NSSF, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, welcomed the U.S. District Court of New Jersey’s preliminary injunction order to block a public nuisance law that was recently enacted by Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy. IMG iStock
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- NSSF, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, welcomed the U.S. District Court of New Jersey’s preliminary injunction order to block a public nuisance law that was recently enacted by Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy. That law allowed frivolous and unconstitutional lawsuits against members of the firearm industry for the subsequent criminal misuse of a lawfully-sold firearm by remote third parties over whom members of the industry have no control. Judge Zahid Quraishi noted that the landmark 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) specifically protects against these baseless lawsuits that have no foundation in a basic understanding of tort law.
“NSSF is pleased by today’s ruling because we know New Jersey’s law is unconstitutional as it is preempted by federal law,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “The bottom line is that Congress specifically addressed these sorts of harassing and baseless lawsuits when PLCAA was passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority and signed into law by President George W. Bush. The court correctly pointed out in its opinion that New Jersey’s law directly conflicts with the intention of Congress.”
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) blocks lawsuits that attempt to hold firearm and ammunition industry companies liable for the criminal actions of third parties who misuse the industry’s lawfully sold, non-defective products. More specifically, this common sense law ensures that responsible and law-abiding federally licensed manufacturers and retailers of firearms and ammunition are not unjustly blamed in federal and state civil actions for “the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse” these products that function as designed and intended.
Today’s decision should give pause to other states considering similar bills modeled on New Jersey’s law before they enact similarly unconstitutional laws that NSSF will challenge on behalf of the firearm industry. NSSF is challenging similar laws recently enacted in New York and Delaware.
NSSF was represented by Clement & Murphy, PLLC, in its challenge to New Jersey’s unconstitutional public nuisance law.
About The National Shooting Sports Foundation
NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– On January 16, Monday, after coming back from the Industry Day at the Range, before the opening of the SHOT Show on Tuesday, this correspondent was outside in Las Vegas, on Tropicana Avenue, in front of Liquor World, taking a few pictures. The weather was cool, but not cold. It was overcast, without rain. A young black man drove up in a late model sporty car, parked, got out, and entered the store with an openly carried pistol stuck in his waistband.
As a writer for AmmoLand, this correspondent knew he had to take action. This correspondent formulated a hasty plan.
As the young black man exited the store, this correspondent approached him and said:
“I am a writer covering the SHOT Show. May I take a picture of your open carry pistol?”
The young man looked me up and down. Approaching a complete stranger in front of a liquor store is a mildly risky proposition. He answered:
“Who do you write for?”
“AmmoLand” was the reply.
I elaborated: I do not need to include your face or any identification. I simply want to document the open carry here in Las Vegas. He obviously had places to go and people to meet. After he agreed, I quickly took a couple of shots. We briefly chatted.
Apparent SD series Smith in an inside-the-waistband holster, Tropicana Avenue, Las Vegas, 2023
He stated he was glad they made open carry legal and wished they would do it everywhere. I told him I frequently open carry in Arizona. It was common there.
It was not the time or place to critique his holster or offer expert advice. A holster clipped to the inside of the waistband of sweatpants is not a practice I would normally recommend. Offering intimate advice about carrying weapons is not something I am willing to do with chance encounters in front of liquor stores.
The young man may have had good and sufficient reason to pop the holstered pistol inside the waistband of sweatpants, with only a small cord for a belt. The trip to the liquor store might have been to meet the urgent request of a wife or girlfriend or another reason which required quick action. This is of course my own speculation.
Factually, a young black man in a very nice car (late model Mustang) felt no inhibitions to openly carry what appears to be a Smith & Wesson SD series into a liquor store on Tropicana Avenue. No one complained or even seemed to notice, except for this correspondent.
My new friend in the world of gun culture turned onto Tropicana and expertly merged into the far left lane to turn north on Koval.
Opinion:
The normalization of armed Americans continues. Some might claim a young black man in a lovely, late-model car entering a liquor store with a pistol tucked into his waistband would be reason for alarm. It was not for this correspondent, nor did it appear to be for anyone in the vicinity. Criminals almost never openly carry arms for obvious reasons. They have a “mens rea,” to use the legal term, or “guilty mind.” The Bible has much sound advice.
From Proverbs: The wicked flee though no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
New Jersey –-(AmmoLand.com)- Earlier today, the judge in the consolidated carry-killer case issued another temporary restraining order halting much more of the carry-killer law than it did previously. In a 46-page opinion, the court granted most of the relief sought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC), and many more unconstitutional “sensitive place” carry prohibitions have been temporarily halted while the case proceeds.
The restraining order temporarily blocks enforcement of aspects of the carry-killer law for a period of several weeks until the court can consider subsequent full briefing of the issues raised in the case.
Temporary restraining orders like the ones issued are generally considered extraordinary and nearly impossible to obtain. While they are not guarantee that the carry-killer law will continue to be blocked throughout the duration of the case, they strongly suggest that it is likely. Also, at the next stage of the case (preliminary injunction stage), it is possible that additional aspects of the law will be blocked.
Further analysis of today’s decision will be provided by ANJRPC attorney Dan Schmutter in a subsequent alert following this one.
About the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs:
The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. is the official NRA State Association in New Jersey. Our mission is to implement all of the programs and activities at the state level that the NRA does at the national level. This mission includes the following: To support and defend the constitutional rights of the people to keep and bear arms. To take immediate action against any legislation at the local, state, and federal levels that would infringe upon these rights. Visit: www.anjrpc.org
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- A decade or more ago, a middle-aged couple in Washington State settled in on some acreage near the Hood Canal. They started raising chickens and sheep. All was going well, but coyotes started showing up, killing and eating their livestock. There was a wash/intermittent stream/ravine at the back of one of their pastures. It was a coyote highway through the area.
As the problem got worse, they obtained a McNab dog. He was very effective at chasing off coyotes. The population of coyotes kept growing. There was a nearby marina where the coyotes were able to obtain food. More housing was moving into nearby suburbs. The coyotes had access to lots of pets (cats and small dogs) for food. The number of coyotes became overwhelming for their dog to defend against.
The coyotes were taking an average of a chicken or two a week. You do not want to lose a laying hen when she starts to produce. The final straw was reached when the husband witnessed a pack of coyotes pull down and kill one of their oldest-producing ewes. Call him Grant. Grant’s wife told him that was enough. She said: Do what you have to do to protect our livestock. The coyotes had become so numerous they would see them every day. They would hear numerous coyotes yipping and howling at night. Grant did not have experience as a hunter. He was and is a shooter and a thinker.
Grant formulated a plan. It was well executed.
There was a hog slaughterhouse not too far from their acreage. Grant obtained a hog’s head. He securely attached it to a steel cable. It was tied above the ground, in the wash at the back of the acreage, so coyotes would have to jump and make noise to reach it. He could see the area from his porch.
On about 16 September in 2019, Grant was working at home on a Friday. The pig head had been hanging for four days. Grant heard them yipping a bit before noon. Coyotes were at his bait. Grant grabbed his AR15-type .300 blackout pistol. It had a 7.5″ barrel with a brace and was equipped with a Yankee Hill Machine suppressor. The .300 was loaded with supersonic 125-grain ammunition. The coyotes were about 100 yds out. They were not cautious. Grant said they were nearly as unconcerned as feral dogs.
Grant stepped out through a sliding glass door onto his porch. He took up a position on the back porch, using the post rail of the porch as a support.
Back pasture. The wooded area in the red circle is where the coyotes were shot.
There were three bigger coyotes and two smaller ones. The bigger ones were jumping up and trying to rip the flesh off the pig’s head. He caught the biggest coyote in his Romeo5 red dot and fired. As the first coyote dropped, Grant put the sight on the second biggest and fired. Down it went. As the second dropped, the third of the large coyotes took a moment to look at them. With the third shot, the third coyote dropped and the two smaller coyotes were out of sight and gone. The sequence of three shots took less than three seconds.
Grant immediately retrieved the carcasses. He covered the blood spoor with lime and covered the lime with soil.
With this early success, Grant’s two grandsons volunteered to help stop the coyote threat. The grandsons were about 28 and 30, named
Garrett and Chris. They had AR15-type rifles in .223/5.56 caliber, without suppressors. One was equipped with a Holosun red dot, the other with a Vortex red/green dot.
The three men installed a battery-operated, motion detector-activated light at the bait. They put up a Cabela’s trail camera as well. They were gathering intelligence about the coyote’s schedule and habits. The coyotes came back at about 2 a.m. two days later. There were at least four of them. The light and camera caught their presence. No one was standing guard. The grandsons volunteered to stand shifts to watch at night.
The following night, Tuesday, the coyotes did not show up at 2 a.m. They showed up at 4 a.m. Garret was standing watch with his AR15-type rifle. The rifle had a 16-inch barrel, chambered in 5.56, equipped with the optical sight. He shot two coyotes before the others took flight. One coyote came back. Garret shot his third predator.
Two days later, the pig head was getting very ripe. The three men were working on fencing at about 10 a.m. when they heard
coyotes. Garret and Chris grabbed their rifles. Garret ran to the back porch where Grant had shot previously. Chris went to the edge of the barn, where, crouching down, he could see into the area from another angle. There were about seven coyotes. Chris got two, and Garret got two. They retrieved the bodies and performed the same drill with lime and soil over the blood. The distance was about a hundred yards. These coyotes were mid-sized to smaller.
A few days later, the light went on at about 1 a.m. Grant got a lucky shot with the .300 and took out the eleventh coyote. It was the last coyote they shot. The bait was much decayed by this time.
Coyotes took no more stock for over a year and a half.
Due to tragic circumstances outside the family’s control, they sold and moved to another location.
Predators have always been a bane of man’s struggle to survive and gather or grow food. They are direct competitors for many of the resources man desires and lives from. Larger predators are direct threats to man and his children.
Opinion:
Throughout history, there are many examples of people claiming the circumstances they have not lived in are much better than the circumstances they are living in. It is a form of “the grass is greener”. Today, those who know little of, or who have become captivated by, the idea of a “nature” they experience through the lens of advanced technology often declare nature to be far more virtuous than civilized and/or technological society.
“Ecological” and or “Back to nature” promoters are seldom willing to give up the advantages of technology for themselves. Researchers helicopter in for days or weeks, eating processed foods and warmed in advance tech clothing, enjoying the benefits of advanced medicine, and leaving. Tourists visit, photograph, and leave. Many satisfy the desire to validate their preformed viewpoints.
Those who do not have to live with predators have a much higher opinion of predators than those who constantly need to guard against predation.
It is a modern myth that pre-literary tribes loved big predators. They respected them, their danger and their power. They did not want lots of them around them and their children.
Modern technology has increased man’s power to control animal populations, especially large predators. The idea of a “balance” in nature is a myth. Predators and prey seldom live in balance of near-static proportions. Instead, predator and prey populations tend to climax and crash. Man, with modern methods of game management, can moderate those cycles, to the benefit of man and animal populations alike.
Predators will increase their populations until they run out of food or until another predator or disease keeps their population in check. Man is the most humane manager of animal populations, far more humane than starvation or disease.
Predator populations, in the modern era, become a threat to humans and their property only because humans who do not live with the predators restrict other humans ability to control the predator populations they are forced to live with.
Predator populations can be controlled to the level where they exist in areas set aside for wildlife (and the enjoyment of humans), without undue threats to humans and their property. The obstacle to management is the mythology such management is “unnatural”, “evil” or “speciest”. Hunters have a level of confidence, skill, and independence many of those in power see as a hindrance to their ability to control society. Hence, hunters are denigrated.
Animal populations do not control themselves. Management of the natural world can be accomplished by man, if man takes up his responsibility to do so.
Man must acknowledge his dominance over animals. To do otherwise is to deny reality.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
‘Constitutional Carry’ Bill Introduced in Florida, iStock-884197090
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Florida House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Court, along with sponsors from the House and Senate introduced HB 543 Monday morning, a “Constitutional Carry” bill that Renner said gets “rid of the need for a government permission slip” to carry a concealed handgun.
The lawmakers were accompanied by Hernando County Sheriff Al Nienhuis, president of the Florida Sheriff’s Association and other Florida Sheriff’s.
The bill, which has also been described as “unlicensed concealed carry” removes the requirement for Floridians to obtain a Concealed Weapon Firearm License, or CWFL, before carrying a concealed handgun. The bill does not change the prohibitions or exceptions for open carry in the state.
“We don’t operate in a vacuum. What’s happening in our society now is Defund the Police 2.0,” Renner said. “I don’t think there’s ever been a time in my history on earth that we’ve needed the right to keep and bear arms more than now.”
Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey thanked Renner and the bill’s sponsors for the legislation.
“This bill is an important piece of legislation for our citizens to have the ability to protect themselves. Criminals don’t go get a permit,” Ivey said. “Florida Sheriffs stand solidly behind this.”
Bill sponsor Senator Jay Collins, R-Tampa, an Army Special Forces veteran, described the legislation as a “monumental moment” and a “major breakthrough for our freedom.”
“My very first lesson as a Green Beret was that it is incumbent on each of us to leave things better than we found them,” Collins said. “We will take a monumental step to ensure that government does not interfere with a law-abiding citizen’s ability to protect their family.”
Bill sponsor Rep. Chuck Brannan, R-Macclenny, said the bill won’t change “who can and cannot carry a gun.”
CWFLs, he said, will still be available for Floridians who travel out-of-state and want reciprocity.
“People don’t have to carry if they don’t want to. This is a constitutional right people have,” Brannan said. “Criminals are getting guns anyway. They don’t care what the law says. We’re only giving law-abiding citizens a simple way to get a firearm. It’s only fitting that citizens of the freest state in the nation be given the right to constitutional carry.”
About Florida Carry, Inc.:
Florida Carry is a Florida nonprofit, non-partisan, grassroots organization founded in 2010. Florida Carry is dedicated to advancing the fundamental civil right of all Floridians to keep and bear arms for self-defense as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Florida. In 2016 Florida Carry was named the Grassroots Organization of the Year by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Florida Carry, Inc. was organized in order to better coordinate activities, effectively lobby the state legislature, and to provide a legal entity capable of filing suit to demand compliance with state and federal law. Florida Carry stands to represent our members, millions of gun owners, and the countless knife and defensive weapon carriers of Florida. We are not beholden to any national organization’s agenda that may compromise that mission. Florida Carry is the state’s largest independent second amendment advocacy organization.
The NSSF filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block state authorities from enforcing HB 5471, the recently-enacted “Protect Illinois Communities Act”. IMG iStock-884198022
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- NSSF, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block state authorities from enforcing HB 5471, the recently-enacted “Protect Illinois Communities Act,” which bans the sale of several hundred of the most commonly-owned semiautomatic rifles in America, including all rifles on the very popular Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR) platform. That same law also bans the possession of standard-capacity magazines and certain models of semiautomatic handguns. This unconstitutional law unquestionably violates the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Illinois citizens, and the state should be enjoined immediately from enforcing it.
“NSSF filed this motion for a preliminary injunction because every day this unconstitutional law is on the books, law-abiding citizens are being denied their right to keep and bear arms of their choosing for self-defense and other lawful purposes,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This ban on MSRs and other commonly-owned rifles, standard-capacity magazines and certain handguns was passed in open defiance of the Supreme Court’s Bruen and Heller decisions. The Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to freely approach a gun counter to legally purchase commonly-owned firearms, unless, as the Supreme Court held in Bruen, the state can prove its law is part of a historic, national tradition and heritage of banning such arms – something the state obviously cannot do.”
HB 5471 is among the nation’s most expansive gun control laws. It bans the sale of hundreds of models of rifles, including commonly-owned MSRs, certain semiautomatic handguns, and rifle and pistol magazines with a capacity greater than 10 and 15 ammunition cartridges, respectively. There are over 24.4 million MSRs in circulation today, more popular than the top-selling Ford F-150 and hundreds of millions of standard-capacity magazines owned by tens of millions of Americans.
About The National Shooting Sports Foundation
NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org
Aging Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has once again introduced legislation to ban so-called “assault weapons.”
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Five months short of her 90th birthday in June, and still keeping mum about whether she will run again in 2024, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein has launched another effort to ban so-called “assault weapons,” and she’s got a lot of company as 35 fellow Democrats have signed on.
The list includes all the usual suspects, including perennial anti-gunners Charles Schumer, Cory Booker, Chris Murphy, Richard Blumenthal, Dick Durbin, Ron Wyden, Patty Murray and 29 others. Dubbed the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2023,” the measure describes itself as “A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.” Blumenthal and Murphy are leading co-sponsors.
The bill spans 126 pages, of which almost 100 pages is a list of guns that are exempted (i.e. “Feinstein approved”) and eight more pages listing guns that will be banned. Buried in the language are mandates for so-called “safe storage” and “identification markings.” Another section deals with the “Seizure and forfeiture of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.”
In terms of gun control legislation, this bill is vintage Feinstein, who has wanted to ban modern semiautomatic rifles for decades. A statement from her office reminds readers she was the original sponsor of the Clinton-era semi-auto ban, which was in place from 1994 through 2004. Its passage cost Democrats the majority on Capitol Hill in November 1994.
Feinstein’s bill also bans ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 cartridges and provides grant money for “buy-back” programs, a misnomer since the government never owned these guns in the first place.
In a prepared statement, President Joe Biden talked pure boilerplate, claiming the ban must be passed “to do all we can to ensure the safety of our children, our communities, and our nation.”
It would be fair to ask whether this legislation is Feinstein’s “swan song” in anticipation of an announcement later this year she is retiring, since would-be successors—including California Rep. Adam Schiff, whose welcome has worn out on the House Intelligence Committee—are already lining up to replace her.
According to the press release from her office, Feinstein, Blumenthal and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) are co-sponsoring the gun ban bill and a companion measure, the “Age 21 Act,” which raises the minimum age to purchase “assault weapons” from 18 to 21.
Feinstein’s release said Democrat Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island is introducing companion legislation in the House, where it will likely gather dust thanks to the Republican majority. Feinstein’s bill may pass the Senate, but the House GOP majority under Speaker Kevin McCarthy will likely prevent it from coming to a vote.
Sen. Feinstein’s announcement says at least three times in the text that people who already own such firearms may keep them while also noting, “Requires a background check on any future sale, trade or gifting of an assault weapon covered by the bill.”
CNN is reporting that Feinstein has filed reelection paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission, while remaining mum about her plans. If she runs for a sixth term and wins, she would be one of the oldest members filling a Senate seat, but there are concerns about her fitness to do the job.
Waiting in the wings is Schiff, who would come into the race with considerable baggage relating to his efforts to impeach President Donald Trump. According to the Los Angeles Times, Schiff is not alone in his quest for a Senate seat.
Also running is Rep. Katie Porter of Orange County, and possibly Rep. Barbara Lee, a liberal Oakland Democrat whom the Times is reporting “has told colleagues she also will launch a bid.”
While she is pushing for a gun ban, Feinstein will be deciding her own future. She has indicated she will make a decision about running by spring.
Meanwhile, the “Age 21 Act” covers 22 pages and includes a list of firearms stretching more than eight pages.
Co-sponsors on this legislation also include anti-gunners: Durbin, Murphy, Wyden, Booker, Blumenthal, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren and several others.
There is no small irony in an effort to raise the age for buying a semiautomatic rifle at the same time Congresswoman Grace Meng (D-NY) has reintroduced legislation to lower the voting age to 16 years. A news release from her office dated Jan. 26 says she “seeks to replace the 26th amendment of the U.S. Constitution with a new amendment that would allow 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote.”
If someone is considered mature enough to vote, why are they not mature enough to buy a firearm?
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
WASHINGTON, D.C.-(Ammoland.com)- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) new final rule surrounding pistol stabilizing devices has spurred a debate on the internet about what is and is not allowed. The source of the confusion seems to be the proposed rule was included within the document released by the Bureau. This confusion has led some people to believe the ATF will not allow imported pistol to be registered and revokes all letters for pistol grip shotguns.
The ATF has assured AmmoLand News that pistol grip shotguns that fall outside the scope of the National Firearms Act (NFA) but are considered short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) are not affected by ATF final rule 2021R-08F that regulates pistol stabilizing braces. The GCA and NFA have slightly different definitions of Shot Barrelled Shotguns. This discrepancy has developed a grey area where not all SBS are considered NFA firearms. These guns include items such as the Remington TAC-14 and the Mossberg Shockwave.
AmmoLand News contacted the ATF and spoke with Public Affairs Division Deputy Chief Erik Longnecker about pistol-gripped shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches. Other sources have reported that the ATF has revoked all prior classification letters. On page 47 of the published comments section submitted with the Final Rule, it seems to indicate that these shotguns are no longer legal.
“As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, these firearms are specifically designed to be fired with two hands. ATF has always classified these weapons as ‘firearms’ under the GCA and not as ‘shotguns,’ because they do not incorporate a shoulder stock and are not designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder like a shotgun. Nor has ATF classified these weapons as ‘pistols,’ as they are not designed to be held and fired in one hand like a pistol. Thus, the addition of a ‘stabilizing brace’ does not assist with single-handed firing, but instead provides surface area that allows for firing from the shoulder. Therefore, a ‘pistol grip shotgun’ equipped with a ‘stabilizing brace’ and a barrel of less than 18 inches is an NFA’ firearm,’ i.e., a short-barreled shotgun,” the rule reads.
The ATF response goes further and rejects all letters issued for these shotguns in the page 47 footnotes.
Footnote 73 reads: “As mentioned above, any classification that provides that a “pistol grip shotgun” is not an NFA firearm is no longer valid or authoritative and should be resubmitted to FATD for evaluation.”
According to Mr. Longnecker, people are misreading the Final Rule. The ATF claims that the page is from the proposed rule, not the final rule. He goes further and points to the final rule actually starting at the bottom of page 268. AmmoLand News verified Mr. Longnecker’s claim that the final rule does start on page 268.
“The final rule does not address pistol grip firearms (such as the Tac-14 or Shockwave), nor does it revoke prior classification letters relating to those firearms. Those were in the proposed rule,” Longnecker wrote.
“If you check the document, you will see that the Final rule begins at the bottom of page 268; page 47 is from the initial proposed rule. Since the document is fairly lengthy, it could be useful to use the bookmarks within the pdf, to see which sections you are in. That is helpful for me.”
If we take Longnecker, who is authorized to speak on behalf of the ATF, at his word, that means there could be a lot of misconceptions because he is insinuating that nothing above the bottom of page 268 is authoritative.
We can use that information to break down the rule. One issue that has been raised is an issue with 922(r) compliance. A rifle must have a certain quantity of American-made parts under the 922(r) regulation. The same rule does not bind pistols. Some gun groups have reasoned that if the ATF is retroactively making braced pistols short-barreled rifles (SBRs), there would be no way to bring it in line with 922(r).
Mr. Longernecker admits it is true that there is no way to bring a rifle into 922(r) after it has been assembled, but if a gun owner added a brace to a pistol after it was assembled, then according to the ATF, they could still file for their tax stamp like any other person. The ATF claims that the end user is not subject to 922(r) compliance demands.
“Section 922(r), in relevant part, makes it unlawful to assemble from imported parts a semiautomatic rifle that is otherwise not importable. The implementing regulations of the GCA at 27 CFR 478.39 provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. As discussed on page 246 of the proposed rule, the criminal violation under section 922(r) is for the ‘assembly’ of the semiautomatic rifle; therefore, no modification of such firearm would cure the 922(r) violation because the ‘assembly’ has already occurred. Accordingly, a person with an imported pistol that was subsequently equipped with a ‘stabilizing brace’ will have the same options as anyone else under the final rule. Should that person choose to register the firearm, no further modification of the firearm with domestic parts is required.”
AmmoLand News tried to get answers to what the ATF recommends an end user do if they purchased a foreign-made pistol with a pistol stabilizing brace. The ATF has not responded to the question at this time. Although, it would be almost impossible for the ATF to determine when the pistol brace was added to the firearm. If AmmoLand News gets an answer, then we will update the story.
The document that the ATF released is long and not easy to understand. It will take time and effort to understand all the nuances in the document, and there will be disagreements. AmmoLand News will continue to pressure the ATF to comment, on the record, to clarify any misunderstandings. This will enable the public to hold the ATF accountable if it changes its mind about the meaning and enforcement of the Final Rule.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-— On January 1, 2023, F. Paul Valone, President of Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC) sent duplicate open letters to the North Carolina Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger and Tim Moore, Speaker of the House. The letters are formal open letters, also sent to the GRNC mailing list. This correspondent is on the list and received both letters.
Fair disclosure: I know F. Paul Valone and have corresponded with him. We have met at national Gun Rights Policy Conferences. I wrote a review of Rules for Anti-Radicals, published on AmmoLand News.
AmmoLand News contributor Paul Valone is a serious thinker about politics, political organizations, political tactics, and political power. The letters reflect this long-term thinking and decades of practical experience.
They are things of beauty. Nicolo Machiavelli would be pleased.
The letters, with studied politeness, respect for forms, and subtlety, remind the North Carolina legislature of the political power and reputation of GRNC. AmmoLand readers deserve to see how a master at using a political activist group to achieve political ends communicates to the political leadership and everyone else.
January 1, 2023
The Honorable Tim Moore, Speaker
West Jones Street, Room 2304
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Speaker Moore:
I hope you have been well. On this first day of a New Year so bright with potential, please accept my congratulations on achieving a near-supermajority in the North Carolina House.
Realizing the competing interests you face, when the 2023-2024 session of the NC General Assembly convenes, I strongly urge you to consider the interests of
Second Amendment volunteers and voters who worked tirelessly to create a Republican majority capable of over-riding Governor Roy Cooper’s many gun-related vetoes.
Even beyond GRNC’s “Remember in November” voter education project which, in the 2022 elections, distributed 150,000 voter guides, including 120,000 mailed directly to gun-owning voters, the GRNC Political Victory Fund (GRNC-PVF) and our independent expenditure PAC, the Judicial Fairness Project (JFP), were highly active. As you probably know, with rare exceptions GRNC-PVF works to elect pro-gun candidates through a highly refined system of independent expenditures like those described below.
GRNC-PVF independent expenditures in General Assembly and Congressional races:
792,535 GRNC Political Victory Fund email recommendations sent
This year, GRNC instituted new, cutting-edge methods to reach voters. In addition to P2P texting described above, GRNC used cutting-edge “geofencing” technology to deliver:
1,717,501 display impressions to mobile devices of gun-owning “drop-off” voters
Achieving a unique reach of 29,477
Producing 7,854 display clicks
Resulting in 33,432 follow-up text messages
Overall, of 34 races targeted by the GRNC-PVF and JFP, we won an outstanding 27, yielding a win rate of nearly 80%. GRNC-PVF and JFP were also highly active in judicial elections, first by including judicial recommendations in all election alerts and second, by showcasing NC Supreme Court and Court of Appeals candidates at events such as our “Ring Steel for Freedom” event headlined by Senator-elect Ted Budd.
I have no doubt that other conservative interests will vie for precious legislative resources, but I am certain none conducted express advocacy campaigns featuring the breadth, sophistication, and effectiveness with which we supported Second Amendment candidates in the 2022 elections.
Accordingly, GRNC’s Legislative Action Team will be highly active in the upcoming session – a session in which our agenda will include (but not necessarily be limited to)
Permitless or “constitutional” carry of concealed firearms
Repealing our archaic, Jim Crow-era pistol purchase permit law
Protecting religious institutions by eliminating the “church carry loophole”
Protecting North Carolina’s long tradition of shooting on personal property
Obviously, GRNC will also continue to vociferously oppose gun control measures such as deceptive and unconstitutional “red flag” gun confiscation – a priority I’m certain you share.
Other dubious entities might claim to speak for North Carolina gun owners, but among state-level organizations, only Grass Roots North Carolina truly represents the interest of our state’s Second Amendment advocates.
Given new GOP power plus the role of gun voters in creating it, I have every confidence Republican leadership will end our frustrating seven-year stalemate and advance the rights of Second Amendment supporters who look forward to reaping the rewards they worked so hard to achieve.
Armatissimi e liberissimi, *
President, Grass Roots North Carolina
Executive Director, Rights Watch International
Radio host, Guns, Politics, and Freedom
* First spoken by Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of modern power politics, with reference to the universally armed and therefore unconquerable Swiss, Armatissimi e liberissimi means “most armed, most free.” As an expression of the importance of the right to arms to freedom, it is GRNC’s credo.
There is nothing in the letters about crude threats such as “nice little legislature you got there.” There is nothing that is obviously threatening. But, if you are in a position of power in the legislature, you know the tough reputation Grass Roots North Carolina has gained over the years. The facts stated in the letter show GRNC has raw political power at its disposal. Those facts speak volumes of the danger of opposing GRNC and the advantages to be gained by supporting GRNC initiatives.
Opinion:
Once, when in an official capacity as a scientist working for the military bureaucracy, this correspondent had to write a letter to another bureaucracy. It had to be approved by my Boss’s boss. He circulated the letter around the bureaucracy, with the exhortation – this is how you write a letter.
The Grass Roots North Carolina letter signed by F. Paul Valone far exceeds my former efforts.
This is how you write an open letter to a legislature.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
USA –-(AmmoLand.com)- Mao Zedong once said, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
Which is why he made sure no one in China could access that political power. Throughout history and well into the modern world, gun control legislation heralded the death of democracies. Usually, it preceded an attempt by the government to take full control of people’s lives. Weapon bans frequently led to human rights abuses, including massacres and sometimes outright genocide.
According to a 2022 Gallup poll, 66 percent of Americans surveyed support stricter gun laws and a sizeable minority advocate for a total gun ban. Most of these people base their opinions on recent tragic events like mass shootings and high crime rates involving firearms and refuse to believe the government would ever do anything to take away their rights.
It’s almost as if they don’t remember the lockdown. Granted, it was for the sake of public health ….in the beginning. Still, once the United States government began restricting travel and requiring the entire population to take a COVID vaccine designed in just a couple of days, as was the case with Moderna, many Americans began to view this as an abuse of government authority, especially when some who took the “life-saving” vaccine died from COVID anyway.
A government gets away with whatever its people allow. A recent attempt to ban semi-automatic firearms across the state of Illinois was met with widespread resistance. 88 percent of the state’s counties refuse to enforce the governor’s mandate, and they can because of the Second Amendment. Additionally, sheriffs work for their communities, not for the state.
Unfortunately, this has not always been the case. Many historical and current dictatorships had their start when they stripped firearms from their citizens and robbed them of their right to rebel against injustice.
Nazi Germany
In the 1920s, during Germany’s post-WW1 Weimar Republic, a law was passed that mandated every gun-owning citizen to register their firearms with the government. The bosses in the upper echelon of the republic authorized the confiscation of any arms considered “threats to public safety.” Although law-abiding Germans obeyed and registered their weapons, leftist thugs like the communists and the Nazis, who were yet to come to power, blatantly refused to comply.
When Hitler’s government took power, he used the Weimar Republic’s firearm registration list to track down and seize arms from every communist, Jew, and undesirable person in Germany. This left them defenseless when the Gestapo herded them into concentration camps to undergo the most horrific human tragedy the 20th century had ever seen.
Soviet Union/Russia
How Russians lost their own 2nd Amendment The right to bear arms
The pre-Soviet Russian Empire was a lot like the Wild West. The Cossacks, nomadic people who roamed the steppes and much of Ukraine, were servants to nobody but themselves. They repelled Muslim raiders from the empire’s heartlands and lived off of mercenary work, as well as occasional raids of their own. They were free to purchase guns and sometimes made firelocks of their own, occasionally even casting their own cannons.
The article “How Russians lost their own 2nd Amendment The right to bear arms” by Russia Beyond describes how even city dwellers had a fondness for firearms, especially if they were foreign. German Mausers and American Brownings were plentiful and cheap, and even the lowliest street sweeper, whose salary was a meager 40 rubles per month, wouldn’t need to break the bank to buy a new Browning Hi-Power, costing just 18 rubles and 50 kopeks.
This all changed when the Soviets took power. Similar to Mao, Joseph Stalin said, “The only real power comes out of a long rifle.” Communists said they were creating the purest democracy known to man and that everyone would be equal; however, during the Russian Civil War in 1918, only soldiers possessed guns. The Bolsheviks conducted a mass gun confiscation campaign, threatening ten years of prison time for anyone who concealed a firearm. Only members of the Communist Party were allowed to have a weapon; even then, it could only be a single firearm.
Civilians were only allowed to possess firearms for self-defense again in 2014, but only if they could get through the logjam of registration paperwork to get a gun in the first place.
The Chinese
In a case of supreme irony, the very people who invented gunpowder have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Under the Qing – the last Chinese dynasty before the communist takeover – ordinary individuals were permitted to own either .50 caliber matchlock muskets or foreign guns like Winchesters and Mausers for self-defense as long as they were registered. The Qing recognized their army and militias could not be everywhere all the time. Since bandits and criminals were everywhere, they permitted their citizens to use the same firearms issued to their military – this was common sense.
More importantly, the Qing allowed their people to bear arms because of past experiences. The last time they attempted to exercise gun control laws, only law-abiding citizens turned in their firearms, while outlaws and highwaymen kept using theirs. The Shunzhi emperor, lamenting the decision of his gun ban, wrote:
Recently, we have heard that the people have no weapons and cannot repel aggressors. Bandits on the other hand can profit, and the good people have to endure bitter and poisonous misfortunes. Now we think that the weapons and armor which the people originally ought not to have had, and which were strictly forbidden in the past, such as muskets, fowling pieces, bows and arrows, knives, spears, and horses, ought now to be retained in their possession and not forbidden. Return to their original owners those weapons which were initially turned over to the officials.
If only California, New York, and Illinois had the wisdom of the emperor…
Of course, not all good things last forever. 300 years after the emperor rescinded his gun ban, Mao and his communists took over.
He was quoted as saying, “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Communist Party must command all the guns; that way, no guns can ever be used to command a party.”
During the revolution, Mao understood the power of the local militias and firearm-carrying bandits and convinced them to unite under the red flag to fight against nationalist forces in the name of communism. In the midst of their revolution, the communists required the masses to register their firearms and get permits to ensure they would only be used for self-defense.
With the information the communists received from gun registration, the confiscation began. Chinese propagandists were able to convince both peasants and landlords to hand over their guns to support the revolution, and the naïve people caught under the spell of Mao’s charisma complied.
Fortunately, the American people are too independent and too smart to trust anything resembling the gun registration laws of dictators past.
For many of us who practice our Second Amendment rights, we truly believe in the old saying, “You can have our guns when you pry them out of our cold, dead hands.”
Attorneys Seek to Uphold 2A Rights for Non-Criminal Defendants, iStock-697763642
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- On June 14, 2022, Jesus Perez-Garcia, was arrested as a passenger in a car crossing the Mexican border into the United States. A significant quantity of Illegal drugs was found in the vehicle’s bumper. Jesus claimed he did not know about the drugs being there. The driver of the vehicle, Antonio, supported Jesus’ claim, saying he took full responsibility for the drugs in the vehicle. Jesus admitted the driver told him he was going to get drugs but says he thought the drugs would be for personal use in Mexico.
Jesus has no criminal history. He worked in California as a security guard and is a U.S. citizen. He pled not guilty and was released on bond on June 30. The conditions of bail were not disclosed at the hearing.
Later, Jesus learned one of the conditions of the bond was that he be disarmed.
This meant he could not work as an armed security guard or protect his family. After learning of the no firearms condition, Jesus appealed the bail condition on July 29, 2022. The District Judge, Gonzalo P. Curiel, held the bail condition of no firearms did not violate rights protected by the Second Amendment because there was historical precedent in 19th-century surety statutes, which required a bond for people who were accused of violent intent, for them to carry firearms in public. Judge Curiel found the surety statutes to be close enough fit for purposes of release on bond. Jesus has appealed the District court ruling to the Ninth Circuit. From the appeal to the Ninth Circuit, USA v Jesus Perez-Garcia:
Mr. Perez-Garcia is one of the pretrial releasees subject to this condition. A U.S. citizen and licensed gun owner with no criminal history, Mr. Perez-Garcia used his firearm to work as a security guard and to defend his home. Ex.B-27. He was arrested as a passenger in a car containing drugs. He denied knowing about the drugs, and the driver took sole responsibility. Ex.C-78–79. Yet the court concluded that Standard Condition #4 could constitutionally be applied to him because the government had accused him of a “serious” drug crime.Ex.A-10–11.
II. The district court’s affirmance of the no-firearms condition violated this Court’s precedents requiring conditions that infringe upon significant constitutional liberty interests to be justified by on-the-record, evidence-based findings of necessity.
Here, notwithstanding these principles, the magistrate judge disarmed Mr. Perez-Garcia without making any findings at all. Mem. Ex. C at 25. Unfortunately, this is the norm in this Circuit. Mr. Perez-Garcia has shown that, in the Southern District of California, the Second Amendment right is stripped from pretrial releasees virtually across the board. Mem. Ex. C at 28–72. An informal survey of amici’s offices confirms that the same practices are in effect across the Circuit. Pretrial releasees are routinely disarmed—generally with no discussion and no explanation of why their disarmament qualifies as the “least restrictive” measure necessary to reasonably assure their appearance at trial or the safety of the 11 community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). And this practice is largely impervious to the type of charge, affecting even those accused of the least violent—and least weapons-related—offenses imaginable. See, e.g., United States v. Lopez, No. 21-cr -69 (D. Mont.) (Doc. 11 at 2) (bookkeeper charged with embezzlement);United States v. Mosmiller, No. 21-cr -84 (D. Mont.) (Doc. 13 at 2) (pharmacy technician charged with purloining hydrocodone pills); United States v. Uziewe, No. 20-cr -196 (E.D. Cal.) (Doc. 20 at 1) (owner of Christian bookstore charged with bank fraud).
There is a peculiar article published in Jurist.org. about the case. It claims the amicus brief from the public defenders states the Supreme Court Bruen decision was “interest balancing under the guise of historical comparison”, and the amicus brief, from the public defenders, cautions against the Bruen test. The understanding of this correspondent is exactly the opposite. From the article at Jurist.org:
The brief asserts that the Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen amounted to “interest balancing under the guise of historical comparison.” In that case, the Court struck down a New York law requiring individuals applying for unrestricted handgun licenses to demonstrate a greater need for self-defense than the general public. The brief contends that the Bruen rule insists “that the government demonstrate that challenged regulations are consistent with a narrow, well-defined historical tradition.” The brief cautions against the Bruen test.
Perhaps there is some strange, legalistic interpretation that would show the amicus brief to say the opposite of what it says. Perhaps a peculiar edit substituted “brief” for the opinion of the court or confused the words of the Judge for those of the public defenders’ group in the Jurist.org article.
There are at least two cases on appeal in the Fifth Circuit with a common theme. The theme is simple. A court cannot take away fundamental constitutional rights from ordinary citizens without a criminal conviction. In Texas, a judge ruled a mere restraining order, without a trial and conviction for domestic violence, is not sufficient to take away the right to keep and bear arms. The same court found a mere indictment was insufficient to remove the fundamental right to keep and bear arms because the person had not been convicted of a crime.
The two judges in the Ninth Circuit have found precisely the opposite: a person not convicted of any crime may have their fundamental right to keep and bear arms removed as a condition of bond, regardless of the circumstances, merely because they have been arrested and accused.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
This is what they ultimately mean by “commonsense.” (IMG NRA-ILA)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Polls show that a majority of Americans want Congress to pass commonsense gun laws,” Dave Saldana asserts for Reader’s Digest in an opinionated hit piece on the right to keep and bear arms posted (under “news,” naturally) on MSN. “These laws would not ban gun ownership or repeal the Second Amendment.”
Reader’s Digest…how disappointing. I guess with all the other woke “capitalist rope-sellers,” seeing them turn was to be expected.
Who Saldana is and what qualifies him as an authority is unclear. What is clear is he‘s a lefty propagandist who cherry-picks what we’re to assume are “facts” from sources with demonstrable anti-gun agendas. And his arguments fall on their faces right out of the starting gate.
What the “majority of Americans want” depends not only on where the polls lead them with calculated questions but also on what they actually know about the “laws” they are being queried on, which in this case, is mostly what the media tells them. That, and rights aren’t contingent on majority rule—otherwise, two of us could do whatever we wanted to one of you.
Funny how when you test them on it, protecting minorities isn’t really what the left wants to do at all. Unless by “minority,” you mean the global elites…
As for the assurance that 2A and guns are safe if you give the grabbers what they want, the rest of Saldana’s regurgitation of tired talking points and goals they’ve let slip for decades show that to be a lie. And since the right it recognizes was not created by the government, something that has been recognized in the Cruikshank and Heller cases by the Supreme Court, repealing the Second Amendment would not eliminate what it was worded to protect, the ravings of retired dotard “justices” notwithstanding.
In any case, saying they won’t take all guns when they have no legitimate authority to take any is more than a bit like saying “We don’t want to rape you, just molest you a bit.”
The only rational response to that is “No. Your move.” Besides, they really do want to rape you.
Let’s look at what this Saldana character is telling anyone ignorant enough to support their own disarmament by a violence monopoly equates with “commonsense”:
Tell citizens old enough to marry, vote, form contracts, and serve in the military and statutory militia they can’t have guns.
Ban standard capacity magazines.
Make gun trafficking even more illegal.
Outlaw home builds.
Criminalize not locking up your safety.
Ban semiautomatics.
End private sales by imposing registration-precursor “background checks.”
Impose ammo limits.
Deny due process through guilty-until-proven-innocent “red flag laws.”
Abridge the First Amendment — for the children.
Impose prior restraint “training” and require poll tax-like “insurance” before being allowed to exercise your right.
I decided against fleshing all those bullet points out because we at AmmoLand have been over all of them ad nauseam. There’s probably nothing I could add that regular readers here couldn’t knowledgeably expand on.
By way of authority, Saldana cites lefty think tanks and gun-grabber groups, throwing in a Fudd and a rich disarmament fanatic for good measure. No, of course, he doesn’t include anyone on the firearms freedom side because that’s not his goal. They’re all smeared as the obstacles standing in the way of his “commonsense” Nirvana.
And as for his “saving thousands of lives year” claim, checking just one of his sources gives us a pretty good feel for how the others “justify” their GIGO BS: They infer, they simulate, and they guess. And they still have to qualify their claims with the equivocal word “may,” which also means “may not.” For all of their correlation/causation assurances, their paltry percentage difference claims over categories of storage, carry, and use ignore the fact that the criminals who cause the problems laugh at and ignore every one of the restrictions the ivory tower eggheads (beholden to their paymasters) are trying to impose on the rest of us.
And note they never talk about the thousands — if not millions — of defensive gun uses that are illegal in “sensitive area/gun-free zones.” You know, the ones the CDC tried to remove from the stats at the behest of the citizen disarmament lobby…
The other thing Saldana misses – either deliberately or because he is just a parroting dilettante trapped in a “progressive” talking point bubble, is that say you give the grabbers everything they’re demanding here, who thinks that will be “enough”? (You’ll note Newtown Action Alliance’s Po Murray didn’t deign to reply when I asked her).
We’ve seen the same list before and we know that citizen disarmament has always been and remains the goal. Remember Thomas Dodd, author of the Gun Control Act of 1968, who publicly wished for “abolishing all guns” and to “destroy them all,” and Brady Campaign predecessor Handgun Control Inc.’s Nelson “Pete” Shields 1976 plot to “take one step at a time [to] make possession of all handguns … totally illegal”?
Give in on any one point and that’s one less obstacle they need to overcome on their way to more. Of course, they’re talking about taking our guns, and anyone snottily dismissing that as paranoia is ignorant, a liar, or both.
The one hopeful thing about this is the readers aren’t buying it. At this writing, Saldana is getting his a… uh… hindquarters handed to him over in “Comments.” It’s a chance to get an otherwise suppressed message heard outside the “echo chamber,” so why not join in?
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Totally Unsurprisingly, Brazil Begins Gun Bans Ahead of Lula Inauguration, iStock-1438967019
BRASILIA, Brazil-(Ammoland.com)- The President of Associação Nacional da Indústria de Armas e Munições (ANIAM), which is a joint venture between Taurus and Companhia Brasileira de Cartuchos (CBC), Salesio Nuhs, issued a letter pushing gun control in Brazil. The letter was sent and signed by Nuhs as the President of ANIAM. Nuhs also holds the title of President of Taurus Brazil. Taurus in Brazil is separate from the U.S. entity of Taurus Holdings Inc., but the Brazilian branch produces most Taurus firearms.
Brazil is going through a period of turmoil that saw right-leaning President Jair Bolsonaro replaced by far-leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Much like the latest US Presidential elections, many Brazilians felt the election was stolen from Bolsonaro. These protestors took to the street to protest the election results. They ended up occupying some government buildings leading many to call it an attempted coup and some left-leaning politicians in America to compare it to the January 6 protest.
During President Bolsonaro’s administration, he relaxed gun regulations, letting the average Brazilian own firearms instead of just the country’s elite. President Lula da Silva pushed an anti-gun narrative and blamed some of the election unrest on the Brazilian gun community. Brazilian gun owners call this claim false.
“A lot of fake news is being produced accusing shooters of riots and violence,” one Brazilian competitive shooter told AmmoLand News. “It is not true that we are mobilizing through entities like Pro Armas, CEARME, to try to reverse this process, but within the democratic process and the laws that govern us.”
President Lula da Silva has introduced measures to limit firearms ownership in the South American country. He seems to have found an unlikely ally in his war against guns. A letter (embedded below) was sent to President Lula da Silva’s office from the Associação Nacional da Indústria de Armas e Munições (ANIAM), which is a joint venture between Taurus and Companhia Brasileira de Cartuchos (CBC), asked the new government to enact gun control laws while giving Taurus a near monopoly on domestic firearm sales. The letter was signed by ANIAM President Salesio Nuhs.
Mr. Nuhs stated that the previous administration made it too easy for the average Brazilian to get guns through Collectors, Shooters, and Hunters (CAC) registration.
CAC registration opened firearms ownership for specific purposes, such as subsistence hunting. Self-defense isn’t an acceptable reason for the Brazilian government. The Taurus president asked the new government to crack down on people they saw as exploiting the law.
“However, what we saw was a flood of ordinary citizens claiming CAC registration to gain access to weapons, including those for restricted use, and be able to carry them under the argument of carrying transit for displacements,” the letter read.
ANIAM also asked the government to crack down on firearms and ammunition imports. The crackdown would cut down on the competition that Taurus faces in Brazil. Some Brazilians think that Taurus is trying to carve out Brazilian markets all to themselves.
“There was also a widespread release of imported weapons and ammunition, without due control and with tax incentives. Ammunition is being imported without proper markings, and weapons and ammunition are imported without being released through computerized control systems, such as SICOVEM and SICOFA,” Nuhs writes.
The president of Taurus Brazil gave the government his recommendations for firearms laws. The most shocking proposal is that Brazil forms its own version of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
This agency, in Nuhs eyes, will have the ability to establish controls for firearms and have the power of inspection to ensure compliance with firearms laws. The agency will also have the power to seize guns from the people.
“Among the agency’s attributions will be the stratification of the categories of gun purchasers, putting an end to the trivialization carried out with the CAC category. It will also be responsible for establishing the quantities of weapons and ammunition authorized for each category, creating computerized and online controls, carrying out the integration between SIGMA and SINARM, establishing the means of inspection, penalties, defining the procedure and the allocation of weapons seized or in non-compliance with the legislation, in addition to establishing the deadlines for the entry into force of the new regulations,” the letter reads.
The Nuhs letter also proposed limiting the calibers of ammunition civilians could acquire and use. The only calibers that average citizens under Nuhs proposal could own would be .38, .357, .380, and 9mm. All rifle calibers are only allowed for restricted use, such as subsistence hunting.
The proposal would see almost all imports cease. Imports would only be allowed in “exceptional” cases. If there Is a domestic alternative, then that firearm would be strictly prohibited from being imported, ending all competition. This rule was previously in effect before President Bolsonaro opened up the market, making firearms cheaper for Brazilians.
“Return to the previous rule, importation only in exceptional cases and as long as there is no national similar. Revocation of tax incentives. Ensuring equality between the national and imported product, which today enjoys tax and regulatory benefits and facilities, to the detriment of the national industry, which, in addition to being unconstitutional, violates the END, approved by the Government under President Lula. Re-establish inspection of imported products, making marking mandatory on products and their packaging and carrying out control through electronic systems (SICOVEM, SICOFA, SIREM, SIP…),” the letter reads.
The amount of ammunition and firearms a citizen could own would be reduced. The number of firearms a Brazilian could own would be reduced from six to four. If Nuhs has his way, only one gun would be allowed per residence.
“Restore the previous procedure, excluding the presumption of effective necessity, which, again, now has to be declared. Acquisition of weapons only for permitted use and with reduced quantity, going from 6 weapons to up to 4, with the possibility of having only one weapon in each residence, up to a total limit of 4 weapons. Possession of a weapon, one in each household, aims to prevent the transport and circulation of weapons in national territory,” writes Nuhs.
The Nuhs letter also would like to see an updated registry to track all firearms and ammunition. The guns would be tracked in a single database consisting of all transfers, including those made by the manufacturers, dealers, and end users. He claims this system would mean an easier time carrying out inspections at shops and residences.
The Nuhs letter also suggests that the country separate the country’s shooters into categories. These categories would determine the type of firearms a gun owner could own.
Stratify the CAC category according to need, as follows:
Beginner Sport Shooter (ADI): only permitted weapons.
Full sport shooter (ADP): for weapons for restricted use, proof is required that the weapon claimed is provided for in the rules of practice, national or international, of the shooting modality practiced by the acquirer.
High-performance sports shooter (ADA): equal to the advanced, with the amount of weapons and ammunition adequate to the training needs.
Subsistence hunter (CS): maintains the current rule that was established by the Government of the elected president.
Hunter Control (CC): Restricted use of weapons only if suitable for slaughtering animals authorized and as long as it is registered with IBAMA.
Collector (CO): The circulation of arms and ammunition is prohibited, except for exhibition duly authorized by the regulatory agency.
Finally, the gun owners would not be allowed to transport their firearms with ammunition, except for subsistence hunters, but they would be limited to one registered firearm.
Taurus Brasil, for their part, claims that the company was trying to head off more gun control through “compromise.” The Brazilian people do not have the protection of the Second Amendment. Taurus might be trying to keep the Brazilian market open for gun owners. The Brazilian Confederation of Shooting Sports (CBTE), which is funded by Taurus and CBC, has put out statements in support of Mr. Salesio Nuhs proposals. LRCA Defense Consulting, which reports on the Brazilian defense industry, has also released a letter from “shooters and shopkeepers” supporting the position of the Taurus CEO.
Some have compared the tactic that Taurus is using to how the NRA has agreed to back certain gun control actions to prevent more extreme measures from being passed. There are two different states of thought. One is to give in a little to prevent more damage to gun rights, and the other is more of a GOA stance of “no compromise.” The Brazilian people will have to decide which path is best for them.
AmmoLand News reached out to Taurus USA about the actions of the President of Taurus in Brazil. Bret Vorhees, President and CEO of Taurus Holdings Inc. (USA), issued the following statement.
In light of the recent and ongoing developments in Brazil, I feel it’s important to emphasize this fact first and foremost: Taurus USA, headquartered in Bainbridge, GA in the United States, is absolutely committed to protecting and defending not only the Second Amendment, but the inherent right to self-defense held by all human beings. We have never, and will never waver from this obligation.
As President of the US operations of Taurus, I am not intimately involved in Brazilian politics, nor will I pretend to understand the intricacies of what is happening in Brazil today. What I will say is Taurus is driven by pro-gun individuals worldwide, and any claim that our company wants to strip the rights of gun owners not only goes against who we are as individuals, but also is counterintuitive to our efforts as a successful company in our industry.
Brazilian gun owners do not enjoy the constitutional protection offered to Americans by the Second Amendment. The election of President Lula would have been disastrous for legal gun owners in Brazil, and quite likely would have resulted in the end of legal gun ownership in Brazil. It’s only through the actions and intercession of our parent company and Salesio himself that this was averted. In fact, through months of work, Salesio was able to secure an expansion of firearms access for Brazilian gun allowing them to now legally access 9mm caliber firearms, which were previously restricted to military and law enforcement prior to Balsonaro becoming President.
Again, Taurus USA is fully committed to preserving gun rights and the Second Amendment. While I do not feel we need to comment on a policy issue in a foreign country, we do stand in solidarity with gun owners in Brazil.
Documents: President of Taurus Brazil Proposal of Gun Control In Home Country
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
