Chris's Blog

Bill Ruger’s Magazine Ban

Reprinted from Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War

Bill Ruger’s Magazine Ban

Editor’s Note:

This piece appeared in the December 1, 1989 Gun Week opposite a letter from Sturm, Ruger & Company General Counsel (later CEO) Steve Sanetti defending Ruger’s and SAAMI’s (Small Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute) support for a ban on over-fifteen-round magazines.

“After the [1989 Bush] import ban was announced,” Sanetti writes, “and after long consideration, the SAAMI member companies felt that a substitute had to be offered which respected the right of all law abiding citizens to own all firearms of their choice, yet which responded to the public outcry concerning the highly visible shootings involving dozens of shots being fired from so-called ‘assault weapons,’” Sanetti writes.

“While being aware of the SAAMI position since April,” Sanetti continues, “the anti-gun media have said virtually nothing about the SAAMI position. The plain and simple truth is that the magazine substitute hurts their goal, which is the banning of the guns themselves, so they have down played it, in fact the New York Times even called the President’s belated switch to the focus on magazine capacity as opposed to firearms themselves, ‘a victory for the NRA.’”

Neal Knox

Steve says I “know better” than to ascribe Bill Ruger’s magazine ban proposal to business considerations. Maybe so; I don’t think Bill is by any means “anti-gun,” nor do I think he really wants a ban on either guns or magazines (after all, he got his start as a machine gun designer). But I do think Bill is pushing a plan that would protect his business while affecting only his competitors, and I think he’s damaging the efforts of those of us attempting to stop all proposed bans. Further, I don’t think his actions on this issue, and other issues in the past, allows him to be described as “the strongest supporter of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

What I know is that about 9 p.m. the night before Bill sent a letter to certain members of Congress calling for a ban on high-capacity magazines he called me, wanting me to push such a ban. His opening words, after citing the many federal, state and local bills to ban detachable magazine semi-autos, were,“I want to save our little gun”—which he later defined as the Mini-14 and the Mini-30. I’m not ascribing Bill’s motives as “expedient from a business standpoint;” Bill did.

While I agree that a ban on over-15 magazines would be “infinitely preferable” to a ban on the guns that use them, that’s not the question. Neither I nor the other gun groups have ever believed that we were faced with such an either/or choice. Early last year the NRA Legislative Policy Committee discussed various alternatives to the proposed “assault weapons” ban, and wisely decided that magazine restrictions wouldn’t satisfy our foes, but would make it more difficult to stop a gun ban.

I was particularly shocked when I realized Bill was talking about a ban on possession of over-15-round magazines, rather than a ban on sales (which would be bad enough). I told him that such a law would make me a felon, for not only did I have standard over-15 magazines for my Glock pistol (a high-capacity handgun which has sharply cut into Ruger’s police business), I have many high-cap mags for guns I don’t even own, and don’t even know where they all are. As I told Bill, after a lifetime of accumulating miscellaneous gun parts and accessories, there’s no way I could clean out all my parts drawers and boxes, then swear—subject to a five or ten-year Federal prison term—that I absolutely didn’t have a M3 grease gun mag or 30-round M2 magazine lying in some forgotten drawer.

Bill said (and all these direct quotes are approximate),“No, there’d be an amnesty for people like you. We have to propose a ban on possession before they will take us seriously.” He contended that the public’s problem was with “firepower,” which could be resolved by eliminating high-cap mags.

I told him Metzenbaum and Co. would gladly use whatever he offered, but that they weren’t about to willingly agree to eliminate high-cap magazines as a substitute for banning guns; that their intention isn’t to eliminate “firepower” but “firearms.”

Bill finally said “Neal, you’re being very negative about this.” I replied, “Bill, I feel very negative about it.” He got angry, then said, “Well somebody’s got to do it; by God I will.” And the next day he sent his letter to the hill; a few weeks later he talked SAAMI into supporting undefined “regulation” of magazines over 15 rounds—a vote that might have gone a little differently if any produced high-capacity magazines as standard for either rifles or pistols.

I suspect that Ruger and SAAMI’s actions are responsible, directly or indirectly, for the Bush Administration’s proposal to ban high-cap mags, but that proposal has been ignored—except as evidence that “the Bush Administration and the American firearms industry recognize that there’s a problem—that Americans shouldn’t be allowed to have such guns.”

Of course, that isn’t what Bill and SAAMI are saying, but that’s the message they’re sending. Perhaps it isn’t business expediency to pro- pose banning only that which they don’t make, in an effort to protect what they do make; but it sure can’t be claimed to be defense of the Second Amendment.

Editor’s Note

At the 2008 SHOT Show, half a dozen years after Bill Ruger’s death, a special-edition NRA Ruger Mini-14 appeared with a 20-round magazine as standard. It was the first time in nearly two decades that Ruger offered large-capacity magazines to the civilian market. The 20-round magazine, once marked “Law Enforcement Only” is now an option for the Mini-14.

Chris's Blog

Beware the Grandfather Clause

Our friend Jim Shults of Shults Media Relations, LLC sent the following to his email list with the request that it be circulated within the pro-rights community.  Jim is in Colorado which is may soon become the epicenter of the next fight over Second Amendment rihts.  My take is that an amendment that makes a bad bill more palatable, and thus more likely to pass, is not good for our rights.  One such “sweetener” is a “Grandfather Clause” which would exempt current owners from a ban or prohibition.  The term has no meaning in law and is simply shorthand for some exception that exempts some currently-possesed items that would be otherwise banned.  The actual wording is, as Jim points out, critical.  It may mean that the grandfathered item is exempt from the ban and can be pass on to heirs or be sold, or it could mean that it is exempt only so long as the original owner is alive and must be in effect buried with the owner. 

The idea that one generation could sign away the rights of the next generation is hateful and short-sighted anyway — not unlike passing a staggering debt on to the next generation, but that’s another topic.  Here is Jim’s release.  Read it and keep it in mind as the Gun Rights War heats up again.

Chris Knox

Continue reading Beware the Grandfather Clause →

The Knox Update

Promises on Gun Control

Deconstructing the NY Times Unthoughtful Calls for Unconstitutional Action

               The New York Times might contain “all the news fit to print,” but it also contains bias, distortion, and outright lies supporting failed policies and irrational fears.

On Black Friday, as Americans were setting another record in single-day firearm purchases, the Times editorial board was decrying the lack of action in Congress on gun control, and calling for President Obama to keep his promises to pursue gun control legislation.

In typical, disingenuous Times fashion, they denigrated gun owners for taking Obama’s “tepid remark” about gun control during the presidential debates as a threat, and then characterized these same remarks from Obama as “promises” to pursue a new “assault weapons” ban and to go after “cheap handguns.”

So which is it, Times?  Are Americans crazy to think that Obama might impose restrictions on the firearms they want to own, or did Obama “promise” to do just that?

The Times editors then repeat the common lie that “in his first term Mr. Obama did nothing to cross the gun lobby, ” and cite, as proof of his conciliatory attitude toward gun owners, the fact that he signed legislation requiring that national parks follow the gun laws of the states in which they are located.  Never mind that the pro-rights legislation was attached to a credit card bill that Obama desperately wanted.  Never mind Obama’s active support of an anti-gun UN arms trade treaty.  Never mind his requiring registration of semi-auto rifles in southern border states.  Never mind the whole Fast and Furious debacle which his administration used as proof of the need for the registration scheme.  And never mind the administration blocking the re-importation of thousands of historical M1 Garands and Carbines, and Obama’s proposed 2013 budget which included several anti-gun provisions.

Continue reading Promises on Gun Control →

The Knox Update

Reese Family Thanksgiving

Being Thankful for Less Pain

Barack Obama has nominated US Attorney for New Mexico, Ken Gonzales, to a lifetime appointment as a federal judge.  This nomination is particularly significant because Gonzales was the US Attorney who oversaw the investigation, arrest, and prosecution of the Reese family.  At the time of the Reese’s arrest, Gonzales had the audacity to release a statement saying, “Those who sell firearms knowing that they will be illegally smuggled into Mexico to arm Mexican Cartels share responsibility for the violence that has been devastating Mexico.”  So far, he has not called for the prosecution of any of the federal agents or administrators who oversaw Operation Fast and Furious.

Gonzales has much to be thankful for this season, but what about the Reese family?  For them, being thankful is a relative term.  The Reese family is thankful that, so far, the bad they’ve suffered has not been as bad as it could have been.  They have been so abused, harassed and persecuted that they feel thankful for the crumbs of “less bad” news that comes their way.  They’re thankful that federal agents arrested them while they were away from their home rather than taking them during the massive raid involving hundreds of officers, helicopters, and armored vehicles.  They were thankful last March when, after 8 months in jail, Terri Reese was released on bail to a halfway house.  They were especially thankful when youngest son, Remington was acquitted of all charges (after spending a year in jail), and they were thankful when Terri, husband Rick, and older son Ryin were cleared of all but one count each, two for Ryin, of the comparatively minor charge of lying on 4473s – even though the lies they were convicted of were perpetrated by federal agents and the Reeses’ crimes were that they “should have known” that the agents were lying.

Continue reading Reese Family Thanksgiving →

The Knox Update

UN-Dead Treaty

Another 4 Years…

The assault has already begun.

By Jeff Knox

             (November 7, 2012) I’m still reeling with dismay and confusion.  How could so many of my fellow Americans choose to reelect someone who has proven to be totally unqualified for the job, if not downright destructive?  It is unfathomable to me.  I could offer up a litany of reasons why their choice was such a mistake, but most of you reading this know them all too well. 

Even so, I’m still catching flak from some of our hard-line rights supporters for encouraging people to vote for Romney.  They insist that since he has taken anti-rights positions in the past, that I should have declared a pox on both leading parties and gone Libertarian or some other third party.  As I said before the election, this presidential race boiled down to two choices: do something to help Obama get reelected, or do something to keep Obama from being reelected.  The only way to effectively help keep Obama from being reelected was to cast a vote for Romney, and encourage others to do the same – anything else helped Obama win. 

Continue reading UN-Dead Treaty →

The Knox Update

GunVoters Are Key

GunVoters Key to Republican Wins

By Jeff Knoxcommander1

(October 31, 2012) The 2012 elections – from President on down – could be dominated by GunVoters.  Though there has been no serious push for federal gun control in recent years, there is a strong perception among gun owners that new restrictions are lying in wait just over the horizon if Barack Obama and his Democrat colleagues are returned to power in this year’s election. GunVoters are like a hornet hive: there are always some guards flying around, making noise, warning anyone who gets too close.  Occasionally, a larger contingent will come out to chase off a perceived threat, but the masses only react when someone smacks the hive with a stick.  When that happens, whoever is holding the stick is in serious trouble.

The analogy has played out in elections over the past twenty years.  In 1992, George H.W. Bush was assumed to be a shoo-in following the successful action in Iraq.  Nonetheless, Bush had poked at the hive with import restrictions on certain military-looking firearms (an executive order that stands to this day), and had angrily withdrawn his membership in the NRA over NRA executive Wayne LaPierre’s (quite justifiable) characterization of a group of ATF agents “jack-booted thugs.” Republican political strategist Lee Atwater was asked how walking away from the gun rights issue might impact the President’s reelection plans, Atwater shrugged off the question with the comment, “Where else are they (GunVoters) going to go?”  He, and Bush, found out that November when some GunVoters went with Ross Perot, a few went to Bill Clinton, and a whole lot simply went hunting, declining to participate in the process at all.  Between the loss of GunVoter support and Bush’s infamously broken “Read my lips – no new taxes” pledge, Bush the elder lost the election to former Arkansas governor Bill Clinton.

Continue reading GunVoters Are Key →

The Knox Update

The Zumbo Flap

The Knox Report

From The Firearms Coalition

 

The Zumbo Flap

By Chris Knox

(March. 5, 2007) As you have probably heard by now, Jim Zumbo is no longer the hunting editor at Outdoor Life. The veteran hunting writer made an extraordinarily ill-advised and uninformed blog entry calling AK- and AR-pattern rifles “assault rifles” and “terrorist rifles,” and opining that game departments should ban them from the hunting fields.

The resulting firestorm was as swift and furious as it was predictable.

AR-15 and AK owners and Second Amendment activists of every stripe (and with every level of vocabulary) piled on. The gist of the Internet reaction was to call for a boycott of any company that sponsored Zumbo or carried his writing.

It was amazing that a hunting writer could be so ignorant of the tools of his trade, and it was remarkable that it all happened in the Internet and was over before most print media could crank up the presses. But it was the secondary reaction to the Zumbo meltdown makes the story truly newsworthy. Within days major sponsors and partners with long-term relationships had walked away. Outdoor Life, Remington, Cabela’s, NRA publications and others dropped Zumbo like a hot rock. The mainstream media covered the actions of the firearms and hunting industries and of the NRA. Their angle was the spectacle of the “gun culture” eating one of its own as an example to anyone who dared to step out of line.

Whether Zumbo’s 42-year career is over remains to be seen. Things change quickly in the Internet. This drama may have another act.

It’s impossible to judge the long-term implications of the Zumbo affair, but for the short term, the incident shines a light on some problems we gun owners face within our own community. Here’s a partial list:

  • Some gun owners do not understand the tools they use. If Brother Jim had understood his “sporting rifle” as well as he should have, he would have known that a wood-stocked Remington Woodsmaster autoloading “hunting rifle” is functionally identical to a military-look AR-15. He would have known that except for selective fire, the differences between most military rifles and “sporting arms” are cosmetic. If Jim had understood that, he would have saved himself a lot of trouble. It’s never a bad idea to develop a better understanding of one’s tools.
  • Some gun owners think that the anti-gunners can be appeased by banning or restricting some guns (typically guns they don’t own). I won’t assign motives to Jim’s actions, but if he, like many casual gun owners, thought that trying to appease the anti’s would make them leave him alone, he is wrong. History shows that where one restriction appears, more will follow. Where one gun is banned, more will be banned. It isn’t just hunters who suffer under that delusion. I’ve heard a Metallic Silhouette shooter ask why he should worry about handguns. I’ve heard a trap shooter grumble that “there is no need for anyone to own” a .50 BMG rifle. Every gun owner needs to understand this fact: the other side will ban every gun they can right down to a single-shot .22 and then go after your kid’s water gun. Just because they haven’t come after your wood-stocked, bolt-action scope-sighted Model 70 “sniper rifle” yet doesn’t mean they don’t want it.
  • Some gun owners are hell-bent to confirm the negative stereotypes that the popular media uses to portray us all. The reaction from some of the Internet firearms community was embarrassing. Jim Zumbo wrote a foolish – even stupid – blog entry. There may be ways that Jim Zumbo can make good the damage he’s done. But I have to wonder how those who were and are howling for Zumbo’s blood can clean up the damage they do to the gun rights movement by portraying all of us as bloodthirsty knuckle-draggers.

Jim Zumbo has some make-up work to do and it’s going to take more than a planned hunt with Ted Nugent using AR-15s. One tangible step would be to spend a few months boning up on the Second Amendment and then walk the legislative beat. Hunters need knowledgeable advocates with a solid gun-rights background, which I hope Mr. Zumbo will develop.

We know Jim has the courage of his convictions – when he understands the issues. He proved it when he and three other writers left the Outdoor Writers Association to form the Professional Outdoor Media Association after OWA made an unholy alliance with anti-hunting organizations. Properly informed, Jim Zumbo could be a good voice for hunting interests in the gun rights discussion, and a counterweight to groups such as American Hunters and Shooters Association which preaches “reasonable approaches” to the gun issue but is actually an anti-gun front group.

The power of the gun-rights movement is in coalitions. We won’t build a strong coalition by antagonizing natural allies.

Chris's Blog

From ‘Front Sight’ — Beware the Stupid Law

Beware the Stupid Law

 

By Chris and Jeff Knox

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot.”

Charles Dickens − Oliver Twist

One of the gravest mistakes anyone can make in dealing with the law is to assume that the law has the slightest shred of common sense, and that the agencies enforcing the law have any interest in justice. Our writing in other publications such as Shotgun News, Jeff’s column at World Net Daily (wnd.com), and on our own web site at FirearmsCoalition.org is generally geared toward injecting some common sense into the bodies that make law and eventually into the law itself. Our focus changes a bit when we come to Front Sight. Here, rather than talking about changing legislation or legislators, we turn our focus to helping readers stay safe from both.

The law has proven that it knows little about guns, and cares less about people who use them. A malfunctioning AR15 landed David Olofson in jail. The Ruby Ridge fiasco stemmed from a shotgun barrel that was crudely cut a half-inch shorter than an arbitrary limit. The Waco conflagration started from a botched attempt to serve a warrant for a rifle that might have contained an automatic sear. The allegation has never been proven; an independent testing lab offered to examine the charred remains of the guns but the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives has so far refused to let any outside party see the evidence.

While the press gets riled up over “sawed-off shotguns” and “machine guns,” the root of the issue is a $200 tax stamp. None of the guns that triggered the subsequent incidents was used, nor expected to be used, in a crime of violence.

One recent stupidity to be exposed is the fact that under federal law, as interpreted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), millions of law-abiding gun owners could be committing a serious felony by simply possessing their guns.

ATF has refrained from pursuing prosecutions of these millions of illegal gun possessors − so far. Nonetheless, pretending that a law doesn’t exist is not a solution to the problem – especially when ATF has a history of pulling forgotten laws out of the closet when they need something to pin on someone they’ve targeted.

If you’re old enough, you might remember Steve McQueen’s TV show from the late 1950s, Wanted Dead or Alive. In that show McQueen’s character carried a chopped Winchester Model 92 lever-action rifle. That gun almost landed the show’s producer in jail and cost the studio over $1100 in special taxes. Cutting a rifle’s barrel down to less than 16” or reducing the gun’s overall length to less than 26” turned that gun into a “Short Barreled Rifle,” or SBR, subject to the taxes and rules of 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA).

If one of us were to take a Model 92 today and cut it down to 19” like McQueen’s gun, we would be subject to up to 10 years and a $10,000 fine unless we went through the process of obtaining an NFA tax stamp. If we really wanted a gun like that, it’s available for about $600 with no special restrictions. If you put the original and the replica through side-by-side comparisons and testing you would be hard pressed to find any differences at all besides some government-required import markings and a different manufacturer’s name.

The difference is that the replica was manufactured short, not cut down from a longer gun. Officially, it is a pistol and so, it does not fall under the rules of the NFA.

If you were to replace the stock on the replica with a full length shoulder stock though you would have a problem because that would move the gun’s official classification into what the NFA calls “Any Other Weapon,” making it subject to NFA taxes and regulations.

Add a longer stock to McQueen’s SBR and extend the barrel a few inches and the gun will qualify as a rifle again and you could de-list it from NFA and sell it like any other regular gun.

Here’s another example. Today’s most popular rifle is the AR platform, the civilian version of the M16. Many returning soldiers want a gun like the one they carried in combat and a few are willing to pay the extra $200 taxes to have one with a barrel less than 16” long. But the ATF has decreed that since the barrels of AR-pattern rifles are easily interchangeable, if a collector with a legal SBR possesses another receiver on which that barrel can be installed, he is in possession of multiple SBRs and is in violation of the law if he doesn’t pay the extra taxes and register each one.

So far, ATF has pressed only a few cases like this, preferring to exercise discretion and to use this aspect of the law as a lever. Frankly, that much discretionary power makes us nervous.

ATF has taken some serious punches over the past few months, as the agency has apparently been shown to be a leading supplier of the Mexican gun-smuggling trade. Wounded, the agency is liable to be dangerous. A recently leaked internal memo to “All Public Information Officers” encouraged regional offices to look for opportunities to generate positive press. “Positive press” in the ATF’s eyes, and in the eyes of the dominant media, may mean busting a “cache” of scary looking guns and “getting those guns off the street” − even if they previously resided peacefully in a gun safe. We’re not saying to hide your guns, but it might be injudicious to engage a friendly stranger at a gun show in a conversation about swapping a short barrel onto an AR15 platform rifle.

What seems like common sense we who like, own, and shoot guns may be deep, arcane knowledge to a lawmaker, judge or juror. What seems like a simple tweak to a gun using interchangeable parts might be presented by a hostile prosecutor as a dangerous modification that puts the gun under the NFA. When you tinker with your guns, be aware that anything that changes the overall length or the length of the barrel can easily lead you into dangerous legal territory. Until the law changes, that’s the world we live in.

The Knox Update

Democrats don’t get it — or my vote

Big difference between Democrat & Republican platforms on guns

           Our organization, The Firearms Coalition, is non-partisan, but we’re not blind, we’re not stupid, and we know how to read.  Though the Democrats have made a conscious effort to woo GunVoters – or at least to avoid alienating them too badly – over the past few election cycles, their latest party platform makes it clear that their efforts have no more substance than smoke.  In contrast, the Republican Party platform this year is probably the most unambiguously pro-gun statement the party has ever made.  The question is whether they will live up to it or are just blowing smoke of their own.

Here’s how the Democrats’ platform expressed their support for the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners:

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

Continue reading Democrats don’t get it — or my vote →

The Knox Update

No Gun Owner is Safe

Even Decorated FBI Agent Falls Victim to Overzealous Anti-Gun DOJ

           John Shipley was a decorated FBI agent, former Army helicopter pilot, and a firearms enthusiast.  He enjoyed collecting and shooting the most advanced firearms available and testing their limits and capabilities, as well as his own, at many of the top training programs in the country.  He enjoyed cruising the internet auction sites and forums looking for deals, finding the guns he wanted to test, and selling off the ones he was finished with.  In 2007 Shipley purchased a .50 BMG Barrett.  A short time later, a local Sheriff’s Deputy who was a casual acquaintance offered him more than he had paid for the rifle and Shipley agreed to sell it (knowing that he could replace or upgrade the rifle with the proceeds from the sale).  The deputy later consigned the gun at a local gun shop and the shop owner hooked him up with a potential buyer.  The deal was made and the transaction completed in the parking lot – off the books of the gun shop.  The buyer was a Mexican national who held a Texas driver’s license with a Mexico address.  The Sheriff’s deputy kept a record of the sale which included the buyer’s driver’s license information.  The gun was later found in a house in Mexico where Mexican police engaged in a shootout with suspected drug gang members.  The gun was not used in the shootout, nor was it involved in any other crime beyond being illegally possessed in Mexico, but it brought ATF agents around to John Shipley.

Though Shipley’s sale of the gun was legal, and though he knew nothing about the sale to the Mexican national, a detailed investigation of Shipley’s firearms transactions was initiated.  It eventually came to light that the Mexican was already a known smuggler under ATF surveillance at the time he purchased the Barrett from the deputy.  It is apparent that ATF directed the dealer to arrange the transaction, and then allowed the gun to walk.  That gunwalking probably explains why the ATF didn’t include the Barrett in their indictment against the smuggler.  They didn’t want their gunwalking activities being exposed in court.

Continue reading No Gun Owner is Safe →

Ammunition for the grassroots gun rights movement