REVIEW: Deadfoot Arms AR Folding Stock Adapter

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

If you are looking to store and transport your rifle in an extra short case, the Deadfoot Arms AR Folding Stock Adapter is just what you are seeking. READ MORE

deadfoot

David Kenik

Deadfood Arms offers a folding stock adapter for the AR15 platform that allows the stock to be folded to the side, yet the rifle remains fully functional. Entire magazines can be fired while the stock is folded.

The ability to fold the stock enables the rifle to be stored and transported in a small case. The compact form makes it especially suitable for service as trunk gun. The ability to shoot while folded is valuable when time is critical and too limited to unfold the stock in an emergency situation.

Unlike the traditional, AR15 carbine, buffer tube that measures 7.25 inches long, the Deadfoot Arms’ system only extends 2.5 inches beyond the upper receiver. They accomplished this by replacing the AR’s standard bolt carrier group and buffer system with a shortened version that they designed and manufacture, called the Modified Cycle System (MCS.)

deadfoot
Here’s the whole kit. All you need is in the box, along with different springs to tune function.

The MSC consists of Deadfoot Arm’s M-16 Style Bolt Carrier Group, short buffer tube, plunger, endcap, a buffer spring and choice of two recoil springs.

deadfoot
Sturdy, robust, and well engineered.

The Deadfoot Arms bolt carrier measures 5-1/4 inches long, compared to the traditional, AR carrier which measures 6-5/8 inches. It is coated in TB-41 ION Bond DLC (Diamond Like Coating) which is a very durable coating, highly resistant to corrosion.

The system includes two colored recoil springs. The blue spring is standard strength and the red spring is light strength for use with low-power rounds such as subsonics. A black spring is available for ARs chambered in 9mm NATO.

The first step in the installation process is to thread the hinge system with the short buffer tube to the lower receiver. Then attach your choice of stock to the hinge system. The buffer spring is placed over the plunger and inserted through the hinge system into the BCG. The recoil spring fits inside the plunger and is held in place by screwing on the endcap. While is seems complicated, once you do it the first time it becomes quite simple.

To fold the stock, simply press the button underneath the hinge and swing the stock off to the side. Systems are available to fold to either side. While folded, the stock is held by friction so there is no locking mechanism to hold it in place. Just swing the stock to the standard position until it clicks in place and fire when ready.

deadfoot
When locked in place, the Deadfoot is rock solid.

Due to the spring and plunger design, separating the receivers equipped with a Deadfoot Arms Folding Stock Adapter is different than the standard AR15’s manual of arms. Before separating the upper, the adapter’s endcap must be unscrewed and removed which releases the plunger, recoil spring and buffer spring. While different than the standard AR, it is very simple and fast.

deadfoot
An AR carbine with a Deadfoot Folding Stock Adapter is a much more compact package.

Once installed, the system acts and shoots like any other AR15. If you are looking to store and transport your rifle in an extra short case, the Deadfoot Arms AR Folding Stock Adapter is just what you are seeking.

See more HERE

Accuracy In Handguns

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Bob Campbell is the author of Gun Digest ‘The Accurate Handgun.’ Here are his thoughts on this topic. READ MORE

handgun accuracy
The Smith and Wesson M69 .44 Magnum and SIG Elite ammunition are a good pairing.

Bob Campbell

Over the decades I have researched handguns and used the terms practical accuracy, intrinsic accuracy, and absolute accuracy. Firing from the benchrest is important and always interesting. But absolute accuracy isnt as important as the practical accuracy we may coax from a handgun. I think handgunners don’t take accuracy as serious as riflemen. Perhaps most cannot shoot well enough to take advantage of the accuracy in a superbly accurate handgun and don’t bother. Competition seems to place a premium on speed rather than accuracy. In personal defense the balance of speed and accuracy is important. If you don’t think accuracy isnt important in personal defense we have been to a different church. Shot placement is accuracy. The standard of measuring accuracy has come to be a five shot group at 25 yards, This is fired from a solid braced position from a bench. I use the Bullshooters pistol rest to remove as many human factors as possible. There is some compromise with shorter barrel or lightweight handguns and they are tested at 15 yards.

handgun accuracy
This is excellent practical accuracy.

The quality of the handgun, the fitting of the slide, the quality of the rifling, the sights, whether fine for target shooting or broad for fast results at combat range, are very important. The quality of the trigger press is important. The shooter is the most important part of the equation. There are those that may state that such testing of handguns is irrelevant as personal defense use almost always demands firing at less than ten yards. There is much validity to this argument. Not that combat shooting, drawing and firing and making a center hit, are not difficult. It may be reasonable to test an 8 3/8 inch barreled Magnum at even one hundred yards but a personal defense handgun with few exceptions will never be used past ten yards. Just the same those of us that test handguns like to take them to the Nth degree and test firearms accuracy. It is an interesting pursuit that is rewarding although there is some frustration in the beginning.

handgun accuracy
This group was fired with the Beretta 84 .380 ACP at 15 yards- accuracy is relative.

Service pistols, high end pistols and revolvers have different levels of accuracy. A revolver with five, six, seven or eight chambers that rotate to line up with the barrel for each shot is more accurate than it should be. As an example the Colt Official Police .38 and the Smith and Wesson K 38 are each capable of putting five shots into 2.2 to 2.5 inches at 25 yards with Federal Match ammunition. This is excellent target accuracy. When cops qualified with revolvers at 50 yards these handguns were up to the task. The Colt Python is easily the most accurate revolver I have tested and perhaps the most accurate handgun of any type. At a long 25 yards I fired a 15/16 inch group with the Federal 148 grain MATCH in .38 Special. This involved tremendous concentration and frankly it was exhausting. I have fired a similar group with the SIG P220, but this was unusual. The SIG will usually do 1.25 inch with the Federal 230 grain MATCH loading. The Python will group very nearly as well with full power Magnum loads. The Federal 180 grain JHP .357 Magnum is good for an inch at 25 yards, as an example. A much less expensive revolver is superbly accurate and nearly as accurate as the Python. The four inch barrel Ruger GP100 is good for groups about ninety per cent as good as the Python. It is also more rugged. As I have seen with 1911 handguns you pay a lot for the last degree of accuracy.

handgun accuracy
The Nighthawk 1911 is arguably as good as it gets in a .45 automatic.

In self loaders the Les Baer Concept VI is a solid three inch gun at 50 yards. The SIG P220 I mentioned may not run a combat course as quickly as a 1911 handgun but it will prove more accurate than all but the finest custom guns. The Nighthawk Falcon is a well made and reliable handgun worth its price. I am surprised when it fires a group larger than 2.0 inches at 25 yards with quality ammunition. The Guncrafter Commander with No Name is among the most accurate 1911 handguns of any type I have tested. So far the single most accurate loading has been the Fiocchi 200 grain XTP with a 25 yard 1.4 inch group. This takes a great deal of concentration to achieve. However- this pistol is among the most accurate of handguns in offhand fire as well. Firing off hand at known and unknown ranges the pistol is surprisingly accurate.

handgun accuracy
The Smith and Wesson Model 27 is a superbly accurate revolver.

When it comes to modern handguns it is interesting that there seems to be a race in both directions, to the top and to the bottom. Makers are attempting to manufacture the least expensive handgun possible that works. Someone buys it, and some of the handguns like the Ruger LC9/EDC types are reliable and useful defensive handguns. The same is true of revolvers. Even the inexpensive Taurus 450 .45 caliber revolver I often carry hiking will place five shots into less than two inches at 15 yards, reasonable for a revolver with a ported two inch barrel. I am unimpressed with the accuracy of many of the polymer framed striker fired handguns. I think that they are accurate enough and no more, but the trigger and sights are probably the limiting factory. Almost all fire five shots of service grade ammunition into 2.5 to 3.0 inches at 25 yards. High end handguns such as the Dan Wesson Heritage and Springfield Operator are more accurate than the majority of factory handguns of a generation ago. As an example thirty nine years ago I convinced the lead instructor and range master to allow some of us to carry to the 1911 .45. I barely managed to qualify with the Colt Commander Series 70 as qualification included barricade fire at 50 yards. With factory ammunition of the day the pistol would not group into ten inches at 50 yards, the military standard for 1911 handguns. Using a 200 grain SWC handload the pistol grouped into eight inches at 50 yards and I barely made the cut. The sights were small, the trigger heavy, and the grip tang cut my hand after fifty rounds. But the pistol was reliable, fast into action, and it was a Colt 1911. Later I added a Bar Sto barrel and enjoyed much better accuracy. Today a SIG 1911 Fastback Carry will group five rounds into 2.5 inches on demand at 25 yards and sometimes much less, and it is a factory pistol.

handgun accuracy
This is the kind of accuracy we dream of.

Other handguns are more accurate than most give them credit for. While the SIG P series is regarded as a very accurate handgun the CZ75B will give the SIG a run for the money. The CZ 75B is easily handled in off hand fire and very accurate. The Beretta 92 is also an accurate handgun as I discovered in instructors school when a veteran qualified with the Beretta 92. As a rule .40 caliber versions of the 9mm are not as accurate as the 9mm version but there are exceptions. The SIG P229 in .40 is an accurate and reliable handgun that makes an excellent go anywhere do anything handgun. My example will place five rounds of the Fiocchi 180 grain XTP load into 2.0 inches at 25 yards on demand. Accuracy is interesting. There are other considerations such as how quickly the pistol may be drawn and placed on target, and control in rapid fire is important. Reliability is far more important. But accurate handguns are interesting.

handgun accuracy
The handgun must be fired often to master the piece.

 

 

RELOADERS CORNER: Press Principals

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

This mechanism is at the heart of a rifle reloading setup, and options abound. Here’s what really matters, and how to know what you need (and what you don’t). READ MORE

coax press

Glen Zediker

A press is usually the first thing mentioned to a new handloader when the question is “What do I need to get?” Can’t, pretty much, load without one. The press houses the sizing and seating dies, and other tooling, and can also serve as a primer seater.

Shopping for presses shows a big range of prices, and sizes (usually related), and also some type or style options. The press type I’m going to be discussing here in this bit is called a “single-stage,” and it gets that name because there’s one receptacle for any thread-in appliance, such as a sizing die. It can then perform one single operation.

The standard receptacle has 7/8-14 threads.

reloaders corner presses
This represents a “big” press. Forster Co-Ax. It’s a honking piece of metal with unique and worthwhile features. Powerful leverage. I’ve got a couple of these (one for decades) and the reason I chose to use it to illustrate this article is because it’s that good. Not cheap. Not chintzy. If you get one you will never (ever)need another press, or likely want another press. See it HERE.

The main option is the size of the press, which means the press body size, ram extension distance, and handle stroke arc and length.

When is a “big” press best? When operations require big leverage. Or for really big cartridges. Or when using a press to perform an operation that’s more power hungry than case resizing or bullet seating. Given a choice of “small,” “medium,” or “large,” as many times, I’d suggest going at least “medium.” Unless, that is, you have compelling reasons to get another. Don’t underpower yourself. On the other hand, you decidedly do not (usually) need a tower of power, and might even find it’s kind of in the way.

reloaders corner presses
Here’s my “personal” press: Harrell’s Precision Compact. These are precision machined, well designed. This one, though, maxes out at a .308 Win. case length. It’s not for case forming, but routine small-case sizing ops and seating are efficient and easy. See it HERE

I like the operational efficiency of a smaller press, one that doesn’t have a big stroke arc. In sitting and doing a large number of press ops I really notice the additional effort of cycling a bigger press. However! There’s also sometimes no substitute for torque. Sizing unwieldy military cases, for instance, on a honking press takes a less effort from the self.

As I’ve mentioned in these pages before, I also like being able to move my tooling around on my workbench bench, or even into another environment. Smaller presses are easier to tote and easier to mount.

reloading presses
Here’s my recommendation for most everyone loading most any routine rifle cartridge: Hornady Lock-N-Load Classic Single Stage Press. Alloy body, plenty of window and leverage, and a most fair price. See it HERE. If you want a similar cast iron press, you cannot do better than a Redding Boss. About the same cost. See it HERE.

redding boss

It really depends on what you are loading for. A smaller, shorter case, like a .223 Rem. or 6.5 Creedmoor, or a bigger round like .30-06 or .338 Lapua? As with many things, most things maybe, going bigger to start is a better investment. By “bigger” I mean a press with a window opening big enough (or that’s what I call the open area available between the shellholder and press top) and stroke long enough to handle the longest cartridge you might tool it up for.

Does weight matter? Not really. A heavier press doesn’t necessarily mean it’s more rigid or effective (or not for that reason). Modern alloys are every bit as good as cast iron, and there was a time when I was uncertain of that. Speaking more of materials, cast iron has been, and honestly still is, the “quality” material used in press construction. Cast iron is rigid. This material is, well, cast into the essential shape of a press, and then final finished (faced, drilled, tapped, and so on). The only part of a cast iron press that’s cast iron is the body of the press. Aluminum, other alloys, or steel are used to make the linkage and handle, and other pieces parts. Cast iron can’t really bend which means it can’t warp. Cast iron just breaks when it hits its limit of integrity. It can flex (just a little) but returns perfectly. Alloys or metal combinations used in the manufacture of presses nowadays are pretty much the same in performance and behavior under pressure as cast iron. The essential compositions vary from maker to maker. I have cast alloy body presses and others that are machined from aluminum stock. These are all lighter but just as rigid as cast iron. Press architecture has a whopping lot to do with how rigid it is (and its leverage has a lot to do with linkage engineering).

What matters much is the sturdiness of the bench and how well the press is mounted to it. What might feel like press flex is liable to be in the bench, not the press, or in the press handle itself.

Alignment — straightness — matters in a press. This is the concentric relationship between the threaded tool receptacle and the press ram. They, ideally, will be dead on, zero. Then of course the die has to be “straight,” with its threads correctly cut and insides reamed on center. And then the shellholder arrangement has to likewise be dead centered with everything else. There is a lot of play in a 14 pitch thread. All this means is that a “straight” press doesn’t automatically mean you’ll not see issues with tooling concentricity. More in another article shortly, but at the least the press (body and ram) should not contribute to create concentricity miscues. I know of no manufacturer that doesn’t claim correct alignment in its product, but I also don’t know if it’s something they’ll warrant.

reloaders corner presses
I use a tiny Lee-brand press to run a Lee-brand decapping die. Keeps grunge away from the “expensive” press. Wise. This whole setup costs about $50.

Presses do require, or at least should get, maintenance. Keep it clean! There’s a lot of abrasive potential from incendiary residues, and that will, not may, wear the mechanisms. I have often and for many years recommended a separate decapping or depriming station.

CHECK OUT DECAPPING TOOLS HERE

The preceding is a adapted from information contained in from Glen’s books Top-Grade Ammo and Handloading For Competition. Available HERE at Midsouth Shooters Supply. Visit ZedikerPublishing.com for more information on the book itself, and also free article downloads.

Virginia Mom Is Telling Voters To ‘Watch Out’ For Bloomberg’s Tricks In 2020

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

“The Second Amendment already guarantees my equality: Firearms are the ultimate equalizer.” READ MORE

bloomberg

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Suburban women are expected to play a pivotal role in the 2020 elections, which is why a lot of political groups are attempting to appeal to them. One of Bloomberg’s groups, Moms Demand Action, is styled to fool voters into thinking their extreme beliefs are representative of all suburban moms. Earlier this month in Virginia, this billionaire-funded group spent an enormous amount of money to flip a few seats and win a thin, anti-gun majority in the state legislature. Pro-gun suburban women in Virginia were outraged by the misleading campaign. We spoke with one, NRA member Megan Boland, who says the tactics employed by anti-gun groups in Virginia should serve as a cautionary tale to pro-gun suburban women across the country.

Q. What was your initial reaction when you heard gun control politicians took control of the Virginia House and Senate?

A. I was disappointed, but not surprised. As a communications professional, I could tell from the political ads that gun control groups were targeting suburban women with emotional messages. They were clearly trying to shame women like myself into believing that law-abiding gun owners are the problem in Virginia.

Q. As a long-time Virginian, what do you think is going on in Virginia politics?

A. It’s no longer Virginia politics. Virginia was flooded with out-of-state money from people like New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg. It’s very clear what he’s doing. He’s reaching into local- and state-level elections and beta testing his political message with the strategic and long-term goal of getting these local politicians eventually into national office. Personally, I’m really tired of billionaire men determining women’s futures and that’s what is going on here. If they really believe that women’s rights are important, why attempt to strip me of a Constitutional right?

Q. Do you think Gov. Northam and anti-gun lawmakers in Richmond will stop at “common-sense” gun measures? Where do you think they are headed with gun control?

A. There is nothing common sense about taking away people’s right and ability to defend themselves. Gov. Northam speaks about women’s equality, but the Second Amendment already guarantees my equality: Firearms are the ultimate equalizer. I think Northam and Bloomberg’s end game is to try and destroy the NRA and then, unopposed, eliminate the Second Amendment. I’m worried they’ll use things like red flag laws to silence us. For example, many of us fear an anti-gun nut job could try to red flag us and have our guns removed for simply talking about a weekend trip to the range. If we can no longer share our stories without fear of government retribution, it’s just one small step away from losing our rights. History is riddled with the systemic silencing of populations intended to dilute and destroy the culture until it is no more.

Q. What did you see the Bloomberg moms do in Virginia that upset you?

A. The big thing I see is that the Bloomberg Moms are getting into our schools and influencing administrators, teachers and, de facto, our children. Our side needs to do a better job of that. I’ve seen it time and again where gun control activists show up at playgrounds, local parks, and community parades and push their nonsense on other parents. I’ve tried getting equal access by going to my children’s school and inviting the NRA’s Eddie Eagle in the classroom. I’ve worked with my local law enforcement to make sure they are working with Eddie Eagle. There are a lot moms can be doing in their schools and communities to get our message out. The NRA is the only organization in the world dedicated to promoting the safe and responsible use of firearms; we need to talk about that! We need to make noise in our communities and be willing to have uncomfortable conversations with those who disagree with us. We have to do more than just gather for rallies and talk to people who are like-minded. We must engage respectfully with our opponents.

Q. Any final thoughts on what the rest of the country can learn from the Virginia elections?

A. The big thing we need is more pro-Second Amendment women to run for office, any office, school board, city council, judicial, state legislature and federally. I know [the head of Moms Demand Action] is working to get women to strategically build their resumes to run for office. We should be cultivating local women to do the same, and start by running for local office. This is such a huge issue, it requires those who support the 2A to get active and involved — not days before an election, but years before the election.

 

Ohio Supreme Court to Decide Whether People Can Have Firearms in the Home While Intoxicated

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Should gun owners in Ohio be permitted to “carry” their firearms in their homes while intoxicated? READ MORE

handgun

SOURCE: AP and Jordan Michaels

That’s the question at issue in a case headed for the Ohio Supreme Court in February.

Fredrick Weber was convicted in June of 2018 under a 45-year-old law that prohibits Ohio residents from carrying or using a firearm while intoxicated. Weber appealed his conviction to the 12th District Court of Appeals, which confirmed the municipal court’s ruling. Now, on a 4-3 vote, the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

According to court documents, a deputy and a sergeant from the Clermont County Sheriff’s Office were dispatched to Weber’s home after his wife reported that her husband was carrying a firearm while intoxicated. Even though she told deputies that Weber had put his firearm away, she let them into the home, where they saw Weber coming out of a doorway and holding a shotgun.

The shotgun was pointed towards the ground, and deputies confirmed that it was unloaded. Weber claimed he had been wiping down the firearm to put it away.

Deputies noticed that Weber’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy, his speech was slurred, and he was unsteady on his feet. Weber admitted he was drunk and subsequently failed a field sobriety test.

In his appeal, Weber’s attorneys argued that their client wasn’t using the shotgun “as a firearm” and had not or was not about to commit a crime. They also argued that the law prohibiting the use or possession of firearms while intoxicated is unconstitutional because it infringed on their client’s rights to keep and bear arms and defend himself.

They further argued that a person’s intoxication level shouldn’t have a bearing on possessing a weapon “in the hearth and home,” according to the Associated Press.

“Weber suggests that it was never the intention of the constitutional framers that someone like him (or anyone similarly situated) be guilty of possessing a weapon while intoxicated in his/her home,” Weber’s appeal reads, according to The Toledo Blade.

“If such be the case, any off-duty law enforcement officer (or any other person that has firearms in the residence) who has a few alcoholic beverages while in his/her house and has law enforcement happen into that residence can be charged and convicted under a ritualistic or formulaic implementation of the statute,” it reads.

“Their police officers are the first to respond to domestic violence incidents, interpersonal gun violence, gun suicides, and unintentional shootings, all of which are made more lethal by the combination of guns and alcohol,” reads a brief filed by Toledo, Lima, Columbus, Cincinnati, Akron, and Dayton, according to The Blade. “They are the ones who have to respond to domestic violence calls where the mixture of guns and alcohol often leads to women being killed and officers being assaulted.”

Toledo Law Director Dale Emch put an even finer point on it:

“It’s just common sense that the intoxicated should not be carrying weapons in my mind, whether in your home or not,” he said. “That’s just a bad recipe.”

Oral arguments aren’t scheduled until February 25, and a final decision isn’t expected for months, according to the AP.

 

No Protection for the Law that Protects the Firearm Industry: Supreme Court Passes on PLCAA Case

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

The Second Amendment and laws designed to protect the right to keep and bear arms are meaningless if they are not adequately enforced in court. READ MORE

PLCAA

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

A law designed to protect the firearm industry from frivolous litigation is now in jeopardy thanks to inaction by the U.S. Supreme Court, which earlier this month passed on a petition to review a case creating a new exception to the law’s protection. The case before the Supreme Court was Remington Arms v. Soto.

It’s hard to imagine a more ridiculous or implausible legal theory: a gunmaker intentionally marketed its products to criminals through macho ad copy, patriotic images, and product placement in video games, thus causing the criminal to carry out a mass attack.

It’s particularly ludicrous when the murderer himself stole rather than bought the gun (after killing the person who actually bought it) with no evidence the murderer saw any of the gunmaker’s ads.

In a sane world, this lawsuit would have been recognized as an abuse of the legal system, a cynical exploitation of tragedy for political and ideological ends. That world used to exist under a law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The PLCAA was enacted by Congress in 2005 with broad bipartisan support for the very purpose of stopping coordinated lawsuits seeking to hold the firearm industry liable for the acts of criminals who used guns to commit their offenses. Few of the cases ever had any chance of success in court, but that didn’t matter. Bankrupting the companies by forcing them to defend the suits, or to accept settlements that required “voluntary” adoption of punitive gun control measures, was the real agenda.

There is certainly nothing “unusual” or “extraordinary” about a legal rule that says a business is not responsible for the wrongful acts of a third party that misuses its products, absent some special connection to the offender or the victim. The victim of an accident caused by a drunk driver cannot ordinarily sue the car manufacturer or dealer, for example.

What was unusual was the determination of gun control advocates to press these meritless claims in court, which resulted in Congress making clear with the PLCAA that courts could not create especially unfavorable rules around the manufacturing and selling of guns. The entire point of the law was to ensure activist litigants and courts could not sue the U.S. firearms industry out of business.

As of Nov. 8, however, the sane world of the PLCAA came dangerously closer to an end. That was the day the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court that denied a firearm manufacturer the PLCAA’s protection because, so the argument went, the company knowingly engaged in illegal advertising.

That case will now proceed in a Connecticut court. And while even gun control advocates admit the plaintiff’s claim might not prevail at trial (if the case gets to trial at all), it will cost the defendants a king’s ransom to continue fighting the case.

It’s true the PLCAA was never intended to protect businesses that knowingly flaunt laws governing the sale or marketing of firearms. Congress created narrow exceptions for when the manufacturer or seller violated specific types of gun control laws, sold a firearm to a person the seller knew couldn’t be safely trusted with it, sold a defective product, or violated a contract or warranty relating to the purchase.

These exceptions also included knowingly violating a state or federal statute “applicable to the sale or marketing of the [firearm or ammunition],” such as making or facilitating false statements in required recordkeeping or disposing of a firearm or ammunition to someone legally prohibited from having it. Both examples relate to provisions in the federal Gun Control Act, indicating that gun-specific laws are what Congress intended the exception to cover.

Yet the plaintiffs in the Remington Arms case sought to get around the PLCAA by claiming that violation of any state or federal statute that could conceivably be applied to the sale or marketing of a firearm should count, whether or not that statute was enacted with firearms or ammunition in mind.

Because the sale of the firearm to the original purchaser in the case complied with all applicable state and federal regulations on firearm sales, the plaintiffs had to stretch the existing bounds of the law to find a statute they could claim was violated. They finally settled on the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), which prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” The plaintiffs argued that a similar federal law has been interpreted to include ““immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous” advertising.

They then went on to argue that Connecticut law thus effectively prohibits the sorts of advertisements the defendants used to promote their firearms, because those ads were specifically designed to appeal to and incite deranged individuals like the criminal who killed the victims they represent.

In other words, the plaintiffs are essentially claiming that but for the defendants’ supposedly illegal ads, the victims would still be alive.

Even the Connecticut Supreme Court recognized proving that claim may prove to be impossible. But by allowing the case to proceed, the court also empowered the plaintiffs to force the defendants to turn over copious amounts of documents and information about their marketing and advertising strategies. The plaintiffs hope this fishing expedition will turn up material that, if it doesn’t lead to victory in the case, could at least be used to embarrass and shame the defendants in the court of public opinion.

Why the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene when the lawsuit falls squarely into the type of abusive litigation that Congress sought to prevent is unknown. No written opinions on the order were issued by any member of the high court.

The case, however, could set a very ominous precedent, as states across the country have laws similar to CUTPA, and the question of what a company intended with an image or phrase in advertising is an inherently subjective determination.

What is clear, however, is that the Second Amendment and laws designed to protect the right to keep and bear arms are meaningless if they are not adequately enforced in court. That did not happen here, and future anti-gun opportunists may now have roadmap to navigate around the PLCAA.

 

Nikon Pulls Out Of Rifle Scope Business!

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

According to reports from retailers and vendors in the firearms trade, Nikon has discontinued rifle scopes from its line of sport optics. READ MORE

nikon

Details are not as prevalent as rumors just now, but retailers and vendors, including Midsouth, received notification from Nikon that the manufacturer will continue to produce other sport optics such as binoculars, rangefinders and spotting scopes, and that production of Nikon’s line of rifle scopes will be (or has been) discontinued — meaning that once current stocks are gone, they will not be replenished.

These reports have are said to have been confirmed by sources who contacted Nikon’s advertising agency in the United States.

The news first came courtesy of a story on Nikon Rumors. “This rumor is coming from vendors: Nikon is supposedly slashing production of some of their sport optics product lines. Apparently they’re being told that all scopes and red dots are discontinued.” Sources cite the reason as losing the marketplace battle because of competition from Vortex and Leupold.

nikon

GET ‘EM BEFORE THEY’RE GONE FOR GOOD HERE

 

Joe Biden Wants to Ban 9mm Pistols

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Democratic presidential candidate foreshadows tyrranical policies. READ MORE

biden

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

A week after he told voters that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect “a magazine with a hundred clips in it,” 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden offered supporters more of his singular brand of anti-gun nonsense. While attending a private campaign event in Seattle, the former vice president reportedly called for a ban on 9mm pistols.

According to an article from the Seattle Times, Biden was in town to attend two private fundraisers, one of which was at the home of “a top Amazon executive.” The posh soiree set attendees back a princely $2,800 per-person. The other fundraiser was held at the home of a local philanthropist. That staider event offered donors a relative bargain with a $500 minimum price tag.

While speaking to attendees of the latter event, Biden claimed that he supports the Second Amendment. The 77-year-old then went on to ask “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?” Biden also shared his tired and inaccurate claim that because there is a shot-shell restriction for migratory bird hunting, “We protect geese from Canada more than we do people.”

In targeting 9mm pistols, Biden has called for a ban on one of the most popular firearms in America. According to ATF’s Firearms Commerce in the United States FY 2019, there were over 3.6 million pistols manufactured in the U.S. in 2017. This was more than 1 million more guns than the next most popular category of firearms, rifles. Further, over 3.2 million handguns (including revolvers) were imported in to the U.S. in 2017.

In its annual report on the U.S. firearms industry, Shooting Industry reported that 9mm caliber pistols are the most commonly produced pistol and have been for many years. In 2017 alone, there were more than 1.7 million 9mm pistols produced in the U.S. Cumulatively there are tens of millions of 9mm pistols in the hands of law-abiding Americans.

The 9mm pistol is the choice of the nation’s leading civilian law enforcement agency, the FBI. Moreover, 9mm pistols are used by countless other federal, state, and local civilian law enforcement agencies. Biden alluded to the 9mm handgun’s military applications, but these agencies are not tasked with waging war on the public, but rather defending the public. This defensive application is the same reason that millions of Americans have chosen a 9mm pistol as their self-defense firearm.

The landmark Second Amendment U.S. Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller concerned a complete prohibition on the ownership of handguns in Washington, D.C. The opinion made clear that the Second Amendment at a minimum protects the right to acquire and possess firearms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes such as self-defense.

It is impossible to square Biden’s statement with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. Many types of firearms, such as the AR-15, are “in common use” for lawful purposes like self-defense and therefore protected under the Second Amendment. The 9mm pistol is not just “in common use” for self-defense. As the production statistics indicate, it may be the most common firearm in use for self-defense. Therefore, it is not permissible under the Second Amendment for a jurisdiction to prohibit 9mm pistols. The law-abiding 9mm pistol-owning residents of the D.C., Chicago, and a handful of Chicago suburbs are a testament to this fact.

Biden’s political career is an ongoing spectacle of anti-gun incompetence. However, his high-profile gaffes can serve an instructive purpose. Biden is emblematic of a political class that cannot be bothered to learn the most rudimentary information concerning firearms and the right to keep and bear arms. Despite nearly four decades in the U.S. Senate and eight years as vice president, he is still a complete ignoramus on the subject. Biden and his cohort don’t want to know anything about guns, gun rights, or gun owners. Rather, they prefer to mindlessly indulge their anti-gun prejudice at every opportunity.

 

Gun Confiscation: The Exit-Strategy for Failing Campaigns?

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

With two advocates of confiscation now out of the race, are there signs others that share their zeal for disarming Americans will follow? READ MORE

harris

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The Democrats seeking their party’s nomination to take on President Donald Trump in 2020 have created somewhat of a clown-car atmosphere, with the field eclipsing two-dozen declared candidates at times. Currently, the number stands at a “manageable” 19 individuals to be vetted by Democrat voters.

As befits the clown-car analogy, though, that number could go up or down at any given moment. It dropped to 17 when Beto O’Rourke pulled the plug on his lackluster campaign, but quickly popped back up to 18 when former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick launched his candidacy. Patrick apparently felt Democrat voters lacked sufficient choice with “only” 17 candidates.

Anti-gun New York City billionaire Michael Bloomberg became number 19 yesterday by filing an FEC form showing his intent to run, and perennial presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton is still being discussed as a potential late arrival on the scene.

It has been difficult to predict which candidates are poised to throw in the towel, even when it seems patently obvious to even casual observers that certain campaigns are simply destined to fail.

Usually, if someone consistently polls in the single digits, or has trouble raising funds, it might be a sign that candidate will drop out. But it is important to remember that many of the Democrats are currently running a vanity project as much as a legitimate campaign. They simply crave attention.

The old joke that the most dangerous place in the world is the space between a politician and a microphone comes to mind.

All that said, we have noticed one possible trend when it comes to candidates about to drop from the race. Some form of push for confiscating firearms from American citizens.

It all started with California Representative Eric Swalwell, who was one of the first declared candidates, and one of the first to quit. To be fair, his support for confiscating firearms came even before he launched his futile campaign for the Democrat nomination, and that position seemed to be the only thing we ever heard from him regarding what he hoped to do as POTUS.

O’Rourke, on the other hand, had a number of policies he promoted, both during his failed effort to unseat Texas Senator Ted Cruz and his failed campaign to be the Democrat nominee. His campaign for President never gained traction, and he should have known he was destined for another failure long before he dropped out on November 1.

Abandoning his campaign came after O’Rourke apparently decided the primary theme of his drive for the White House, like Swalwell’s, would be firearm confiscation. He pushed the scheme again and again, and was even criticized by some of his fellow candidates and gun-ban proponents for articulating such an extreme position.

And then he dropped out.

So, with two advocates of confiscation now out of the race, are there signs others that share their zeal for disarming Americans will follow? Perhaps.

This week, California Senator Kamala Harris reiterated to NBC News’ Harry Smith her support for the “mandatory buyback” of AR-15s and similar semi-automatics. “Mandatory buyback,” of course, is the euphemism adopted by the pro-confiscation crowd because they know how much the majority of Americans loathe the idea of the government seizing private property from its citizens.

Smith pushed, although rather gently, for Harris to consider what would be done if only some of the millions of Americans who own AR-15s and other so-called “assault weapons” agreed to turn in their property. The candidate mentioned that she would “have an incentive for people to turn them in.”

An “incentive”? Is this a new euphemism for the threat of door-to-door seizures?

After all, the first “incentive,” presumably, is the promise of money for those that turn in their guns. Smith was basically asking what would happen if that “incentive” did not work.

Swalwell famously “joked” about using the threat of nuclear warfare on American gun owners as his “incentive.” O’Rourke said during one debate that those that did not abide by the “mandatory buyback” would have their affected firearms taken. He added, during a later interview, that “there have to be consequences” regarding compliance with his gun ban, and those that did not comply would have a “visit by law enforcement.”

Is this the direction Harris is heading when she talks about “an incentive”? Is the “incentive” that Americans should turn in their guns to avoid a visit from the police? Unfortunately, Smith did not press further, as his interview seemed more a very friendly discussion, rather than a reporter properly vetting a candidate.

We also saw no clarification in the fifth Democrat debate that took place in Atlanta on November 20. In fact, firearms weren’t really brought up by any of the candidates or moderators. Perhaps all parties involved feel the candidates have shown to be sufficiently anti-gun, and it could be seen as damaging to the party to have a fight over who wants to say they support confiscating private property, who wants to simply imply it, and who wants to put it off for another time.

Nonetheless, the moribund Harris campaign seems ready to collapse, as she is stuck in the bottom tier of candidates, consistently registering in the low-to-mid-single digits in poll after poll. Perhaps she has finally realized her future is not as the Democrat nominee for President in 2020, and she is slowly rolling out the Swalwell/O’Rourke exit strategy of openly pushing gun confiscation.

 

Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families’ Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

With Tuesday’s order from the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys for the plaintiffs will be able to test whether a gun company can be held liable for how it markets a firearm that is later used in a crime. READ MORE

bushmaster

SOURCE: NPR, Bill Chappell, et al.

The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.’s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families of victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting. The families say that Remington should be held liable. Remington manufactured the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle that Adam Lanza used in the shooting.

In a decision that was announced Tuesday morning, the court opted not to hear the gun-maker’s appeal. The justices did not include any comment about the case, Remington Arms Co. v. Soto, as they turned it away.

Remington had appealed to the highest federal court after the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the Sandy Hook lawsuit to proceed in March. In recent court filings, Remington says the case “presents a nationally important question” about U.S. gun laws — namely, how to interpret the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which grants broad immunity to gun-makers and dealers from prosecution over crimes committed with their products.

The families first filed their lawsuit in December 2014, saying the Bushmaster rifle never should have been sold to the public because it is a military-style weapon. They accuse Remington of violating Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law when it “knowingly marketed and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle for use in assaults against human beings.”

While the suit initially centered on a claim of negligent entrustment — or providing a gun to someone who plans to commit a crime with it — the case now hinges on how Remington marketed the gun.

The 2005 federal law that shields gun companies from liability has several exceptions — including one allowing lawsuits against a gun-maker or seller that knowingly violates state or federal laws governing how a product is sold or marketed.

In the case’s first major test, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that Remington cannot be held liable for simply selling its AR-style Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle. However, they also ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act includes an exception that allows the lawsuit to be brought against the company’s marketing practices.

“Congress did not intend to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices promoting criminal conduct,” the court said. “It falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet.”

At trial, Sandy Hook families cited examples of what they believe are “unethical, oppressive, immoral, and unscrupulous” advertisements that extol the “the militaristic and assaultive qualities of the rifle.” Furthermore, they argued, the Sandy Hook shooter was “especially susceptible to militaristic marketing” due to his aspirations of being in the military.

In filings with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Sandy Hook families say Remington “published promotional materials that promised ‘military-proven performance’ for a ‘mission-adaptable’ shooter in need of the ‘ultimate combat weapons system.’ ” They also accuse the company of fostering a “lone gunman” narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.”

Another source cited comments from Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. Gottlieb: “This suit is just plain wrong and should never have been allowed to proceed.” Gottlieb called that rationale “absurd” at the time.

“Did the advertising even remotely suggest that the Bushmaster is best for murdering people?” Gottlieb asked. “That’s a stretch of credulity worthy of surgical elastic. There is no evidence the killer was driven by any advertising whatsoever. This is an affront to the First Amendment as well as the Second. Even hinting that the killer was motivated in some way by an advertising message is so far out in the weeds that it may take a map for the court to find its way back.”

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to take up Remington’s appeal, the case will return to a lower court in Connecticut.