David Codrea:

“If a cuss word on TV offends you more than pictures of dead children in Parkland or Newtown, then your priories are all wrong,” Davis replied to Tucker Carlson of Fox News. First, that’s a ridiculous argument that presupposes both aren’t offensive, but more illustrative of his mindset is that he presumes to impose his will over all others – a hallmark of all so-called “progressives.”

First, I’m still waiting for someone to deliver death certificates and coroner’s reports of the dead children at Newtown.  I note with some suspicion that the Connecticut Chambers and Governor passed a law right after Newtown that forever sealed those records.

Second, if you believe that the NRA had anything to do with any of the events you listed (Newtown, Parkland), you’re priorities are all wrong, and you apparently (stupidly) believe in the ubiquitous power of the legal system to dictate the behavior of humans who have volitional choice.

MarketWatch:

I’ve mentioned before—and I say this as a guy who’s pro guns and supports the Second Amendment—that demographics and changing consumer behavior are slowly nibbling away at America’s rich gun culture. I believe that we have seen the high-water mark for that culture and it is slowly receding. I emphasize slowly.

This has less to do with who’s in Congress and how much cash the National Rifle Association is stuffing in lawmaker’s pockets—and more to do with something that is harder to see: the fact that the gun base in the United States skews 1) male, 2) white, 3) rural and 4) somewhat lesser educated—all trends that run counter to an America that is 1) majority female, 2) rapidly urbanizing, 3) more educated and 4) less white (white births are now a minority of all U.S. births) than ever before. Data on these evolving trends can be found in the recent “demographics of gun ownership” study by the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan organization based here in Washington.

Stop.  Quick question for my readers.  Do you like being “lesser educated?”  I’m wondering if the author of the article, Paul Brandus, knows how to do Monte Carlo particle transport analysis and solve differential equations.  I do.

And I’m wondering if Paul actually considers those social “science” degrees from state universities an actual education.  But that’s a discussion for another time.

As these changing demographics and consumer habits gradually erode the still-powerful gun culture, its political base is likely to erode as well. Like water running downhill, this is the natural order of things. And if you take this reality and layer it on top of another one—namely, the ongoing fiscal pressure that states and cities across the country constantly face—it suggests that guns and ammunition could be increasingly seen as an undertapped source of revenue.

There are precedents for this. Tobacco, a ubiquitous product half-a-century ago, gradually became politically easier to target and tax as demographics and changing consumption patterns gradually weakened a once all–powerful and unassailable industry.

This culminated in a massive 1998 agreement between tobacco manufacturers and 46 states, five U.S. territories and the District of Columbia, in which the industry agreed to pay billions of dollars a year to those jurisdictions. Those costs were generally just passed on to the declining number of Americans who smoke, which helps explain why cigarette taxes are always going up. This revenue is addictive as nicotine to states, which need every penny they can get; Of course, all this is on top of the current federal tax of $1.00 per 20-pack of cigarettes.

This isn’t to say that the firearms industry isn’t taxed already. Of course it is. But taxes generally haven’t budged in a long time, and are narrowly applied. There’s a federal excise tax of 10% on handguns and 11% on long guns for the import and production of firearms and ammunition—but this hasn’t changed since the tax was first implemented literally a century ago, in 1919. And you may be surprised to know that only two states, per a RAND Corp. analysis, impose special taxes on guns and ammo above and beyond standard sales taxes: Pennsylvania and Tennessee. The former tacks on a $3 surcharge on firearms, while the latter has a $0.10 tax for use, possession, and sales of shotgun shells of metallic cartridges.

[ … ]

Some gun owners say such taxes are an infringement upon their Second Amendment rights. Defenders claim that like tobacco and alcohol, guns can sometimes incur broader costs upon society and therefore must be paid for through usage and consumption fees. Both points of view have merit; this often acrimonious debate will never end.

I don’t see firearms as having any cost at all on society.  I see moral maladies such as rejecting God’s law as having a huge sociological penalty, but Paul’s worldview is likely not amenable to this sort of thought.

Either way, he’s right about one thing.  The “debate” (as he calls it) is acrimonious now, and I can guarantee it will become more so should we be seen as an “untapped source of revenue.”

Prepare for that move as the next step in the multi-front war, gentlemen.  We’re taking enfilade fire.

This note was sent to me from the Ruger CEO upon sharing recent articles here at TCJ on Ruger and its future.

Mr. Smith – There will be No Changes to What Ruger Makes and Sells to Law Abiding Citizens, Despite Shareholder Proposal.

Please understand that Ruger was obligated by applicable law to include a shareholder’s activist resolution with its proxy materials for a shareholder vote. With its passage, the proposal requires Ruger to prepare a report. That’s it. A report. What the proposal does not do . . . and cannot do . . . is force us to change our business, which is lawful and constitutionally protected. What it does not do . . . and cannot do . . . is force us to adopt misguided principles created by groups who do not own guns, know nothing about our business, and frankly would rather see us out of business. As our I explained, “we are Americans who work together to produce rugged, reliable, innovative and affordable firearms for responsible citizens. We are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment not because we make firearms, but because we cherish the rights conferred by it. We understand the importance of those rights and, as importantly, recognize that allowing our constitutionally protected freedoms to be eroded for the sake of political expediency is the wrong approach for our Company, for our industry, for our customers, and for our country. We are arms makers for responsible citizens and I want to assure our long-term shareholders and loyal customers that we have no intention of changing that.”

Please see www.Ruger.com/Brand for a video that shows who we are and who we will continue to be.

Thank you for your support.
Chris Killoy
Ruger CEO

Thank you kindly for your quick response, Mr. Killoy.  I wish you and Ruger well in these perilous times.

However, this seems like “boilerplate language” to me, motherhood and apple pie, and it seems to me that the shareholders can do a great many things, including making hiring and firing decisions, changing business models and plans, and other disruptive sorts of mischief.

You seem determined and I like determination, but unless you or the Ruger family or employees own a controlling interest in Ruger, this sort of thing can indeed happen.

All I’m recommending is that y’all carefully consider my wording and act accordingly.  Controlling interest.

I had found wording to the effect that Henry Repeating Arms had taken a position on Dick’s Sporting Goods, but was unable to find an authoritative source or URL for this position.  I wrote them and got this reply.

Thank you for your inquiry regarding Dick’s Sporting Goods and for your enthusiastic support of the 2nd Amendment. Henry Repeating Arms has been and always will be an ardent and steadfast supporter of the Second Amendment. Our reputation speaks for itself. We share your concerns about how Dick’s is conducting itself. We are disappointed by their recent actions and puzzled by recent reports. Please note that we do not sell directly to Dick’s or to their Field & Stream stores and that we never have. We sell our firearms to federally licensed wholesale distributors who then, in turn, sell to retailers, a two-step distribution system. Manufacturers who have recently stated that they will stop selling their firearms directly to Dicks cannot control what the distributors sell to Dicks – and neither can we. We are attempting to gain some clarity from Dicks regarding these recent reports and their long-term position on firearm sales. As we continue to investigate and monitor their actions, and as we await more clarity from Dick’s, we are evaluating our options through the two-step distribution system. In the meantime, we have removed their stores from our list of recommended Henry dealers.

Best Regards,
Patrick Hall
Customer Service Manager
Henry Repeating Arms Company
59 E 1st Street
Bayonne, NJ 07002

Thank you for your response Mr. Hall.  I think Dick’s position is clear and I would be very surprised if anything changes.  I think sufficient clarity is available now to make a decision, and so we just watch to see what gun manufacturers do with this information.

Thanks again.

The Washington Free Beacon:

President Donald Trump’s nominee for a seat on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has garnered the disapproval of some Republican senators for his record on First and Second Amendment issues.

Former Republican attorney general of Hawaii Mark Bennett saw senators Ted Cruz (R., Tex.) and Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) break with the rest of the Judicial Committee and vote against his nomination last week. The senators said their decision was driven by a pair of amicus briefs Bennett signed on to opposing landmark gun rights and free speech Supreme Court decisions. The two Republicans expressed skepticism over appointing Bennett to a lifetime position in the federal judiciary given his record, despite Bennett’s assurances that he would abide by binding precedents if confirmed.

Cruz described Bennett’s record as “troubling.”

“He was an aggressive advocate, as attorney general, for gay marriage. He was an aggressive advocate demonstrating hostility to the First Amendment and political speech,” he said in a committee meeting on Thursday. “Most significantly, he has been an aggressive advocate for undermining the Second Amendment.”

Sasse’s office said the senator shares Cruz’s concerns on much of Bennett’s record.

“Senator Sasse has concerns about Mr. Bennett’s advocacy in Citizens United v. FEC and Heller v. District of Columbia,” James Wegmann, a Sasse spokesman, told the Washington Free Beacon regarding the senator’s vote.

Cruz said he was especially worried about Bennett’s decision to sign on to an amicus brief in the Heller case which argued that the Second Amendment was merely intended to protect state militias from federal interference and should not apply to state laws.

“Taking the position in the Heller case that the Second Amendment protects no individual right to bear arms whatsoever,” Cruz said in the meeting. “In my judgement that is an extreme position. It is grossly inconsistent with the text and original understanding of the Second Amendment and, so, I can’t, in good conscience, vote to confirm him for a lifetime position as a court of appeals judge on the ninth circuit.”

Well good.  But wait, here’s the best part.

During his testimony before the committee in April, Bennett said his decision to sign onto the briefs in the Heller and Citizens United cases were based on what he thought were in the best interest of Hawaii at the time.

Not what was constitutional, not what God intended as righteous by virtue of being created in His image, but what he (Bennet) thought was in the best interest of Hawaii at the time.

Because he considers himself to be god.  And note the modifier “at the time.”  Because his mind could change later.  Because right and wrong depends on his mood that day.  There is nothing deontological and fixed about it.

Good Lord.  From under what rock did this creep climb?  Go back, please.  You’re hurting my eyes.

Buzzfeed:

The Broward County Sheriff’s deputy who waited outside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School as a gunman opened fire on students and teachers, killing 17 people, is being paid more than $8,000 a month from his state pension.

Scot Peterson, who was the school resource officer at the Parkland, Florida, high school, was heavily criticized for taking cover as the massacre unfolded on February, 14. The 55-year-old retired a week after the shooting, explaining that he remained outside school because he didn’t know where the gunfire were coming from.

Radio transmissions from the day of the shooting have since contradicted Peterson’s defense, showing that he not only knew that the shots were coming from inside the freshman building, but that he directed his fellow officers to stay away from that location.

Last month, Peterson received his first monthly pension check of $8,702.35, the Florida Department of Management Services (DMS) confirmed Wednesday morning. That amounts to $104,428.20 annually, which is about $2,550 more than he made during his last year with the department, according to the Sun Sentinel, which first reported his pension payment Tuesday night.

That’s good scratch for doing absolutely nothing, yes?  How long do you reckon states will be able to keep that sort of thing up before going bankrupt?

“To protect and serve.”  Remember boys and girls, only cops can be trusted with guns.

James Wesley Rawles:

AR-15 and AR-10 variants are truly generic and have been sold under more than 120 brand names. The number of ARs (AR-15s, M4s, AR-10s, and variants) sold from 2000 to 2014 was approximately 5,672,900. Since then, AR-15 clones have become even more popular and ubiquitous with approximately 1.2 million more produced in 2015, 1.6 million in 2016, and 1.5 million in 2017. At least 1.2 million will be produced in 2018. It can be assumed that 99% of the ARs produced since the year 2000 are still functional. There were more than 2.3 million other ARs produced for the civilian market between 1962 and 1999. It is safe to assume that at least 95% of those of that vintage are still functional. So the total number of functional ARs in private hands in the U.S. is somewhere around 11 to 12 million. (As of May, 2018.)

Rawles goes on to discuss semi-automatics, pistols, and possible outcomes in the event of a broad, wholesale confiscation effort.

I too think it would be catastrophic for FedGov to engage in such a stupid move.  Many people would perish in such a project.  That’s why I don’t think it will happen.  It won’t go down that way.

What will happen is a nickel-and-dime approach, or if you wish, death by a thousand cuts.  For example, if Congress (and the president signs) a ban on semi-automatic weapons, they won’t make it retroactive.  But what they will do is ban further production of said weapons, and make it illegal to turn over those weapons in estates.  Thus you have an effective gun ban in a generation.

They will force registration of said weapons, and while they won’t go door to door confiscating them if you don’t register them, they will make it illegal to shoot them at ranges without papers.  They will force ID and background checks (and perhaps even registration) to purchase ammunition, and enact criminal penalties for allowing your weapons to be stolen (under the rubric of “gun safety laws”).

I could go on, but you get the picture.  So what gun owners must be willing to do is stop the process by whatever means necessary when the community deems appropriate.

When does this point occur?

By the way, you should make the Survival Blog a daily stop.

Michael:

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”
–Heinrich Himmler

“I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons they should join the United States Army, we have them.”
–Gen. Wesley Clark, US Army

“Anyone who wants to possess such a weapon (“assault weapon”) should join the Marine Corps.”
–Oliver North, President of NRA

I had lamented earlier that I hadn’t seen any good analyses on how many shareholders voted on what, the breakdown of constituency, etc.  That all ends with the reporting of Richard Craver of the Winston-Salem Journal.  Pay attention boys and girls at CNN, MSNBC, and the other crappy pretend journalist outlets.  This is how you do analysis and reporting.

The Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary of Marylhurst, Ore., submitted a “gun safety” proposal. It requires the Ruger board of directors to report “on its activities related to safety measures and mitigation of harm associated with company products.”

The proposals also asked for an update on where Ruger is on developing “smart guns that could significantly reduce accidental shootings and suicides.” Ruger received identical proposals from other shareholders.

Ruger announced at its annual shareholder meeting Wednesday that the proposal passed, but did not provide the vote counts. Ruger had at last count 334 employees at its plant in Mayodan.

The company reported the counts in a required regulatory filing late Monday. Just under 90 percent of its outstanding shares were represented at the meeting.

There were 7.19 million shares voted in favor of the proposal and 3.26 million against, representing 41.2 percent and 18.7 percent of Ruger’s outstanding shares, respectively.

He goes on to explain that the law prevents brokers from voting on matters for clients when there are no instructions from shareholders.

So the bottom line here is that [a] a lot of shareholders voted with the controllers to force the Ruger board to commission a “study” on risks associated with gun manufacturing, and [b] BlackRock owns a lot of stock in Ruger.

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat here.  Ruger had better find a way to cut its ties with corporate America and issue – and buy – enough stock to allow the board and/or employees to have a controlling interest in the company.  These are dangerous times.

I understand the need for capital and thus the issuance of public stock.  But this is a bridge too far and leaves Ruger in a precarious position.  That needs to be fixed as soon as possible.

Prior:

Ruger Anti-Gun Shareholders More Powerful Than We Suspected?

The Next Installment Of The War Between Amalgamated Bank And Ruger

Amalgamated Bank Pressures Ruger To Support Gun Control Measures

Marine Corps Times:

A young Marine lieutenant killed 51 years ago while holding off an enemy ambush was awarded a long overdue Silver Star for battlefield heroics at a ceremony held Tuesday.

I do love the .45 ACP round so much, and with John Basilone, there is no shortage of Marines who had to fight with their pistol, and did so very well.

He gave his life in the service of his men.  I wonder why not a CMH?  It can be awarded posthumously.