe in. For example, I once fought a traffic ticket all the way to the NY Appellate Court, when I knew I did nothing wrong, and won without an attorney to assist me, since no lawyers wanted to help.

How did you become a plaintiff in this case? Were you recruited or did you contact the Second Amendment Foundation or Mr. Gura?

Alan

Sorry, we can’t talk about that.

Christina

I contacted Mr. Gura. Prior to this litigation, I already knew Alan Kachalsky, who was also denied for his permit. He already had this litigation in the works with Mr. Gura. I was not recruited and never contacted the 2nd Amendment Foundation.

What is your background with firearms (hunting/target shooting/self-defense)? Are you a longtime shooter or relatively new to guns?

Alan

My background is that I shot rifles when I was a kid in Summer Camp for about three summers. I went to a shooting range once when a friend invited me, and perhaps three or four times over the years when friends had pistols.

Christina

I have been a gun owner for almost 5 years and only shoot paper targets. I do not go hunting. I have taken three 6 hour firearm courses, two of which were in Florida. Each of the Florida courses involved 400+ rounds of live fire, while the New York course does not involve any gun firing. Actually, in NY you cannot even touch a real gun during your six hours of training because it is against the law, so I have more practical experience taking courses in Florida than anyone who has ever taken the firearm course required to be licensed in NY.

What has been your experience since the lawsuit was filed? Have you been contacted by the media? Have friends or colleagues who know of the suit asked you about it? If so, what has been their reaction?

Alan

Nope. No contact from the media. Friends and family are supportive.

Christina

I have not been contacted by the media yet. Very few people have said anything to me about the lawsuit and as a matter of fact, many people I have mentioned the lawsuit to were not even aware of it. Reactions have been unanimously positive. Everyone I mentioned this to wished me well with the case.

Finally, in addition to being granted your permit, what would you like to see come out of this lawsuit?

Alan

The outcome I am looking for would be precisely the relief requested in the Complaint - that carry permits are granted to law-abiding citizens who meet the criteria of New York Penal Code § 400.00:

(1), in that each (a) is over 21 years old, (b) of good moral character, (c) has never been convicted of a felony or serious crime, (d) has never been mentally ill or confined to any institution, (e) has not had a license revoked or been the subject of a family court order, (f) has completed a firearms safety course, and (g) should not be denied a permit other than for any good cause.

Christina

What I wish to see come of this lawsuit is first of all, for me to obtain my unrestricted carry permit. But I would also like to see the law changed, to allow responsible people to own and carry firearms if they want to and are competent. NY needs to change its backwards way of looking at things and realize that criminals are committing crimes and that restricting gun ownership of people who obey the law only helps the criminals, since the criminals will always find ways to obtain firearms regardless of how strict the gun laws are.

I want to thank both Alan and Christina for taking the time to answer my questions so fully. I think we all owe them a debt of gratitude even if we live in an area where gun rights are respected and  "shall issue" concealed carry permits are the norm.

You can read the details of the lawsuit including the complaint in my earlier blog post here.