Michigan’s Misguided Attempt to Bankrupt Gunmakers

By

-

December 13, 2024

Leave it to Michigan’s Democratic lawmakers to trot out the tired old trope of “consumer protection” as an excuse to wage war on the firearm industry. Their latest legislative push, now advancing through the state House Judiciary Committee, proposes removing liability protections for gun manufacturers. The aim? To bypass federal protections under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and bankrupt gun companies through an avalanche of lawsuits.

Let’s get one thing straight: the PLCAA doesn’t give gun manufacturers blanket immunity. What it does is protect them from frivolous lawsuits designed to punish them for the criminal misuse of their products by third parties. It doesn’t protect them if their products are defective or if they engage in false advertising. Yet Michigan Democrats are claiming their proposed legislation is about consumer protection and holding gunmakers accountable for so-called “irresponsible practices.”

PLCAA: A Necessary Shield Against Frivolous Lawsuits

The PLCAA is a federal law that ensures gun manufacturers and sellers aren’t held responsible for crimes committed by individuals using their products. It’s no different than shielding carmakers from being sued every time someone gets drunk and crashes a car, killing someone, or preventing alcohol manufacturers from being sued because someone drank too much and caused a fatal wreck.

Let’s be honest: If you try to sue Ford or Toyota because a drunk driver used their vehicle to kill someone, you’ll get laughed out of court unless you can prove a specific defect in the vehicle caused the crash. And you will likely be sued to repay the costs of their defense in the case. The same principle applies to firearms. You can sue a gun company if a gun is defective, just like you can sue an automaker if faulty brakes cause an accident. But you don’t get to sue simply because someone misuses the product. But anti-gun Democrats aren’t just misleading the public about this, they are blatantly lying. They say laws like the PLCAA protects gun makers from “any” lawsuit. But that simply is not true. State Rep. Ranjeev Puri parrots the lies spewed by groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, which isn’t about safety, but about supporting anti-gun legislation.

LIE 1: “The proposed bills would remove protections that have for years given the gun industry immunity that no other industry is afforded, said state Rep. Ranjeev Puri, a Canton Township Democrat who helped introduce the bills,” the Detroit Free Press reports.

LIE 2: “This bill would allow victims of gun violence and impacted communities to hold the gun industry accountable for irresponsible practices that have for years created dangerous conditions in the state of Michigan,” Puri told the Free Press.

A Transparent Attempt to Bankrupt Gunmakers

Michigan’s bill doesn’t protect consumers; it creates a legal minefield designed to crush gunmakers under the weight of endless litigation and an opportunity for failing Democratically run cities to try to cash in on their persecution to fill their coffers to fund more ineffective city programs. State Rep. Kelly Breen, a Democrat backing the legislation, claims this isn’t about the Second Amendment. Really? What else would you call a proposal that allows anyone to sue gun manufacturers for legally selling a perfectly functioning product?

State Rep. Andrew Fink, a Republican, nailed it when he described this as a “shadow ban” on firearms. The legislation doesn’t seek accountability—it seeks annihilation.

Under Michigan’s proposal, gun manufacturers could be sued for “creating a public nuisance” through the lawful marketing or sale of their products. Imagine if that same logic were applied to other industries: Could knife makers be sued because someone used a kitchen knife in a stabbing? Could a brewery be held liable for a drunk driver’s actions? Should makers of violent movies and video games be held liable for crimes committed by those who may be inspiried by their creations? We know advertising–the creation of words, sounds, images or video to promote a brand, product or service in order to illicit a response from consumers–works. If it didn’t, companies wouldn’t spend a projected $389.49 billion on advertising in 2024. So, why do we think some unstable people are not influenced by the violent images and depictions they see and experience in movies and video games?

The Double Standard

If this legislation were truly about consumer safety, Democrats would be targeting other industries as well. Yet, we don’t see calls to hold alcohol companies liable for drunk driving deaths. That’s because dram shop laws—which hold establishments, not manufacturers, responsible for over-serving alcohol—already address those issues. Similarly, car manufacturers aren’t dragged into court when someone decides to ignore the law and speed through a school zone.

Why should gunmakers be treated differently? Because Democrats want to bankrupt them, plain and simple.

Guns Are Inherently Dangerous— Ummm, That’s the Point Stupid

Firearms are designed to fire projectiles. When projectiles made of lead or other metals strike tissue and bone at say anywhere between 800 fps and 4,000 fps, it can do some major freaking damage. Serious injury and even death can result. When someone uses a gun to commit a crime, and the gun works as intended, that’s not a defect—it’s a crime. Michigan’s proposal pretends to ignore this basic truth while relying on the kind of virtue-signaling that’s become the hallmark of anti-gun lawmakers.

If the goal were really about “accountability,” we’d see the same level of scrutiny applied to video game developers or Hollywood producers who create violent media. After all, violent video games and movies (as already noted above) could arguably inspire someone to commit violence. But under the First Amendment, media creators are protected. The same principle should apply to the firearms industry under both the First and the Second Amendments.

Federal Law Will Prevail

Let’s not kid ourselves: even if Michigan Democrats succeed in passing this legislation, the PLCAA will supersede it. Federal law is clear, and it’s not going anywhere. So why push for laws that will inevitably fail? Simple: it’s political theater designed to curry favor with their liberal base while wasting everyone’s time and resources. That or they are genuinely intellectually stunted to the point that they fail to see the legal illogic in their proposals. They need to educate themselves if this is the case.

Michigan’s bill isn’t about consumer protection or safety; it’s about disarming the public and dismantling the firearms industry. The PLCAA was enacted to prevent precisely this kind of bad-faith legislation, and it will continue to protect gunmakers from being scapegoated for the actions of criminals.

This isn’t about safety or accountability—it’s about control. And gun owners everywhere should be paying attention. In fact, Americans everywhere should be paying attention. Because if they can pass this, it sets the blueprint for legislators to come after any product you hold dear and that can be misused in a way that someone else doesn’t like. Is this really the America we want to live in?

We Can’t Stop Crime, So We’ll Go After Glock: New Jersey, Minnesota AGs Sue Manufacturer

By

TTAG Contributor

-

December 13, 2024

13

Chinese GLOCK full auto switch (wish.com) — Chinese knock-off GLOCK full auto switch (wish.com)

In a controversial move, the attorneys general of New Jersey and Minnesota filed lawsuits on December 12 against Glock, accusing the gun manufacturer of knowingly producing pistols that can be easily modified into illegal machine guns using inexpensive conversion devices known as “Glock switches.” We’ve all seen this movie before!

The lawsuits claim these switches, which can cost as little as $20 or be fabricated using a 3D printer, enable Glock handguns to fire up to 1,200 rounds per minute with a single trigger pull, according to Reuters. The New Jersey Attorney General’s office alleges that Glock has been aware of this issue since the 1980s but has failed to make design modifications to prevent such conversions.

In a press release, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin emphasized the public safety threat posed by these modified firearms.

“With this lawsuit, we are putting the homemade machine gun industry out of business,” Platkin said in a press release, accusing Glock of prioritizing profits over public safety. Platkin’s lawsuit, filed in the New Jersey Superior Court’s Chancery Division, seeks to halt the sale of these handguns to civilians in the state and demands restitution for the alleged harm caused.

Similarly, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a separate lawsuit, citing incidents where converted Glock handguns have been used in violent crimes in his state. One notable case is the 2021 Minneapolis nightclub shooting that resulted in two deaths, including a college student, Charlie Johnson, who was killed hours before his graduation ceremony. Ellison argues that Glock’s failure to address these risks constitutes negligence and violates Minnesota’s consumer protection laws.

“Glock’s actions, and their inaction, violate Minnesota law and put kids, communities, and law enforcement in danger. This has to stop,” Ellison said in a statement, calling for design changes to prevent such conversions and for the return of profits Glock allegedly earned through these sales.

Background and Broader Implications

Glock, known for producing one of the most trusted and reliable handguns favored by law enforcement agencies worldwide, has faced mounting legal challenges. Earlier this year, the City of Chicago filed a similar lawsuit, alleging that Glock’s design facilitated illegal conversions into machine guns. Glock’s reputation for reliability and simplicity is often cited as a selling point, with many gun enthusiasts, concealed carry practitioners and law enforcement agencies relying on its products. However, these lawsuits highlight concerns about the unintended consequences of the firearm’s design, while neglecting the obvious criminality of the people who misuse the firearms to do harm to others.

The lawsuits from New Jersey and Minnesota are part of a broader push by a coalition of Democratic attorneys general from 15 states and the District of Columbia to hold gun manufacturers accountable. This legal strategy mirrors actions taken against other manufacturers, such as the $73 million settlement reached with Remington Arms following the Sandy Hook shooting, according to Reuters. It’s a clear admission by these state’s that they are either unable or unwilling to combat crime at the root cause level, so instead, will go after legally operating companies in a blatant money-grab to fill their state’s coffers.

Industry Pushback

The NSSF and other 2A organizations have criticized these lawsuits as baseless, noting that Glock does not manufacture or sell the conversion devices. Glock has not yet issued a public statement on the lawsuits but has previously denied responsibility for modifications made to its firearms by third parties, Reuters reports.

Platkin’s office shared a video in their press release of an ATF demonstration of a switch in use on a Glock pistol:

Everytown’s New NRA ‘Exposé’ Only Exposes Its Own Poor Journalism Skills

By

Mark Chesnut

-

December 13, 2024

10

Screen Shot 2024-12-12 at 4.14.10 PM — Bloomberg-Funded Everytown reporter working on latest "Smoking Gun" expose.

So-called Everytown for Gun Safety, which hasn’t been heard of in most towns in the nation and has hardly anything to do with gun safety, brags that its “Smoking Gun” project is dedicated to “exposing the gun industry’s role in our gun violence epidemic.”

Judging from its latest “exposé,” whoever is in charge there doesn’t know the difference between the truth and wildly exaggerated hype about a very important subject that we’ll set the record straight on here.

Headlined “Newly Uncovered Documents Reveal NRA’s Behind-the-Scenes Efforts to Create Sweeping Legal Protections for the Gun Industry,” the press release about the report tries to make it sound like NRA officials crept around in political backrooms, passing out $100 bills and trying to make a law that would protect gun manufacturers that the author calls “bad actors” from helping murder innocent Americans.

Actually, that wasn’t the case at all. Channeling my inner Paul Harvey, “Now, the rest of the story.”

In the early 2000s, Andrew Cuomo, attorney general under President Bill Clinton, was encouraging frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers for the illegal misuse of their lawfully made and legally sold products. More than 30 cities and counties had sued various firearms manufacturers, alleging that they should be held financially responsible for the cost of urban murders committed with firearms.

In fact, at the time, Cuomo was trying to make gun manufacturers the “next big tobacco,” despite the fact that, unlike cigarettes, when used properly and safely, firearms aren’t a danger to anyone. And despite the fact that “keeping” and “bearing” firearms is specifically protected by the Second Amendment.

The plan was for gun manufacturers, who didn’t have nearly as deep of pockets as the big tobacco companies did, to yield to incremental gun control through litigation rather than legislation since Congress had little interest in most of the administration’s anti-gun proposals. At the time, Cuomo boldly warned gun companies that if they didn’t cooperate with the administration’s schemes, they’d suffer “death by a thousand cuts.” And he might have been correct.

Seeing the likely dire results of the efforts of Cuomo’s and a number of big-city mayors’ schemes—namely, gun companies going out of business, horribly damaging the Second Amendment—National Rifle Association leaders rolled up their sleeves and went to work. The NRA worked with pro-gun lawmakers in Congress to draft legislation to protect gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits holding them liable for criminal misuse of their products.

With much pushback from the Clinton Administration, anti-gunners in Congress and various gun-ban organizations, the fight wasn’t an easy one. But the effort eventually resulted in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which was finally passed in 2005 and signed into law by President George W. Bush.

The claim that the law protects “bad actors” and gives “blanket immunity” to the gun industry, as Everytown claims in its shoddy piece of work, is patently false. The truth is both gun manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct and other actions for which they are directly responsible—just not for criminal misuse of their legal products. But Everytown will never tell you that.

Nor will cynical Democrat politicians. Even President Joe Biden has repeatedly lied about PLCAA over the past four years.

“If I get one thing on my list, if the Lord came down and said, ‘Joe, you get one of these,’ give me that one,” Biden said of repealing the PLCAA in an April 2021 Rose Garden ceremony. Later, during his 2022 State of the Union address, Biden stated: “Repeal the liability shield that makes gun manufacturers the only industry in America that can’t be sued—the only one! Imagine had we done that with the tobacco manufacturers.”

President Biden knows that’s a lie, and the folks at Everytown know that’s a lie. But bitterness dies hard when you have to look back at the major loss the NRA handed gun-ban advocates by seeing the PLCAA through to fruition nearly 20 years ago.

Go ahead and read the piece-of-trash “expose” from Everytown if you want. You’re nearly sure to come to the same conclusion I did. In fact, if that kind of work is what Bloomberg is funding through Everytown’s “Smoking Gun,” I won’t be surprised if he pulls the plug on the project sometime soon, given this latest poor effort.

In the end, the only good thing about the “exposé” is that it gave us the chance to set the record straight yet again. Thanks for that opportunity, Everytown!

Florida Lawmakers Push to Roll Back Post-Parkland Gun Restrictions

By

Octavius Mayhem

-

December 13, 2024

13

Florida may soon reclaim its “Gunshine State” moniker as Republican lawmakers introduce bills aimed at rolling back key gun restrictions enacted following the 2018 Parkland school shooting. These bills, if passed, would expand gun rights in the state by repealing the red flag law, lowering the age to purchase rifles and allowing open carry.

State Rep. Dr. Joel Rudman, a Republican and congressional candidate who’s running to replace Matt Gaetz in Congress, has filed legislation to repeal Florida’s red flag law and make open carry legal. Introduced after the Parkland tragedy, the red flag law allows courts to temporarily confiscate firearms from individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others. Rudman, in a social media post, declared the measure a step toward restoring constitutional freedoms.

“My bill reiterates my commitment to freedom and to the Constitution,” Rudman wrote on social media.

Sen. Randy Fine, another Republican vying for Congress, is sponsoring a bill to lower the minimum age for rifle purchases from 21 to 18. The current age restriction was enacted as part of the Parkland reforms. Fine argues the age increase was inconsistent with other legal responsibilities and rights afforded to 18-year-olds.

“If you’re entrusted with a rifle to defend our country, you should also be able to purchase one,” Fine said in a statement reported by Fox 13.

The proposals have drawn predictable opposition from Democrats, including Rep. Anna Eskamani, who described them as “bad and dangerous policy.” She contended that Fine’s efforts are politically motivated by his congressional ambitions.

“I have no doubt that Mr. Fine… is trying to set himself to stand out with his conservative colleagues,” she told The Associated Press.

Florida Senate President Ben Albritton, however, expressed skepticism about the bills’ prospects. While the Florida House has previously advanced similar legislation, the state Senate has historically resisted measures like open carry.

“I’ve supported law enforcement my entire life,” Albritton said in a statement, adding that he opposes open carry initiatives. There is no evidence availabe online that shows whether law enforcement agencies in Florida supported or opposed the legislation, so his statement is meant to mislead and make people think police officers support stricter gun laws, therefor, his support for stricter gun laws is a vote of support for law enforcement.

The 2018 Parkland shooting, which left 17 dead and 17 injured, galvanized lawmakers to enact some of Florida’s most restrictive gun laws to date. Gun rights advocates, however, have since worked to the restrictive provisions, viewing them as an unconstitutional infringement on Second Amendment rights and where red flag laws are concerned, a policy ripe for abuse lacking due process and promoting false accusations.

Supporters of Rudman’s and Fine’s bills argue the changes would strengthen citizens’ ability to protect themselves.

“Floridians should never have to trade God-given freedoms for a politician’s empty promise of security,” Rudman said in his announcement of the bill.

While past efforts to roll back post-Parkland measures have stalled in the Senate, the upcoming legislative session in March will determine whether Florida takes another step toward expanding gun rights or maintains the status quo.

Is Gallup Conducting Surveys or Publishing Gun Fiction?

By

Lee Williams

-

December 12, 2024

25

Gun ownership rates haven’t changed much since the 1960s, Gallup pollsters would have you believe. Gun ownership is actually two points lower today than it was in the 60s, the polling giant claims.

According to Gallup, gun ownership data has been roughly the same for more than 60 years: 44% of Americans admit they have a gun in their home, but only 30% admit the gun is theirs and 14% say the gun isn’t theirs.

This data, minus a point or two, has been used in Gallup’s stories for years.

From an 11-year-old Gallup story titled Men, Married, Southerners Most Likely to Be Gun Owners, “an average of 30% of Americans said they personally own a gun. Another 14% did not personally own a gun but live in a household with someone who does.”

From a Gallup story published just weeks ago titled Gun Ownership Rates Have Spiked Among Republican Women: “A steady 31% of U.S. adults personally own a gun, while another 13% say there is a gun in their household that belongs to someone else.”

Almost all of Gallup’s anti-gun stories use this data to support their points, while some use the faulty data to support a long list of ever-changing claims.

“The stability in the overall figures obscures an increase in ownership among women in general, driven by Republican women,” the most recent story suggested.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation and other firearm groups strongly disagree with Gallup’s gun ownership numbers.

“I don’t believe that number is representative of the true number of gun owners in America today,” said National Shooting Sports Foundation spokesman Mark Oliva. “Everyone dismisses Gallup’s polling data.”

The two Gallup stories are not alone. Gallup’s pollsters have based hundreds of stories on their 44% have guns, 30% own the guns, and 14% don’t own the guns, premise.

“Majority in U.S. Continues to Favor Stricter Gun Laws,” which was published by Gallup Oct. 21, 2023, claims “Forty-four percent of U.S. adults say they have a gun in their home or on their property, with 30% saying the gun belongs to them personally and the remainder saying it belongs to another household member.“ 
“U.S. Opinion and the Election: Guns, Immigration, Climate,” which was published Oct. 21, 2022, states: “It is notable that Gallup data show 44% of Americans say either that they own a gun personally or that there is a gun in their household, making this a large constituency with a direct interest in legislation that would affect their gun ownership.” 
“Gun Owners Increasingly Cite Crime as Reason for Ownership,” which was published Nov. 17, 2021, states, “It is notable that Gallup data show 44% of Americans say either that they own a gun personally or that there is a gun in their household, making this a large constituency with a direct interest in legislation that would affect their gun ownership. 
“What Percentage of Americans Own Guns?” which was published Nov. 13, 2020, claims “Thirty-two percent of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun, while a larger percentage, 44%, report living in a gun household.”

On an online story page titled Guns, Gallup has a graphic that shares their firearm ownership data from the 1960s to today, which is simply titled: “Do you have a gun in your home?”

To be clear, Gallup has stated in stories that it didn’t track gun ownership data until around 2000, so it is not known how the organization gathered gun-ownership data from the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

Polling Concerns

The NSSF’s Oliva and many others doubt that Gallup can obtain their data legitimately through phone calls, which the firm continues to use.

“If I were to be cold-called by a polling company and asked about guns, I would hang up on them,” Oliva told the Second Amendment Foundation.

Gun owners, he said, do not want to become crime victims, so they are very careful who they talk to about their guns, especially since several anti-gun state governments have already released their gun-owner data.

“New York published the names of those who had permits,” Oliva said. “California ‘accidentally’ released private concealed-carriers information.”

Other groups may use the gun-owner information for malicious purposes.

“A lot of gun owners opt out of these surveys and aren’t well represented,” Oliva said.

Data Problems

It is not known how Gallup came up with, or why they maintain, gun-ownership numbers. The firm did not respond to SAF’s emails or phone calls seeking their comments for this story. Their data, however, is clearly wrong, especially the gun-sales numbers.

For the past 25 years, between 8 million to 39 million firearms were sold each year, according to FBI data, which is based on the ATF Form 4473. Actual firearms transfer data, which includes private sales that do not require federal forms, is higher.

“Gallup’s polling data would have you believe that 30 percent of gun owners are just adding to their collections,” Oliva said. “We don’t think this is true, especially when we’ve seen that millions of new gun owners are buying guns for the first time.”

Gallup certainly isn’t alone. In a story published in July, Pew Research said roughly 40% of Americans have a firearm in their home, including 32% who claimed ownership. This claim, too, is wrong.

No government agency or private firm like Gallup knows how many Americans have guns in their homes, or how many guns Americans have in their homes. The reason for this is simple: American gun owners do not trust the government or private firms like Gallup or Pew Research with their gun data.

It’s actually pretty simple, really.

Story courtesy of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to the project.

Father Forced to Shoot His Son in Self-Defense

By

Doug Howlett

-

December 12, 2024

33

The father of a A 33-year-old man was forced to shoot his son in self-defense after a family argument broke out and the younger man began physically attacking his parents.

Officers in Lenoir City, Tennessee, responded to the family’s home around 8:30 p.m. Dec. 10 after a neighbor reported a fight, Chief Don White told WVLT 8 News. Upon arrival, they found Isaiah Gonzalez dead inside the home.

Initial investigations revealed Gonzalez had returned home and engaged in a heated argument with his parents, reportedly over his use of drugs. The confrontation escalated and then Gonzalez attacked both his mother and father. In an act of self-defense, the father retrieved a gun and shot Gonzalez, Chief White stated.

Both parents sustained non-life-threatening injuries in the altercation and were transported to a local hospital. Gonzalez’s mother was later transferred to the University of Tennessee Medical Center due to the severity of her injuries, according to WBIR.

District Attorney General Russell Johnson highlighted the challenges officers faced due to a language barrier with the parents, who primarily speak Spanish. However, the involvement of a newly hired investigator fluent in Spanish helped expedite the investigation. “

Tuesday’s incident marked the second time in recent weeks that Gonzalez was involved in a violent confrontation. On Nov. 24, Gonzalez was shot by Salvatore Mora Gutierrez in an unrelated incident tied to drugs, police said. Gutierrez was later apprehended and faces charges including attempted first-degree murder, according to WBIR.

Authorities confirmed that no charges have been filed against Gonzalez’s father as the investigation continues.

Washington Gun-Banners Set Sights On New Restrictions

By

Mark Chesnut

-

December 12, 2024

20

A Washington State anti-gun group is taking shots at lawful gun owners with both barrels, proposing seven new restrictions in the upcoming legislative session, including requiring a state permit for firearm purchasers, banning firearms in so-called “sensitive places” and levying an additional excise tax on the purchase of guns and ammunition.

According to a report at washingtonstatestandard.com, the Alliance For Gun Responsibility recently published its wish list for the upcoming legislative session. And the organization’s agenda for the 2025 legislative session reads like a gun-banner’s dream.

Proposals range from requiring a permit to purchase firearms to setting stricter standards for already highly regulated gun dealers and restricting firearms in so-called “sensitive places” to include parks and public buildings, as well as allowing municipalities to set their own carry laws. Other proposals include a so-called “safe storage” requirement by which the government would dictate how citizens handle their own private property and restrict what the group calls “bulk firearms and ammunition purchases.”

The most egregious, however, is the proposed excise tax—a scheme that started in California and has leaked over into other newly liberal-leaning states that have become largely anti-gun.

“Gun violence costs Washington state an average of $11.8 billion every year, ranging from direct medical costs and criminal justice services to a lost quality of life for victims and their families after a tragedy,” the policy agenda states. “Washington must raise revenue to support victims and service programs via an excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition.”

The frustrating thing is lawful citizens who purchase firearms through legal means (criminals generally steal or get theirs on the street) don’t use their firearms to commit criminal violence that costs so much money. Consequently, having them fund programs necessary because of criminals is not only unjust, but it’s illogical.

Like the recent ballot initiative passed in Colorado that puts a new 6.5% tax on guns, ammo and related accessories, this Washington proposal is nothing more than what some would call a “sin tax,” akin to that placed on items like tobacco products and alcoholic beverages. However, in this case, the only supposed “sin” being committed by Washington gun purchasers is practicing their Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms.

Firearms and ammunition are already subject to an 11% federal excise tax through the Pittman-Robertson Act—of which the bulk goes to state wildlife agencies for conservation projects—along with a variety of other state and local taxes and fees. To date, California and Colorado are the only other states to have enacted a similar tax scheme.

Washington State lawmakers who might be considering such a proposal in the upcoming legislative session would do well to acknowledge the pushback in the states that have instituted such a tax. The Colorado law passed just last month, and Second Amendment organizations are already preparing litigation on the matter.

Meanwhile, in California, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), National Rifle Association (NRA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) have filed a lawsuit on behalf of two individuals in the Golden State who were forced to pay the extra tax in an effort to get that state’s law struck down by the courts.

In the lawsuit, titled Jaymes v. Maduros, plaintiffs argue that the tax unconstitutionally targets gun owners for political purposes.

“Here, California effectively seeks the power to destroy the exercise of a constitutional right by singling it out for special taxation,” the complaint reads. “If this tax is permitted, there is nothing stopping California from imposing a 50% or even 100% tax on a constitutional right it disfavors—whether it be the right to keep and bear arms, the right to free exercise of religion or any other right.”

Ballistic Analysis Confirms Police Officer Shot Bystanders

By

Darwin Nercesian

-

December 12, 2024

29

A Detroit Police officer is under investigation and has been placed on “no gun status” after ballistic analysis revealed she shot two innocent bystanders while responding to a call on the city’s west side.

Interim Detroit Police Chief Todd Bettison updated the media in a November 27 press conference about the incident which occurred earlier this year on June 1. Bettison reported that Michigan State Police ballistic analysis received only a day earlier showed conclusively that two women, now 20 and 23, were injured when one of his officers fired at suspects during a “large block party” while responding to an active shooter.

One 911 caller described a “massive shootout” just before 2 AM on Trinity at Florence, in the area of McNichols and Grand River. Apparently not exaggerating, police recovered eight firearms and 93 shell casings

“The scene was very chaotic, the scene was loud. People were screaming, some were in distress,” according to Bettison.

The officer was searching a home when she encountered two armed subjects and issued a verbal command to drop their guns. One suspect was armed with a handgun and the other with an “AR-style type rifle, similar to an AK-47 assault rifle,” Bettison reported, adding that the officer fired “approximately five rounds” from her department-issued weapon, striking one of the subjects.

The injured subject was ultimately apprehended by officers inside his house where first aid was rendered and a tourniquet was applied which “…saved his life,” according to the Interim Chief.

“In a scene like this, the officers were only on scene for less than a minute, split-second decisions had to be made… Officers were left to deal with the armed assailant standing amidst innocent partygoers,” Bettison said.

The two women who were the unintended victims in the incident were treated at the hospital and released without further information given on the extent of their injuries.

Bettison says the officer “ feared for her life,” and has approximately eight years with the force and no job violations on her record.

Investigators continue to collect evidence, interview witnesses, and review video footage while the officer remains on “no gun status” pending the final outcome. More information is expected to be released at a later date.

“In those block parties when you have 4 or 5 hundred people and an active shooter…you have multiple people firing weapons. And if someone takes a target at our officers, it’s going to be hard to defend themselves and also not hit an innocent bystander. It’s just so condensed,” according to Bettison.

In such a chaotic situation, it is hard to imagine this incident chalked up to anything more than a horrible accident in a crowded and dangerous environment. It would be a shame to see a good officer’s career negatively impacted as the men and women of law enforcement face life-and-death situations with only moments to react, and this seems an awful lot like an officer placing herself in harm’s way to protect and serve her community. On the other hand, describing a rifle as “AR-style type rifle, similar to an AK-47 assault rifle” is just plain unforgivable.

Academy Sports Recalls Redfield 12-Gun and 18-Gun Fireproof Safes

By

Darwin Nercesian

-

December 12, 2024

15

Academy Sports + Outdoors has recalled Redfield 12-gun and 18-gun fireproof safes. According to the company, the recall is due to a serious injury hazard and risk of death. While the language sounds alarming, the danger the company is referring to comes from a security deficiency, leaving your firearms at risk of unauthorized access.

On December 25, approximately 6100 safes among these two models were recalled because the mechanical internal locking plates were found prone to alignment failure, allowing unauthorized users to open the safes, generally placing others in danger if the firearms inside should find their way into the hands of a child or someone intent on criminal action.

The recall involves only the two models mentioned, both manufactured overseas in Vietnam. Both models affectedwere sold at Academy stores and online at academy.com between February and August 2024 and priced from $350 to $600. The 12-gun fireproof safe, measuring 53” high by 15” wide by 16” deep, is model number 179498, and the 18-gun fireproof safe, measuring 55” high by 18” wide by 18” deep, is model number 179499. The model name and serial number are located on a red label at the bottom right corner of the safe’s door, with “Redfield” printed on the door above the number pad.

The Texas-based company urges consumers to stop using the safes immediately and return them to any Academy Sports + Outdoors store for a free replacement or refund. Consumers are also encouraged to contact Academy’s customer care department to receive help arranging for a replacement or refund.

At this time, there have been no reported incidents, making the risk warning a cautionary rather than a reactionary measure. Academy carries additional Redfield safes in various capacities that were not affected by this manufacturing defect.

While the mention of serious injury or death sounds much more unnerving than the actual issue at hand, keeping your guns secure from children is a real concern, and nobody wants to see their collection go missing, so if you own either of these safes, please have it replaced as soon as possible.

To see more official information, visit the Consumer Product Safety Commission webpage for the recall. Consumers may contact Academy Sports + Outdoors toll-free at 888-922-2336 from 7 AM to 10 PM. CST, or email them at [email protected]. You can see the recall on Academy’s website at www.academy.com/product-recalls.

FAB Defense Grips, Stocks and Mags

By

Tim Stetzer

-

December 11, 2024

8

FAB Defense has a long history of supplying military and police customers in Israel and around the world. Their gear is always solid and based on real-world user feedback. I had the chance to check out their new Core M buttstock, Gradus X AR Pistol Grip and Gen 2 5.56×45 30-Round Windowless Polymer Magazines over the past few months. Let’s take a look at what they have to offer.

GL CORE M CP – M4 Survival Buttstock

The CORE M is made to fit standard AR/M4 receiver extensions or any weapon system that uses that style of extension to mount a stock. It uses a forward-mounted adjustment lever that has a built-in anti-rattle mechanism. The rear is fitted with a rubber butt pad for comfort and to ensure the rifle stays in place on your shoulder. QD swivel slots are built into both sides of the stock. The CORE M will fit both MIL-SPEC and commercial tubes thanks to a provided adapter that comes with the stock. It’s made from a rugged fiberglass reinforced polymer composite and is available in FDE, olive drab or black color choices.

All of that is good but mostly standard stuff for a decent M4 buttstock these days. What makes the CORE M stand out is the built-in magazine carrier. The CORE M comes with a 10-round FAB Defense Ultimag Magazine. The mag carrier is located in the buttstock and has a left-side magazine release. While it will accept any AR-style magazine, the 10-round mag provided fits nearly flush in the stock and doesn’t add unnecessary bulk or weight.

The CORE M provides an easy way to keep some rounds readily available for a quick reload right on the gun. If you keep your rifle in the truck or tucked away on the corner and don’t want to leave a mag in it, this is one way to have some rounds readily available if you grab the gun in a hurry. It’s also a fast backup reload if you’re running your rifle with full-capacity mags but need a fast reload or have burned through the rest of your ammo load.

The CORE M is an evolution of the older GL-MAG stock. I used one of those on my patrol rifle back in the day. It held up well, and I liked knowing I had 40 rounds on tap if I just grabbed the rifle out of the trunk with a 30-round mag in place and the 10-round Ultimag available as a backup.

MSRP on the CORE M runs from $96.99 to $101.99 depending on color and it does come with a 10-round Ultimag. As of this writing the black stocks are on sale for only $63.04.

Where To Buy

Check Price (OpticsPlanet)

Check Price (Natchez)

BattleHawk Armory (Check Price)

Gradus X AR Pistol Grip

While I used the GL MAG stock on my patrol rifle for a number of years I’ve had less experience with FAB Defense pistol grips. I did use an AG-43 on my sci-fi build last year. I honestly initially chose it because it had the right look for that build but found that it was actually quite comfortable. When I first saw the Gradus X grip from FAB I wasn’t too sure about it. It has a little bit of an odd look to my eye, but thinking about my positive experience with the AG-43 grip I decided to give the Gradus a go and see how it worked.

The Gradus pistol grip is one of the products that resulted from listening to the feedback from FAB’s customers. It’s an ergonomic grip with a straighter profile that tends to work well with shorter stocks and holds closer to the body or when wearing body armor. That straight profile works equally well on long-range precision rifles that you’re shooting from prone or off a bench with a bipod, too.

The Gradus X has a 15-degree reduced grip angle that’s designed to prevent arm and wrist fatigue. It has a comfortable rubber texture and has an AR beavertail. It’ll fit on anything that will take an AR grip. Like the CORE M, it’s available in black, FDE or olive drab. MSRP is $19.99, although they’re showing a sale price of $12.99 currently.

Having grown up with A1 and then A2 grips I sometimes find the straighter grip angles look odd to me at first. I have to say though that once I got the Gradus X mounted to one of my rifles I can see the benefits of the design. It’s comfortable in hand, especially with my stock partially collapsed to keep the rifle in tight. It works equally well in either hand, too, when I did drills transitioning from my primary to off side, so it should work equally well for right- or left-handers. It’s very reasonably priced, too, so it’s worth taking a look at and seeing how it works for you.

Where To Buy

Check Price (OpticsPlanet)

Gen 2 5.56×45 30-Rounds Windowless Polymer Magazine

The last thing I looked at was the new Windowless Polymer GEN 2 AR Magazines. These are 30-round 5.56×45 NATO (.223 Remington) STANAG compatible mags that will run in anything that takes an M4 mag. They lack the window to check the remaining ammo capacity that the FAB Ultimag 30R’s have, but they’re also a couple of bucks cheaper and probably a little stronger being one-piece designs.

The mags are made of a rugged lightweight polymer that’s impact and crush-resistant. It has a multi-textured surface to give you a positive grip when handling mags and doing reloads. The GEN 2 mags use a bright blue low-friction follower that rides on a hybrid AK-style spring that is supposed to prevent follower tilt. The internal design is supposed to provide for smoother, reliable feeding as well. The mags have an extended floor plate that makes snagging them from mag pouches easier, but they’ll still fit in two or three cell pouches without issue. They can be disassembled without tools, too, which is a nice touch when it comes to cleaning or drying out your mags.

I had a few of the GEN 2 mags on hand and used them on a few range sessions with multiple AR platforms. I can’t say I have extensive rounds through them yet, but so far so good. They seem quite solid and are easy to load. The outside texture is pretty nice and does give a positive grip when you’re doing reloads. Reliability has been perfect so far. No feed issues or malfunctions of any kind. I’ll keep using them to test their long-term reliability, but they look to be a solid mag choice, so I’m not expecting to run into any issues. Like the other FAB products, they’re available in black, olive drab green or FDE. MSRP is only $13.99, but once again these are showing on sale as of this writing for just $9.09.

Where To Buy

Check Price (OpticsPlanet)

Check Price (Sportsman’s Warehouse)

Check Price (GrabAGun)

Check Price (BattleHawk Armory)

Check Price (Sportsman’s Guide)

The FAB Choice for Your AR

Based upon my past experiences with FAB Defense products, I wasn’t surprised to see the new CORE M stock, Gradus X grip and GEN 2 mags were solidly built and well thought out. Being that a lot of FAB’s customers are using their products for real-world work and not just plinking on the range or posting pics on social media, it makes sense that they listen to feedback and make products that you can rely on. Don’t get me wrong, I mostly plink at the range and post pics on social media these days myself, but it’s nice knowing that if I’m running FAB Defense gear, it’s going to work if I ever do need it for anything more serious than that.

For more info on these products or any of FAB Defense’s other products check out their website at FABDefense.com.

Illegal Chinese National Arrested In California Shipping Weapons And Devices To North Korea

By

Darwin Nercesian

-

December 11, 2024

50

The United States Department of Justice has announced the arrest of an illegal Chinese National on a criminal complaint alleging that he exported shipments of firearms, ammunition and other military items to North Korea. According to the DOJ, the items were concealed inside shipping containers bound from Long Beach.

Shenghua Wen, 41, a Chinese national illegally residing in Ontario, California, was arrested and made his initial appearance on December 3 in the Central District of California. According to an affidavit filed a week prior alongside the complaint, Wen obtained firearms, ammunition and export-controlled technology with the intent to ship them to North Korea, a violation of federal law and U.S. sanctions against that nation.

Among the items seized by law enforcement on August 14 from Wen’s home were a chemical threat identification device and a hand-held broadband receiver that detects eavesdropping devices. Less than a month later, on September 6, law enforcement seized approximately 50,000 rounds of 9mm ammunition, all of which he intended to send to North Korea for military use.

In reviewing Wen’s iPhone, law enforcement discovered evidence of Wen smuggling items from the busy Long Beach harbor through Hong Kong to North Korea in December 2023. Messages retrieved from his cellphones revealed earlier discussions with his co-conspirators, including photographs of controlled items under International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), detailing the shipment of military-grade equipment to North Korea

Between January and April of this year, Wen also sent emails and text messages to a U.S.-based broker about obtaining a civilian plane engine, including text messages on Wen’s iPhone concerning price negotiation for the plane and its engine.

The Chinese national remained illegally in the United States after overstaying his student visa, which prohibits him from possessing any firearms or ammunition. Unsurprisingly, Wen lacks the required licenses from the U.S. government to export any of the weapons, ammunition or regulated devices that were seized at his home.

Wen is charged with conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, carrying a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison.

The FBI, ATF, Homeland Security, Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security are investigating. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah E. Gerdes for the Central District of California and trial attorney Ahmed Almudallal of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.

CNN has suggested that the items being shipped are intended to help ‘prepare for a surprise attack on South Korea,’ a notion that makes me question the volume of the shipments and wonder how many additional ‘agents’ of North Korea might exist and be doing this same thing right under the noses of U.S. authorities. The situation also gives rise to thoughts about important work that regulatory and law enforcement agencies must engage in for the best interest of the country and national security rather than wasting resources trying to make criminals out of law-abiding gun owners here in America.

Michigan Gun Control Bill Pushes for Only State-Approved Firearm Colors

By

Darwin Nercesian

-

December 11, 2024

56

I feel compelled to say upfront that what you’re about to read is real. You’re not being punk’d. We’re not even close to April Fools Day. Michigan lawmakers have donned their clown shoes and makeup as if participating in a “dumbest legislature” competition and have proposed a bill that targets what it calls “deceptively colored firearms.” Given that the introduction of such tomfoolery occurs during a lame-duck session, this level of stupidity on the taxpayer dime is still egregiously unacceptable. If you can’t watch the 2006 film Idiocracy due to its outrageous depiction of human absurdity, this will be a difficult read.

Senate Bill 1134 seeks to regulate firearms by restricting the finish to consist primarily of government-approved colors: black, brown, dark gray, dark green, silver, steel or nickel. The proposed law states that any substantial portion of a firearm painted in other hues would violate the ban, explicitly defining that portion as more than 50% of the firearm’s exterior, including key parts like the receiver or slide. Ironically, this measure would criminalize the use of red, white and blue, making firearms adorned by the flag of the United States of America illegal. Let that one sit with you.

SB 1134 prohibits the sale, purchase, ownership and even transportation of items described as “deceptive coloring products” intended to modify the color of a firearm, including paints, coatings or similar materials. Firearm modifications that include non-approved colors would also be considered illegal, introducing another layer of legal ignorance by criminalizing artistic expression. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, as the left is no stranger when it comes to attacks on both the First and Second Amendments.

Consequences of violating the proposed law involve misdemeanor charges punishable by up to one year in prison, a $500 fine or both, with the severity of this punishment raising serious concerns about criminalizing lawful firearm ownership by means of such arbitrary regulation, particularly among hobbyists and collectors who often personalize their firearms.

Of course, exemptions exist, but hearing them isn’t likely to make this story more palatable. Those exceptions include antique firearms, guns with handles made of or resembling ivory, and firearms or related products covered by a grandfather clause for individuals who owned them before the bill’s enactment. Transfer of these exempt items, however, would require surrender to law enforcement or modification to comply with the new law.

Unsurprisingly, as with many gun control measures, exemptions also exist for law enforcement and government entities. Firearms owned or used by the state or its representatives would not be subject to color restrictions, a double standard that citizens have become accustomed to, and one example that demonstrates why many Americans see the country as having a multi-tiered justice system.

SB 1134 also addresses what it refers to as “covert firearms,” defined as being constructed so they are not immediately recognizable as firearms. The intent here may be to target weapons disguised as everyday objects, however, the language, which I believe is intentionally ambiguous, could lead to unforeseen consequences for an otherwise law-abiding citizen, not to mention would still be unconstitutional.

Why is a bill like this necessary in the first place? Supporters argue that banning brightly colored firearms enhances public safety, claiming that deceptively colored firearms may cause law enforcement or civilians difficulty distinguishing between toys and real guns. This idea lacks accountability, with no clear evidence linking firearm color to public safety. Without tangible safety benefits, SB 1134 is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem, or looking to do what the left does best, infringe upon the Constitutional rights of Americans.

As with any infringement upon Constitutionally protected rights, SB 1134, if passed, will face significant legal challenges at the cost of taxpayers. Think about it. We pay them a salary so they can come up with hair-brained schemes to erode our liberties while burning through more of our hard-earned money as the country slips further into debt. It’s time for a change.

Let’s put a name to the intellectually devoid degenerate who decided this proposition gave meaning to their elected position. The winner is SB 1134’s sponsor, a member of the Michigan Senate, Dayna Lynn Polehanki. This makes sense to her for some reason. Perhaps it is as simple as the proverbial chipping away of your rights. Maybe she is just an agitator looking to instill more political polarization. It’s quite possible she was dropped on her head as a child. In any event, this bill is either dead on arrival or dies after it is challenged at our expense, begging the question, is this what we really elected these clowns for?