Yes, you read that right. I just said something nice about the NYT. And furthermore, I’m saying something nice about their latest anti-gun editorial. This little gem was printed on Page 1 of their dead tree version and it’s chock-full-o-errors and falsehoods. Par for the course, in other words.

So long story short, they’ve got their collective knickers in a wad over the fact that Americans own modern rifles and that our founding document recognizes our right to do so. We’ve heard it before: Guns are bad… Gun owners are icky… We should be more like Europe… Yadda, yadda, yadda…

But the payoff comes near the end. The NYT editorial board writes:

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

(Emphasis added)

I don’t know about you, but I find it refreshingly honest of the NYT to admit that their gun control/ban schemes will require the cooperation of American gun owners to work. Most of the time, gun grabbers seem to think that government has a magic wand that it can wave and that all of the bad, bad guns will be rounded up when a bureaucrat shouts “Accio guns!”. The truth is that they cannot disarm us without our help. And since Americans are famously uncooperative about obeying gun laws, it’s quite unlikely that they’ll get it.

Now the question is this: Will the NYT and their gun hating pals follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion? To confiscate our guns without our cooperation, which they admit that they need to succeed, they will have to go to war with the American people. Their stated goal for disarming us is to prevent violence, but they will have to commit violence, and lots of it, to achieve their ends. Just how much blood are they willing to spill to make us “safer”?

Now there are some on the pro-gun rights side who don’t like seeing things like that last paragraph in print. They say that talk of armed resistance to unconstitutional laws will only scare people. But that’s the point; they should be scared. I know I am! Left to pursue their fever swamp fantasies, the gun grabbers would eventually do something horribly stupid. That’s what should scare people! That’s what needs to be prevented.


Yesterday’s possible act of Islamofascist terror in San Bernardino, CA, has lead many a high-minded, liberal gun-grabber to demand that gun owners in general, and the NRA in particular, “answer for this terrible crime”. First off, only a fascist would demand that one person or group answer for the crimes of others. Saying that all gun owners bear some responsibility for the shooting is as offensive as saying that all Muslims bear some responsibility for it. So no, we don’t owe you an “answer”.

But while we’re on the subject of answering for one’s own actions, let’s talk, again, and again, about “gun free zones”. Why? Because this was the latest of many “mass shootings” to occur in a “gun free zone”.

Let’s start with a little background about San Bernardino County. The Sheriff’s CCW policy is virtually “shall issue”. For those who don’t understand what this means, there are three types of policies for issuing concealed handgun licenses: Shall issue, may issue, and no issue. The last type, though once the most common type of policy,  no longer exists in the US thanks to the efforts of the NRA. (There are also 7 states with no policy at all. These states, such as Arizona and Vermont, do not require a permit to carry a concealed weapon.) California is a “may issue” state, meaning that local law enforcement may issue a permit at its discretion. “Shall issue” states require law enforcement to issue a permit to any qualified individual who requests one. Most California counties, like San Bernardino, actually follow this policy.

So in theory, there should have been someone present at the Inland Regional Center with a CCW. But there’s a catch: It’s a “gun free zone”. In general, CCW holders are not allowed to bring their firearms into a public buildings in California. (I added the qualification as there might be some building, somewhere, that allows them. As far as I know, none do.) Thus we’re owed a long overdue explanation from anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats: How can you justify this dangerous and deadly policy?

A “gun free zone” is nothing more than a shooting gallery for someone bent upon murder. In case after case, on campus after campus, in government building after government building, these shootings take place in locations where the killer(s) can be sure that they’re the only ones with guns. The cops will eventually get there, but not in time. And the politicians’ response? More “gun free zones”. More free fire areas for murderers. More defenseless victims.

More blood.

It’s time for the gun grabbers to answer for their “gun free zones”.

News Self-defense

Barack Hussein Obama is a secret agent in the employ of the GOP and the American gun industry.

That’s really the only plausible explanation for this announcement. “Agent O” is doing whatever it takes to increase American gun sales to stratospheric new highs. He’s also tying a millstone around the necks of Democrat candidates nationwide by allowing Republicans to tar all of them as gun-grabbing extremists. (Well… OK… They are gun grabbing extremists, but they were trying to keep that on the down low.)

He’s not the brightest bulb on the tree, but even he knows better than to think that gun control will be a big winner for his party. So, it makes no sense that after 7 years of near total silence on the subject that he would suddenly think that this is the thing that he should pin his party’s hopes on.

He must be a secret agent.




As previously reported, a majority of California Sheriffs, two law enforcement organizations, the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), and several other individuals filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Los Angeles’ recently enacted ban on the  the possession of standard capacity magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.  The lawsuit, Bosenko v. City of Los Angeles, challenges the magazine possession ban on legal “preemption” grounds, because California state law allows for the possession of such magazines, and specifically authorizes their possession in a variety of circumstances that the City improperly prohibits.

On November 12, 2015, the trial court denied a preliminary emergency request to temporarily block the city from enforcing the ordinance while the case proceeds. The court cited a lack of “irreparable harm” that would result if the ordinance goes into effect, because individuals can store their magazines outside the City or not travel into Los Angeles with their magazines while the case is litigated.  The court agreed to expedite the case, however, and made no ruling on the ultimate merits of whether the City’s archaic ban is preempted by the state’s comprehensive regulation of standard-capacity magazines. The parties will now have an opportunity to fully brief the preemption issues for the court, and a final ruling from the trial court is expected in the first half of 2016. Because the court made no findings whatsoever on whether the ordinance is preempted, any other jurisdictions that might consider adopting similar ordinances will face immediate litigation. If you learn of similar ordinances being considered in your area, please promptly contact the law offices of Michel and Associates, P.C.

To help you understand your rights and responsibilities under the ordinance, the NRA and CRPA have prepared a detailed Compliance Guide for individuals who may be impacted by the new law. The complimentary guide explains the ins and outs of the ordinance, your options for lawfully keeping your magazines while the case proceeds, and how to effectively protect your rights during encounters with law enforcement. Under the conditions of the ordinance, the mere possession of any so-called “large-capacity” magazine within Los Angeles on or after November19, 2015 will be a misdemeanor offense. Los Angeles residents must remove any banned magazines from Los Angeles city limits before that date.  If you are a Los Angeles resident and you fail to exercise any of your options discussed in the Compliance Guide before November 19, you should contact an attorney experienced in firearms law to discuss your situation.

Significantly, the ordinance doesn’t only apply to Los Angeles city residents. Non-resident gun owners must avoid traveling through any part of the city of Los Angeles while possessing any banned magazine. It is practically impossible to know all of the city’s exact boundaries, as illustrated by this map. The borders of Los Angeles intersect every major Southern California freeway. In some cases the city of Los Angeles completely surrounds other smaller cities, like Beverly Hills, and Santa Monica. So anyone traveling out of Santa Monica or Beverly Hills, and anyone traveling through the city of Los Angeles with a banned magazine can be prosecuted.

Stay tuned for further information as this case continues towards a resolution on the merits. As the case progresses, all filings in the case can be viewed here. In the meantime, please refer to the information below on ways you can help fund this lawsuit and others like it that seek to preserve and promote your Second Amendment rights.

Help Us Help You

Please help us fight for your right to choose to own a gun for sport, or to defend yourself and your family. The NRAand CRPA work together in California to fight for you, in cities and counties across the state, in regulatory agencies, and in the courts.  Even with the generous rates that our team of civil rights attorneys, legislative advocates, experts and consultants grant us, these ongoing efforts are still expensive. You can support our pro-Second Amendment efforts in California by donating to the NRA Legal Action Project.  All donations will be spent to specifically benefit California gun owners.

Second Amendment supporters should be careful about supporting litigation or other efforts promised by other individuals and groups that lack the experience, resources, skill, or legal talent to be successful. The NRA and CRPA national team of highly regarded civil rights attorneys, legislative advocates, and scholars has the experience, resources, skill and expertise needed to maximize the potential for victory in California’s often hostile political environments.

For a summary of some of the many actions the NRA and CRPA has taken on behalf of California gun owners, including the Peruta case, click here.


News Legal Self-defense

About 45 minutes ago, multiple shootings and explosions were reported around Paris, France. (Twitter)


From America’s 1st Freedom:

Exclusive: We Test The Armatix iP1, The Not-So-Smart Gun

Exclusive: We Test The Armatix iP1, The Not-So-Smart Gun

Photo credit: Features via AP Images

In May 2014, NRA staffers secretly tested the Armatix iP1, the so-called “smart gun” that at the time was causing a furor among both media and gun owners nationwide. What we found was disappointing at best, and alarming at worst.

NRA sent a team of firearm experts to an undisclosed range (at the request of our hosts) to do real-world tests of the iP1. To our knowledge, NRA is the only organization that has actually conducted real-world tests of the iP1 under range conditions.

Guns & Gear Editor and team member Frank Winn penned a review of the iP1 for America’s 1st Freedom. However, A1F withheld publication of the test results for fear that an honest review of the poorly functioning Armatix might be misconstrued as opposition to the technology itself. NRA was already being falsely accused of blocking smart gun development, and the expensive, small-caliber Armatix was failing on its own due to fears that sale of the gun would trigger New Jersey’s infamous mandate requiring similar technology in all guns.

In truth, NRA has never opposed smart guns, believing the marketplace should decide their future. Rather, NRA opposes government mandates of expensive, unproven technology, and smart guns are a prime example of that.

However, smart guns have been making a comeback in the news lately. On Oct. 22, theWashington Post reported on the recent activity of the iP1’s designer, German Ernst Mauch, as he attempted to rehabilitate the iP1’s reputation, as well as his own: “It’s operating perfectly.”To our knowledge, NRA is the only organization that has actually conducted real-world tests of the iP1 under range conditions. 

The Nov. 1 edition of CBS’ “60 Minutes” ran a smart gun segment that featured the oft-cited clip from the James Bond movie “Skyfall,” showing a bad guy foiled by Bond’s smart gun. Host Leslie Stahl interviewed Ron Conway, a Silicon Valley investor who funds 15 separate companies working on smart gun tech, who said: “This is going to happen outside the gun industry. Why they aren’t doing research and investing in this baffles me.”

Then on Nov. 3, Mother Jones magazine called smart guns, “The Guns the NRA Doesn’t Want Americans to Get.” In the article, Mauch is quoted as saying, “I still want people to understand that there is a huge potential for this technology. The technology was never in question.”

Of course Conway and Mauch want us to believe in smart gun tech: Conway would love to see his investments pay off, and Mauch is looking for a job after Armatix—having lost millions of euros trying to launch his iP1—fired him as CEO and banned him from the premises under the threat of criminal penalties. Mauch told the Post he resigned because he didn’t want to sue or attack the gun industry, but an Armatix attorney confirmed he was released “for internal reasons.”

Does the Armatix operate perfectly? Well, no; we found it to be troubling at best. NRA’s tests, conducted with staffers trained by Armatix, found a number of very serious problems:

  • The Armatix pistol initially required a full 20 minutes to pair with the watch, even with the aid of an IT pro trained in its use. Without pairing, the Armatix functions like any other handgun, capable of being fired by anyone.
  • Once paired, a “cold start” still requires a minimum of seven push-button commands and a duration of 12 seconds before the gun can be fired.
  • While the gun holds a maximum of 11 rounds (10+1), the best our experts could manage was nine consecutive rounds without a failure to fire (and that only once). Three or four misfires per magazine were common, despite using various brands of ammunition.
  • Although the Armatix has a decent single-action trigger, it has the worst double-action trigger we’ve ever tested, requiring more force than any other pistol we’ve fired.
  • The pistol must be within 10 inches of the watch during “start up.” This slows and complicates the use of the pistol if one hand is injured or otherwise unavailable.
  • The design of the Armatix’s hammer prevents it from being safely thumbed forward.
  • All this malfunction comes at a high price: At $1,798 ($1,399 for the base pistol and another $399 for the enabling watch), the Armatix is a more than five times the cost of other common .22s, like Walther’s excellent P22 ($319) or Browning’s tried-and-true Buckmark ($349), and four and a half times that of Smith & Wesson’s M&P22 polymer semi-auto ($379) or Ruger’s SR22 ($379). It’s also more than three times the cost of pistols like Glocks and Smith & Wesson M&Ps made in true self-defense calibers

Although the Armatix has a decent single-action trigger, it has the worst double-action trigger we’ve ever tested, requiring more force than any other pistol we’ve fired.Unfortunately, the team was unable to test the durability of the electronics that supposedly make the Armatix “smart,” leaving several questions unanswered:

  • What happens when pistol/watch batteries fail?
  • Will the pistol’s poorly sealed battery compartment perform when rain-soaked?
  • What happens if you lose the watch or it breaks? Or when it goes (even more) out of style?
  • Will the gun/watch still function if dropped?
  • How many firing cycles will the electronics tolerate before failure?
  • How easy is it to hack the RFID connection to the pistol?

The biggest unanswered question, however, comes from the Armatix’s patent application:

  • Why does the Armatix contain “kill switch” functionality, allowing it to be disabled by third parties … a fact confirmed by such functionality at the test range?

The Post article claims the Armatix “passed rigorous testing and certification in the United States.” We’d sure like to talk to whomever conducted those tests, because we have tested the Armatix—and found it greatly wanting. Again, NRA only opposes the imposition of technologies via government force, and is happy for the marketplace to pass its own judgment. But if this is the technology upon which smart-gun proponents want the marketplace to base its decision, their rejection will be both swift and brutal.

Read Frank Winn’s unpublished, exclusive 2014 A1F review here.

Definitely click the link to Frank Winn’s full review. This gun is an $1800 stinker. The one and only thing that will save it in the market is a government mandate that it be stocked on gun store shelves; which is what one New Jersey lawmaker now proposes. It’s being marketed as a “defensive” handgun, but it’s chambered in only .22LR; not any defensive pistol calibers. The “safety” technology is, at best, not-ready-for-prime-time. At worst, it’s a technology that allows your very expensive handgun to be switched off remotely. Whether or not this can be done by an adversary or just a bored script-kiddie has yet to be determined. Furthermore, it may be possible to nullify the tech by simply submerging the pistol is a bucket of water. Go read the review for more details.

News Self-defense

There are some very tired, very old arguments that the gun grabbers just won’t put out to pasture. One of these is that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard. This is a very creative, if entirely incorrect, reading of the “militia clause” of the Amendment’s text…

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That introductory clause, as the U.S. Supreme Court has pointed out, merely tells us why the government has an interest in preserving the militia. It in no way limits the right to government employees.

The next geriatric argument is: “Well, OK… So it does mean individuals, but the militia wouldn’t be able to challenge the government. The government has jet, tanks, battleships, and nukes. What good are small arms against that?” The latest to think he’s being novel by putting this in print is The Union’s Greg Littell. “Ludicrous” is how he describes the notion of armed resistance to a nuclear armed tyrant…

Assuming the military was part of the tyranny (which it would have to be for tyranny to have any meaning), any rebelling national band of “patriots” would be told something like, “you either lay down your arms or the entire city of Dallas, Texas will disappear. You have one hour. If you continue, the next city to disappear will be Atlanta, Georgia.”

The only thing that would work to thwart a tyrannical takeover of the government, as Ghandi demonstrated, is massive civil disobedience. Freeze up the operation of everything, including the daily activities of the tyrants.

But as David Codrea points out: “Littell pontificates, the only thing that will save us from such ruthless tyranny would be to employ Gandhi’s tactics, as if totalitarians who would wipe out city after city in order to bend all to their will would suddenly be thwarted by peaceful refusals to report to work.”

Littell’s analysis is simply childish. No tyrant will incinerate his own cities; even if he could get his military to cooperate in such a course of action. Thus, nuclear weapons are off the table. For that matter, so is strategic air power or naval power. Nothing that could destroy a tyrant’s assets and infrastructure, or kill his allies, would be deployed against a rebellious population. Want proof? While the Assad regime isn’t squeamish about using air strikes or artillery against the rebels, they aren’t doing so in a manner that kills their supporters along with their enemies. Their hands, like any tyrant’s in similar circumstances, are tied.

So with these “big ticket” arms unavailable, an aspiring tyrant’s forces are left with resources that can be effectively countered by small arms. You know… The kind the 2nd Amendment is talking about.



I don’t mean to sound like it’s Pick On Maryland Day, but ya gotta wonder. First there’s former Democrat governor Glendening bitterly clinging to his failed “ballistic fingerprinting” boondoggle. Now former Democrat governor Martin O’Malley thinks that gun control will be a big winner for him… In New Hampshire. As the Union Leader puts it: “Good luck with that.”

O’Malley, also known as “Unidentified man“, wants to…

  • Ban “combat assault weapons” (i.e. scary looking guns)
  • Prohibit handgun possession by law abiding adults between 18 and 21 (They’re old enough to die in Obama’s wars, but not old enough to own a handgun?)
  • Prohibit firearm possession by women known to be in relationships with men convicted of domestic violence (So who’s really at war with women?!)
  • Prohibit DOJ from defending the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (Obama must be slapping himself for not thinking of this one first. Congress Schmongress!)

Someone really should check the pipes at Government House in Annapolis. There’s something funky growing in there.


News Politics

The State of Maryland has finally thrown in the towel on its “ballistic fingerprinting” scheme. After 15 years and $5,000,000, the program produced the following results:

  • Zip
  • Zero
  • Zilch
  • Nada

Not one crime was solved by the system. New York started a similar program at the same time, but they succumbed to reality in 2012.

The epic failure was signed into law in 2000 by then Governor Parris Glendening. Despite the program’s dismal performance, Glendening is sticking to his guns, so to speak. The Baltimore Sun quoted him as saying:

“Obviously, I’m disappointed,” said former Gov. Parris N. Glendening, a Democrat whose administration pushed for the database to fulfill a campaign promise. “It’s a little unfortunate, in that logic and common sense suggest that it would be a good crime-fighting tool.”

“Logic and common sense” may suggest that to be true, but the objective evidence says that Mr. Glendening should put the pipe down. He was warned at the time that the program was doomed to failure, but some gun muggles never listen. A gun’s “fingerprint” is not a static feature. Normal wear and tear changes the marks left on bullets and cartridge casings over time. Also, bullets and casings from different manufacturers are marked differently by the same gun. The program never had a chance of succeeding.


There’s something disquieting when one finds oneself citing the wisdom of California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom. But that’s what we have to do here. Newsom, if you will recall, is championing a radical gun grab in this State. However, the very same Gavin Newsom has warned Hillary Clinton against making gun control a central theme of her campaign. It appears that the White House didn’t get that memo either.

Newsmax is reporting that the Obama machine is calling on Democrats to support increased gun laws in the US. In an email sent to Party loyalists, Obama said of gn control:

“But this is one thing we haven’t been able to do,” he said. “We have not reformed our gun laws to help reduce the unnecessary deaths we see in this country every single day.”

But it is not too late, he said, “by making sure we urge future leaders to act where we have been stalled.”

If this President really wanted to reduce gun related violence, a nice start would be enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Instead, he’s like a golfer who’s never quite satisfied with the clubs that are already in his bag. There’s always a better putter out there or a better sand wedge; always some excuse for why his game isn’t what he wants it to be.