Bloomberg:

Remington Outdoor Co. has only been in bankruptcy for a month, but creditors are already planning an out.

The U.S. firearms and ammunition juggernaut will likely go up for sale directly following its bankruptcy, according to people with knowledge of the situation. Certain stakeholders, some of whom haven’t been publicly identified, have already started putting out feelers for potential strategic buyers, these people said.

Rather than hold the collection of 13 brands that includes a 200-year-old rifle maker, ammunition manufacturers, silencer companies and traditional firearms manufacturers, the lenders will be trying to offload at a particularly fraught time.

You can say that again.  This isn’t a good time for Remington to be doing anything like this, and I don’t expect them to last long.

Lady know-it-all, Rhonda Hooper, tells you why Oklahoma must reject constitutional carry.

States that have enacted permit-free open and concealed carry have seen a substantial increase in gun crimes. In Arizona, aggravated assaults committed with a firearm in the state increased by 44 percent, an increase of 1,519 gun-related aggravated assaults. In Missouri, St. Louis alone experienced a 23 percent increase in aggravated assaults — 484 more gun-related aggravated assaults in one city alone.

Okay smart girl, prove it.  Go ahead, prove it.  Prove your statement that constitutional carry increases crime.  Do it without having to rely on correlation and rely only on causation.  I’m listening.

Via Matt Bracken, Gab.

It was just two weeks ago I wrote this.

Suppose that Ruger needs to spend $500,000 buying to tooling to replace old and worn tooling machinery, or to retool a line to fabricate a new product.  Suppose that none of the banks will do business with Ruger.  How does Ruger pay for the tooling machinery?  They can’t go through the bank.  They can’t hand cash to the machinery manufacturer – their accountant would reject it as making them look like they’re doing business with Iran.  No bank in their right mind will allow a company to deposit $500,000 cash without knowing where it came from.

This could all happen to Ruger without a new law being passed, since CEOs can do what they want, and corporations are in the main controlled by progressives and lawyers.

Apparently it’s worse than that.  From USA Today:

Amalgamated Bank, a New York-bank with $48 billion in institutional investment assets that emphasizes socially responsible practices, sent a letter Thursday to Sturm, Ruger & Company’s board, demanding that it adopt six reforms or it would not support the re-election of one of the gun maker’s board members, Sandra Froman, who is also an NRA board member.

The bank claims that Froman’s and the company’s “close relationship” to the NRA pose a conflict of interest that “may inhibit objective assessment and management risks Sturm, Ruger faces.”

[ … ]

In a letter to Sturm, Ruger’s board, Amalgamated’s CEO Keith Mestrich pressed the gun maker to commit to steps that address risks to its business and stock performance, which Mestrich claims has posted returns trailing the broad S&P 500 stock index over the past five years.

On the policy front, for example, the bank called on the gun manufacturer to publicly endorse mandatory background checks for all gun purchases and support the full funding of the federal agency that enforces gun laws.

Amalgamated’s top executive also wants Sturm, Ruger to take steps to monitor gun sellers to make sure guns don’t fall into the wrong hands and to emphasize “product safety innovation.”

All six reforms are recommended by Everytown for Gun Safety, a non-profit group focused on curbing gun violence.

Get the NRA board member off the Ruger board.  But that’s not all.  Read carefully.  The bank wants Ruger to support so-called “smart guns.”  If Ruger did this it would be the end of the business.  They know it, and surely the bank knows it.  They couldn’t shutter their doors fast enough to prevent looters from stealing what’s left because they couldn’t pay anyone to be at the plants.

This is a poorly written article because the author doesn’t explain exactly what leverage Amalgamated Bank has over Ruger, but presumably Ruger does their business with this bank.

If that’s so, this is what I warned about.  Without capitulating to the gun controllers, gun manufacturers will be drummed out of business because they can’t exchange capital for expansions, retooling, or even the logistical chain or payroll.  We have to do business with banks if you’re part of a corporation.  There is no other choice.

We’re in a civil war.  Realize where you are and what’s happening.  While most of America watches TV sitcoms and wears idiotic football jerseys, be about your business procuring what you need.  And that, quickly.

If you’re a gun manufacturer, you need to remove all avenues of leverage, get out of debt, and cut ties with corporate America.  They hate you.

Politico:

Major banks are cutting off business with the gun industry, roiling Republicans who want to respect the financial decisions of private institutions while still showing their unyielding support of the Second Amendment.

Some Republicans, enraged at moves by Citigroup and Bank of America to distance themselves from some retailers and gun manufacturers, have called on government agencies to cancel contracts with the banks and defer deregulation proposals that would benefit them. But other Republicans want to keep their hands off, saying lenders are free to decide who they do business with.

It’s a conundrum that puts the free-market principles at odds with gun rights, and Republicans across the board are genuinely split over how to react to moves by some of the biggest financial institutions in the country.

“I’m not writing a law that says you can’t do it — I just think it’s dumb and it’s dangerous waters,” Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) said. “I have a pretty high bar before I’m going to go in and tell the private sector what they should and shouldn’t be doing.”

Oh bullshit.  You’ve written plenty of laws that trace the exchange of capital forcing people to utilize banks.  You’ve written onerous taxation laws that require us to know where every penny goes, you’ve written laws that fund the federal reserve, and you’ve bailed out the banks to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Don’t come crying to me about the free market.  That “high bar” you talked about wasn’t so high when you were trying to take the people’s money, so now when those very banks you’ve bailed out and made systemic to our financial system won’t work with firearms manufacturers, now you pull the “free market” card?  Now you do?

What a putz.  You’re a liar and a crapweasel.

Via Uncle, via Joe, and then ultimately to someone with the pseudonym Stonekettle on Twitter (have you noticed how these “we’re coming to take your guns and there’s nothing you can do about it” guys always leave out their real names?):

If we elect a new congress and we pass laws making gun ownership illegal for people like you, and the government comes to take your guns, what will you do?

What will you do? Be specific.

He goes back and forth with a few Molon Labe folks and still presses for details.  Again and again and again.

But here’s the deal, Stonekettle.  I know what you’re doing.  You want people to make threats and then you’ll turn them in to the FBI.  Or you want people to give the details of their plans, and you’ll turn it all over to the FedGov.  You’re just a FedGov troll, and not a very good one at that.

You don’t get to know my tactics, techniques and procedures, or anything about my plans.  You have to make your plans for me in ignorance.

But I do have a question for you, and if you can answer it, I’ll consider throwing you a bone.  Here is the question.

If we elect a new congress and we pass laws making gun ownership illegal for people like me, when anyone comes to take my guns, what will you do?

What will you do? Be specific.

Will you be a coward, sitting to the side and watching as others do your work?  Will you participate?  What will your tactics, techniques and procedures be?

I’m waiting.  Be specific.

Yeto Coolers has cut ties with the NRA Foundation, not that I care all that much.

NRA-ILA quoted NRA past president and USF executive director Marion Hammer saying, “Suddenly, without prior notice, YETI has declined to do business with The NRA Foundation saying they no longer wish to be an NRA vendor, and refused to say why.  They will only say they will no longer sell products to The NRA Foundation.”

It’s everywhere, from banks to corporations to homes among hand-wringing parents.

Two weeks after we learn this new parenting life skill in this oh-so-new century of ours, my husband Patrick is on the phone with a mom arranging a sleepover for Rosena. I hear him fumble his way through the gun question. From his responses, I assume the mom is acknowledging that they do have guns. Then there’s the sort of long, awkward silence that seems part and parcel of such conversations before Patrick finally says, “Well, okay, thanks for being so honest. I appreciate that.”

He hangs up and looks at me. “They do keep guns for hunting and protection, but they’re locked up and out of sight,” he tells me. “The mom says that the kids have never tried to get at the guns, but she understands the dangers.” (He had heard in her voice apology, embarrassment, and worry that the guns might mean no sleepover.)

I grimaced in a way that said: I don’t think Rosena should go, and he responded that he thought she should. The two of them then had a long conversation about what she should do and say if she sees a gun. She slept over and had a great time. A lesson in navigating difference, trusting our kid, and phew—no guns made an appearance. And now we know more about our neighbors and our community.

If you didn’t think you were in a [currently] low grade civil war or if you thought that the way to increase your capital with the population is go slink into the shadows, make sure your weapons are hidden, and negotiate and compromise, you’re nothing more than sheep for the slaughter.

I once openly carried because I hate concealed carry, and anyone who tells you that he can make concealed carry as comfortable as open carry is fabulating.  I still hate concealed carry, but now I open carry for a different reason.  I open carry “For the peace, good and dignity of the country and the welfare of its people.”  You’re part of a civil war.  You can act like it or just go ahead and give up now and save your folks the hassle.

David Codrea:

That Gorsuch is weak-kneed on “immigration” abuses raises serious questions of direct concern to gun owners (the fraudulent “single issue” excuse-making notwithstanding).

Just so that we understand why this is important for gun rights, you cannot see gun rights as disconnected from the world view that supports and frames such liberties.  I’ve dealt with this in detail before.

“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”

One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished.  South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology.  Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build.  This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.

That’s why latinos favor gun control by a whopping 60% – 70%.  Flooding the country with Latinos means defenestration of your liberties.  That’s one main reason the progressives want it so badly.

From reader Felix, this.

An overwhelming majority of board members in Effingham County, Illinois, decided to “flip the script” this week and declare itself a “sanctuary” for gun owners.

Effingham County State’s Attorney Bryan Kibler and board member David Campbell called a barrage of gun-control bills working their way through the Illinois House and Senate a clear signal that it’s time to “take a stand.”

The men joined “Fox & Friends First” on Thursday to discuss a new Second Amendment resolution that passed along an 8-1 vote.

We “decided it’s time for someone to take a hard stand,” Mr. Campbell told the network.

The resolution reads: “If the Government of the State of Illinois shall infringe upon the inalienable rights granted by the Second Amendment, Effingham County shall become a ‘sanctuary county’ for all firearms.”

Mr. Kibler said that Effingham’s move, while “mostly symbolic,” was drafted to articulate the high level of discontent among its population.

Oh dear, this again.  Listen to me closely if you live in this county.  No, and a thousand times no.  Your county won’t be a sanctuary for “all firearms.”

If this county wants to conduct an exercise in nullification, they’d better be ready to have county law enforcement arrest and imprison any state or federal official who dares to effect gun control, and they’d better be ready to do it for “all firearms,” which doesn’t just include AR-15s, but machine guns and anything else folks want to have.

They had better be ready to shoot other people to enforce this nullification, and they’re not.  You know they’re not.  To say that this is “symbolic” is an understatement.  Don’t trust such resolutions passed by petty local officials.  They will sit idly by and watch as you’re carted off to prison, telling you all the way that this resolution was just “symbolic.”

Guns.com:

The International Association of Chiefs of Police on Thursday made public a letter directed at Congressional leaders voicing the group’s opposition to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act pending in Washington. The measures, H.R. 38 and S.446, respectively, would expand carry rights nationwide, in effect forcing states and local jurisdictions to respect all valid concealed carry permits, a move the letter’s signatories feel is a mistake.

“Mandated reciprocity would effectively override the permitting requirements of individual states, such as requiring safety training or prohibiting permits for people with multiple convictions for violent misdemeanors or drug or alcohol abuse problems,” the letter says in part.

Though made up of some 30,000 members, just 473 individuals from 39 states elected to lend their name to the letter. There are no active police chiefs who signed the letter from such conservative bulwark states as Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico or Nevada. In comparison, states with strict gun laws had numerous chiefs support the declaration. For instance, at least 85 signers were from Massachusetts departments and 55 from New York.

“This bill would override state laws determining who is qualified to carry a loaded hidden gun – laws which take into account the unique circumstances and needs in each state– and would force states to allow individuals to carry guns who are not qualified to do so under their own laws,” said Boston Police Commissioner William Evans in a statement issued by the IACP. “During traffic stops and other interactions with the public, our officers would have to be familiar with 50 different state’s laws on concealed carry permitting. Given the split-second decisions our officers frequently need to make, this is nearly impossible and can foreseeably lead to violent confrontations.”

That’s a blatant lie and they know it.  They know in the deepest recesses of their hearts that gun carriers are even safer than they are, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with crime.

They don’t want people to be able to effect their God-given duty of self defense except themselves.  This is the pinnacle of wickedness.  Every single person who lent their support for this lobbying effort is a liar and desires to see the deaths of innocent people, plain and simple.

Still, I’m with reader Fred Tippens on this issue.  Getting the FedGov involved in national carry laws is a profoundly had idea.  Let’s hope and pray that all states that oppose the right of self defense simply go bankrupt, and work towards that end.