Guns – Page 564 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Brady Center Sues Badger Guns

Under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, suits related to negligence are still allowed to proceed. The Brady case is crafted as to attempt fall into that category of permitted lawsuits. You can find the complaint here. Reading it over, I’d be very surprised if Badgers Attorney doesn’t try to use PLCAA to dismiss this suit. In the case in question, a drug addict bought a firearm that he later gave to a person who shot two police officers. The suit seems to hinge on the fact that he was a prohibited person because he was a drug addict, and that somehow Badger should have known this. You see language in the complaint about Badger being a “public nuisance,” which is precisely the kind of lawsuit PLCAA was meant to quash.

I’m not going to comment on Badgers business practices in general, because I’m not familiar with the store. Maybe some local people could comment. There are certainly stores out there that have a bad reputation even among shooters. But I’m struck by how much the Brady suit reads like a social policy paper rather than a civil complaint. It is my opinion that this lawsuit should be squashed under PLCAA. Under the PCLAA standard:

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment’ means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

The Bradys are essentially arguing in the complaint that the types of firearms that Badger sold to the drug addict (evil assault weapon) plus the number of guns he bought over the course of a week (two), and the fact that he was an admitted drug addict, should have indicated he was intending to use them for criminal purposes. Because of these facts, the sale was negligent.

In short, this is an attempt by the Brady Center to blow a hole a mile wide in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act with this case. Regardless of whether or not Badger is a responsible operation or not, it’s important for the gun rights community as a whole that PLCAA squashes this suit. If it doesn’t, PLCAA will be rendered almost entirely ineffective, and you can bet this won’t be the last shop sued. Failing to get legislation rationing firearms, and banning assault weapons legislatively, once again we see the Brady Center trying to accomplish with lawyers what it couldn’t accomplish with lobbyists.

Get Out the Vote for Rossi

Joe Huffman points out one of the races this coming Tuesday that’s going to be really important for gun owners. Someone else we know has been working hard on this race too. We’re fighting a defensive action in PA, trying to keep this Senate seat from going anti-gun in the hands of Joe Sestak, but Rossi would be a true pickup in a state that’s supported anti-gun politicians state-wide as of late.

Voting While Armed

A few days ago, we saw the beginning of a controversy brewing in Pennsylvania when it comes to the election – and not just the voter fraud accusations already flying. Rep. Bryan Cutler posted a link to the debate in his area when Lancaster County commissioners considered a ban on firearms in polling places. According to local news, is was either a directive or “suggestion” from the state on how towns can ban guns:

Stehman said she made the recommendation to the commissioners at the direction of the Pennsylvania Department of State.

The good news for the folks in Lancaster County is that a) you have a gun owning lawmaker who is looking into why the Department of State is trying to push an illegal resolution in all of the counties, and b) the commissioners recognized that the ban would be a legal and logistical nightmare and opted to follow the law.

But it’s a fair question to ask why someone at the Department of State would ask all 67 counties to break state law and pass these bans on possession?

[The directive/”suggestion” from the Department of State] then lists several sections of the Pennsylvania Elections Code that could be cited to justify such resolutions.

But [Commissioner Craig] Lehman said state and federal law are pretty clear that counties can’t legislate gun possession.

“I would hope the Department of State would have provided the legal justification for its direction, but it clearly doesn’t address the Uniform Firearms Act at all,” he said.

Once contacted by Rep. Cutler, the Department of State appears to have discovered the Uniform Firearms Act and fully agreed that local bans on lawful carry in polling places is completely illegal – even though they tried to push all the counties to pass those illegal bans.

NRA isn’t taking any chances and warned its members here to contact their local county offices to demand they say no to gun bans. I’d still like to know who exactly was responsible for the directive/”suggestion” because it seems like a very targeted group to keep away from the polls in a year that will no likely help the currently administration & House leaders.

UPDATE: Good news via Rep. Cutler:

Victory in the gun in polling places debate. Dept of State sent a clarifying memo verifying that counties are preempted from regulating guns. … However, note if polling places are in a area that is already regulated such as a courthouse or school that regulation must be followed.

I’m still not happy that the Department of State felt it could send an instruction packet on how to ban guns to the counties. I’d call for a little accountability since they spent serious time (looking through all of the state laws – except the one that actually matters) and some money on this fiasco. But, at least it is resolved. I vote at a school, but I think I’ll be standing at the polls at a different location, so this does impact my right to carry. Especially since Sebastian will be in another area working for a different candidate.

Things a Gun Shop Employee Never Wants to Hear

Marko , who has worked at a gun shop, has a rather tongue-in-cheek list.

Party First. Your Rights, Second.

This ABC News article hints that we may have some trouble in an upcoming Republican Congress:

National Republicans are furious with the National Rifle Association, their natural ally, for endorsing 58 incumbent Democrats who support gun rights. And with Republicans aiming to win control of the House, some are promising retribution for the NRA next year.

â€œIn about a week, the NRA will find themselves on the bad sides of a few dozen new Republican members of congress. They have put their credibility â€“ and also that of their members â€“ on the line for the sake of ingratiating themselves with a bunch of liberal Democrats who are about to lose, and lose badly,â€ said one senior GOP operative who requested anonymity to speak freely.

So these “dozen new Republican members of congress” are willing to put their party affiliation ahead of the Second Amendment and the Constitution? Looks like we may be headed back to the days with Republican majorities that weren’t really willing to do much for us. Remember folks that the last Republican Congress got us Lautenberg, the Gun Free School Zones Act, a ban on purchasing of handguns by those 18-20, and oh yeah, PLCAA. Gotta throw at least one bone to the gun nuts.

Now it would seem some want us to go back into an abusive relationship with the GOP. If any of the new freshman GOP critters want to hold a grudge against NRA, I sincerely hope NRA will be willing to involve itself in primaries to get them out.

Now We Know Where they Got the Money

I’ve been wondering how Ceasefire PA got the money to produce and run an ad against Tom Corbett on the whole Florida Loophole nonsense. Now we have our answer. Rich a***oles seem to be our number one opponents now.

NRA Amends its Complaint in Texas

Looks like they are adding themselves as an organization and another over eighteen but under twenty one plaintiff to the case where they are challenging restrictions on people 18-20 purchasing handguns.

A Submachine Gun Lunch

My friend Jason and I got tired of the same old same old, so we took a lunch break this afternoon and went down to the range to shoot some of the new uppers he got for his M11 submachine gun. One upper is from Calico, which uses their helical magazine to give it a 100 round capacity. That’s quite a bit of fun, let me tell you. The other upper slows the M11s famously high rate of fire, making the gun considerably more manageable firing full-auto. When you’re throwing lead downrange 100 round magazine at a time, your target backer looks pretty sad when it’s all finished.

I was also happy I got some Glock and Kel-Tec time in drawing from the holster, which is something I can’t do at my club, but which you can do at Classic Pistol. Out of holster I’m averaging about 2.1 seconds from leather to a reasonably well placed shot on target at 10 yards. That’s slower than the last time I got to do draw from holster, and way slower than the Jeff Cooper standard of 1.5 seconds and from leather to two shots. This is from concealment, but I was only 0.1 second faster with concealment removed. Shooting from pocket I’m about 3.5 seconds with the Kel-Tec. Â That wouldn’t worry me too much if my pocket holster didn’t come out still on the gun a few times. Definitely time for a new one of those.

Because of my club’s rules, I don’t get to practice real world practical shooting very much, and it’s showing. I’ve said self-defense and practical shooters need to get involved with local clubs, and become advocates. There’s a whole world of shooting out there many clubs are afraid to try, and they won’t as long as people who do this kind of shooting stay away from them.

Understatement of the Year

From a writer to the Allentown Morning Call: “Callahan, Dent differ on gun control laws.” I’m glad someone is getting the word out about this race. PA-15 is one I’ve been keeping a nervous eye on, because Callahan is the first MAIG mayor to run for Congress, as far as I know, and he hasn’t left the group or denounced it. Fortunately, Dent is leading Callahan, and I couldn’t be any happier about that. Still, the poll next Tuesday is the only one that matters, and this race isn’t one to take for granted. Callahan has been the first serious challenger Dent has faced for a while. Here’s hoping Callahan has to go back to being a MAIG mayor instead of an anti-gun Congressman.

Sport Utility Rifles, MSR, Blah

Back before Sugarmann sold his epiphany on assault weapons to the gun control movement, we used to just call them rifles.Â Caleb points to a rant about just calling an AR and AR. I’ll add my two cents to the cause too. The need to do PC re-branding is a reaction to our opponents taking semi-automatic rifles and calling them assault weapons. Let’s just go back calling them rifles and be done with it.