Remember the AutoGlove we announced about a month back? Well the ATF has put a stop to that.

On 9/16/2017, we received some disappointing news from the ATF.  The ATF tested the AutoGlove and responded with an unfavorable determination.  The bottom line is, the ATF determined the AutoGlove may not be used or possessed by individuals and for this reason, we have issued 100% refunds to every person that ordered an AutoGlove. …

While we respectfully disagree with the ATFs determination, as the AutoGlove was not tested in accordance with our design criteria or provided instructions/limitations, we will NOT appeal the ATFs determination.

As we have always stated, it was never our intention to thumb our nose at the ATF or NFA regulations, we were simply trying to develop a device that could work within the existing construct of the laws to create a device that could assist a person with pulling the trigger rapidly, whether it be a paintball gun, nail gun, or firearm. (The AutoGlove had many uses!)

We still are still a bit shocked to understand how one can attach a sliding stock or modify a trigger to achieve simulated full automatic rates of fire but a stand-alone glove worn on the shooters hand is somehow considered modifying a firearm.

The Ninth Circuit restricts even cops’ Second Amendment rights . . . Federal Court Ruling Guts Police Ability To Use Guns

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Seattle police can only use force “proportional” to the threat they face, seriously damaging the Seattle Police Department’s ability to use firearms.

The ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the use of force reforms put in place by federal mandates under the Obama administration that required police to use only “objectively reasonable force, proportional to the threat or urgency of the situation,” the Associated Press reports. The unanimous ruling strikes down a lawsuit filed by a group of more than 120 Seattle officers in 2014 who claimed that the strict reforms infringe on an officer’s right to self defense and the Second Amendment.

Partially offsetting the Trump slump . . . Gun makers to get sales boost with export reform on the way

U.S. gun makers stand to increase sales if the Trump administration revamps the federal government’s export rules, a move that’s reportedly coming this fall.

Under the current system, the State Department regulates the sale of commercial firearms and ammunition, similar to how it oversees deals involving fighter jets and other military equipment. The Obama administration began writing a new rulebook for non-military gun exports in 2009, but the effort went nowhere. Now President Donald Trump’s aides are putting the finishing touches on a plan to move oversight of international sales to the Commerce Department, according to a Reuters report.

 

You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own “facts” . . . Gun backers accuse cops of lying about Ohio conceal-carry law

The latter measure, House Bill 142, was a watered-down substitute for an original bill that would have wiped out penalties altogether. It did, however, cut the penalty for not speaking up about your guns from a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine to just a $25 fine.

To the frustration of some pro-gun lawmakers, the compromise wasn’t enough for some gun-rights advocates.

Chris Dorr, director of Ohio Gun Owners, asked, “Who is this committee trying to placate?” Answering himself, he said it must be people who don’t have “full restoration of gun-owners’ rights at heart.”

Gary Witt, director of Ohio Concealed Carry, said that when law-enforcement groups say it puts officers in danger when they don’t know about permit holders’ guns during detentions and traffic stops, they’re making “false claims.”

One step back in the Peach State . . . Gun Control Lobby Eviscerates College Carry Law

Beginning July 1, holders of a Georgia weapons license could finally carry their firearms onto their college campus without being in violation of state law. Unfortunately, House Bill 280, which amended Georgia law to allow campus carry, is far from perfect.

Pressure from gun control advocates resulted in the inclusion of a provision eviscerating most of the bill’s practical utility, forcing most university-goers to leave their weapons locked away, failing to make the campus a safer place.

Hey, it was for a good cause . . . Topless carwash raises cash for deputies wounded in gun battle at Rastafarian pot farm

The tops came off, and the wallets came out.

A Yuba County strip club, feeling particularly philanthropic, used its abundant assets — topless ladies — in a weekend carwash to raise money for two sheriff’s deputies who were injured in a shootout at a Rastafarian pot farm last month.

The shirtless carwash at City Limits Showgirls in Marysville on Saturday raised $2,560, the strip club wrote on Facebook. A long line of cars snaked outside the fundraiser, which was held in a tented parking lot.

Special Report: The garage science behind the stun gun that changed policing

Taser’s human subjects were prospective buyers. At sales demonstrations, police officers volunteered – sometimes for a chance at free beer – to be shocked with the weapon. Those shocks were a fraction as long as what a single Taser trigger squeeze delivers in the field. And the jolts came from darts typically taped to feet, thighs, hips and other places far from the heart.

Researchers observed and chronicled the reactions of the volunteers but took no cardiograms or any other physiological measurements from the subjects. Taser’s early animal and human tests didn’t use control groups – subjects who received no shock or a smaller jolt, for example, and could be used as a benchmark. And CEO Smith’s conclusion that Tasers are “unequivocally” safe was unusual: Scientists typically highlight the limits of their research.

67 Responses to Vedder Holsters Daily Digest: ATF Nixes the AutoGlove, Mitigating the Trump Slump and Supporting a Good Cause

  1. No knock raids need to be used only in dire circumstances. Police officers should have the same weapons limitations as the rest of us citizens. 10 round mag limits should apply to all and if we can’t have ebr’s then neither can they.

    And I support the cops. But we are all citizens.

        • In California, Our cops are extra special people. They can have whatever they want. So can all the government officials and those who are looked upon favorably by the “well-connected”

          Sad but basically, the US is just a more affluent banana republic.

        • Well, as with all California laws, “it depends.” If you want to keep your rifle/pistol in its (formerly) legal configuration with a BB, then you have to register the firearm with the DOJ as an “assault weapon”–and under the “emergency” regulations prepared by the DOJ (“emergency regulations” do not have to go through a public comment period), once registered as an AW, you canNOT remove the BB. So for registered AWs under the new law, BBs are not only legal but mandatory. But you can also modify the firearm to a “featureless” configuration (fixed stock, no pistol grip, no flash hider), and featureles configurations are not required to have BBs but may sport a typical mag release. Third, you can reconfigure to have a “fixed magazine” (defined as a magazine that cannot be removed without opening two halves of the receiver), and these don’t have BBs–but then again, they don’t have mag releases either.

        • Citizens don’t respond to calls on a regular basis that may require the use of firearms. Citizen encounters that require gunplay are relatively few and far between. I do not support the 10 round limit by any means, it’s just dumb. But so is your crying that cops should be limited when they encounter potentially deadly situations on a weekly basis. I know you know better, I think Kommifornia is rubbing off.

        • Joseph,
          “Citizens don’t respond to calls on a regular basis that may require the use of firearms.”
          I want you to think about that for just a second.
          It is, in fact, extremely rare for law enforcement to respond to an event where there are not already citizens present.
          Non law enforcement citizens are more often likely to need immediate access to a firearm than members of law enforcement. After all, they are there for 100% of all assaults and are usually alone, where officers are rarely there for the assault in progress and are more likely to show up in groups.

        • Joseph, you have missed the point. The idea is that, if we held police to the same standards as all other civilians, the end result would be that cops would oppose unconstitutional gun control measures. As it is, they go along with this bullshit because they are exempt, and given special treatment.

          If it’s not dangerous for a police officer to have an un-neutered AR15 or a 17-round magazine, then it’s not dangerous for me or you to have them, either.

          Giving cops special treatment and exemptions from the law sends the message that a cop’s life is more important than an ordinary citizen’s. That kind of thinking is corrosive to democracy, and it erodes citizens’ trust and sympathy for police and the difficult job they do.

          Also, as Jon points out, police are almost never the true “first responders”. The *first* responder is the poor sumbitch who is the victim of the crime.

  2. respectfully disagree with the ATF Yes, because the ATF is so respectful and respectable.

    “ATFs determination” – thems the words of liberty.

    • I agree with you completely that nothing should need to be “determined” by ATF.

      That said, it’s the system we work within right now. This is shocking to absolutely no one who has a frakkin’ clue about the rules. Pretty much everyone here that knows the rules pointed it out, but these chuckleheads thought they’d pull an Airbnb/Uber/Tesla – do blatantly illegal shit, and establish facts on the ground before Uncle Sugar even knows.

      They were warned, a thousand dollar consult with a good gun lawyer would have put the kibosh on this idiocy. I hope they lost a bunch of their own money.

      • People like you are the problem.

        Rather than stand up to the tyranny of illegal agencies such as the ATF and band together to stand up for the rights of a company to make a product you sit back and denounce them as idiots because of the tyrannical “determinations” that force the company out of business.

        So if the, “whelp, that’s just the legal system we live in” turns to banning big gulps and making a felon out of anybody who binges on a 42 oz soda I’m guessing you are going to be the one calling everyone idiots and fools for not “getting with the program”…

        This is why we have the government we deserve.

        • What this has to do with is the reality that we live in, not the theoretical reality that should be. When you are in a business, your decisions must be within the reality that exists, because you have backers (investors) you are responsible to.
          Does this suck? Absolutely. But again, this is business, not something personal.
          \Personally, you can make any decision you want. If you want to start a business using only your money, go for it. But if you’re married, you’d better have your other half’s interests in mind. If you have children, you must take that into consideration, too. You can’t (shouldn’t) make decisions that affect other people (especially those you love) on your own.
          This is reality, and everyone needs to live within that reality.
          On your own, go ahead, rage against the machine. I will applaud you, probably (if I agree with you) even support you.
          Not everyone is able to take on the government. It’s not only financially ruinous, but it can take a truly personal toll as well.

        • Question about the stupid soda law(s):

          When I was driving cross-country, especially in the summertime, I kept an insulated “Big Bubba” cup in the truck that held 32 oz. of soda and ice. If I went to a restricted (slave) state and bought two 16 oz drinks and then poured them into my Big Bubba, would I be breaking the law? Just curious.

          Realistically it sounds about like the 10 round mag limit, and just as useful, unless you are in California where you can’t easily swap mags.

        • Big Bill, I love your defeatist attitude. It’s all very inspiring. I also love 16V’s support of the ATF and his criticism of this company because the ATF didn’t like where this company was going, regardless of the law, and his wishes that their company was hopefully punished with business losses. All fantastic guys.

        • Punisher, enjoy that jail cell while being the guy ‘fighting the man’, or whatever Walter Mitty fantasy you subscribe to.

          As I said in the first place, the ATF shouldn’t be in the business of “approving” anything, but that’s the reality the rest of us live in. We have to follow the rules until we can get them changed, so pardon me for thinking some complete effen idiot is just that, when presenting something the rest of us know is obviously verboten under current rules.

          We don’t have the return of concealed carry almost everywhere because a bunch of you ‘bad-ass rebels’ thumbed your nose at the law, we have it because we got the laws changed. You’re just as sadly pathetic as an Antifa protestor – action which will never produce the desired results.

          Anon, You apparently share the lack of ability to read and comprehend with Punisher. Perhaps you can take remedial courses together.

        • Anon, what you call defeatist I call reality.
          And I seriously doubt you can actually fault what I said, but you just didn’t like it. Whether or not you can afford to fight the government on your own dime and time, I have no idea. If you can, more power to you.

      • It sounds like you are not familar with the rules.

        A glove or a finger that moves really fast, are external to a firearm, and do not make that firearm a machine gun.

        Machine gun: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manually reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

        Each time the glove operates (or your finger) a single function of the trigger is used. The ATF is blatantly wrong on this, and they should have appealed.

        Regardless, your atitude and demeanor towards them is extremely strange. You are fine with a bump stock, or a hand crank trigger, but not a motorized glove? You “hope they lost a bunch of their own money?” Why????? Why would you hope that? How does any of this even affect you???

        • I am familiar with the rules, you apparently have the Spiccoli-free-thought interpretation of them.

          Didja even watch the video? Because it isn’t a finger placed on the trigger, and a finger isn’t directly acting on the trigger. The rest of your “argument” is just as specious, and would get laughed out of court, which is why they aren’t going to appeal – somebody told them for the hundredth time it’s blatantly illegal and they finally accepted sound counsel.

          But you go get ’em, legal mastermind.

          Oh, and yeah, I think people who do things that anyone with a brain knows to be illegal, shouldn’t be allowed to profit from it. Gypsy cabs, gypsy hotels, there are reasons they are illegal, despite the fact that uber/lyft/airbnb exist in most places.

        • Please explain why it shouldn’t be illegal to hook a motor/engine to a Gatling gun, or any crank-fired gun for that matter. Following your “argument”, this should be easy for you to do.

          I’ll be waiting for your legal enlightenment.

    • Remember, this is the same BATFE(ARBF) that says the Arsenal Firearms AF2011-A1 is legal, even though it literally is a machine gun according to the GCA. (It fires more than one round with a single pull of the trigger. And, yes, it has only one trigger, no matter how many hammers, sears, or other components it has.)
      But this is government; why would we expect consistency, or even repeatable logic?

  3. Re: Gun Glove:

    Starting at about 0:34, watch the blonde twit, with the blue nail polish, demonstrate how to completely fail to control a handgun.

    This nitwit should stick to sewing, or any other activity that does not involve a gun.

    Michael J Arnold

  4. The one female who is washing the car clearly has a top on. Integrity means doing what you say you are going to do. Have words lost all their meaning?!

    • the car doesn’t have a top.

      it’s a topless car wash. that’s what they are washing… a topless car.

      of course, they aren’t going to stop all the other people with hardtops from getting their cars washed. they need the business.

      dont’cha love lawyers?

  5. Export reform is good news for everyone, especially shooters outside the US and manufacturers within. Warranty work is a big issue, and easier access to parts will help.

  6. So the gloveboys are surprised the ATF didn’t go for their gimmick?!? This is my surprised look 😱😱😱😱Didja’ know there is no duty to inform CC in Illinois? Or in lots of other states…

    • My question is why this even has to be approved by the ATF. It’s not a firearm nor is it a modification to one.

      The makers need to repurpose it as a “FPS gaming aid” or a “repetitive stress therapy device” or a … well, I won’t go there.

      • F***ing exactly! My thoughts exactly. Approved by the ATF for what??? They submitted a glove to be approved by the ATF??? They should send a formal letter to the ATF with a bag of jizz in it and a location where they can put it, and manufacture and sell their glove anyways.

        Machine gun: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manually reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

        Each time the glove operates (or your finger) a single function of the trigger is used. The ATF is blatantly wrong on this.

        The “restored to shoot” portion of the law was to make it illegal for those possessing real machine guns (not gloves), protecting themselves by simply disassembling their machine guns and storing them as a bag of parts. What is the difference between a finger moving really fast or an actuating pin??? What if they designed a glove that made your finger move really fast instead of the pin? It’s all so absolutely ridiculous. And I can’t believe we have retarded individuals and milquetoast vag***s here defending the result of this crap.

  7. Sell the glove as a marital aid.

    “The Love Glove! Gets your ‘gun’ off faster!”

    ATF doesn’t regulate that kind of “performance enhancing devices”….

    ….yet

  8. In Illinois cc permit holder info is linked to the autos license plate if that person is the registered owner of the car. My daughter got pulled over (again ☹️) and the cops first question was “where is the gun?” When he ran the plate, my Auto’s info came up along with the fact I have a cc permit. She explained that any guns would be home with me but he persisted with that line of questioning enough that she clued in that he was trying to trip her up so he could search the car. She handed him my phone number, asked for his supervisor, and sat perfectly still. Turns out I went to high school with the sgt. The officer received a quick side of the road training session and my daughter received a speeding ticket.

    • I think more than a side line chat is needed here–send him back to POST for a refresher. Having a gun in the car is 1) none of his damn business and he doesn’t get to take control of it during a traffic stop; and 2) it is NOT probable cause to search. Why do some of these officers seem to think that their personal safety requires disarming motorists with ccws who are more law abiding and thus less likely to shoot a cop than another cop???

      • Dude.

        Cops are roadside bandits empowered by the state. They are give carte blanche to do pretty much whatever they want in the heat of the moment.

        It’s not just the firearm issue that isn’t “any of the cop’s business”, the simple fact is he shouldn’t have any business pulling people over in the first place.

        But, but, but people might speed! Do they speed today? Yes. What percentage of “evil speeders” do you imagine cops actually ticket today?

        But, but, but they might have drugs! So? What business is it if they are ingesting something that you disagree with? Is homicide already a crime? If the person is impaired by drugs, alcohol, freaking texting or heck even the infotainment system in their car, doesn’t matter if they injure or kill another human they have committed a true crime.

        All of these other excuses for pulling people over only serve as excuses to violate peoples’ rights all day every day. Unless and until our mentality changes on “LEOs” in general then only expect more violations of rights.

        • Yep. Gangsters with taxpayer funding, and built-in protections from consequences. What modern policing has become is sickening.

  9. A small matter of detail, but the court ruling was regarding a Seattle PD issue (although it certainly sets precedent throughout the system) – the picture shows some of SanFran PD’s finest.

  10. It was an officer who had spent 15ish years on a dept. in cook county and had hired on to our dept. in Kane county. He was seemingly trying that corrupt bullshit on a car full of what he thought were naive girls but they played the situation correctly. It is my understanding that he has come around to actually be a pretty decent cop…once the cook county stink wore off.

  11. The AutoGlove idiots aren’t going to sell their dumb product to gun folk, but look on the bright side: they now have a prototype for their new product, the “RoboDiddler 5000”.

    As far as the Seattle case goes, were the police actually arguing that they should be allowed to use disproportional, unreasonable force? I mean, isn’t “objectively reasonable force, proportional to the threat” just pretty much the standard that all of us non-police are held to by the legal system?

  12. It amazes me how willing so many in this forum are to throw our fellow people of the gun under the bus and bow down to the ATF. The robo-glove people are right. The ATF (and you whiners) are full of it. This is the usual arbitrary ATF crap. Their precious laws no longer make sense so they’re lashing out and punishing the law abiding as always. If everybody was as timid and weak-willed as you people, we’d still be oohing and ahhing over the latest $10,000 1911 clone, and nobody would ever have heard of Gaston Glock.

      • Sorry Mama, I have to agree with him. While there are a few here who are truly liberty minded, most are not. They would gladly just go along with the “system” and feel self righteous because they’re “law-abiding citizens”.

        Rather than unite under the banner of “freedom and liberty for all”, I guess they find it easier to denounce or harass those who actually have the fortitude to stand up to the affront that is the ATF.

        • So, you think that coming on a forum like this and insulting people you don’t know will change anything for the better? How does that work?

          I hope you will let us know when you are ready to lead the POTG army against the ATF.

        • I actually agree with the Robo Glove people, and would use the Slide Fire stock as an example of where the BATFE(ARBF) got it wrong to say the glove is illegal. (If the one is legal, why isn’t the other? To say nothing of the Hellfire)
          At the same time, I also understand that the government will do anything it can to exert power where it has no authority to do so.
          Fighting the government in such a fashion, though, is extremely expensive, with no guarantee of success.

        • Believe it or not, most of us here are of relatively modest means. We can’t afford to be hounded by the government, even if it does interfere with our freedoms that are plainly laid out in the constitution, at least on a one-on-one confrontation.
          I am very glad that you are in a position to do so, however.

      • I agree with him. He didn’t say everyone, (you people = those supporting the ATF for a decision that had no basis in law.)

        So, you think that coming on a forum like this and insulting people you don’t know will change anything for the better? How does that work?

        I hope you will let us know when you are ready to lead the POTG army against the ATF.

        Well, Yea. By me giving them a hard slap in the face verbally, while illustrating to them and everyone else that they have the same mentality as the tyrants, and logically showing them why the ATF is wrong, it brings people to my side. If people are OK with a guy being arrested for a felony for using a f**king glove shooting their gun rapidly in their backyard, I have zero respect for those people whatsoever.

        The POTG army against the ATF is won with hearts, minds, reason, and votes. When you have morons supporting the decision of the ATF on this … glove… then we are losing the battle.

    • You’re right that the ATF ruling is senseless and arbitrary. You’re right that we should resist such incursions on our freedom and rights. However, I can support the right of the glove developers to build and sell their product, and at the same time deride it for being an idiotic, dangerous idea.

  13. Georgia’s campus carry law was far from merely “imperfect”. It doesn’t apply to private schools, and doesn’t fix the knife foolishness that can still get you arrested with a 1.6″ blade.

    Like the Obama”care” repeals, they need to start over and do it right.

    • The ATF ruled that because gatling guns require continuous and complex motion, they are not automatic. You must lift, push, and pull in sequence to run a gatling gun or the gat crank. Similarly the Slide Fire stock requires a trigger squeeze from one hand and a continuous push from the opposing arm. Multiple motions do not make for an automatic.

      It’s arbitrary and I disagree with it. But that’s why. The Auto Glove doesn’t require multiple motions, it simply requires a person to squeeze the trigger and hold.

      • Doesn’t matter. The glove doesn’t fit the definition of a machine gun:

        Machine gun: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manually reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

        Each time the glove operates (or your finger) a single function of the trigger is used. If you made a device that vibrated your finger, what could the ATF do about it? Nothing. The bottom line is, they don’t like the idea, regardless of the law. Their formal statement to the manufacturer is nothing short of a polite and formal empty threat, simply because it would likely not survive the courts, because it does not fit the law. What is confusing to the ATF about “single function of the trigger???!@?”

        • I don’t disagree with you. I simply pointed out that the likeliest reason for denying the auto glove is that it is a single motion. Where the other products achieving similar results are complex motions

        • Anon, Are you really are this completely dense, and completely ignorant of how law works, and how it’s worded?

          If you made a device that vibrated your finger, lemme help ya F. Lee Bailey, your finger would not be actuating the trigger, it would just be an intermediary connector to the actual motor. And (wrongly or not) be considered a machine gun under the current rules.

      • You’ve clearly never used a slide stock or you’d know that squeezing the trigger while you pull the action away from the stock will guarantee that the gun only fires once. You pull on a tab on the stock like it’s an offset trigger, and after that the gun will repeat as long as you pull on the handguard with your weak hand. One motion. If you made the actuator for the glove a big fake forend and drove the cam with recoil the two would be exactly the same.

  14. I can’t say the ATF findings determined it was illegal. It’s certainly an interesting concept, operating on a similar premise of the trigger cranks. I guess for now, if you want simulated full auto, we’ll have to drop $500 on a Fostech or Franklin Armory trigger.

  15. Cops live under the rights of the 2A and – as well – under the limits of the 4A. We the People – those of us who are neither in the military nor civilian agents of the state – are not under any 4A constraint. As such, there is – at least a theoretical – potential for a 4A constraint upon a state’s agent in exercising his individual 2A right. That there be such a potential is neither a good/bad thing, necessarily.

    Recall, as just one example, the very recent case of the GA (?) student attempting (successfully) suicide-by-cop. Imagine, in turn, the situation of 3 different actors: an ordinary civilian; a civilian cop; and, a military officer. The ordinary civilian has no duty to seise the armed belligerent; nor is he constrained by the 4A. He has a 2A right-to-life and is held to a reasonable-man standard in defending himself. The cop has a duty to perform; he ought not simply walk away. Nor, do we allow him to ignore the threat to public safety. The cop must “seise” the threat; and, do so “not unreasonably” in conformance to the 4A. The military officer has no police power over the civilian belligerent; he is in much the same position as the civilian.

    So, our problem is with the cop and his 4A limitation. Do we hold that there is NO 4A limitation on the cop? Or, are we better off acknowledging that the 4A holds the cop to a higher standard of restraint than is applicable to a civilian? In the example case there were multiple cops on site; and, more might have been summoned. The jeopardy was a knife and the Tueller Drill scenario; in a plaza where there was plenty of space within which to conduct a “monkey dance”. Was it reasonable / unreasonable for the cop to shoot the belligerent under these circumstances? Did he have any “reasonable” non-lethal options; e.g., pepper-spray or carrying on the monkey dance until some non-lethal force (a fire hose?) might be brought to bear?

    We live in an age of professional police – one not contemplated in the Founding generation. A sheriff at that time would have been little better trained or equipped than a militiaman. What does the 4A protection from “unreasonable” seizure mean – relative to a professional police force – today? Does it mean NOTHING? Or, does it mean SOMEthing? In the latter case, WHAT?

  16. Sorry, but the only way to get back Ca gun rights is to make the laws apply to all citizens. As the LEOs quit, or train differently, it could open up the eyes of the public and give us the rights that people all over the US enjoy.

    As for Seattle telling LEOs they must hold back, does this mean when a perp has a .22, .25, or .32 that thay are limited to that caliber? I see the demand for drop guns going up in Seattle.

  17. I haven’t seen anyone, including the manufacturer, make note of the specs of the trigger the ATF chose to test it with. The letter says they measured the pull at 2.5-2.75 lbs.

    It would seem they happened to test it on some kind of race gun.

  18. The auto glove…………..Hmmm, I think I’ll pass on that one, even if it was legal.
    What if you had to scratch your nuts, and that thing started up? No telling what kind of damage it might do. If you can afford all the ammo you will probably waste, then you can probably afford the tax stamp.

  19. @Cliff H

    “If I went to a restricted (slave) state and bought two 16 oz drinks and then poured them into my Big Bubba, would I be breaking the law?”

    Absolutely: “constructive purchase”. You had the means to convert legal purchases into a device that eventuates an illegal purchase in that you are attempting to evade the law restricting you to only a single 16oz soda. Cheating is illegal, and must be punished severely in order to send a message, and deter others from running afoul of the law, ruining their chances to obtain a position of trust, run for public office, or buy a firearm. Cheaters are obviously mentally ill, and must be controlled for the good of the public safety. In fact, you should probably be located and charged with instructing others with internet connections on how to evade the proper, just and common sense sugary drink control.

    So there.

  20. Frankly, I’m confounded by the lawsuit filed by the Seattle officers. It would appear to me that the decision of the 9th Circuit concerning the limitations on the use of force are exactly in conformance with SCOTUS rulings on the use of force up to and including the use of deadly force as elucidated by the High Court in Garner vs. Tennessee, i.e. that the use of deadly force is condoned only in cases where the suspect’s actions present an imminent threat of death or serious injury to the public and/or the officer. I have to wonder what sort of objection the Seattle cops had against that.

    • “Proportionate force” is highly subjective. If you want to disarm the public, you have the courts determine that weapons must match one-for-one in order to satisfy “proportionate”. It will also mean that if the attacker is using a weapon only capable of inducing injury, rather than death (bat, hammer, knife, tree branch, hands, feet), the use of deadly force (defined as a gun) is illegal. In other words, if someone brings a cupcake to a knife fight, the one with the knife is guilty of “disproportionate” force.

      • Sam – It would appear that you missed my point. Any cop with any training at all knows that “proportionate force” means that he/she may use only that force which is necessary to protect yourself from the force used against you or to effect an arrest. If you get punched in the face trying to effect an arrest you are perfectly justified in using a blackjack, asp, nightstick, mace, or a taser (if you have one, most cops don’t) to subdue the suspect – but you’ll likely have a rough time justifying the use of the deadly force on your hip unless the suspect escalates the manner of force used against you. BTW, that would include a bat, hammer, knife, tree branch, etc., any of which is perfectly capable of killing you just as completely as would a .44 magnum. If the suspect is good enough with his hands and feet and you’re getting the living crap beaten out of you, your escalation to your sidearm can’t be ruled out as being unreasonable or disproportionate, either.

        I just do not understand the lawsuit by the Seattle officers. On what possible grounds could they sue the city for establishing use of force guidelines which conform to standards which are in place pretty much everywhere and have been given the imprimatur of the various courts? Anybody have a guess?

        • “On what possible grounds could they sue the city for establishing use of force guidelines which conform to standards which are in place pretty much everywhere and have been given the imprimatur of the various courts?”

          I would think they come from the angle that any resistance can indicate that increased force (above polite compliance) against the police indicates an intention to resist by any means necessary, that even fists and feet are deadly weapons, that given the number and types of concealable weapons a cop has no way to know when the violence will escalate to deadly, and the police would have no warning, placing them at an untenable disadvantage as the attacker always acts faster than anyone can react.

          While cops routinely use unnecessary force, I do understand “the Chicago way”, and why cops would be of that mind once a perp displays resistance to commands.

        • Sam – I wore a badge for 15 years as a street cop and then street supervisor before being retired on disability. I don’t know where you got the notion that cops “routinely use unnecessary force” but it certainly wasn’t tolerated on my department. Any cop who went overboard was subjected to departmental discipline and even criminal charges if an allegation of excessive force was sustained.

          Most of the time it’s not that the initial use of force wasn’t justified. It’s once you get the miscreant under control that cops get into trouble for excessive force. When you’re hurt, bloodied, and your uniform is torn up (to be replaced out of your pocket), and you’re pissed off and the adrenaline is still flowing, it’s awfully hard to resist the urge to give the guy an extra “tuning up” in retaliation. It takes a GREAT deal of self-control to hit the “OFF” button and not all cops have it.

          You’re absolutely correct that the suspect has an advantage in the means and degree to which things escalate and how a cop responds to it. However, that escalation is the benchmark for the amount of force “proportional to the threat” and justified under the law. Any cop who responds with an amount of force disproportionate to the threat is placing his job and indeed, his freedom, in jeopardy.

Leave a Reply

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