FACT! Americans For Responsible Solutions Declares War on the Second Amendment

Press release:

Today, Americans for Responsible Solutions (ARS), the gun violence prevention organization founded by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, combat veteran and retired NASA astronaut Captain Mark Kelly, and its partner organization the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, announced a bold new effort with seven top law firms, as well as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brennan Center for Justice, to fight gun violence. This new effort, the Firearms Accountability Counsel Taskforce (FACT), will be devoted to pursuing legal strategies to address America’s dire gun violence crisis and hold the gun industry responsible for unfair business practices that endanger public safety.

The law firms have committed hundreds of lawyers, thousands of hours, and millions of dollars to this effort, which will operate in tight coordination with ARS and the Law Center’s team of gun law experts. To date, FACT is comprised of Arnold & Porter; Covington; Dentons; Hogan Lovells; Munger Tolles & Olson; O’Melveny; and Paul, Weiss.

FACT’s strategy represents a turning point for the gun violence prevention movement. With the gun lobby spending a record $30 million in the presidential election to support Donald Trump, more than any other special interest, and an additional $20 million in 2016 Congressional races, achieving progress at the federal level has grown all the more challenging. By expanding the fight beyond Congress, which has failed to take meaningful action to save the more than 33,000 lives lost every year to gun violence, and into the justice system, FACT will be able to push back against the special treatment the gun industry has enjoyed for decades.

FACT’s strategy builds off the success of pro bono efforts by the private bar to commit leadership, support, and resources to ensure a more just, fair, equal, and safe society.

FACT’s areas of focus will include:

– Congressional restrictions on firearms-related information access
– Misleading gun industry public statements, advertising, and marketing
– Special immunity enjoyed by gun manufacturers and dealers
– Laws that prevent local officials from keeping communities safe from gun violence
– Dangerous, gun lobby-backed laws that make ordinary conflicts potentially deadly

“As our nation’s gun violence crisis claims over 33,000 American lives every year, the gun lobby has intimidated Washington into inaction,” said Congresswoman Giffords and Captain Kelly. “As gun owners, we know we can protect our rights and make our families safer, and that’s why we’re so excited to join with the top litigators and law firms in our country to form the Firearms Accountability Counsel Taskforce. Together, we will stand up to the gun lobby and put the safety of our communities above corporate profits.”

“As our firm and the private bar have shown, the only effective means of remedying an intractable social injustice in the face of concerted resistance is through an innovative legal strategy and the investment of substantial resources,” said Brad Karp, chair of Paul, Weiss, a key law firm partner in the Firearms Accountability Counsel Taskforce. “Working with several of our country’s leading law firms and our partners at Americans for Responsible Solutions, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Brady Campaign, and the Brennan Center, we intend to mount a strategic response to address the gun violence epidemic that will be as well-resourced, coordinated, and forceful as the opponents’ efforts to avoid accountability have been. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died needlessly because of gaps in our gun laws, and it’s time for the legal community to stand up and take collective action to address the plague of gun violence tearing apart our families and our communities.”

“The gun violence prevention movement has experienced tremendous momentum since the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary four years ago,” said Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “We’ve passed more smart gun laws in more states than ever before, we’ve won more ballot initiatives than ever before, and we’ve enjoyed more public support than ever before. Now, with the Firearms Accountability Counsel Taskforce, the movement is taking another major leap forward. The unprecedented commitment our law firm partners are making to this effort—hundreds of lawyers, thousands of hours, and millions of dollars—will be a game-changer in the fight for smart gun laws.”

comments

  1. avatar michael nieto says:

    desperation smells nice. its good to have them on defense for a bit.

    1. avatar nativeson says:

      Let me summarize this groups ‘areas of focus’. They intend to pursue: (1) laws that violate the First Amendment rights of gun sellers and advocates; and (2) laws and regulations that violate the Second Amendment rights of everyone else. That’s what they call ‘responsible’ solutions.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      That these formally independent gun-control groups have now found it necessary to combine their interests is a rather stark indication of the weakness, if not impending collapse, of the whole gun-control shootin’ match. (Sorry—couldn’t resist that.) A similar thing happened with the Temperance and Prohibition Movement after the 18th amendment was repealed. Gun-control is failing because people prefer gun-rights over gun-control.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        “The whole shootin’ match”. Did that make it into the “favorite gun saying” thread?

    3. avatar Rick says:

      I don’t believe they are enjoying the same momentum that I am. Maybe they define it a little differently.

  2. avatar Mike says:

    I have no doubt that the law firms listed are salivating over the billable hours. They can work and work for naught. At least it will give the junior lawyers something to do. Futile in the end. We stopped them nationwide and at the federal level. Sad though. Traitors never quit.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Mike,

      I believe you are mistaken. Notice these two areas of the press release:

      “The law firms have committed hundreds of lawyers, thousands of hours, and millions of dollars to this effort …”

      “FACT’s strategy builds off the success of pro bono efforts by the private bar to commit leadership, support, and resources to ensure a more just, fair, equal, and safe society.”

      The law firms have committed millions of their own dollars and pro-bono (free) effort. That does not equate to “billable hours” nor a windfall for those law firms.

      I am surprised that it took civilian disarmament proponents this long to organize. This is really bad news for us. This is Big Money and, as I predicted in other comments in the last three weeks, Big Money will win. If we cannot marshal equal Big Money, we will lose. The only question is how long it will take.

      1. avatar Dev says:

        And you believe them! No way these law firms are not getting value out of this deal.

        1. avatar million says:

          these are not ambulance chasers taking these cases on spec. they are brainwashed northeast Ivy Leaguers doing “public service”. the only value will be an open invite to cocktail parties with the right people.

        2. avatar LKB says:

          Take it from a former partner in a Biglaw firm . . . .

          These kinds of firms encourage (and offer require) a certain level of pro bono work from employees, especially from litigation associates. The “value” they get is (1) young lawyers get experience that they might not otherwise get, (2) the firms gets to tout their progressive bona fides, which may be required to get other kinds of business (or to distract/insulate them from criticism for taking less-reputable work), and (3) the people involved get to virtue signal to their peers in the Upper West Side / Georgetown / LA cocktail party scenes about how hip and socially-aware they are. They have been doing it for years in terms of ACLU / environmental / Gitmo / SJW / etc. causes. (Funny how they never seem to allow such pro bono activities on behalf of organizations on the right . . . .)

          It’s a mistake to underestimate this threat. While these firms are hardly invincible, they include some serious firepower. At the very least, they can make this kind of lawfare very, very costly for the POG.

          On the positive side, the reason why they are resorting to lawfare is because they recognize that they are cooked at the federal level for at least the next four years, if not a lot longer.

          Hopefully, guys like this will take note of them:

          https://reason.com/blog/2016/12/08/rep-thomas-massie-to-chair-revived-secon

          and pass some additional laws to give gun manufacturers better protections from this kind of thing.

        3. avatar CalGunsMD says:

          As Milo Yiannopoulos says: intensification of virtue signalling is a sign of a failing brand.
          I don’t know if this applies. They are definitely doubling down on the SJW angle. But the left is at it’s best when it’s the underdog because is rhetorical narrative of being the underdog actually has merit.

      2. avatar Mike says:

        You missed a key phrase, “FACT’s strategy builds off the success of pro bono efforts”. The article does not say that they will continue to provide “pro-bono”. Now as to the “commit millions of dollars and thousands of hours” part it isn’t clear that the law firms are contributing their own money. One could easily deduce that but I don’t see it. They are undoubtedly being funded by Bloomberg and Soros. They will fail.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Time is money. These firms are donating their time, time worth hundreds of dollars an hour at their regular billing rates. I saw recently that the leading mergers and aquisitions firm is paying its first year associates (i.e., wet behind the ears law school grads) almost $200,000 per year when including year end bonuses. Partners bill, in NY anyway, over $500 per hour. And the firms listed are among the largest firms in the US with national and international offices.

        2. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

          “These firms are donating their time, time worth hundreds of dollars an hour at their regular billing rates.”

          If they had enough business to bill those hours, they would. They would not turn down $500.00/hr to work for free.

          I’m not discounting the value of the contributions at all. I’m just saying that very, very few SJWs will take food out of their children’s mouths willingly.

      3. avatar Stoney Man says:

        Did you not watch the election? Have you learned nothing?

        Big Money, and big media were defeated handily by the silent majority. That majority is no longer silent. The leftists are broke, their agenda failed and their candidate trounced. If they wish to continue to flush what money they have, well them lets oblige them.

        They will not, and can not win.

        1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

          We cannot afford to be so smug.

          Mid-term elections often reverse political momentum if the President is not riding a wave of popularity. People have a history of blaming whomever is in power.

          That worked in our favor in 1994 and 2010. It could just as easily work against us in 2018. Trump and Congress need to make the people feel like they’re making America great again, and they have precious little time to do it.

        2. avatar Stoney Man says:

          Nothing smug about that statement. Its a statement of fact.

          The Republican party no longer belongs to establishment conservatives who have been fond of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

          There will be no compromise. If Trump delivers on half his campaign promises, the Republicans will have 60+ in the Senate.

        3. avatar Reggie Browning says:

          As someone who has looked into history a lot as a hobby, Stoney Man, I can not tell you how many times a certainly defeated opponent risen up to ultimate victory. Arrogance doesn’t help anyone here. Things can turn on a dime and I suggest people take every threat entirely seriously until things are much more secure.

        4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          “Big Money, and big media were defeated handily by the silent majority.”

          I honestly do not believe the silent majority delivered a handy defeat. Rather, highly unusual events instrumentally determined the election. If the Democrats had put forth an excellent candidate, and the Republicans had put forth their usual milquetoast candidate, I am quite certain the Democrats would have won the election.

          Let’s be honest. Hillary imperiled herself with her stupid e-mail server in her home, her acceptance of 10s of millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation from the Middle East, and the videos proving that her campaign employed illegal and violent tactics. And Trump is, well, Trump and all that entails. That is why the Dems lost this election. Next time, we will probably not be so fortunate.

        5. avatar Stinkeye says:

          “They will not, and can not win.”

          They absolutely *can* win, if we take our eyes off the ball. Progressives have won almost every battle we’ve fought for the past century. How many areas of American life have gotten more conservative in the last century, vs. how much has moved in the liberal direction?

          With progressivism, you have an opponent that doesn’t give up. They outnumber us, and they have a deep and constant reserve of undereducated, idealistic young people to use as cannon fodder, and a seductive message of giving away free shit for everyone else. All of the recent gains the 2A movement has made in court could and would have gone the other way but for just a handful of judges. That’s an awfully flimsy bulwark to rely on.

        6. avatar TexTed says:

          “Let’s be honest. Hillary imperiled herself with her stupid e-mail server in her home, her acceptance of 10s of millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation from the Middle East, and the videos proving that her campaign employed illegal and violent tactics.”

          And even in the face of such incompetence, she still won the popular vote by a full 2 percentage points (48.2 to 46.2). That’s not an insignificant margin; 2.7 million more voters chose Hillary than chose Trump.

          Declaring the Democrats “dead” is extremely premature; declaring the battles “won” is naive at best. Trump and company should pass the HPA and CCW reciprocity and nominate a 2A stalwart to the court immediately upon inauguration.

          If Bloomberg and Soros are using their tens of millions of dollars for funding actual law firms, instead of “moms”, then they could do serious damage to us. We need 2A protections and preemption at the federal level to be clear and unassailable in order to blunt this new initiative.

      4. avatar Icabod says:

        While a lawyer cannot claim a tax deduction for his billable hours, costs incurred doing pro bono work are deductible. Travel, lodging etc.
        Pro bono work provides name recognition, allows networking and gets you referrals for work. Besides, it isn’t the partners doing the work. The “hundreds” mentioned will likely include interns, paralegals and young lawyers
        https://lawyerist.com/40435/tax-deductions-pro-bono/

      5. avatar Icabod says:

        When lawyers do pro bono work, the can’t get a tax break for their billable hours. However, expenses incurred during the pro bono work are deductible. That’s travel, lodging, food, postage etc.
        pro bono work gives the lawyer the chance to network, get a reputation, and experience. It also gets then referrals for jobs. Do you think the donors won’t hire these lawyers?
        The “hundreds” mentioned most likely include clerks, paralegals, staff and new lawyers. Don’t worry, pro bono work can get you a decent return.

        https://lawyerist.com/40435/tax-deductions-pro-bono/

      6. avatar NorincoJay says:

        Big money lost the election. Team Clinton spent 10 times that of Trump’s campaign. People don’t always buy big money talk when the power of individuals can organize through the use of social media and offer a counter argument. It’s the strength and legitimacy of the idea that wins. Not the money spent any longer.

      7. avatar Felix says:

        Millions of their own dollars? No, millions of dollars of future billable hours for pro bono work.

        You also mention the thousands of hours of pro bono work as if it’s something both unusual and separate.

        First off, many states, I believe, maybe all, require a certain amount of pro bono work. It’s one of the excuses they use for controlling the bar and controlling who becomes a lawyer. Directing this to gun control merely means they don’t direct it elsewhere.

        Second, the pro bono work IS the millions of dollars in billable hours. You ca be damned sure they track that stuff and its “value”, and for all I know, it counts as a charity tax writeoff.

      8. avatar Dan Lewis says:

        I guarantee you they are doing this pro bono on a quid pro quo of getting high dollar leftists as clients.

        I think its hilarious that they are calling it preventing gun violence. History has shown that a disarmed society will be murdered by government agents with guns at a MUCH higher rate than murders accidents etc happen in our free society.

        1. avatar TexTed says:

          Yes, but — I think you’re missing the point. Lawyers have historically controlled government at all levels. The judges are all lawyers. Lawyers make up only about 0.6% of the population, but they make up 41% of Congress(!) Lawyers are likely a huge percentage of political donors. 97% of the money that trial lawyers contributed to candidates in 2014 went to Democrats. Lawyers contributed $33.5 million to Hillary’s campaign.

          So if the government is free to murder its own people, you can presume it will be murdering the “right” people (i.e., the people that oppose the lawyers). Therefore, the lawyers may not necessarily be all that worried about that potential side effect of their efforts…

      9. avatar Steve Printz says:

        Have you ever known a lawyer to do anything for free?
        Soros and Bloomberg has to be behind this, just remember, lawyers never work for free…..

    2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      True, they just drivel off into the sunset!

  3. avatar million says:

    “– Dangerous, gun lobby-backed laws that make ordinary conflicts potentially deadly”

    Sounds like a jab at SYG and equivalent jurisprudence (see Virginia) which makes perfect sense if you’re from another planet where assaults and armed robberies are considered “ordinary conflicts”.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Yes, ‘SYG’ and carry laws in general.

      That isn’t gonna fly in free states, they tried to go after Florida’s SYG law in the Trayvon Martin incident here in Florida, and it got nowhere.

      (Yeah, yeah, yeah, we *know* SYG wasn’t claimed in that one.) Florida ‘reviewed’ their SYG law and recommended no changes to it.

      I can see this having legs in Blue states where the concept of self-defense is tenuous, at best.

      If they are proposing harassment via the legal system, let’s feed them a taste of their own medicine. Toughen up protection of the 2A laws. Make them *pay* for attacking a civil right…

      1. avatar NorincoJay says:

        The SYG law in Florida worked perfectly when the legally armed Good Samaritan saved the cops life. After that I’m sure Florida officers really do like it.

        1. avatar LongPurple says:

          Thank you for that info. I did a Google search and found the story you mentioned.
          Now I know why I had not heard anything about it. A Black CCW holder saved a White LEO from being beaten, maybe killed, by a Black perp.
          That does not fit with the BLM view of things, so MSM will not “select” such incidents to be reported.

  4. avatar Joe R. says:

    If it receives even $0.01 from foreign donations to overthrow our Constitution, that is Sedition. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115

  5. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Are these people awake? Not including Giffords, of course, we know she’s not. But it is just so obvious she and Kelly are milking this crap for all the money they can get. But, if they want to open the gates for Bloomberg to sue hell out of Ruger, or whatever, let’s just make sure that in the same law we get “loser pays”, I think that would be even more fun. Picture someone like Soros ponying up $10 million to sue a firearm manufacturer with absolutely no chance of success, just throwing the money away to bankrupt the company with lawyer and court costs, and then receiving a $500 million bill for the firearms company’s legal costs, since they would have no reason to be frugal. I would laugh so long it might be fatal.

  6. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    They forgot the law firm of
    “Dewey, Cheatum and Howe”

    1. avatar Chris Erickson says:

      Gogo Car Talk. The only thing good about NPR.

  7. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    This sounds vaguely like legislation through the judiciary to me. Thank goodness for the PLCAA. I wouldn’t be surprised if this wasn’t desperation but rather a planned event based on Hillary winning and attempting to gut the PLCAA and having resources in place so they could do their thing with the 2A when it was gone.

    Besides this the obvious thing comes to mind, how are they profiting from the hours they’re “donating.”

    1. avatar Sian says:

      It’s far too polished and organized to have been thrown together solely post-election.

      No, this was intended as a deathblow against the 2A following Hillary’s ‘inevitable’ election win, quickly re-tasked to prevent the loss of any/all statist gains since 1934.

      1. avatar CTstooge says:

        Yep.

      2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        That sounds like truth to me.

        Time to donate to NRA, 2A foundation, GOA again. The enemy is massing outside. Time to man the walls.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      There is no direct or immediate profit. The whole idea of pro bone is a nonprofit endeavor “for the good” (which is what “pro bono” translates to mean). Lawyers will take on cases sometimes where the client has no ability to pay but his cause is just, or just for the overall community benefit, such as taking on issues of homelessness and drug addiction, working with the courts. Some states require it, others recommend it. The long terms “profits” are exposure if the case is won and training for recent law school grads who are often idealistic but completely unprepared to engage in the practice of law. [Law school teaches students the structure of the law, and the analytic method/reasoning that lawyers employ. It dies not teach anything approaching the practical aspects of running a law practice or conducting litigation.] And don’t forget that many of these firms are rather left wing in their orientation, as are roughly half of attorneys nationwide.

    3. avatar Davis Thompson says:

      Okay, it’s fine that you took the words right out of my mouth, but can I have my molars back?

  8. avatar neiowa says:

    RE: Captain Mark Kelly – zoomies are NOT “Combat Veterans”.

    1. avatar Charles5 says:

      First, zoomies are air force, not Navy. Second, he flew combat missions in the first gulf war. Taking off and landing on an aircraft carrier and dropping ordnance over targets where you can most definitely get shot down absolutely qualifies for combat veteran status. Incidentally, a Captain in the Navy is the equivalent of a Colonel in case you didn’t know. That being said, he is still a fool.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        If you don’t get dirt or water on your boots, it ain’t combat.

        1. avatar Charles5 says:

          Yep, because landing and taking off on a n aircraft carrier is so easy and not dangerous at all.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          Infantry has been saying the same thing since WWI. To me it doesn’t matter if you are killed on the ground or blown out of the sky, you are still very dead. These are the casualties in WWII for airmen: “On average, 6,600 American servicemen died per month during WWII, about 220 a day. By the end of the war, over 40,000 airmen were killed in combat theatres and another 18,000 wounded. Some 12,000 missing men were declared dead, including a number “liberated” by the Soviets but never returned. More than 41,000 were captured, half of the 5,400 held by the Japanese died in captivity, compared with one-tenth in German hands. Total combat casualties were pegged at 121,867.”

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… What’s the casualty rate for fixed wing aviation these days? Maybe back when we fought people with their own aircraft or AAA, I might give the bus drivers some respect. These days? Not so much. It’s about as hilarious as the zoomies I saw walking around on base in Kuwait in shower shoes and shorts bitching about how “in the field” sucked.

        4. avatar Charles5 says:

          Do not conflate fixed wing air force zoomies with Naval pilots that land and take off on an aircraft carrier. I have been a passenger on several such flights and I can tell by your comments that you have absolutely no appreciation for how dangerous it is. But whatever, you are clearly the “expert” here.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      RE Giffords: it’s “Giffords, former Congresswoman”, NOT “Congresswoman Giffords”.

      Like this, from the press release: “…former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords…”

      Unlike the FACT (!) commentary “Congresswoman Giffords.”

      Like Mayor, Senator, President, and all other elected offices, it is a job description and potential resume enhancer, NOT A TITLE OF NOBILITY. Once you don’t hold the job anymore, you don’t get to keep the title.

      1. avatar M J Johnson says:

        Actually, they do – as a title of honor. What they don’t get is the hassle of the office. But really, this is a non-issue in the great scheme of things…

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          Citation, please.

          IMO, whatever “honor” the title may (or may not) bestow while you hold the office, once you are out you are “ex-” or “former”. Otherwise your public service as a public servant becomes a de facto title of nobility. The practice should be attacked at every opportunity, no matter who attempts it, which party they belong to, or which government trough their title and salary came out of.

      2. avatar AZ2A Transplant says:

        Didn’t you notice throughout the election campaign that Hillary Clinton was constantly addressed as “Madame Secretary”, even though she is no longer the Secretary of State. You may think it is not appropriate, and your argument that it shouldn’t be regarded as a “title of nobility” has some merit. It is, as M J Johnson notes, common practice. Take if from someone who lived 20 years inside the Beltway.

    3. avatar Ed in Idaho says:

      39 combat missions off the Midway as an A-6 driver in Desert Storm.

    4. avatar Wildman says:

      Fact: Mark Kelly is as much a ‘combat veteran” as my hamster.

      1. avatar General Zod says:

        39 combat missions makes him a combat veteran. Turning his back on his oath to support and defend the Constitution makes him scum.

      2. avatar Pyratemime says:

        Kelly’s politics are repugnant. That being said we diminish ourselves and our opposition when we tilt at windmills like his military record.

        He was awarded 4 Air Medals with Combat ‘V’ and 1 Navy Commendation Medal with Combat ‘V’.

        If his military peers and superiors are willing to recognize his 39 missions over the Persian Gulf as combat time and recognize it accordingly we look foolish and petulant to scream back “no he isn’t cause… reasons.”

        1. avatar Wildman says:

          OR, someone may compare their experience and resultant knowledge of face-to- combat and decide what’s actually truthful and what’s rampant B.S.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… Please explain how the fuck you get a combat V as a bus driver flying from a flattop cruise ship.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Yeah… Please explain how the fuck you get a combat V as a bus driver flying from a flattop cruise ship.”

          Being shot down qualifies, and the USN lost many hundreds by the looks of it. Just for the Vietnam war we had:

          USN fixed-wing carrier-based:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War#USN_fixed-wing_carrier-based

    5. avatar jmf552 says:

      I was a carrier-based Naval Aviator and later worked in aviation safety at the Naval Safety Center. In Vietnam, a lot of planes got shot down, but many more went down in the carrier landing environment. We lost more F-4 Phantoms to hydraulic failures alone than enemy fire. The reason we don’t lose as many now is 1) Our combat technology and training is so superior to everyone else’s and 2) the Navy’s amazing, multi-faceted aviation safety program, which should be a model for all such programs. Our loss ratios for ground combat have gone down also. Our military has become safer on the ground, in the air, and on the sea, both in combat and out. But if you’ve faced enemy fire, you’re a combat veteran, period. It will never be a cake-walk.

  9. avatar HP says:

    I especially enjoyed the chest puffing of that last paragraph, where this Robyn Thomas person seems to indicate that the tide is turning in their favor. Must live in California. Sorry, Robyn, but the overall picture is a bleak one for the gun control movement and after a couple good conservatives are put into the SCOTUS, places like California will be brought to heel.

  10. avatar Anon in CT says:

    Too bad about Paul Weiss – they’re actually a legit law firm. The rest are either third-tier toilets or Brits.

  11. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    They have provided notice of intent to practice “lawfare”.

    “Lawfare is a form of asymmetric warfare, consisting of using the legal system against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, tying up their time or winning a public relations victory.” Or bankrupting them.

    Creating such a large, obviously expensive organization suggests big dollars funding the whole operation. Soros, Bloomberg, Gates, …….

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Gordon,

      See my comment above where I reference Big Money.

      While it certainly seems reasonable that Gates (and lest we forget Allen), Bloomberg, and Soros could be bankrolling this latest abomination, I would not overlook the possibility that a lot of wealthy “do gooders” are providing monetary and material support as well. I would not doubt that scores of bored anti-gun attorneys with $10+ million in the bank are voluntarily jumping into this. And how about the hundreds of movie, television, music, and sports entertainers worth $30+ million who are rabidly anti-gun? I can easily seem each of them chipping in one million dollars.

      While grass roots support is extremely important, it isn’t enough to stop a coordinated push from anti-gun attorneys, news propaganda outlet presidents, and lawmakers who have over $100 million dollars at their disposal and hundreds of attorneys who will work pro bono.

      Remember, Big Money and attorneys run the courts and, in turn, local law enforcement who blindly enforce any and every decree from the courts.

      This is going to get really ugly. The only resolution that I can see is akin to the 1789 French revolution.

  12. avatar rick3 says:

    WTF is this:
    “Congressional restrictions on firearms-related information access”

    Do I read that right? They want to restrict information access? Really?

    1. avatar Arizona Rifleman says:

      I read it as “We want to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment.”

    2. avatar HeySpany says:

      That caught my eye as well. Some clarification might be nice. How could they possibly restrict congressional access to firearms info?

    3. avatar Ian in Transit says:

      I think what they meant was Congregational restrictions on creating “information” like gun registration, then making it accessible.

    4. avatar notalima says:

      That line caught my eye and I was scrolling down to see if someone else had posted about it.

      • Restrictions on 3D printing information?
      • Restrictions on Gun-related publications?
      • Restrictions on information related to the assembly and operation of firearms?
      • Death to gun-bloggers?
      • Restriction of information access related to firearms from those under 21? (Yes, this is a thing)

      This seems like dangerously vague line that really, really needs to be clarified.

    5. avatar Stu in AZ says:

      I think they’re referring to Congress not allowing the CDC to continue their obviously biased gun violence “research”.

      Edit: or maybe it’s referring to laws against keeping a firearm ownership registry? If that’s the case, no wonder they left it so vague.

      1. avatar Pseudo says:

        I think you’re right on the first point. Restriction of federally funded studies and such.

  13. avatar Mk10108 says:

    The infringement continues

  14. avatar PPGMD says:

    “Special immunity enjoyed by gun manufacturers and dealers”

    Sigh the PLCAA isn’t special a number of higher risk industries have this sort of protection from how users use their product. Namely the aviation industry, the GA industry was nearly killed by estates suing manufacturers after a crash caused by the pilot until they got similar protection. Not only that but her husband signed the bill into law.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      We need a new one, the PLCMA, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Manufacturing Act, that covers all manufacturing of lawful goods.

      It could be used against illegal drugs manufactured in labs, besides defending arms makers, etc.

  15. avatar Mikele says:

    I love the smell of desperation in the morning….
    I bet this was planned for a Clinton win, but they still hsve to put on a brave face in announcing it.

  16. avatar GS650G says:

    After the SCOTUS is stacked 5-4 or hopefully 6-3 we can have another smack down ruling that says we can do what we want and just stfu already.

    1. avatar TexTed says:

      Because that worked so well to settle the abortion debate, right?

      We will always have this fight. We can never win it, and we will never lose it. The closest we could get to a “win” would be to ratify a new amendment to the Constitution that clearly and specifically says “delete the Militia clause, the right of the individual people to keep and bear arms whenever and wherever they desire shall never be infringed and neither Congress, the States, or any local governments may ever make any law that in any way regulates or restricts an individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.” And then an inevitable lawsuit challenging it, which gets rejected on a 9-0 SCOTUS ruling.

      If those things happened, then yeah, maybe the right would be secure. Until then? It will always be a fight. There will always be criminals, there will always be the poor among you, and there will always be a fight against the right to defend yourself. Those are guarantees.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        Don’t delete the militia clause; instead add some words:

        “A well-regulated militia, and citizens armed for the defense of themselves and others, being necessary for the security of a free state….”

        1. avatar TexTed says:

          Disagree; the militia clause has been used to beat us over the head since it was first put in. Plus, when the Constitution was ratified, having an army in and of itself was unconstitutional, so the militia was necessary to secure the freedom of the state. Things are different now.

          I say it becomes as clear and immutable as possible — “the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall never be infringed, impeded, restricted, or questioned; and no law restricting the right of an individual citizen to keep or bear arms shall ever be allowed at any level of government, from the Federal government down to the local governments.”

        2. avatar Roymond says:

          I like the “…shall never be infringed, impeded, restricted, or questioned”, though I’d add “burdened” between “restricted” and “or”.

          But I’d want the militia clause kept to let it be known that citizens both are and may form militias, and the ” and citizens armed for the defense of themselves and others” before “being necessary for the security of a free state” to make the point that having armed citizens is GOOD for the country, an important part of keeping the country safe and thus free.

          (Philosophically I regard violent criminals as barbarians invading the country from within, so being armed against them is just as much a matter of defending a free state as is having a militia.)

        3. avatar TexTed says:

          (tried to edit, but was too late)

          For clarification — not that the army itself is unconstitutional, but that keeping an indefinite standing army was unconstitutional. There was a specific intent of raising an army when necessary, so long as the duration of funding an such army didn’t extend beyond two years. Things are different now; this clause is generally now interpreted to mean that we can have an indefinite army so long as we vote to reauthorize their budget every two years.

  17. avatar No one of consequence says:

    These acronyms are starting to sound like they come from Keith Laumer’s Retief series. With a decidedly similar pathology, home to think of it…

    1. avatar Mike says:

      Wow, someone else is a Keith Laumer fan. I have all the books.

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        As a kid, I really wanted a Mark XII as my first car…

        Unfortunately most of my books have either been loaned out over the years, or otherwise were “downsized” by a now-former girlfriend while I was out of town.

        Fortunately Amazon is a good way of finding the old titles, and I don’t much care if they’re used. In fact I just ordered “Galactic Diplomat” as a Christmas present.

    2. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

      Thank you! A long time ago I read all of Laumer’s work and enjoyed it yugely, and your reminder will put some re-reading on my schedule. Another author, Harry Harrison (1930-2012), wrote some nice things in a similar vein.

  18. avatar Clark45 says:

    So they call themselves “FACT” yet have little or no interest IN facts. Hmmm…

    1. avatar Stu in AZ says:

      FACTs are now all about feelings. Go figure.

      1. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

        Fakery
        About
        Citizens
        Threats

        Oh what a feeling….

        1. avatar TexTed says:

          I think of it as the

          Firearms
          Access
          Restriction
          Taskforce

        2. avatar Roymond says:

          Flagrant
          Authoritarians
          Contributing
          To
          Statism.

  19. avatar RogUinta says:

    Dear Space Cadet Kelly,

    FOAD.

    Sincerely,

    USA

  20. avatar Gabe says:

    NEW AND IMPROVED WITH BOLD NEW GRAPHICS!

    lol

  21. avatar Peter says:

    I can think of many groups and individuals that need this kind of high-powered representation. Groups that most Americans would agree to help. These firms would never help those groups because there’s no money on the backend.

  22. avatar Parnell says:

    “Congressional restrictions on firearms-related information access”. Using attacks on the First Amendment to attempt to destroy the Second Amendment?

  23. avatar Soylent Green says:

    “…gun violence prevention movement has experienced tremendous momentum…”

    Really? You sure about that?

    I think you must be interpreting the results of the recent elections differently. Pretty sure America just told you to “STFU and sit down”

  24. avatar FedUp says:

    FACT?
    Why not WAACR (Wealthy Attorneys Against Civil Rights)?

    In other news, Kelly’s fellow traveler General PetRock is still in contention for Trump’s Secretary of State nomination, despite being guilty of the same crimes that Trump mocked Criminal Hillary for committing when she was SoS, and despite being a Constitution hating, oath breaking pile of putrid feces.

  25. avatar A Brit in TX says:

    They will always keep trying, if only their energy could be channeled into something productive (like curing cancer) then they would actually be doing some good in the world.

    They also must have teams of writers inventing names that neatly fit the acronyms, probably to try to convince the brain washed sheep that they have facts and common sense on their side. In reality these double-speak group names are camouflage, intended to hide the fact that they don’t have facts or common sense on their side at all!

    So, from our point of view, a battle has been won but the war is definitely not over. Job 1 should be to identify possible Supreme Court picks and apply pressure to the Trump team to make the right picks.

  26. avatar Fred Frendly says:

    Spaceman can be proud after toting his drooling patsy wife around like a dog and straw buying AR15s illegally. Guess those Van Allen belts really do contain mind melting radiation.

  27. avatar JT says:

    Complaints about a grassroots group made up of millions of ordinary people spending $50 million is nothing compared to their group, made up of 5000 or so donors spent about $13 million, which is much more impressive. Not to mention that Bloomberg spent $65 million by himself this election cycle.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Yeah, when the five million members of the NRA spend $30 million, it’s a “special interest”, but when a handful of plutocrats spend over twice that it’s “grassroots”.

    2. avatar AHill says:

      Looks like they have given up the astroturf charade finally.

  28. avatar Burley says:

    “The gun violence prevention movement has experienced tremendous momentum since the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary four years ago,”

    …ummm, no it hasn’t.

    1. avatar TexTed says:

      It certainly has in California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, New York, Colorado, Delaware, Rhode Island, and D.C. All have passed new gun control legislation since 2012, ranging from the (un)SAFE act in NY, to “gunpocalypse” in California. All have “universal background checks”. And that’s all since 2012.

      1. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

        Colorado’s new “Common Sense Gun Safety” laws are roundly ignored. I can go to my LGS and buy a “repair kit” for my 30 round clipazine containing the box, follower, spring and end cap. DaQuan’s Trunk in the Alley off MLK still doesn’t require background checks.
        Seriously, one (!) person has been charged under the “Large Cap Mag Ban” but that charge was dropped when he pled guilty to 3 or 4 other felonies.

  29. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

    These people state plainly that they are attacking both the First and Second Amendments. There’s no way to argue against concluding that they are domestic enemies of the Constitution. I know many people here took this or a similar oath, I know I did back in 1969. It sure seems that there’s no expiration date on it, especially the part in bold:

    “I, _____, 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    – Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960, amended 5 October 1962.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Lawyers are required to make similar oaths. For example in Texas, the oath of office states “I, __________, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitutions of the United States, and of this State …” and in the Eastern District of Texas the oath of admission states “… THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.”

  30. avatar former water walker says:

    ARSE,,,oh wait “ARS” Sorry I misunderstood. Yeah we won. Now we need to nail the leftscum to a cross…

  31. avatar Chuck says:

    The CDC has just declared that heroin deaths surpasses gun related homoicides in 2015. Why don’t the libtards go after heroin? Because it just might mean building a wall?

  32. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    So, Bloomie-funded advocacy groups are going to counter the political participation of people who they want to disarm, by siccing hordes of high-end lawyers to lawfare around the political process they keep losing.

    They seem to have a surplus of confusions.

  33. avatar TexTed says:

    Keep in mind that Mark Kelly’s business partner is General David Petraeus, he who is one breath away from becoming our nation’s Secretary of State…

    Might be helpful to send President-elect Trump a note expressing your disapproval of Petraeus as a candidate for the most-plum, ripest cherry in the whole administration. I already did, but I can’t help but think if the 2.5 million of us who read this site all wrote to him at “info@donaldtrump.com” with a subject line saying “Please: NO to Petraeus”, it certainly might catch his attention. Then spell out exactly why you think the selection of Petraeus would be a betrayal of all of us.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      I sent mine, subject line “Petraeus? NO!”

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Also write your senators.

  34. avatar DaveL says:

    I took a look at opensecrets.org and saw that Hillary got over $33 million in contributions from law firms and legal associations, vs about $1.3 million for Trump. Somehow I don’t think those law firms and organizations represent millions of people like the NRA does.

  35. avatar YZAS says:

    Quick – everyone donate $100 to the NRA and give NRA-ILA a half a billion or so to trounce these f*ckers at every step. They lost in the federal arena, so now they want to pour their Soros/Bloomberg bucks into the legal arena apparently. This is our home court with NRA-ILA, SAF and GOA. We should make sure they are well funded to push them back on the flanks while we go full court press on the national level.

    1. avatar TexTed says:

      Especially because the NRA says they pretty much emptied the coffers getting Trump elected, so they may not be as well-positioned as normal to withstand this new assault.

      1. avatar YZAS says:

        I honestly (cross my heart) called in last night and gave them $100 just for helping get us the win – and to refill them back up to go on the offense. I didn’t want anything (already have all the magazines and several NRA duffle bags) but they gave me the rosewood knife anyway. Couldn’t turn it down 🙂

  36. avatar John McPherson says:

    I guess that they are all together we can call them ARS Wholes

  37. avatar Ropingdown says:

    At least four of the firms listed do a large amount of business, including legislative/government relations and election law support, for democrats and their large-donor pool. Dentons is just a huge amalgam of foreign law offices, one of the world’s largest such. My alma mater’s current graduates averaged a starting salary (private sector only) of $160,000 this year, largely among the DC-HQ’d firms on this list. Certainly the firms are not going to overdo the pro bono next year. Needless to say, though, the firms have a large number of clients who are feeling, in the language of the street, butthurt. Cheering them up is imperative, isn’t it, else quite a few partners will have to walk.

    Curious to see Charlie Munger’s firm, with Buffett as a major client, on the list. But San Francisco probably demands this sort of “virtue” signalling. Yes, virtue doesn’t mea what they think it means.

  38. avatar JayHu says:

    It kinda feels like we broke through the hedgerows at Normandy and are romping across the open fields pushing them back into their vile den and they are going to try to muster all their troops for one more all-out push through the Ardennes. Now is the time to crush them! Everyone pony up some bucks because that’s how we stop them cold and let Trump march on into Berlin and stomp these sons of b*tches into the ground.

  39. avatar Roymond says:

    BTW, I continue to maintain that the wrong person died that day: we lost a superb federal judge in John Roll, a dedicated advocate of enforcing ALL the Bill of Rights firmly, and kept a touchy-feely woman who prefers government to control people’s lives.

    If Trump can find us three people like John Roll to put on the Supreme Court, and keep anyone like Gabby Giffords far, far away (“The Lord bless and keep Gabby Giffords far, far away from us!””), we will be in good shape for the next thirty years.

  40. avatar LHW says:

    The smell of desperation is so sweet. Now is the time to not let up and crush them once and for all.

  41. avatar James Jan says:

    Lets just face it, these lowlifes are not going to stop until we make it quite obvious that if they push anymore they will find us out in the streets, armed, and making more noise than BlackLiesMatter ever made. Its time for some hackers who are keen on the gun rights cause to start in as well..

  42. avatar jmf552 says:

    I went with some other VCDL representatives to hear Mark and Gabby speak at the VA State Capitol. That list in the OP is only the beginning of what they want. The list also includes:
    > Documentation on every transfer of firearm ownership, including sale, gift, inheritance, loss and theft under penalty of criminal law.
    > A system like California has where if friends, family or co-workers think you might be a danger to yourself or others, they can go to a judge and get an order for you to lose your gun rights for up to a year. There is no due process for the gun owner. The cops show up the next day with a warrant and take every gun in the house, no matter who it belongs to.
    > The usual anti-gun list, bans on: Hi-cap mags, ARs, etc.

    What is really hypocritical about Mark and Gabby is they start their talk by saying they are gun owners and they support 2A and the RTKABA before they go into their anti-gun litany.

  43. avatar Kevin says:

    FACT: every lawyer takes an oath to abide by and uphold the constitution. The entire constitution.

  44. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    In related news, the Cleveland Indians are trying a new strategy to beat the Chicago Cubs in the 2016 World Series.

  45. avatar Anymouse says:

    FACT: these idiots are going to bankrupt a ton of families by offering pro-bono services. The families will be on the hook for the defendants’ legal fees for frivilous suits under PLCAA, and the FACT @$$hats will walk away scott-free and look for another miurning family to victimize. Seems like the very definition of evil to me.

  46. avatar Ozzallos says:

    You mean the combat veteran and retired NASA astronaut Captain Mark Kelly that attempted to buy an AR the very day he was to push stricter gun control measures to congress?

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/markkelly.asp

    Or perhaps the Gabby Gifford that posed with and wanted to shoot an AR to “toughen her image”?

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/03/14/mark-kelly-s-ar-15-stunt-provokes-giffords-photo-leak/

    This is why you all lost hard in this election. People are tired of this ‘Good for me, but not for thee,’ BS.

  47. Well let’s see, Murder is already against the law, has been for hundreds of years, yet it still happens. Another thing that may put this in perspective is that Heroin is illegal to have and use, yet Heroin overdoses now kill more people than firearms. So why not dedicate all of these millions of dollars to helping stop the Heroin deaths?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email