Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

My regular readers know that in these parts, we speak the names of John Moses Browning and Eugene Stoner with hushed reverence.  As an engineer, I have a special appreciation for fine engineering as was performed by both of these men, as well as by Jim Sullivan.

There have been indications in the past that Eugene Stoner’s family was opposed to civilian ownership of the very weapon he designed and built.  This article points to that.

“Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. “He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events.”

But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

Of course, this is supposition and hearsay, with his family attempting to leverage the reputation of their father for their own political ends.  But you see why nerves are sometimes a bit on edge when someone like Reed Knight speaks about these issues.  Reed knew him better than virtually anyone else and worked with him at KAC before Stoner passed away.

Along with (on the same day as) the shooting in Tennessee, no less than four hit pieces came out in the legacy media on the AR-15.  It’s not my intent to rehearse the details of the shooting (nor to tackle every hit piece).  That has been done elsewhere, from the rapid response of the police (versus in Uvalde), to the need to harden schools, and finally to the fact that she chose this school because it was a soft location whereas other potential targets had too much security.

My intention is to fisk one of the hit pieces from The Washington Post.  In this piece, Mr. Knight is quoted.

Eugene Stoner, a World War II veteran who invented the AR-15 in the late 1950s while working at Armalite, a small engineering firm in Hollywood, had no interest in civilians using his invention, said C. Reed Knight, who owns a Florida gunmaking company and considers Stoner his mentor.

“He looked at this thing as only for the military side of the house,” Knight said. Stoner, who died in 1997, thought his invention was past its prime by the mid-1990s, Knight said. He added that Stoner would have been horrified by the idea that “he invented the tool of all this carnage in the schools.”

I figured that this was a response to a very specific chronological question, and so I contacted Mr. Knight for clarification.  He graciously allowed me to spend some time with him over the telephone.  Since there is no transcript (I didn’t do this interview via email), I’ll try faithfully to reproduce some of the things he conveyed to me.  You’ll have to trust that I got it right.

First of all, Reed began a rundown of the history of Eugene’s work on the AR platform.  I knew all of this anyway, but it was nice to here Mr. Knight reminisce about his relationship and Eugene’s work.  He began in the late 1950s on the design.  It is of course correct to say that Eugene didn’t design the rifle for civilian use, since his work was targeted towards the military, and it was a military contract under which he worked.  He was paid to work on a rifle for the military.

There is a great gulf between saying that his work was done for, and financially supported by, the U.S. military, and asserting that civilians shouldn’t own the rifle, or that Eugene would have been opposed to such ownership.  That’s what’s being implied in The Washington Post.  Both Mr. Knight and I agreed on this point, and Mr. Knight made it clear that he was answering a very specific question on chronology, not politics or liberty and rights.

As an editorial point, I’ll observe that what Mr. Reed stated to me and what I recalled as the next events dovetail together.  Eugene sold the patent for the AR platform rifle to Colt in the early to mid 1960s.  Reed said to me, “… and colt immediately wanted to market the rifle in the civilian community, which of course is their right.”

Also as an editorial point, for more evidence of both the timeline here, and ATF malfeasance, my friend and colleague David Codrea sent me this article (which I had read before but forgot), in which Len Savage worked with Stephen Stamboulieh to obtain original classification letters through FOIA.  The results are interesting.

“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”

Civilians had this rifle before the troops in the field did.

“There are several things that are interesting,” Savage told AmmoLand News about the classification letter. “One, it shows pre-Gun Control Act ATF policy on the AR-15 system,” He noted. “It also shows why the most likely reason an AR lower is considered a ‘frame or receiver’ is that from 1962-1968 Colt marked the lower receivers with the information (flat surface as the upper is round). Meaning the regulatory scheme used by ATF  1968 to present is based on what Colt marked pre-1968 and not the statute. Willfully and knowingly.”

“Len hit the nail on the head,” Stamboulieh weighed in. “The current notice of proposed rule-making reads as if there was just no way the ATF could have known that the AR-15 split modular design was a thing. Back in 1968, the agency promulgated the definition of frame or receiver, post-dating the classification letter of the AR15, and that shows why they should have originally known what they were making a definition for.”

He and Savage also cleared up a point of potential confusion on why the classification letter refers to the AR-15 as an “automatic rifle.”

“It is because (my thoughts) that they sent two rifles,” Stamboulieh offered. “One was an automatic rifle, and the other was the modified rifle made to be not a machinegun (a semi-automatic version). So the ATF said, yes, this modified ‘automatic rifle’ is not a firearm under the NFA (therefore, not a machinegun and in other words, a semi-auto).”

“Bingo!” Savage replied. “They sent an ‘Unserviceable’ M16 so ATF could compare it and the new rifle and were told it was still considered an MG even if unserviceable since it was not properly destroyed. I laughed when Colt was told ‘file a Form 2’ in order to get it back… Wonder if it is still in National Firearms Collection?”

“In 1968 firearms industry terminology ‘automatic rifle’ means the same as ‘auto-loading rifle,’ i.e., a rifle that loads itself for the next shot,” he recalled. “Even in 1979-1980 when I took my hunters’ safety course the State of Michigan used the two terms interchangeably throughout the course.”

Thanks to David for reminding me of this article, and to Len and Stephen for the work on the FOIA.

Returning to Reed Knight, I continued with him on what Eugene thought about firearms ownership by civilians.  He told me that Eugene had a large collection of firearms and was a strong supporter of the second amendment.  Just to close the loop on all of this, I asked Reed if he believed that the rifle he currently builds at Knight’s Armament should be prohibited from civilian ownership?

I was met with an unequivocal ‘NO’.  He did opt to clarify that he firmly believes that, but most of the work they do at KAC is for the military since they focus their efforts on military contracts.  But that doesn’t change his beliefs about and support for the 2A.

Reed went on to discuss the current state of affairs concerning schools, shootings, etc.  We both believe in firmer security including armed resource officers and armed teachers, and he mentioned cultural changes that might have led to the situation we see today, including video games (I don’t happen to agree with that assessment concerning FPS gaming), unaddressed mental health issues, and other things.  I mentioned that my own readers might strongly add spiritual and moral problems as the primary cause, and he agreed with me that those issues play a role.

I’ll close my interview report by conveying two quotes by Reed: “I can’t blame the thieving that goes on in the jewelry store on the hammer that broke the glass.”  “It’s terrible to piss on Eugene’s grave because of what evil people do.”

That’s common sense, but not so common today.

I’ll also leave a few more editorial remarks.  If we’re going to consider chronology, it’s a fact that the Remington .223 was designed before the NATO 5.56mm, and in fact, Eugene based the 5.56mm on the .223, making a few minor changes to the casing before adoption as the standard NATO round.  So civilians had both the cartridge and the gun before the U.S. military did.  I won’t go into detail on the minor differences between the .223 and 5.56mm cartridge.  That’s not within the scope of this article.

I’m left wondering how writers like Philip Bump continue to be employed, who stated flatly that …

It is estimated that there are 20 million AR-15-style rifles in the United States at this point — a powerful, deadly type of weapon that didn’t exist as a consumer product two decades ago.

First, I think this estimate is quite low.  But note that he puts the commercial availability as 2023 – 20 = 2003.  How on earth do these writers get paid unless the pay master knows they’re writing pure bunk and wants it that way?

Now, one might criticize Mr. Knight for even agreeing to interviewed by The Washington Post.  But that’s his business, not mine.  But it must be noted that there are two ways to write things: truthfully and with the complete story, or twisted so that every remark, every comment, every [partial]fact, every half-truth, and every quote feeds a narrative, that narrative being the one the publisher wants to push.

That’s what you see when you read The Washington Post and similar publications.  Legacy media indeed.  I repeat: there is a world of difference between making observations and statements in response to questions of chronology (even if the writer is too stupid to know that’s what the question and answer is really about), and world and life views concerning liberties and rights.  It’s easy enough to string hearsay together with false implications of chronology and make a narrative.  It appears to be much harder to tell the truth.

I’ll say the same thing I did to Reed Knight.  Over these pages, we value the truth above all else.

I should be more specific and say that those weapons are protected from bans.

“Under Bruen and Heller, the irreducible minimum of the Second Amendment is this: States may not ban arms that millions of Americans possess for lawful purposes. That most basic of principles dooms HB 5471. The Court should grant Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.”

“The Second Amendment secures “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” U.S. Const. amend. II. And as the Supreme Court made clear last year, “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 2126 (2022). The first question this Court must ask in analyzing HB 5471 is thus whether the firearms and magazines the statute bans fit within “the Second Amendment’s definition of ‘arms.’” Id. at 2132. After all, one can neither “keep” nor “bear” what one cannot acquire or possess in the first place. If the answer to that first question is yes (which it plainly is, see infra pp.1-6), the Court must then ask whether the firearms and magazines HB 5471 bans are “highly unusual in society at large” today. Id. at 2143 (quoting Heller v. Dist. of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570, 627 (2008)). If the answer to that question is no (which it plainly is, see infra pp.6-11), then the inquiry is over and the statute is invalid, because a state may not “prohibit[] … an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [a] lawful purpose.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 628; see also Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at 2128, 2143 (“[T]he Second Amendment protects … weapons that are unquestionably in common use today.”).”

“The rifles, pistols, and shotguns that HB 5471 flatly bans, see 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(a)(1), (b)-(c), obviously fit that bill. Indeed, if the most ubiquitous firearms in America do not even fall within the ambit of the Second Amendment, then Bruen, Heller, and the Amendment itself mean nothing. The AG nonetheless contends that the firearms HB 5471 bans are not “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment because (he says) “they are not commonly used for self-defense” today and were not “in common use at the time the Second or Fourteenth Amendments were ratified.” AG.Br.2, 16. The first argument is analytically confused; as for the second, the Supreme Court has twice “rejected” it as “‘bordering on the frivolous.’” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411, 414 (2016) (Alito, J., concurring) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 582); see id. at 411-12 (per curiam).”

Read the whole brief to the court.

Mark Smith makes a compelling case for his view.  He takes an incrementalist approach.  Listen to his whole argument.

Even after judge Reed O’Conner issued a preliminary injunction in the case of the Polymer80, the ATF is bowing their back up and demanding that their rule be enforced.  They literally don’t care what the court says.  They are in love with the courts when they side with the controllers, and ignore them when they don’t.

They are among the most lawless people on the planet. ATF doesn’t need laws – they make ’em.

Tenth Amendment Center.

On Friday, the West Virginia House gave final approval to a bill that would prohibit government entities from accessing information about firearm and ammunition purchases generated by a credit card merchant code without a warrant in most situations.

Del. Chris Phillips and a coalition of 10 fellow Republicans introduced House Bill 2004 (HB2004) on Jan. 12. The legislation would prohibit any West Virginia governmental entity from accessing or obtaining a record of a transaction involving a credit card that is retrieved, characterized, generated, labeled, sorted, or grouped based on the assignment of a firearms code without a warrant or a subpoena in most situations.

Financial institutions would also be barred from disclosing such information with the same exceptions. Financial institutions could also disclose such information if the customer provides written authorization for disclosure.

HB2004 includes specific requirements for a subpoena requesting such information.

On Feb. 3, the House passed HB2004 by a 95-0 vote. The Senate approved the measure with amendments by a 32-0 vote on March 9. The following day, the House concurred with the Senate amendments. The bill now goes to Gov. Jim Justice’s desk for his consideration.

The battle never stops between us and the controllers, and this is a good move.  It would have been a better move to exclude the provision that a warrant is needed, and just prohibit supplying such information to anyone under any circumstances.

Mark analyzes the decision, which can be found here.  Mark feels that he used an unnecessary approach, but ended up with the right decision.

Totally and completely out of control, second grader reasoning skills, away from the farm, and off the rails.  Trying to make things up as they go and feeling constrained by the SCOTUS.

J. Lee asks about "designation" of "sensitive places" and how to figure this out. J. Lynch notes that very few of these places existed in 1791. "Were there even zoos" J. Lynch asks. J. Lynch notes SCOTUS not "giving us much to work with here." #bruenresistance

— Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar (@fourboxesdiner) March 20, 2023

“SCOTUS not giving us much to work with here.”

Good Lord. And these people are judges.

I didn’t listen to the arguments, but I did read all of Mark’s Twitter entries. Here is what this apparently looked like today.

GM 🌞

It’s Monday!!! pic.twitter.com/WEqcgDO844

— EducatëdHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) March 20, 2023

And here is Mark’s more formal analysis of the arguments today.

Medical malpractice kills more people than all AR-15s combined. https://t.co/qhYdZVtR3G

— 🔫UR a Smart Ass, Carl🔫 (@Ur_a_Smartass_C) March 20, 2023

Here’s a puffy HufPo piece on how courts are impeding the efforts of the controllers.  Here’s the bit that captured my attention.

“It’s a completely crazy standard,” University of Chicago legal scholar Albert Alschuler said. “They have turned the interpretation of the Second Amendment completely upside down.”

[ … ]

The application of strict scrutiny allowed state governments to claim that gun laws served an important safety interest. This allowed some laws to remain standing despite Heller’s assertion of an individual right to own firearms.

The new historical test, however, provides sweeping power to judges to interpret history as they see fit to strike down gun laws they oppose.

“The revolution has been going on at least since Heller,” Alschuler said. “But it took an enormous step with this Bruen decision.”

I’ll agree with him insofar as he points out that Heller was a weak decision.  It left doubt in place as to the right to carry outside the home.  In spite of the fact that the founders of the nation literally carried rifles to school in order to shoot critters for meals or other reasons, and despite the fact that men were required to carry rifles to church on Sunday for protection of the congregation, the controllers began putting more and more burdensome regulations in place.

They know better because they’re lawyers and have been trained that Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, Warren v. DC, and DeShaney v. Winnebago County all demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that the police aren’t there to protect anyone.

They have all allowed their politics to interfere with being good historians and lawyers.  But Bruen did do what Heller and McDonald didn’t – it recognized the right to self defense outside the home.

It upended their cart.  Thus, the highly emotional and charged language coming from alleged scholars, who cannot fathom why there even exists such a right to begin with.

Oh, and that part about “sweeping power to judges to interpret history as they see fit to strike down gun laws they oppose” is just him making things up out of whole cloth.

Mark Smith has been very clear with his analysis of Bruen, and the SCOTUS was clear before that.  Laws that were in place at the time the 2A was written are fair game.  As are laws in place before that generation perished.  Laws subsequent to that are not, unless they confirm the laws in place at the time of the founding.  Subsequent (later in time) examples can NEVER deny the understanding of the 2A when it was penned.  Another way of saying it is that gun control laws that have burdened the public subsequent to the 2A don’t get to count in our understanding of the 2A, and that makes perfect sense to any reasonable man (and any good historian).

This test is simple.  There is no lack of clarity.  There is no sweeping power granted to judges, in fact, just the opposite.  Judges have been shackled, as they should have been, and as have legislators.

I’ll tell you what.  There is so much to say about this topic that I’ll write Prof. Albert Alschuler (facultysupport@law.uchicago.edu) and offer to debate him on the 2A.  We can use these pages to do that, and I’ll promise to publish his prose without editorializing, and then respond in separate posts.

How does that sound, professor?

Via David Codrea, this piece from Bearing Arms.

I am an immigrant and a Second Amendment advocate myself, and two, I have also written about long-term threats posed to our right to keep and bear arms (shameless plug ahead!) in a book co-authored with Greg Camp: “Each One, Teach One: Preserving and protecting the Second Amendment in the 21st century and beyond.”

In the above work, I touched upon how immigration plays into the various threats to the Second Amendment, not because immigration per se is dangerous, but as a factor that compounds the mass ignorance which is the real threat. Most immigrants, unless they’re naturalized citizens, cannot vote. So, the unrelenting attacks on the Second Amendment cannot be attributed to immigrants because the mass ignorance lies in the body politic of natural-born American citizens, who are the absolute majority of voters in this country.

As expected, the comments in reaction to Smith’s video have their fair share of people who think that immigration itself is a problem. From my vantage point, I find it totally ironic because every single vocal gun control activist that I know is a white progressive and an umpteenth-generation American, some even being descendants of American revolutionaries. On the flip side, some of the most ardent supporters of the Second Amendment are immigrants, who have taken it upon themselves to do a job that many natural-born American citizens refuse to do: unapologetically defending the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

My religious roots, cultural background, and upbringing are all contrary to gun ownership. I grew up in India and was raised vegetarian in a religious Hindu family. People from my caste background historically have been academics and priests who don’t wield weapons. My grandfather is a Gandhian who was part of the nonviolent independence struggle against the British. Yet not only do I own guns, but I am also an evangelist for gun rights. How did that come to pass?

The gist of what I wrote in my book is that immigration, along with other factors, is a threat only if you let it be a threat. The core of my prescription for preserving and protecting the Second Amendment is outreach to groups that have historically not been associated with gun ownership, and included prominently in that are immigrants and new Americans.

This commentary has the unfortunate feel of something that would be published at Bearing Arms.

To begin with, he exaggerates the case when he implies that immigrants constitute some of the most ardent 2A supporters.  I’ve pointed out many times before that immigrants from south of the border – which comprises most of our immigration, both legal and illegal – oppose gun rights by some 75%, and vote that way when they have the chance.

Second, he exaggerates the case that it’s even possible to conduct the outreach he claims is our responsibility.  How?  Media?  Church?  Pamphlets?  Books?  Someone else owns the media.  Churches have gone to the dogs.  Pamphlets and books are for people who will take the time to read them.

Next, he misses the point (and exaggerates again) when he insinuates that any of the above is a good remedy for a world and life view contrary to the Christian world and life view.  Only an understanding of being designed in God’s image supports the notion of firearms ownership and covenant responsibility, blessings and curses.  Seeing the relationship between people and their government as a covenant that can be nullified is broken is unique and solely a Christian belief and doctrine.  No other world and life view has such a concept.  Not … a … single … one.  And I’ve studied them.  If the writer believes in the RKBA, he does so in spite of his Hindu upbringing, not because of it.

Finally, he implies that it’s my responsibility to educate and indoctrinate new immigrants in the virtues of firearms ownership, when in fact it’s safer, tidier, and has a much better chance of success to carefully husband our borders and allow only those in who already believe in the American system.

Why would someone claim anything different?  This is analogous to someone claiming that it’s our duty to marry unbelievers and then try to convert them.  But then there’s that whole issue of being “unequally yoked.”

This is a bad commentary from a very questionable source, and I remain disappointed in the quality of analysis coming out of Bearing Arms, from their disdain for open carry to [apparent] support for unfettered immigration.

In short, “is immigration bad for the second amendment?”  Short answer: yes.