CCRKBA On The 49ers

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, takes the 49ers to task for the half million dollar donation to anti-gun efforts. In doing so, he weaves in more football lingo than your average ESPN analyst in an amusing takedown of the hapless 49ers.

In other words, Alan is in the red zone when he steps under center, takes the snap, surveys the defense, and rifles a touchdown pass for the winning score.

From CCRKBA:

BELLEVUE, WA – While the San Francisco 49ers racked up their eighth consecutive defeat over the weekend, the team’s announcement last week that it is contributing $500,000 to gun control efforts just might seal their fate as losers on a different level in the eyes of millions of American gun owners, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“We’re throwing a flag on this play,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “After weeks of protests at various NFL games that have seen players disrespect the National Anthem, resulting in sliding television ratings and fan disapproval, giving a half-million dollars to people who attack gun rights is worse than a clipping penalty.

“The money is earmarked to support legislation in conflict with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” he added. “First the NFL disrespects the National Anthem, and now they disrespect our constitution.”

According to a report on ESPN, the money will also be used to support legislation that not only bans “bump stocks” but will also be aimed at prohibiting “silencers and armor piercing bullets.”

“The Hearing Protection Act might have a chance in Congress,” Gottlieb noted, “but for the Niners to give that kind of money to the opposition amounts to pass interference, and it should cost them more than 15 yards.

“Halfway into the season,” he continued, “San Francisco hasn’t put a single victory on the scoreboard. Now they’ve essentially insulted millions of NFL fans by helping bankroll the gun control effort. That’s like punting on a first down.”

“Professional football is supposed to be a sporting event that entertains and thrills fans,” Gottlieb observed, “not help finance efforts to erode their constitutional rights. Politics is threatening to ruin the games.

“By making this pledge to gun control,” he concluded, “the Niners are definitely off sides.”

A Couple Of Items From The NASGW Show

The National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers holds an annual expo and meeting every Fall. NASGW is the organization for the wholesalers within the shooting and hunting industry. Their expo often provides a sneak peak at new firearms that will be released to dealers in the near future.

Davidson's is one of the larger wholesalers in the firearms industry. They are headquartered in Prescott, Arizona. They used to be in Greensboro, North Carolina and would open their warehouse for retail sales before Christmas. I remember going to their sales a time or two in the 70s and early 80s.

Davidson's Gallery of Guns has posted a number of videos of new items on their YouTube page.

Here are a couple of items that caught my eye:







I hope Walther and Mossberg will have both of these firearms available at the SHOT Show's Industry Day at the Range. I think a 20 gauge Shockwave would be easier on the arm than the 12 gauge version.

Late Friday News No. 2 - From Firearms Policy Coalition

A coalition of firearms and civil rights groups filed an amicus brief supporting the writ of certiorari by the petitioners in Silvester et al v. Becerra. The lead organization in the brief is the Firearms Policy Coalition which was joined in the brief by the Firearms Policy Foundation, the Madison Foundation, and Gunowners of California.

From FPC:

4 Gun Rights Groups Submit to Supreme Court Urging Review of Awful 9th Circuit Ruling that Upheld 10-Day Waiting Period

WASHINGTON, D.C. (October 26, 2017) — Today, counsel for civil rights advocacy organizations Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), Madison Society Foundation (MSF) and Gun Owners of California (GOC) filed a “friends of the court” brief with the U.S. Supreme Court encouraging their grant of review of a 9th Circuit ruling that upheld the state’s 10-day waiting period. 

Attorney Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, a former California deputy attorney general, authored the brief which argues, among other things, that Supreme Court review is necessary “to reestablish the rule of law and halt the trend of judicial obstructionism” that is “jeopardizing” the constitutional protections of the Second Amendment. 

“This is not the first time the Ninth Circuit has played ‘fast and loose’ with the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence to fend off constitutional claims – nor will it be the last if this Court does not step in,” the brief said.

“Too many times we have seen courts like the Ninth Circuit treat the Second Amendment is if it was an unfortunate afterthought rather than a core part of the Bill of Rights,” noted Jonathan Jensen, FPF’s vice-chairman. “This case exemplifies everything that is wrong with Second Amendment jurisprudence today.”

Said FPC Vice President Alan Normandy, “The State did not prove its case, but the 9th Circuit jumped through hoops to give them the win anyway. That kind of a foul ball undermines the integrity of the court system itself.”

“As the Supreme Court has held, the Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” DiGuiseppe explained. “Unfortunately, some lower courts have used their relative inaction as a signal for defining it however they prefer, even in contravention to the Court’s precedents. That must not be allowed to continue.”

A copy of the brief can be viewed or downloaded at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/legal 

Late Friday News No. 1 - From Calguns Foundation

The Calguns Foundation sent out an update on their appeal for certiorari to the US Supreme Court regarding California's 10-day waiting period on Friday. Silvester et al v. Becerra challenges the 10-day waiting period for those individual who either holds a California issued carry permit or is an existing gun owner who holds a California certificate of eligibility. This case was a win at the District Court level but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision. They bizarrely held that even existing firearms owners need a 10-day cooling off period.

From Calguns:

Gun Rights Lawsuit Heating Up: California Ordered to Respond, Multiple Briefs Filed in Support of 10-Day Waiting Period Petitioners

WASHINGTON, D.C. (October 27, 2017) – A Second Amendment lawsuit out of California is drawing attention at the Supreme Court and support from multiple groups, said gun rights group The Calguns Foundation, which joined Second Amendment Foundation and two individuals on a petition in September seeking the Court’s review of a Ninth Circuit ruling that upheld the state’s 10-day waiting period laws when they are enforced against law-abiding gun owners after they pass a rigorous background check.

Last month, the respondent California Attorney General Xavier Becerra waived his right to reply to the petition. But on September 29 the Supreme Court ordered the State to reply; on October 24, the Court granted the State of California an extension of time to file that reply, making the new deadline December 1. Adding support for the case, multiple briefs have been filed in support of the petitioners, encouraging the Supreme Court to grant review and overturn the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

In a brief authored by preeminent constitutional scholars Ilya Shapiro and Trevor Burrus, the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Cato Institute presented a strong case for the Court to grant certiorari.  The brief argues, among other things, that intermediate scrutiny “means something different in almost every circuit [court of appeal] when applied to the Second Amendment” and that the Ninth Circuit “abused petitioners’ fundamental rights by misapplying intermediate scrutiny.”

And in another brief, former California Deputy Attorney General Raymond M. DiGuiseppe argued on behalf of a coalition of Second Amendment advocacy groups—including Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Gun Owners of California, and Madison Society Foundation—that Supreme Court review is necessary in this case “to reestablish the rule of law and halt the trend of judicial obstructionism” that is “jeopardizing” the constitutional protections of the Second Amendment. “This is not the first time the Ninth Circuit has played ‘fast and loose’ with the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence to fend off constitutional claims – nor will it be the last if this Court does not step in,” the brief said.

Attorneys Douglas A. Applegate and George M. Lee of the San Francisco-based law firm Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP filed a brief for the Crime Prevention Research Center, a research and education organization led by the renowned economist Dr. John Lott, arguing that “the standards applied by the lower courts vary widely” and that “the Ninth Circuit reversed the evidentiary findings of the trial court and supplanted the evidence that the trial court received and weighed with its own non-empirical views of what it thought was reasonable.”

“We are pleased that other groups have recognized the serious flaws in the Ninth Circuit’s approach,” explained Erik S. Jaffe, the petitioners’ Supreme Court counsel. “The results-driven analysis in the opinion below not only does violence to the Second Amendment, but does violence to the rule of law and respect for the courts. We are hopeful that the Justices, whatever their views on the scope of the Second Amendment, will recognize that the decision below is well out of bounds of any reasonable reading of Supreme Court precedent or standards for intermediate scrutiny and will take the necessary steps to ensure the fair administration of justice in Second Amendment cases.”

In 2014, Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii—nominated to the bench by then-President Clinton—held that California’s waiting period laws were unconstitutional as applied to three categories of gun purchasers after undertaking significant discovery, depositions, and a three-day bench trial.

But in 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit bizarrely ruled that even a person legally carrying a concealed handgun as he buys another gun at retail, and who passes a further background check, needs to be “cooled off” for another 10 days before exercising his Second Amendment rights and taking possession of a constitutionally-protected firearm.

Brandon Combs, an individual plaintiff in the case as well as the executive director of institutional plaintiff The Calguns Foundation, said that the briefs made excellent arguments and further supported the petition for review. “The Supreme Court has everything that it needs in a case with an excellent trial record teed up here to save the Second Amendment from hostile lower courts.”

“We are grateful to these amici organizations and their counsel for their support of this case and standing up for constitutional principles,” concluded Combs. 

A copy of the Silvester petition to the Supreme Court and the amicus briefs can be viewed or downloaded at https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/silvester.

The NFL Must Really Hate Their Base

First it was kneeling during the National Anthem. In that case the NFL decided to give the middle finger to middle America and support the kneeling players. No matter that no one else in America is usually allowed to engage in political demonstrations at work. The end result is that support for the league is plummeting, TV ratings are down, the stadiums are half full, and revenues are way down.

You will remember the protests started with the San Francisco 49ers and their then-backup quarterback Colin Kaepernick. Now it is as if the Niners' owners are saying, "Here, hold my beer. You ain't seen nothing yet!"

Now, they’re trying to set the league’s moral compass once again, announcing Thursday that they are partnering with big-city police unions to back gun-control measures, particularly to outlaw the “bump stocks” that significantly boosted the killing power of the shooter in the Las Vegas massacre earlier this month.

“It seems insane to me that a citizen can buy something like that,” team CEO Jed York said at a news conference. “I’m not anti-Second Amendment, this is something that is common sense.”

The news conference was ostensibly to announce the 49ers partnership with various (mostly) California police unions to mitigate the acrimony between the police and some parts of the community. However, the majority of that news conference, according to the San Jose Mercury News, was devoted to gun control measures.

But much of the news conference at Levi’s Stadium on Thursday focused on rallying behind proposed federal legislation to ban the bump stocks, and advocating to outlaw armor-piercing bullets and gun silencers the unions contend are a significant threat to law enforcement.

Robert Harris, secretary of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, stressed that his colleagues were not trying to obstruct gun rights.

“We are unwavering in our support of the Second Amendment. We also believe that common sense laws should be put into place to protect law-enforcement officers and the citizens they serve,” Harris said. “If as a country we hope to make any progress, it will take all of us to leave our comfort zones.”

Pardon me Mr. Harris if I raise the bullshit flag over your "unwavering" support of the Second Amendment. Those armor-piercing bullets are nothing but normal rifle bullets used in your average deer rifle. As to silencers being a significant threat, I guess it is okay for your "only ones" on the LA SWAT teams to use them to protect their hearing. However, bearing in mind that they only reduce the sound signature of a firearm by 25-30 decibels to about the level of a jackhammer, if the rest of us unwashed who pay your salaries and for whom you work want one to protect our hearing, then you have a sick idea of what constitutes a "significant threat".

 The 49ers will be donating $500,000 towards "public service" ads and will be encouraging other teams to donate to the effort. How much of that content will be on gun control and how much on improving police-community relations remains to be seen.

The one voice of sanity seems to be Pastor Jason Reynolds of San Francisco's Emmanuel Baptist Church. He is rightly concerned that the addition of gun control to the equation will diminish the larger issue of the relations between minority communities and the police.

“I’m concerned because technically, gun control was not our issue. I don’t want us to lose the larger narrative. Our concern was for communities of color who have dealt with issues with law enforcement, and how we overcome that.”

 I think David Burge - Iowahawk - nails it with this tweet about what is happening.

Adopting support for gun control by the NFL will be the final straw. I suppose some of Mayor Bloomberg's Demanding Mommies are football fans but I doubt there are enough to make up for those that will be lost by supporting gun control.

If the 49ers and, by extension, the NFL, think gun rights organizations aren't paying attention to this move, they are sadly mistaken. The Illinois State Rifle Association sent out both email and Facebook notices this afternoon.

Bryan Litz: Choosing Ammo For Long Range Shooting

In this short video put out by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Bryan Litz of Applied Ballistics and Berger Bullets discusses some of the things you should consider in your choice of ammo for long range shooting. The keys are ballistic coefficient of your bullet and consistency of your ammo.

Remington Outdoor Gets A New CEO

Remington Outdoor Company announced that they had appointed Anthony Acitelli as their new CEO. Mr. Acitelli was formerly the CEO of Taurus Holdings. He replaces James "Marco" Marcotuli who stepped down at the end of August after little more than two years in the position.

From their press release:

Huntsville, AL – Remington Outdoor Company (“ROC”), one of the world’s leading designers and manufacturers of firearms, ammunition, and related products, today announced Remington’s Board of Directors has unanimously elected Anthony Acitelli Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and to the Board of Directors.

Mr. Acitelli is a respected industry veteran with twenty plus years of leadership experience. In addition to successfully leading sales and marketing organizations, Mr. Acitelli most recently served as CEO of Taurus Holdings. Mr. Acitelli holds a Master of Business Administration from Thunderbird Global School of Management and a bachelor’s degree in Finance from the University of South Florida.

“Anthony’s experience as an industry insider with both customers and consumers will strengthen Remington’s presence in the market place.” said Jim Geisler, Executive Chairman of the Board. “As our industry continues to experience changes in demand and in consumers buying preferences, Remington will continue to innovate providing the best products and experiences to our customers. There can be no other way to build a good 2018 and beyond.”

Mr. Acitelli stated, "I am truly humbled and honored to become a part of America’s most iconic brands within the hunting and shooting industry. I look forward to the challenges ahead, while forging a course for the future with innovation and vision. We owe it to those that came before us and to those that will follow."

I'm going to go out on a limb here. While Taurus may not be the most highly respected firearm company in the United States, it is a firearms company. I think it was past time for Remington to hire a CEO who actually had been in the firearms' business as opposed to making cars or investment banking.

Now if Remington had really been thinking out of the box they would have mortgaged heaven and earth, got down on their knees, said their prayers, and begged Mike Fifer to come out of retirement. I'm not saying Fifer could have turned Remington around immediately but the man knows how to run a profitable gun company.

These Two Democrat Attorney Generals Are Hypocrites

At the instigation of NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D-NY), a number of attorneys general, all Democrats, have signed on to a letter opposing national carry reciprocity. They specifically oppose HR 38 sponsored by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) and S. 446 introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).

Schneiderman is joined in the letter by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Oregon, Virginia, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Connecticut, New Mexico, North Carolina and the District of Columbia.

The full letter can be found here.

Here are some pertinent excerpts from the letter:

Each of our States allows concealed carry—as do all 50 states—but with carefully considered and long-standing substantive and procedural protections designed to address public safety concerns in our localities. Under the legislation, our residents would lose the protections that their legislators and law enforcement agencies have deemed appropriate, in favor of rules made by States legislating for very different local conditions. Rather than creating a new national standard for who may carry concealed firearms, these bills would elevate the lowest state standard over higher ones and force some States to allow concealed carry by people who do not qualify under their laws. This forced acceptance of the most permissive standards would also affect determinations about the proper level of safety training necessary to justify concealed carry and the criteria governing whether a person is too dangerous to carry a gun in a crowded place.

 It goes on to misconstrue the limitations that would be put in place by HR 38:

The result of the proposed legislation would be a proliferation of potentially dangerous or irresponsible non-residents with concealed weapons in the States, cities, and towns across America that have made local judgments that certain regulations on the carrying of such weapons are necessary to protect public safety. Furthermore, the House bill would override some state laws that prohibit carrying concealed weapons in bars, schools, shopping malls, movie theatres, subways, or parks. States would not be able to enforce those restrictions; nor would local law enforcement officers reacting to specific risks to the public in such locations, which have tragically been the site of mass shootings in recent years.

 The text of HR 38 specifically says that state laws governing carry and posting of private property as well as the posting of state or local government properties including parks will not be superseded by this bill. In other words, these attorneys general have stated a bald face lie.

Now to the hypocritical part. Both the commonwealth of Virginia and the state of North Carolina recognize permits from all other states. The law in Virginia was changed when Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) joined with Republicans in passing HB 1163/SB 610. This was considered a rebuke of Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D-VA) who unilaterally revoked reciprocity agreements with 25 states. Herring was the beneficiary of almost $1.3 million from Bloomberg's Independence USA PAC.

Likewise, the state of North Carolina's law were changed effective December 1, 2011 to recognize unilaterally all permits issued by any state. North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein (D-NC) ought to be aware of this because his own Department of Justice has a webpage devoted to this. While to the best of my knowledge, Josh Stein didn't receive money directly from Michael Bloomberg, the North Carolina Democratic Party did received $250,000 from him in 2016.

Mark Herring and Josh Stein are out and out hypocrites. They want to deny a right to the rest of America that the visitors to their own states enjoy. Citizens of Virginia have a chance to get rid of Herring this fall but we in the Tar Heel State have to wait another three years before we are rid of anti-gun Josh Stein.