Tag Archives: MICHAEL BLOOMBERG

Dick’s Sporting Goods Loses $150 million on Gun Control Crusade

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Their anti-gun activities continue to dig Dick’s a deeper hole. Huge losses signal that Dick’s is dead in sportsman’s eyes. READ MORE

dick's

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

For the last year we’ve been reporting on the bizarre saga of Dick’s Sporting Goods’ transformation from a relatively functional purveyor of mainstream sporting goods to a groveling symbol of modern corporate virtue signaling. Last Friday, new evidence emerged of just how much that crusade has cost the retailer.

It hasn’t been a pretty story.

Dick’s CEO Edward Stack — with evident pressure from the media and anti-gun lobby — has embarked on an escalating series of policies to restrict the chain’s sale of guns, at one point a significant part of the company’s revenue stream.

Whether Stack had a sincere change of heart on the morality of his business model or whether he naively sought to protect his company with a futile attempt to appease a frothing mob that hates guns and capitalism with equal fervor is anyone’s guess.

But Stack went so far as to formally collaborate with the Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety and to sign a letter endorsing gun control bills pending on Capitol Hill. His company even retained corporate lobbyists to press Congress for additional gun control.

Needless to say, these moves resulted in Dick’s becoming synonymous with Benedict Arnold in the minds of well-informed Second Amendment supporters. Shoppers and major suppliers in the pro-gun community stopped doing business with Dick’s.

Now Bloomberg’s own media outlet, Bloomberg.com, is reporting that Dick’s itself estimates the price of its anti-gun advocacy at $150 million in lost sales in 2018, or almost 2% of the company’s annual revenue.

And while anti-gunners insisted they would reward Dick’s with increases in their own business, the same article mentions a new Stanford University study that casts doubt on that premise. According to that research, “Respondents said they were more likely to buy a product to support a CEO’s political stance than they were to boycott in disagreement, but their actions revealed the opposite.” The article continued, “When asked for specific examples, 69 percent could name a product they’d stopped buying, and only 21 percent could recall a product they started buying.”

So it seems, unsurprisingly, that being boastfully anti-gun is a dumb idea for a gun store, as is counting on the professed loyalty and support of anti-gunners (who, let’s face it, probably aren’t likely to be the most athletically inclined people and to need the other types of wares that Dick’s sells anyway).

Nevertheless, Stack remains defiant. “It was worth it,” the article quotes him as saying.

Easy for him to say when he’s successfully elevated his own perceived moral standing with his high-society peers by gambling with the money of his shareholders, who of course assumed much of the financial risk for Stack’s very public moralizing.

But make no mistake, Ed Stack remains a fabulously wealthy man, and the Dick’s retail empire remains big enough that it may successfully reshuffle its business model to remain viable.

But Ed Stack has done gun owners a favor by allowing them a myriad of opportunities to express their pro-Second Amendment commitments simply by avoiding any sort of purchase they may otherwise have made in his stores. Be it guns, ammunition, or even kayaks or baseball gloves, there are plenty of other outlets eager to serve the pro-gun public without condescending to them and collaborating with organizations that would take away their rights.

Dick’s corporate largesse may buy Ed Stack the fleeting admiration of the gun control and media elites.

But gun owners have long memories, and they will hopefully continue to add to the 150 million reminders they’ve already given Stack.

 

Pittsburgh Mayor Declares Intent to Ban Guns in Violation of State Law

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Under the proposed semi-automatic ban, it would be “unlawful to manufacture, sell, purchase, transport, carry, store, or otherwise hold in one’s possession” a firearm defined as an “assault weapon.” READ IT ALL

pittsburgh mayor

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Last week, we reported that it was likely that sweeping gun control measures would be proposed in Pittsburgh. On December 14 Pittsburgh Mayor William Peduto held a press conference to propose a trio of anti-gun city ordinances that, if enacted, would constitute a direct violation of Pennsylvania’s state firearms preemption law and Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent. At the event, Peduto was joined by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, who benefitted from $500,000 in spending from Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety during his 2018 re-election bid, and City Council members Corey O’Connor and Erika Strassburger.

Not content to spearhead his own city’s violation of state law, Peduto called for municipalities throughout the country to ignore state statutes duly enacted by their residents’ elected representatives. A press release from the mayor’s office chronicling the conference explained, “Mayor Peduto has asked cities around the country to support Pittsburgh’s measures and/or introduce similar legislation to create nationwide momentum behind the critically needed gun changes.”

Councilmember O’Connor, who purportedly authored the anti-gun proposals, took a similar tack, stating that Pittsburgh “must seize the opportunity to make a real difference by partnering with other municipalities in the Commonwealth and cities across America to enact” gun restrictions. Councilmember Strassburger also encouraged the municipal lawlessness, stating, “I hope more cities across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the entire nation will join Pittsburgh in this critical effort.”

The three legislative proposals are a total ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, a total ban on several types of common firearms accessories and standard capacity magazines, and the development of a procedure to confiscate an individual’s firearms without due process of law.

The legislation defines “assault weapon” by listing several models of commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, including the Colt AR-15 and certain configurations of the Ruger Mini-14. Moreover, the legislation goes on to add to the definition of “assault weapon” semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that meet a certain set of criteria.

The prohibition criteria for rifles is the following:

a. The firearm is a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

i. A folding or telescoping stock;

ii. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

iii. A bayonet mount;

iv. A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

v. A grenade launcher;

Pistols would be judged under the following criteria:

b. The firearm is a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

i. An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

ii. A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;

iii. A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;

iv. A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

v. A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm;

The following shotguns would banned:

c. The firearm is a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:

i. A folding or telescoping stock;

ii. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

iii. A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and

iv. An ability to accept a detachable magazine;

The legislation would also prohibit the possession of machine guns lawfully registered under the National Firearms Act.

The legislative proposal targeting common firearms accessories would ban the possession of firearms magazines “that [have] the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” The ordinance would also ban any semi-automatic centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and is equipped with either a pistol grip, thumbhole stock, folding or telescoping stock, or a forward pistol grip (among other items).

Both pieces of legislation impose severe penalties on those who refuse to submit to the city’s unlawful mandates. Those who do not comply “shall be fined $1,000 and costs for each offense, and in default of payment thereof, may be imprisoned for not more than 90 days.” Moreover, the proposals provide that “[e]ach day of a continuing violation of or failure to comply … shall constitute and separate and distinct offense.” Meaning that otherwise law-abiding individuals who fail to comply with the ordinances would face potential financial ruin.

The final proposal would empower law enforcement to search for and confiscate an individual’s firearms without due process. Acting on merely a petition offered by a law enforcement official or family or household member a court could issue an order for an individual’s firearms to be seized. The individual would have no opportunity to speak or present evidence on their own behalf prior to confiscation.

The Pennsylvania General Assembly has made clear that firearms laws are a state matter and that it is unlawful for the state’s political subdivisions to regulate firearms. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6120, concerning the “Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition,” states:

No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

The language of the statute is crystal clear. Municipalities like Pittsburgh may not pass their own firearms regulations.

However, the simple statute wasn’t simple enough for the reading challenged lawmakers of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

In the 1996 case Ortiz v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania settled the question as to whether Pittsburgh and Philadelphia could restrict commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. In finding that they could not, the court stated:

Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus, regulation of firearms is a matter of concern in all of Pennsylvania, not merely in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the General Assembly, not city councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of such regulation.

Another portion of the opinion described Pittsburgh’s position as “frivolous.”

In the 2009 case National Rifle Association v. Philadelphia, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania came to the same conclusion after Philadelphia ignored the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s 1996 ruling and enacted a ban on commonly-owned firearms and a lost or stolen reporting ordinance. Citing Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption statute and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s decision in Ortiz, the Commonwealth Court struck down the local firearms ordinances. Philadelphia appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and was denied.

In pursuing their local gun control ordinances, Peduto and his anti-gun allies have demonstrated an extraordinary indifference to state law, judicial precedents, and the taxpaying constituents who will foot the bill for this political grandstanding. NRA stands ready to use all available legal avenues to ensure that the residents of Pittsburgh are never subject to these unconstitutional and unlawful proposals.

 

Levi’s Teams with Billionaire Michael Bloomberg to Attack Gun Rights

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Abandoning their “Wild West” heritage, Levi’s now advocates radical gun control. READ MORE

levi's antigun

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Levi Strauss & Co. established its brand in the mid-19th century by selling durable clothing to working-class Americans. As Levi’s signature jeans gained popularity amongst a wider set in the middle of the last century, the pants came to symbolize American freedom. As Stanford Historian Niall Ferguson points out in his book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, during the Cold War, the American pants were so desirable behind the Iron Curtain that citizens would break any number of laws to obtain them. At one point the company even celebrated America’s armed heritage in a circa 1950 advertising brochure, “Levi’s Gallery of Western Guns & Gunfighters.” It’s with some irony then that Levi’s has abandoned this rugged image to team up with a billionaire oligarch in an effort to empower the government to trample upon the fundamental rights of the American people.

On September 4th, Levi’s CEO Chip Bergh announced that the San Francisco-based clothing manufacturer (which also owns Dockers) would openly advocate for gun control. As part of this campaign, the company will donate more than $1 million to radical anti-gun groups, including Michael Bloomberg front-group Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords, formerly Americans for Responsible Solutions and the Legal Community Against Violence. The company will also match employee donations to these groups and is encouraging its staff to devote their time to anti-gun activism.

Further, Bergh stated that the company has joined the Everytown Business Leaders for Gun Safety. The business wing of Bloomberg’s outfit is dedicated to leveraging member companies’ “market footprint… employee networks, [and] public communications platforms” to diminish Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

In a repulsive insult to the nation’s 100 million gun owners, Bergh likened Levi’s campaign to restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans to previous company efforts aimed at combatting pre-Civil Rights Era racial bigotry.

Among gun owners, Levi’s intemperate foray into the world of gun control politics has been met with the disgust it deserves. However, it shouldn’t be met with surprise.

Since the late 1990s, Levi’s has used its name and resources to attack gun rights. In 1999, the company gave $100,000 to gun control group PAX, followed by a $250,000 donation in 2000 and another $100,000 in 2001.

PAX was founded in 1998 by Dan Gross, who went on to become president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. PAX would go on to change its name to the Center to Prevent Youth Violence and later merge with the Brady Campaign.

Much like Bloomberg’s Everytown, PAX placed an emphasis on attracting corporate partners to their gun control efforts. As part of Levi’s relationship with PAX, in 1999 the apparel company teamed up with the band Goo Goo Dolls to attract support for the anti-gun group during the Levi’s Fuse ’99 summer concert tour. Concert goers, and visitors to Levi’s website, were encouraged to sign the PAX Youth Petition. Moreover, the denim company donated a percentage of all Levi’s Fuse ’99 t-shirt proceeds to the gun control group.

The PAX Youth Petition endorsed a variety of severe gun control measures that have repeatedly been rejected by the American public through their elected representatives. The document called for the “licensing and registration of guns, like automobiles.” The petition also demanded the “elimination of assault weapons and other weapons of war.” As the 1994 Clinton “Assault Weapons” ban was in place at the time of the petition, this imprecise demand appeared to call for prohibiting the sale of the remaining lawful semi-automatic firearms, confiscation of the firearms grandfathered under the ban, or both.

Given the majority of Levi’s 165-year history, Bergh’s decision to use a formerly-quintessential American company to attack a quintessential American right is a particularly sad episode in the current surge in corporate virtue-signaling. We can only assume that Levi’s accountants have determined that resulting skinny jeans sales will be enough to offset the permanent damage to their once-cherished brand.

 

Bloomberg Gun Control Shill Targets Sportman’s Warehouse for Selling a Bolt Action .22

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits…* Anti-gunners display this truth. READ MORE
*Albert Einstein

sportsmans warehouse 22

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On March 2, gun control über matron Shannon Watts issued a tweet taking the online retailer Sportsman’s Warehouse to task for making a certain firearm available to adults as young as 18. No doubt Watts hoped to shock her Twitter followers with the gun’s supposedly menacing appearance.

The rifle she depicted, however, was a Ruger bolt action .22 rimfire, a platform that has safely introduced untold numbers of preteens to the fundamentals of marksmanship and firearm safety, including through programs at summer camps, scouting organizations, and even some public schools. It is a platform so common and uncontroversial, in fact, that it would remain untouched by even the most far-reaching “assault weapon” ban introduced in any American jurisdiction to date. The large knob protruding from its action must be manually operated between shots, and the ammunition it uses is among the mildest of the commercially available rifle cartridges, illegal for taking game bigger than a squirrel or rabbit in most places.

Needless to say, this was all lost on Watts, who was manifestly reacting to features of the particular model in question that have absolutely nothing to do with any lethal potential it might possess. These include its dark color; its polymer furniture; the adjustability of the stock’s comb and length of pull; its vented, free-float handguard; and its accessory rails. Leave it to Watts — who recently lectured a crime victim on her supposed “privilege” — to be triggered by mere appearances.

Of course, it’s also possible that Watts knew exactly what sort of gun she was tweeting a picture of and was simply making the point that there’s no firearm too benign for her regulatory ambitions.

Either way, Shannon Watts once again made herself look ridiculous to anybody with a basic understanding of firearm technology, if not basic common sense.

That might be forgivable for the average suburban adult with no prior firearm experience who knows no more about guns than their dubious depictions in mass media and entertainment. But it’s a pretty sorry showing for someone whose only claim to fame is imperiously hectoring the rest of the country on the evils of guns and gun owners and pushing prohibitory firearm policies and laws.

Indeed, of all the manifestations of childish entitlement that characterize the gun control lobby, perhaps none is so pronounced as the inverse relationship between their ignorance and their outrage. It’s of course easy to fear something you don’t understand. But gun control advocates take it a step further, resisting attempts by gun owners to set them straight on the facts as a form of “bullying” or mocking efforts at education on firearms as “gunsplaning.” Then they go further still by insisting that not only should their obliviousness inform their own choices about firearm ownership and use but yours as well.

And while their ineptitude might be a source of amusement to gun owners to the degree it’s confined to social media rants, there’s nothing funny about its very real potential to infect public policy as well.

Firearm technology can no doubt seem bewildering and intimidating to the uninitiated. And gun owners should have patience and sensitivity to those who are trying in good faith to come up to speed.

Watts and her likeminded Twitter followers, however, aren’t just uninformed. They are deliberately indifferent, if not actively hostile, to any fact that gets in the way of their agenda.

So don’t expect embarrassment or apologies from Shannon Watts. She doesn’t actually have to know what sort of gun she’s talking about to “demand action” to keep you from having it.