Welcome to firearms online Ohio

Firearms, Rifle , Shortgun, Ammunication

Cart

Your Cart is Empty

Back To Shop

Category: New Guns of 2023

Eight years ago, Wilson Combat introduced the EDC X9, a firearm noted for its thoughtful design, craftsmanship, and reliable performance. The X9 further merged the iconic 1911’s design with modern features.

Now a sequel has arrived – the EDC X9 2.0, which Wilson Combat promises has built upon the foundation of its predecessor, featuring upgrades that deliver superior performance and reliability without sacrificing the visually striking aesthetics that have won widespread admiration since its debut.

Wilson Combat EDC X9 2.0 Wilson Combat EDC X9 2.0

Launched in 2016, the EDC X9 rapidly rose to popularity, merging the timeless design of the 1911 with the cutting-edge features that modern shooters demand. The EDC X9 2.0 builds upon the foundation of its predecessor, featuring upgrades that deliver superior performance and reliability without sacrificing the visually striking aesthetics that have won widespread admiration since its debut.

Constructed using a durable, high-capacity compact aluminum X-Frame, it is meant to offer full-size performance in a sleek, EDC-friendly package with improvements made to enhance accuracy and reduce recoil. It also features new, easily interchangeable Classic 1911 style grips, which allow shooters to fine-tune their setup while striking the perfect balance between comfort and concealability.

The new Wilson Combat EDC X9 2.0 is available now in 9mm with a 5-inch barrel ($3,315 MSRP), 4-inch barrel ($3,210 MSRP), or 3.25-inch barrel subcompact ($3,210 MSRP). Each features a high-capacity aluminum X-frame with reliability-enhanced frame rails; a Concealment Bullet Proof hammer, thumb safety, and magazine release; and a fluted barrel and chamber.

#Wilson #Combat #Introduces #EDC

Eight years ago, Wilson Combat introduced the EDC X9, a firearm noted for its thoughtful design, craftsmanship, and reliable performance. The X9 further merged the iconic 1911’s design with modern features. Now a sequel has arrived – the EDC X9 2.0, which Wilson Combat promises has built upon the foundation of its predecessor, featuring upgrades …

Eight years ago, Wilson Combat introduced the EDC X9, a firearm noted for its thoughtful design, craftsmanship, and reliable performance. The X9 further merged the iconic 1911’s design with modern features.

Now a sequel has arrived – the EDC X9 2.0, which Wilson Combat promises has built upon the foundation of its predecessor, featuring upgrades that deliver superior performance and reliability without sacrificing the visually striking aesthetics that have won widespread admiration since its debut.

Wilson Combat EDC X9 2.0 Wilson Combat EDC X9 2.0
Launched in 2016, the EDC X9 rapidly rose to popularity, merging the timeless design of the 1911 with the cutting-edge features that modern shooters demand. The EDC X9 2.0 builds upon the foundation of its predecessor, featuring upgrades that deliver superior performance and reliability without sacrificing the visually striking aesthetics that have won widespread admiration since its debut.

Constructed using a durable, high-capacity compact aluminum X-Frame, it is meant to offer full-size performance in a sleek, EDC-friendly package with improvements made to enhance accuracy and reduce recoil. It also features new, easily interchangeable Classic 1911 style grips, which allow shooters to fine-tune their setup while striking the perfect balance between comfort and concealability.

The new Wilson Combat EDC X9 2.0 is available now in 9mm with a 5-inch barrel ($3,315 MSRP), 4-inch barrel ($3,210 MSRP), or 3.25-inch barrel subcompact ($3,210 MSRP). Each features a high-capacity aluminum X-frame with reliability-enhanced frame rails; a Concealment Bullet Proof hammer, thumb safety, and magazine release; and a fluted barrel and chamber.

#Wilson #Combat #Introduces #EDCRead More

The US Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has published an Interim Final Rule severely restricting US firearms exports and creating additional regulatory burdens. The new rule makes last October’s export “pause” permanent. We understand that no one wants to read a bunch of bureaucrat-speak, so we’ll lay out the important parts below, along with how the rule was implemented and its projected impact.

Commerce Secretary Gina RaimondoCommerce Secretary Gina Raimondo
Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo. (nypost.com)

How We Got Here

BIS announced a supposed “90-day pause” on issuing new firearms export licenses on October 27, 2023, to re-examine export policy, citing national security concerns. The 90-day pause lasted for 180 days, only ending with the new Interim Final Rule. The “pause” was clearly just a head start on developing the rule for final publication.

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo commented on the new rule, saying, “The Commerce Department is protecting America’s national security by making it harder for criminals, terrorists, and cartels to get their hands on U.S.-made firearms. Too often, firearms exports fall into the wrong hands and end up being used in ways that directly undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. To combat this, we’re taking strategic, targeted actions, including restricting exports to commercial entities in high-risk countries and increasing scrutiny and tracking of all firearms exports.”

The federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA) specifies that proposed rules be open to public comment before their publication. There was no public comment period, though Commerce has announced they will take public comments until July 1, 2024, when the new rule takes effect. So, essentially, you can comment on the rule that Commerce has already adopted. That defeats the public comment period’s purpose, which is supposedly to influence the proposed rule’s structure and tenets.

The House of Representatives twice requested information regarding the “pause” from last October, but Commerce stonewalled the committee both times. Apart from threatening to subpoena the requested documents, Congress does not appear to have pursued it further, allowing BIS to do whatever it wanted. Those same Representatives are now calling for Congress to overturn the rule. Don’t bet on that happening. I suspect most of them are making noise to satisfy a few constituents. This won’t be a priority, at least not yet.

Key Components

The Interim Final Rule deals primarily with firearms export licenses, who has those licenses, and to whom they can export their products. The rule’s key policy changes are as follows:

  • More stringent review standards. BIS is now accounting for political and social factors when approving export licenses for certain end users. Those factors include “terrorism risks, human rights concerns, state fragility, corruption, the nature and capabilities of the firearm, and past instances of diversion and misuse.”
  • Presumption of denial for commercial transactions in countries the State Department has identified as high-risk.BIS will apply a ‘presumption of denial’ standard to applications involving nongovernmental recipients located in a destination where the State Department has determined there is substantial risk that firearm exports will be diverted or misused in a manner contrary to national security and foreign policy.”
  • Data collection and transparency. “BIS will improve data collection on firearms exports by adopting new export control classification numbers (ECCNs) to track what kinds of firearms U.S. manufacturers are exporting abroad. These include new ECCNs for semi-automatic firearms and related items.”
  • Additional documentation for license applicants.BIS is implementing regulatory changes to licensing procedures that will help validate that firearms are only exported to trustworthy foreign entities. BIS is reducing the general license validity period from 4 years to 1 year, which will ensure that BIS is able to adapt to an ever-changing global security environment. Furthermore, for countries with less-developed export control regimes, BIS will require the submission of additional documents from licensees before approving a license, including a purchase order and import certification.”
Bureau of Industry and Security SealBureau of Industry and Security Seal
(commerce.gov)

Policy Summary

To summarize, BIS will now grant export licenses based on the administration’s political views rather than following its mission of bolstering American business interests. If that sounds reasonable, please understand that foreign entities have already stated they will make up any losses by purchasing from other nations. Commerce publicly downplayed that possibility, saying that US-made firearms are categorically superior to foreign-made weapons. That’s nonsense, of course.

BIS is also telling American firearms companies not to bother applying for licenses to export to foreign entities that the administration doesn’t approve of, for whatever reason. That “presumption of denial” is another example of politics dictating business decisions. More on that momentarily. The political considerations may not be exactly as the rule portrays them.

BIS will now track firearms exports via a new system that specifically targets semi-automatic weapons. That should begin to shed some light on those political considerations.

BIS is reducing licensure periods from four years to one year. Given the mercurial political climate, exporters must now incur the expense of being in constant application mode, meaning that they will be paying four times as much for lawyers and policy experts than in the past. Lawyers and policy experts don’t come cheap.

Nations that signed the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies are exempt from the rules-enhanced controls. According to its website, “the Wassenaar Arrangement has been established in order to contribute to regional and international security and stability by promoting transparency and greater responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies, thus preventing destabilizing accumulations.”

Finally, BIS will revoke all current export licenses on July 1st, requiring all exporters to reapply under the new guidelines. This will create additional delays and cost these companies even more money.

Wassenaar Arrangement Nations list and mapWassenaar Arrangement Nations list and map
Wassenaar Arrangement Nations. (wassenaar.org)

Domestic Politics

Evidence points to domestic politics, not national security, being behind the new rule. That shouldn’t be surprising, considering the current administration’s clear hostility to the gun industry.

Media Allegations

Bloomberg News published a series called America, Global Gun Pusher late last year. The October 19, 2023, installment breathlessly reported that “American guns – and gun culture – are being exported across the globe at unprecedented levels, and one of the biggest backers of the industry is the US Department of Commerce.”

The article went on to trash Commerce for facilitating foreign contracts for US firearms, especially by enabling and aiding foreign travel to SHOT Show. It was all supposedly very shocking. Imagine the Commerce Department helping foreign buyers attend the largest firearms trade show in the world, from which American companies benefit greatly. The sheer audacity.

The article also decries US-made guns as promoting a supposedly toxic gun culture in Latin America, implying that rising murder rates are the result. Never mind that Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) data show that only about 1 percent of legally exported firearms are recovered at crime scenes and traced. ATF data also shows that most Latin American crime guns originate from nations other than the United States.

The Political Response

Someone in the White House apparently noticed. The Biden Administration is the most outspokenly anti-gun regime in American history. Joe Biden himself publicly declared that “firearm manufacturers are the enemy” during a debate. He and his staff have consistently called for eradicating legal protections for gun makers despite that protection being nothing more than what is enjoyed by any other industry.

Evidence suggests that the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is ultimately behind this new rule. The House Oversight Committee specifically asked that question based on what they were hearing. The Commerce Department did not provide an answer that we know of. In case you missed it, the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is a Biden creation staffed by former senior activists from organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety. It was created specifically to push gun control outside of Congress.

One of this office’s primary tactics is targeting gun companies’ finances by enabling frivolous lawsuits and enacting costly regulations. This Commerce Department rule looks to be a similar effort clothed in national security language. The Wassenaar Arrangement provides cover, and the BIS provides the tools since the bureau liaises directly with Wassenaar. But, once again, BIS refuses to acknowledge that the rule’s purpose is a sham since foreign companies will gladly fill the gap created by increased US regulations.

This office reportedly saw an opportunity in the Bloomberg report. Bloomberg even appeared to take credit for the October “pause” in a later article. That a Bloomberg company and the White House Gun Control office worked together should not be at all surprising.

Joe BidenJoe Biden
Joe Biden is the most outspokenly anti-gun president in American history. (upi.com)

The Cost

BIS estimated that the “pause” would cost the gun industry some $10 million. But it was far higher than that. Since October 27, at least two support industry companies have gone out of business entirely, resulting in lost jobs and forfeiture of investments, not to mention lost business and the impact on local economies.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) estimates the minimum cost of the new rule to be north of $250 million. The American firearms industry will have to absorb those costs, which it will have no choice but to pass on to its customers. So, the Biden Administration isn’t only costing gun companies money; they’re trying to jack up the prices for us all.

Bottom Line

This Commerce Department rule looks to be yet another Biden backdoor gun control program. The administration has been unable to pass its radical anti-gun agenda through Congress, so it has turned to Executive rulemaking. Look no further than all the recent arbitrary ATF rules. Biden and his crew have demonstrated that they will hurt the industry and gun owners in any way they can, and this rule fits the profile. And that’s not just my opinion. NSSF agrees.

I expect NSSF, and possibly others, to challenge the Commerce Department’s rule. It looks to be an APA violation at the very least. It also appears to be anathema to Commerce’s stated mission, namely, to promote American business. We’ll keep you updated on this important story, as it will affect us all.

#Commerce #Dept #Unilaterally #Restricts #Firearms #Exports

The US Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has published an Interim Final Rule severely restricting US firearms exports and creating additional regulatory burdens. The new rule makes last October’s export “pause” permanent. We understand that no one wants to read a bunch of bureaucrat-speak, so we’ll lay out the important parts below, …

The US Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has published an Interim Final Rule severely restricting US firearms exports and creating additional regulatory burdens. The new rule makes last October’s export “pause” permanent. We understand that no one wants to read a bunch of bureaucrat-speak, so we’ll lay out the important parts below, along with how the rule was implemented and its projected impact.

Commerce Secretary Gina RaimondoCommerce Secretary Gina Raimondo
Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo. (nypost.com)

How We Got Here

BIS announced a supposed “90-day pause” on issuing new firearms export licenses on October 27, 2023, to re-examine export policy, citing national security concerns. The 90-day pause lasted for 180 days, only ending with the new Interim Final Rule. The “pause” was clearly just a head start on developing the rule for final publication.

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo commented on the new rule, saying, “The Commerce Department is protecting America’s national security by making it harder for criminals, terrorists, and cartels to get their hands on U.S.-made firearms. Too often, firearms exports fall into the wrong hands and end up being used in ways that directly undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. To combat this, we’re taking strategic, targeted actions, including restricting exports to commercial entities in high-risk countries and increasing scrutiny and tracking of all firearms exports.”

The federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA) specifies that proposed rules be open to public comment before their publication. There was no public comment period, though Commerce has announced they will take public comments until July 1, 2024, when the new rule takes effect. So, essentially, you can comment on the rule that Commerce has already adopted. That defeats the public comment period’s purpose, which is supposedly to influence the proposed rule’s structure and tenets.

The House of Representatives twice requested information regarding the “pause” from last October, but Commerce stonewalled the committee both times. Apart from threatening to subpoena the requested documents, Congress does not appear to have pursued it further, allowing BIS to do whatever it wanted. Those same Representatives are now calling for Congress to overturn the rule. Don’t bet on that happening. I suspect most of them are making noise to satisfy a few constituents. This won’t be a priority, at least not yet.

Key Components

The Interim Final Rule deals primarily with firearms export licenses, who has those licenses, and to whom they can export their products. The rule’s key policy changes are as follows:

  • More stringent review standards. BIS is now accounting for political and social factors when approving export licenses for certain end users. Those factors include “terrorism risks, human rights concerns, state fragility, corruption, the nature and capabilities of the firearm, and past instances of diversion and misuse.”
  • Presumption of denial for commercial transactions in countries the State Department has identified as high-risk.BIS will apply a ‘presumption of denial’ standard to applications involving nongovernmental recipients located in a destination where the State Department has determined there is substantial risk that firearm exports will be diverted or misused in a manner contrary to national security and foreign policy.”
  • Data collection and transparency. “BIS will improve data collection on firearms exports by adopting new export control classification numbers (ECCNs) to track what kinds of firearms U.S. manufacturers are exporting abroad. These include new ECCNs for semi-automatic firearms and related items.”
  • Additional documentation for license applicants.BIS is implementing regulatory changes to licensing procedures that will help validate that firearms are only exported to trustworthy foreign entities. BIS is reducing the general license validity period from 4 years to 1 year, which will ensure that BIS is able to adapt to an ever-changing global security environment. Furthermore, for countries with less-developed export control regimes, BIS will require the submission of additional documents from licensees before approving a license, including a purchase order and import certification.”
Bureau of Industry and Security SealBureau of Industry and Security Seal
(commerce.gov)

Policy Summary

To summarize, BIS will now grant export licenses based on the administration’s political views rather than following its mission of bolstering American business interests. If that sounds reasonable, please understand that foreign entities have already stated they will make up any losses by purchasing from other nations. Commerce publicly downplayed that possibility, saying that US-made firearms are categorically superior to foreign-made weapons. That’s nonsense, of course.

BIS is also telling American firearms companies not to bother applying for licenses to export to foreign entities that the administration doesn’t approve of, for whatever reason. That “presumption of denial” is another example of politics dictating business decisions. More on that momentarily. The political considerations may not be exactly as the rule portrays them.

BIS will now track firearms exports via a new system that specifically targets semi-automatic weapons. That should begin to shed some light on those political considerations.

BIS is reducing licensure periods from four years to one year. Given the mercurial political climate, exporters must now incur the expense of being in constant application mode, meaning that they will be paying four times as much for lawyers and policy experts than in the past. Lawyers and policy experts don’t come cheap.

Nations that signed the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies are exempt from the rules-enhanced controls. According to its website, “the Wassenaar Arrangement has been established in order to contribute to regional and international security and stability by promoting transparency and greater responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies, thus preventing destabilizing accumulations.”

Finally, BIS will revoke all current export licenses on July 1st, requiring all exporters to reapply under the new guidelines. This will create additional delays and cost these companies even more money.

Wassenaar Arrangement Nations list and mapWassenaar Arrangement Nations list and map
Wassenaar Arrangement Nations. (wassenaar.org)

Domestic Politics

Evidence points to domestic politics, not national security, being behind the new rule. That shouldn’t be surprising, considering the current administration’s clear hostility to the gun industry.

Media Allegations

Bloomberg News published a series called America, Global Gun Pusher late last year. The October 19, 2023, installment breathlessly reported that “American guns – and gun culture – are being exported across the globe at unprecedented levels, and one of the biggest backers of the industry is the US Department of Commerce.”

The article went on to trash Commerce for facilitating foreign contracts for US firearms, especially by enabling and aiding foreign travel to SHOT Show. It was all supposedly very shocking. Imagine the Commerce Department helping foreign buyers attend the largest firearms trade show in the world, from which American companies benefit greatly. The sheer audacity.

The article also decries US-made guns as promoting a supposedly toxic gun culture in Latin America, implying that rising murder rates are the result. Never mind that Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) data show that only about 1 percent of legally exported firearms are recovered at crime scenes and traced. ATF data also shows that most Latin American crime guns originate from nations other than the United States.

The Political Response

Someone in the White House apparently noticed. The Biden Administration is the most outspokenly anti-gun regime in American history. Joe Biden himself publicly declared that “firearm manufacturers are the enemy” during a debate. He and his staff have consistently called for eradicating legal protections for gun makers despite that protection being nothing more than what is enjoyed by any other industry.

Evidence suggests that the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is ultimately behind this new rule. The House Oversight Committee specifically asked that question based on what they were hearing. The Commerce Department did not provide an answer that we know of. In case you missed it, the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is a Biden creation staffed by former senior activists from organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety. It was created specifically to push gun control outside of Congress.

One of this office’s primary tactics is targeting gun companies’ finances by enabling frivolous lawsuits and enacting costly regulations. This Commerce Department rule looks to be a similar effort clothed in national security language. The Wassenaar Arrangement provides cover, and the BIS provides the tools since the bureau liaises directly with Wassenaar. But, once again, BIS refuses to acknowledge that the rule’s purpose is a sham since foreign companies will gladly fill the gap created by increased US regulations.

This office reportedly saw an opportunity in the Bloomberg report. Bloomberg even appeared to take credit for the October “pause” in a later article. That a Bloomberg company and the White House Gun Control office worked together should not be at all surprising.

Joe BidenJoe Biden
Joe Biden is the most outspokenly anti-gun president in American history. (upi.com)

The Cost

BIS estimated that the “pause” would cost the gun industry some $10 million. But it was far higher than that. Since October 27, at least two support industry companies have gone out of business entirely, resulting in lost jobs and forfeiture of investments, not to mention lost business and the impact on local economies.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) estimates the minimum cost of the new rule to be north of $250 million. The American firearms industry will have to absorb those costs, which it will have no choice but to pass on to its customers. So, the Biden Administration isn’t only costing gun companies money; they’re trying to jack up the prices for us all.

Bottom Line

This Commerce Department rule looks to be yet another Biden backdoor gun control program. The administration has been unable to pass its radical anti-gun agenda through Congress, so it has turned to Executive rulemaking. Look no further than all the recent arbitrary ATF rules. Biden and his crew have demonstrated that they will hurt the industry and gun owners in any way they can, and this rule fits the profile. And that’s not just my opinion. NSSF agrees.

I expect NSSF, and possibly others, to challenge the Commerce Department’s rule. It looks to be an APA violation at the very least. It also appears to be anathema to Commerce’s stated mission, namely, to promote American business. We’ll keep you updated on this important story, as it will affect us all.

#Commerce #Dept #Unilaterally #Restricts #Firearms #ExportsRead More

As modern and adaptable as the AR platform has become, there are still plenty of us who appreciate the aesthetic of its original configuration. New for the retro market in 2024 is the Springfield Armory SA-16A2.

springfield sa 16aspringfield sa 16a
The new Springfield Armory SA-16A2 is the latest retro AR on the market. [Springfield Armory]

SA-16A2: Quick Specs:

  • Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO
  • Capacity: 30+1
  • Sights: A2
  • Action: Direct gas semi-automatic
  • Barrel Length: 20 inches
  • Overall Length: 39.5 inches
  • Weight: 7 lbs. 8 oz. unloaded

The new SA-16A2 is a semi-automatic-only version of the M16A2 that was adopted in the mid-1980s along with the 5.56 NATO round to replace the previous M16 models in .223 Remington. It wears a 20-inch chrome-lined 4150 steel barrel with a 1:7 twist rate to stabilize all manner of bullet weights. It uses an A2 rifle-length gas system and features an A2 front post and a carry-handle rear. To round out the package, the SA-16 features the familiar aluminum shrouded handguard and fixed buttstock that defined the A2 platform.

“The SA-16A2 takes what made the A2 upgrade of the M16 rifle so great and adds some subtle — but significant — enhancements for today’s shooters,” said Steve Kramer, Springfield’s VP of Marketing. “If you want a rifle that exudes classic appeal yet delivers modern performance, the SA-16A2 is the right choice.”

This new model features forged 7075 T6 aluminum upper and lower receivers, with the only departure from the A2 being the incorporation of M4 feed ramps and a burst option on the safety switch that is nonfunctional. The SA-16A2 ships with a carrying case and a 30-round GI magazine. The package has an MSRP of $1,249.

#SA16A2 #Springfield #Armory

As modern and adaptable as the AR platform has become, there are still plenty of us who appreciate the aesthetic of its original configuration. New for the retro market in 2024 is the Springfield Armory SA-16A2. The new Springfield Armory SA-16A2 is the latest retro AR on the market. [Springfield Armory] SA-16A2: Quick Specs: Caliber: …

As modern and adaptable as the AR platform has become, there are still plenty of us who appreciate the aesthetic of its original configuration. New for the retro market in 2024 is the Springfield Armory SA-16A2.

springfield sa 16aspringfield sa 16a
The new Springfield Armory SA-16A2 is the latest retro AR on the market. [Springfield Armory]

SA-16A2: Quick Specs:

  • Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO
  • Capacity: 30+1
  • Sights: A2
  • Action: Direct gas semi-automatic
  • Barrel Length: 20 inches
  • Overall Length: 39.5 inches
  • Weight: 7 lbs. 8 oz. unloaded

The new SA-16A2 is a semi-automatic-only version of the M16A2 that was adopted in the mid-1980s along with the 5.56 NATO round to replace the previous M16 models in .223 Remington. It wears a 20-inch chrome-lined 4150 steel barrel with a 1:7 twist rate to stabilize all manner of bullet weights. It uses an A2 rifle-length gas system and features an A2 front post and a carry-handle rear. To round out the package, the SA-16 features the familiar aluminum shrouded handguard and fixed buttstock that defined the A2 platform.

“The SA-16A2 takes what made the A2 upgrade of the M16 rifle so great and adds some subtle — but significant — enhancements for today’s shooters,” said Steve Kramer, Springfield’s VP of Marketing. “If you want a rifle that exudes classic appeal yet delivers modern performance, the SA-16A2 is the right choice.”

This new model features forged 7075 T6 aluminum upper and lower receivers, with the only departure from the A2 being the incorporation of M4 feed ramps and a burst option on the safety switch that is nonfunctional. The SA-16A2 ships with a carrying case and a 30-round GI magazine. The package has an MSRP of $1,249.

#SA16A2 #Springfield #ArmoryRead More

Thermal and night vision technology pioneer Armasight has expanded its product line with the new Collector 320 and Collector 640 compact thermal weapon sights – addressing the need for compact, high-performance thermal imaging solutions. These sights boast a lightning-fast 60Hz refresh rate powered by Armasight’s Iron Wolf thermal image processing technology. This ensures users experience seamless imaging in dynamic scenarios, solving the problem of lagging visuals during critical moments.

Armasight Collector 320 and Armasight 640 CollectorArmasight Collector 320 and Armasight 640 Collector
The Armasight Collector 320 (top) and Collector 640 are now available, offering enhanced precision and versatility for nighttime operations.

Each was designed with versatility in mind, offering a remarkably lightweight at just 16.3 ounces, which could make them ideal companions for small caliber rifles, air guns, and even crossbows. In addition, Armasight sought to address the need for ease of use and functionality with the Collector series, as these feature intuitive 3-button controls and multiple color palettes. With eight reticle options and video/image capture capabilities, users can further tailor their viewing experience to their preferences, solving the problem of limited customization in thermal imaging devices.

The sights also feature a ULTEM Composite Body and ergonomic design for durability and comfort during prolonged use. The Armasight Collector 320 offers a suite of features, including video and image capture, USB video stream, and USB-C interface for viewing your recordings and photos on external devices such as computers or televisions, while the Collector 640 further adds an ArmaCore 640 thermal core.

Key Collector Series Features:

  • Multiple Color Palettes
  • Intuitive 3-Button Controls
  • 8+ Reticle Types
  • Up to 4 Hour Runtime at 20 degrees C
  • Image Detail Enhancement
  • 1/2MOA Boresight
  • Standard Picatinny Mount Included
  • Video Recording & Image Capture
  • USB Video Stream
  • USB-C Interface for External Devices
  • Inclinometer
  • Levelometer
  • Angle Cosine Indicator
  • Reticle ON/OFF Selection
  • Battery Status Indicator
  • ULTEM Composite Body and Ergonomic Design
  • Designed and Assembled in the USA from U.S. and Global Components

Both models are available for pre-order, and the Collector 320 1.5-6×19 Compact Thermal Weapon Sight has an MSRP of $2,499, while the Collector 640 1-4×25 Compact Thermal Weapon Sight’s MSRP is $3,799.

#Armasight #Expands #Thermal #Imaging #Line #Collector #Series

Thermal and night vision technology pioneer Armasight has expanded its product line with the new Collector 320 and Collector 640 compact thermal weapon sights – addressing the need for compact, high-performance thermal imaging solutions. These sights boast a lightning-fast 60Hz refresh rate powered by Armasight’s Iron Wolf thermal image processing technology. This ensures users experience …

Thermal and night vision technology pioneer Armasight has expanded its product line with the new Collector 320 and Collector 640 compact thermal weapon sights – addressing the need for compact, high-performance thermal imaging solutions. These sights boast a lightning-fast 60Hz refresh rate powered by Armasight’s Iron Wolf thermal image processing technology. This ensures users experience seamless imaging in dynamic scenarios, solving the problem of lagging visuals during critical moments.

Armasight Collector 320 and Armasight 640 CollectorArmasight Collector 320 and Armasight 640 Collector
The Armasight Collector 320 (top) and Collector 640 are now available, offering enhanced precision and versatility for nighttime operations.

Each was designed with versatility in mind, offering a remarkably lightweight at just 16.3 ounces, which could make them ideal companions for small caliber rifles, air guns, and even crossbows. In addition, Armasight sought to address the need for ease of use and functionality with the Collector series, as these feature intuitive 3-button controls and multiple color palettes. With eight reticle options and video/image capture capabilities, users can further tailor their viewing experience to their preferences, solving the problem of limited customization in thermal imaging devices.

The sights also feature a ULTEM Composite Body and ergonomic design for durability and comfort during prolonged use. The Armasight Collector 320 offers a suite of features, including video and image capture, USB video stream, and USB-C interface for viewing your recordings and photos on external devices such as computers or televisions, while the Collector 640 further adds an ArmaCore 640 thermal core.

Key Collector Series Features:

  • Multiple Color Palettes
  • Intuitive 3-Button Controls
  • 8+ Reticle Types
  • Up to 4 Hour Runtime at 20 degrees C
  • Image Detail Enhancement
  • 1/2MOA Boresight
  • Standard Picatinny Mount Included
  • Video Recording & Image Capture
  • USB Video Stream
  • USB-C Interface for External Devices
  • Inclinometer
  • Levelometer
  • Angle Cosine Indicator
  • Reticle ON/OFF Selection
  • Battery Status Indicator
  • ULTEM Composite Body and Ergonomic Design
  • Designed and Assembled in the USA from U.S. and Global Components

Both models are available for pre-order, and the Collector 320 1.5-6×19 Compact Thermal Weapon Sight has an MSRP of $2,499, while the Collector 640 1-4×25 Compact Thermal Weapon Sight’s MSRP is $3,799.

#Armasight #Expands #Thermal #Imaging #Line #Collector #SeriesRead More

Reptilia has announced the all-new AUS Mounting System, which has already received acclaim and notoriety for its rugged construction, superior accuracy, and seamless integration with a wide range of firearm systems. It now seeks to take it to new heights – literally.

AUS Mounting SystemAUS Mounting System
Reptilla’s AUS Mounting System increased optic bore axis height of 1.93 inches was driven by shooters using helmet-borne night vision to achieve optimal eye relief and sight picture alignment with greater comfort when mounting optics on rifles

The company announced the latest enhancement to the mounting system with a 1.93-inch height option, catering to diverse firearm configurations and ergonomic preferences. It was noted that the increased optic bore axis height of 1.93 inches was driven by shooters using helmet-borne night vision to achieve optimal eye relief and sight picture alignment with greater comfort when mounting optics on rifles it was also preferred by many shooters who used the AUS Mounting System during daytime hours.

“We are excited to unveil the new 1.93-inch height addition to our Reptilia AUS Mounting System, tailored specifically for greater comfort for the shooter when utilizing powered optics on rifles,” said Eric Burt, president of Reptilia. “This enhancement underscores our commitment to providing shooters with the highest quality accessories that deliver unmatched performance and reliability.”

The 1.93-inch height option is touted for providing precision elevation, as it allows shooters to achieve optimal eye relief and sight picture alignment with greater comfort when mounting optics on rifles. Made of 7075-T6 aluminum, it was designed to integrate with Reptilia’s AUS Mounting System components seamlessly.

Pricing and availability are to be announced.

#Reptilia #Announces #AUS #Mounting #System

Reptilia has announced the all-new AUS Mounting System, which has already received acclaim and notoriety for its rugged construction, superior accuracy, and seamless integration with a wide range of firearm systems. It now seeks to take it to new heights – literally. Reptilla’s AUS Mounting System increased optic bore axis height of 1.93 inches was …

Reptilia has announced the all-new AUS Mounting System, which has already received acclaim and notoriety for its rugged construction, superior accuracy, and seamless integration with a wide range of firearm systems. It now seeks to take it to new heights – literally.

AUS Mounting SystemAUS Mounting System
Reptilla’s AUS Mounting System increased optic bore axis height of 1.93 inches was driven by shooters using helmet-borne night vision to achieve optimal eye relief and sight picture alignment with greater comfort when mounting optics on rifles

The company announced the latest enhancement to the mounting system with a 1.93-inch height option, catering to diverse firearm configurations and ergonomic preferences. It was noted that the increased optic bore axis height of 1.93 inches was driven by shooters using helmet-borne night vision to achieve optimal eye relief and sight picture alignment with greater comfort when mounting optics on rifles it was also preferred by many shooters who used the AUS Mounting System during daytime hours.

“We are excited to unveil the new 1.93-inch height addition to our Reptilia AUS Mounting System, tailored specifically for greater comfort for the shooter when utilizing powered optics on rifles,” said Eric Burt, president of Reptilia. “This enhancement underscores our commitment to providing shooters with the highest quality accessories that deliver unmatched performance and reliability.”

The 1.93-inch height option is touted for providing precision elevation, as it allows shooters to achieve optimal eye relief and sight picture alignment with greater comfort when mounting optics on rifles. Made of 7075-T6 aluminum, it was designed to integrate with Reptilia’s AUS Mounting System components seamlessly.

Pricing and availability are to be announced.

#Reptilia #Announces #AUS #Mounting #SystemRead More

G9 Defense produces ammunition for personal protection, law enforcement, and even safari applications. Based in northern Idaho, G9 Defense specializes in all-copper lead-free loadings. New for 2024 is their 6.5 Creedmoor 120-grain Solid Copper Super Match.

g9 defense 6.5 creedmoorg9 defense 6.5 creedmoor
G9 Defense has launched an all-copper match load for the venerable 6.5 Creedmoor. [G9 Defense]
The new G9 Defense 6.5 Creedmoor Super Match round consists of Alpha OCD brass cases that are consistently drawn and feature a reinforced case head for added safety and a uniform distribution of pressures vital to match ammunition needed before the bullet ever leaves the barrel. The projectiles themselves are a unique all-copper design with a higher brass content for better lubricity downbore. This translates to better accuracy and less barrel heat than loads with a lower zinc content. The virtue of these machine-turned monolithic rounds is their lack of impurities in lead as well as dispensing with the need for a separate copper jacket and lead core where imperfections and air pockets arise in the manufacturing process.

This new match offering for the match-ready 6.5 Creedmoor cartridge has a rated muzzle velocity of 2,950 feet per second. It is currently available in boxes of 20 with an MSRP of $54.99.

#Defenses #AllCopper #Creedmoor #Ammunition

G9 Defense produces ammunition for personal protection, law enforcement, and even safari applications. Based in northern Idaho, G9 Defense specializes in all-copper lead-free loadings. New for 2024 is their 6.5 Creedmoor 120-grain Solid Copper Super Match. G9 Defense has launched an all-copper match load for the venerable 6.5 Creedmoor. [G9 Defense] The new G9 Defense …

G9 Defense produces ammunition for personal protection, law enforcement, and even safari applications. Based in northern Idaho, G9 Defense specializes in all-copper lead-free loadings. New for 2024 is their 6.5 Creedmoor 120-grain Solid Copper Super Match.

g9 defense 6.5 creedmoorg9 defense 6.5 creedmoor
G9 Defense has launched an all-copper match load for the venerable 6.5 Creedmoor. [G9 Defense]

The new G9 Defense 6.5 Creedmoor Super Match round consists of Alpha OCD brass cases that are consistently drawn and feature a reinforced case head for added safety and a uniform distribution of pressures vital to match ammunition needed before the bullet ever leaves the barrel. The projectiles themselves are a unique all-copper design with a higher brass content for better lubricity downbore. This translates to better accuracy and less barrel heat than loads with a lower zinc content. The virtue of these machine-turned monolithic rounds is their lack of impurities in lead as well as dispensing with the need for a separate copper jacket and lead core where imperfections and air pockets arise in the manufacturing process.

This new match offering for the match-ready 6.5 Creedmoor cartridge has a rated muzzle velocity of 2,950 feet per second. It is currently available in boxes of 20 with an MSRP of $54.99.

#Defenses #AllCopper #Creedmoor #AmmunitionRead More

There have been stories over the years of aftermarket triggers that have run afoul of the ATF – with the agency deeming some to be “machineguns.”

However, Delta V has introduced its Gen-2 3MR trigger for the AR-15 platform, which it boasts as the only advanced assisted-reset trigger technology on the market today that is expressly approved by the ATF and is non-NFA classifiable. It can deliver both speed and accuracy courtesy of its three-mode selector system and precision-engineered assisted reset design.

Upgraded from the original 3MR trigger system, the Gen-2 3MR features an improved disconnector engagement surface geometry that promises smoother, more precise, and quicker sear engagement transfer during reset and in the shortest distance possible.

The Delta V Gen-2 3MR is a unitized, drop-in trigger system that be easily installed into standard AR-15 and AR-10 receivers that utilize a Mil-Spec-style fire control group with the small 0.154-inch trigger and hammer pins. The system further includes a proprietary ambidextrous selector that regulates the trigger’s three operational modes: safe, semi-auto, and the Delta V patented and enhanced 3rd Mode.

 

Delta V Gen-2 3MR AR Trigger Delta V Gen-2 3MR AR Trigger
Speed counts in competition and in defense, as does accuracy. The Gen-2 3MR delivers both courtesy of its three-mode selector system and precision-engineered assisted reset design.

In the standard semi-auto mode, the Gen-2 3MR presents single-stage operation with zero take-up and minimal sear travel for a clean, crisp, and efficient break that is meant to minimize shooter-induced shot disturbance and enhances accurate point-of-aim, point-of-impact performance. In its “3rd Mode,” the Gen-2 3MR uses its positive reset function, which transfers energy from the bolt carrier through the trigger assembly to quickly and precisely engage the trigger with the hammer sear. The slightest forward movement of the trigger finger establishes the reset, making the trigger ready for the next shot.

Delta V’s Gen-2 3MR also allows shooters to fine-tune the trigger’s positive reset characteristic to achieve maximum reset speed with minimum forward trigger travel. This can be done by simply adjusting tension in the spring and plunger assembly in the back of the hammer, which interacts with the Gen-2 3MR’s exclusive reset assist arm.

Delta V Gen-2 3MR AR Trigger Features

  • Drop-in installation for AR-15 and AR-10 lower receivers
  • Precision tunable positive reset adjustment
  • Match-grade single-stage performance with a 4.5-pound trigger pull rate to satisfy defense agency requirements
  • Zero initial take-up
  • Imperceptible overtravel
  • Nickel Teflon-coated components for durability and lubricity
  • 3-mode billet selector with four selector levers of varying length and thickness
  • Made in the USA

The Gen-2 3MR was designed for modern AR competitors, enthusiasts, and defense professionals. It is available now for $349.00 (MSRP).

#Delta #Delivers #ATFApproved #Gen2 #3MR #Trigger

There have been stories over the years of aftermarket triggers that have run afoul of the ATF – with the agency deeming some to be “machineguns.” However, Delta V has introduced its Gen-2 3MR trigger for the AR-15 platform, which it boasts as the only advanced assisted-reset trigger technology on the market today that is …

There have been stories over the years of aftermarket triggers that have run afoul of the ATF – with the agency deeming some to be “machineguns.”

However, Delta V has introduced its Gen-2 3MR trigger for the AR-15 platform, which it boasts as the only advanced assisted-reset trigger technology on the market today that is expressly approved by the ATF and is non-NFA classifiable. It can deliver both speed and accuracy courtesy of its three-mode selector system and precision-engineered assisted reset design.

Upgraded from the original 3MR trigger system, the Gen-2 3MR features an improved disconnector engagement surface geometry that promises smoother, more precise, and quicker sear engagement transfer during reset and in the shortest distance possible.

The Delta V Gen-2 3MR is a unitized, drop-in trigger system that be easily installed into standard AR-15 and AR-10 receivers that utilize a Mil-Spec-style fire control group with the small 0.154-inch trigger and hammer pins. The system further includes a proprietary ambidextrous selector that regulates the trigger’s three operational modes: safe, semi-auto, and the Delta V patented and enhanced 3rd Mode.

 

Delta V Gen-2 3MR AR Trigger Delta V Gen-2 3MR AR Trigger
Speed counts in competition and in defense, as does accuracy. The Gen-2 3MR delivers both courtesy of its three-mode selector system and precision-engineered assisted reset design.

In the standard semi-auto mode, the Gen-2 3MR presents single-stage operation with zero take-up and minimal sear travel for a clean, crisp, and efficient break that is meant to minimize shooter-induced shot disturbance and enhances accurate point-of-aim, point-of-impact performance. In its “3rd Mode,” the Gen-2 3MR uses its positive reset function, which transfers energy from the bolt carrier through the trigger assembly to quickly and precisely engage the trigger with the hammer sear. The slightest forward movement of the trigger finger establishes the reset, making the trigger ready for the next shot.

Delta V’s Gen-2 3MR also allows shooters to fine-tune the trigger’s positive reset characteristic to achieve maximum reset speed with minimum forward trigger travel. This can be done by simply adjusting tension in the spring and plunger assembly in the back of the hammer, which interacts with the Gen-2 3MR’s exclusive reset assist arm.

Delta V Gen-2 3MR AR Trigger Features

  • Drop-in installation for AR-15 and AR-10 lower receivers
  • Precision tunable positive reset adjustment
  • Match-grade single-stage performance with a 4.5-pound trigger pull rate to satisfy defense agency requirements
  • Zero initial take-up
  • Imperceptible overtravel
  • Nickel Teflon-coated components for durability and lubricity
  • 3-mode billet selector with four selector levers of varying length and thickness
  • Made in the USA

The Gen-2 3MR was designed for modern AR competitors, enthusiasts, and defense professionals. It is available now for $349.00 (MSRP).

#Delta #Delivers #ATFApproved #Gen2 #3MR #TriggerRead More

The United States Supreme Court has accepted the Justice Department’s appeal in VanDerStok v. Garland. The case addresses the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) Final Rule on Frames and Receivers, more commonly known as the “Ghost Gun” Rule. The ATF has lost at every level so far, leading to this final appeal. Let’s review what has happened to this point and discuss what this could mean.

US Supreme Court BuildingUS Supreme Court Building
The ATF finally has to face the Supreme Court. (commons.wikimedia.org)

The Final Rule on Frames and Receivers

The ATF published the Final Rule in late 2022, unilaterally changing the definition of a “firearm” that was established by the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA). Basically, the GCA defined a “firearm” as follows:

  • Any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
  • The frame or receiver of any such weapon;

Furthermore, the GCA defined “frame or receiver” as “that part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded as its forward portion to receive the barrel.”

Those are definitions hammered out and voted on by the US Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. Nowhere does it say that ATF, which the GCA created, has the authority to change those definitions. But that’s what the agency did. The Final Rule effectively merges parts (A) and (B) above, applying the phrase “may be readily converted” to the term “frame or receiver.” (A) and (B) are clearly separate, meaning that Congress purposely kept them apart. The GCA is federal law, duly enacted through the legislative process. Executive agencies like the ATF do not possess the authority to change that, especially since the changes carry the weight of federal law, including imposing criminal penalties like fines and prison time.

US Attorney General Merrick GarlandUS Attorney General Merrick Garland
US Attorney General Merrick Garland is listed as the case’s primary defendant. (newsweek.com)

Legal Challenge

The ATF’s Final Rule was quickly challenged. The VanDerStok case gained traction in federal court in the Northern District of Texas. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) litigated on the plaintiffs’ behalf and continue to do so.

Federal District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled for the plaintiffs and vacated the Final Rule in its entirety, saying the ATF overstepped its authority. Judge O’Connor wrote that “The Court begins with the Plaintiffs’ shared claim that, in attempting to regulate products that are not yet a ‘frame or receiver,’ and therefore not a ‘firearm’ for purposes of the Gun Control Act, the ATF has acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction. As they argued at the preliminary injunction stage, Plaintiff’s maintain that the Final Rule exceeds ATF’s statutory authority in two primary ways. First, they argue that the Final Rule expands ATF’s authority over parts that may be ‘readily converted’ into frames or receivers when Congress limited ATF’s authority to ‘frames or receivers’ as such. Second, they argue that the Final Rule unlawfully treats component parts of a weapon in the aggregate (i.e., a weapon parts kit) as the equivalent of a firearm. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs.”

The judge’s opinion concluded by saying that “Because the Final Rule purports to regulate both firearm components that are not yet a ‘frame or receiver’ and aggregations of weapon parts not otherwise subject to its statutory authority, the Court holds that the ATF has acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction by promulgating it.”

Federal District Judge Reed O'ConnorFederal District Judge Reed O'Connor
Federal District Judge Reed O’Connor. (cnn.com)

The Appeal

The Justice Department appealed the decision to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The 5th Circuit’s three-judge panel upheld Judge O’Connor’s decision but granted 10 days for the defendants to seek a stay from the Supreme Court. That stay was granted, which was unsurprising. The Supreme Court likes to stay out of lower court proceedings until the appeals process brings a case directly to them. This process allows the arguments to play out while refraining from influencing lower courts’ deliberations by issuing premature judgments.

The full 5th Circuit again upheld the decision once more, prompting the Justice Department’s appeal to the high court. And here we are. The Supreme Court has accepted the case and will hear arguments soon.

What Now?

The SAF and FPC attorneys will argue the case before the high court, while the US Solicitor General’s office will defend the Final Rule on the Justice Department’s behalf. Those arguments will be streamed live, and at least one, probably more, YouTube gun channels will carry it. I can’t say how long the arguments will last, but this case has been allowed to mature properly, so it could very well be over in one day.

US Solicitor General Elizabeth PrelogarUS Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar
US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar may defend the rule herself. (news.bloomberglaw.com)

The Supreme Court will not issue a same-day decision. The high court will deliberate and discuss before releasing an opinion sometime this summer. The Justice Department has lost at every stop so far, so here’s hoping they go 4 for 4. If so, the Final Rule is dead. If not, the ATF will no doubt go after the plaintiffs with a vengeance, along with anyone else they deem in violation of the rule. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen. Either way, we’ll keep you updated on how this case proceeds.

#Supreme #Court #Accepts #ATF #Frames #Receivers #Rule #Challenge

The United States Supreme Court has accepted the Justice Department’s appeal in VanDerStok v. Garland. The case addresses the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) Final Rule on Frames and Receivers, more commonly known as the “Ghost Gun” Rule. The ATF has lost at every level so far, leading to this final appeal. …

The United States Supreme Court has accepted the Justice Department’s appeal in VanDerStok v. Garland. The case addresses the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) Final Rule on Frames and Receivers, more commonly known as the “Ghost Gun” Rule. The ATF has lost at every level so far, leading to this final appeal. Let’s review what has happened to this point and discuss what this could mean.

US Supreme Court BuildingUS Supreme Court Building
The ATF finally has to face the Supreme Court. (commons.wikimedia.org)

The Final Rule on Frames and Receivers

The ATF published the Final Rule in late 2022, unilaterally changing the definition of a “firearm” that was established by the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA). Basically, the GCA defined a “firearm” as follows:

  • Any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
  • The frame or receiver of any such weapon;

Furthermore, the GCA defined “frame or receiver” as “that part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded as its forward portion to receive the barrel.”

Those are definitions hammered out and voted on by the US Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. Nowhere does it say that ATF, which the GCA created, has the authority to change those definitions. But that’s what the agency did. The Final Rule effectively merges parts (A) and (B) above, applying the phrase “may be readily converted” to the term “frame or receiver.” (A) and (B) are clearly separate, meaning that Congress purposely kept them apart. The GCA is federal law, duly enacted through the legislative process. Executive agencies like the ATF do not possess the authority to change that, especially since the changes carry the weight of federal law, including imposing criminal penalties like fines and prison time.

US Attorney General Merrick GarlandUS Attorney General Merrick Garland
US Attorney General Merrick Garland is listed as the case’s primary defendant. (newsweek.com)

Legal Challenge

The ATF’s Final Rule was quickly challenged. The VanDerStok case gained traction in federal court in the Northern District of Texas. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) litigated on the plaintiffs’ behalf and continue to do so.

Federal District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled for the plaintiffs and vacated the Final Rule in its entirety, saying the ATF overstepped its authority. Judge O’Connor wrote that “The Court begins with the Plaintiffs’ shared claim that, in attempting to regulate products that are not yet a ‘frame or receiver,’ and therefore not a ‘firearm’ for purposes of the Gun Control Act, the ATF has acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction. As they argued at the preliminary injunction stage, Plaintiff’s maintain that the Final Rule exceeds ATF’s statutory authority in two primary ways. First, they argue that the Final Rule expands ATF’s authority over parts that may be ‘readily converted’ into frames or receivers when Congress limited ATF’s authority to ‘frames or receivers’ as such. Second, they argue that the Final Rule unlawfully treats component parts of a weapon in the aggregate (i.e., a weapon parts kit) as the equivalent of a firearm. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs.”

The judge’s opinion concluded by saying that “Because the Final Rule purports to regulate both firearm components that are not yet a ‘frame or receiver’ and aggregations of weapon parts not otherwise subject to its statutory authority, the Court holds that the ATF has acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction by promulgating it.”

Federal District Judge Reed O'ConnorFederal District Judge Reed O'Connor
Federal District Judge Reed O’Connor. (cnn.com)

The Appeal

The Justice Department appealed the decision to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The 5th Circuit’s three-judge panel upheld Judge O’Connor’s decision but granted 10 days for the defendants to seek a stay from the Supreme Court. That stay was granted, which was unsurprising. The Supreme Court likes to stay out of lower court proceedings until the appeals process brings a case directly to them. This process allows the arguments to play out while refraining from influencing lower courts’ deliberations by issuing premature judgments.

The full 5th Circuit again upheld the decision once more, prompting the Justice Department’s appeal to the high court. And here we are. The Supreme Court has accepted the case and will hear arguments soon.

What Now?

The SAF and FPC attorneys will argue the case before the high court, while the US Solicitor General’s office will defend the Final Rule on the Justice Department’s behalf. Those arguments will be streamed live, and at least one, probably more, YouTube gun channels will carry it. I can’t say how long the arguments will last, but this case has been allowed to mature properly, so it could very well be over in one day.

US Solicitor General Elizabeth PrelogarUS Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar
US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar may defend the rule herself. (news.bloomberglaw.com)

The Supreme Court will not issue a same-day decision. The high court will deliberate and discuss before releasing an opinion sometime this summer. The Justice Department has lost at every stop so far, so here’s hoping they go 4 for 4. If so, the Final Rule is dead. If not, the ATF will no doubt go after the plaintiffs with a vengeance, along with anyone else they deem in violation of the rule. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen. Either way, we’ll keep you updated on how this case proceeds.

#Supreme #Court #Accepts #ATF #Frames #Receivers #Rule #ChallengeRead More

The Mexican government’s $10 billion lawsuit against American gun manufacturers is hopefully headed to the Supreme Court. The defendants’ lawyers in Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. have petitioned the high court for a Writ of Certiorari focused on two questions:

  1. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the “proximate cause” of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.
  2. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.
US Supreme Court group photoUS Supreme Court group photo
Will the Supreme Court step in? (supremecourthistory.org)

This petition was generated by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the Massachusetts Federal District Court’s dismissal of the original suit. The First Circuit held that those two questions could be answered in the affirmative, making American gun makers somehow responsible for the horrific violence perpetrated by Mexican drug cartels. The First Circuit, incredibly, ruled that Mexico’s alleged injuries were a “foreseeable” result of the defendants’’ actions. This means producing and selling legal products according to US law.

The Mag Life Blog has previously covered this case in some detail. You can read those articles here and here. But we’ll do a quick summary and talk about why this is important. We’ll also touch on how the anti-gun movement in the United States is ultimately behind this whole thing and what those bad actors hope to gain.

Mexico’s Claims

Mexico’s extraordinary allegations seek to blame US gun companies for their own government’s failed policies. The suit claims that US gun makers produce semi-automatic weapons, especially guns like the AR-15, and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, some of which are smuggled into Mexico to the drug gangs. The complaint further alleges that these companies willfully take no steps, aside from those required by US law, to mitigate the damage caused by their products’ misuse in Mexico.

That’s literally it. Mexico is suing gun makers for following the law and legally selling their products. Their complaint does not cite even one illegal activity in which these companies are engaged. But Mexico says they should go further than US law dictates by voluntarily not making guns the Mexican government doesn’t like and only selling them to people who can demonstrate a particular need for them.

That wish list basically mirrors Mexican gun laws, which is certainly no coincidence. The country literally has ONE gun store. It’s on a military base in Mexico City. Only rich, powerful, connected people can own a firearm, and even then, you take what they decide to give you. Mexico boasts that it grants fewer than 50 firearm licenses per year.

Some of Mexico’s allegations are unbelievably wild, like claiming that Smith & Wesson’s M&P (Military & Police) marketing incites people “to battle against the military and police.” (Emphasis added). It’s truly ridiculous.

Mexican flagMexican flag
Mexico’s lawsuit would be laughable were its potential consequences not so dire. (istockphoto.com)

The Petition

The defendants say the Supreme Court should grant the petition for the following reasons:

  1. “The First Circuit’s proximate cause holding creates a split and conflicts with this Court’s precedent.”

Basically, the First Circuit goes against established case law and creates a split among the Circuit Courts and several State Supreme Courts. This is important to whether the Supreme Court will accept the petition. Splits, especially among the federal appellate courts, potentially create judicial havoc, meaning the high court is likely to address it.

  1. “The First Circuit’s aiding-and-abetting holding defies this Court’s precedent.”

A lower court deliberately ruling against Supreme Court precedent is a no-no. This may also prompt the petition’s acceptance.

  1. “The questions presented are exceptionally important.”

The petition says that the First Circuit’s logic “exposes a wide swath of industry to liability for doing nothing more than making available legal and non-defective products that can be criminally misused downstream.” Additionally, “Mexico’s brazen attempt to regulate the American firearms industry based on its foreign interests poses a grave threat to the sovereignty of the United States, its citizens, and their Second Amendment rights.”

The second point addresses American sovereignty and the dangers of allowing foreign governments to dictate our laws and citizens’ rights through our own court system. Allowing the First Circuit’s decision to stand opens American companies to limitless frivolous suits by governments seeking to deflect blame from their failed policies. It really does boggle the mind, and one wonders what the First Circuit was thinking.

The petition lists two additional legal reasons for acceptance that go beyond the scope of this article. You can read the entire petition on the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s website, nssf.org.

John FeinblattJohn Feinblatt
Everytown President John Feinblatt has long been a Michael Bloomberg operative. (usagunblog.com)

Bad Actors

If you’re thinking Mexico’s lawsuit is about bankrupting American gun companies, you’d be right. The case has no legal merit despite the First Circuit’s ruling. Mexico’s US attorneys no doubt chose Massachusetts for the case because of a sympathetic appellate court. The City of Chicago’s recent lawsuit against Glock has the same ultimate goal. But Chicago didn’t have to shop for sympathetic judges since it’s, well, Chicago, and they are already governed by the anti-gun 4th Circuit.

But those two cases have something else in common. Each is being pushed by a prominent American gun control organization. Everytown Law, the legal division of Everytown for Gun Safety, is litigating on Chicago’s behalf. The Mexican government allied with the Brady group (I don’t know what their correct name is this month) and a firm of left-leaning Austin, Texas lawyers to bring their suit.

So, US gun control groups are now aligned with foreign governments to bring down legitimate American companies they don’t like. They can’t get their way politically, so they’re trying to destroy an entire industry through ridiculous lawsuits. Even if they don’t win, companies can only defend themselves in court for so long. Especially when their opponents can pay their lawyers with tax money. And they’ve already tasted some success with Remington’s $73 million settlement with the Sandy Hook parents.

That’s why the Biden Administration and anti-gun lawmakers are so hell-bent on repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. They want to sue gun companies into oblivion when criminals misuse their products, just as Mexico is trying to do. Even ridiculous cases must be defended in court, and lawyers aren’t cheap. Those companies would be overwhelmed in short order. Of course, no one ever accused gun controllers of being ethical.

Brady President Kris BrownBrady President Kris Brown
Brady President Kris Brown is helping a foreign government sue US companies to push her agenda. (americas1stfreedom.org)

Turncoats

But gun control groups aren’t the only ones siding with outside interests. Twelve State Attorneys General filed signed a 26-page legal brief supporting Mexico in 2022. Those Attorneys General are from Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Oregon. The District of Columbia’s AG signed on for good measure. Again, those AGs supposedly represent American citizens, yet they have sided with a foreign government aiming to limit those citizens’ Constitutional rights. But such are the priorities of the anti-gun movement.

What’s at Stake?

The defendant’s petition answers that question quite clearly, and it deserves to be reprinted here:

The First Circuit’s decision, it reads, “has dire implications for American sovereignty, as it allows a foreign government under the guise of litigation to regulate (if not eliminate) the manufacture and sale of common firearms in the United States. Simply put, Mexico detests the American system that makes firearms readily available to law-abiding citizens in accordance with the Second Amendment. It makes no secret of its view that ordinary citizens should not be allowed to buy an AR-15 or a firearm capable of holding over ten rounds. And it finds abhorrent how law-abiding Americans have the liberty to obtain such firearms without having to beg for the government’s grace.”

“Absent this Court’s intervention, Mexico will be handed a de facto domestic regulatory tool as it saddles the American firearms industry with burdensome litigation, far-reaching compulsory discovery, and the specter of a multi-billion-dollar judgment that it can wield to bully the industry into altering its practices. And that says nothing of Mexico’s proposed injunctive relief, which seeks to impose gun control regulations that Congress has repeatedly rejected. That is not all. Even if the defendants prevail down the road in this suit, so long as the decision below remains good law, it invites other countries to run the exact same play with the exact same basic complaint.” A footnote points out that some countries have already promised to do so.

dollar signsdollar signs
This is what Mexico’s lawsuit is ultimately about. Pushed by the Brady Group, they hope to bankrupt American gun makers. (wallpapercave.com)

The petition continues, saying that “Giving foreign sovereigns the power to impose the burdens of such litigation gives them a Damoclean Sword to dangle over the head of the American firearms industry. Indeed, in passing PLCAA, Congress recognized that the severe costs of defending suits like this one could pressure firearms companies to curtail their business practices, jeopardizing democratic control. (PLCAA prohibits efforts to “use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce”); (“[The industry is] in danger of being overwhelmed by the cost of defending itself against these suits.”). That danger is especially acute when it comes from foreign governments, as they seek to use lawfare to suppress American firearms with no accountability to the American people.”

What Now?

Well, we wait to see whether the Supreme Court accepts the petition. I’m no lawyer, but I think the split opinions among the lower courts, combined with a foreign government trying to limit American citizens’ Constitutional rights, would make this an easy call. But you never know. Nor can we predict with any certainty how the high court would rule in the end. I’d say I’m cautiously optimistic, but the stakes are too high to blow sunshine up your backside. We’ll keep you updated.

#Gun #Makers #Supreme #Court #Review #Billion #Mexican #Lawsuit

The Mexican government’s $10 billion lawsuit against American gun manufacturers is hopefully headed to the Supreme Court. The defendants’ lawyers in Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. have petitioned the high court for a Writ of Certiorari focused on two questions: Whether the production and sale of firearms in the …

The Mexican government’s $10 billion lawsuit against American gun manufacturers is hopefully headed to the Supreme Court. The defendants’ lawyers in Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. have petitioned the high court for a Writ of Certiorari focused on two questions:

  1. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the “proximate cause” of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.
  2. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.
US Supreme Court group photoUS Supreme Court group photo
Will the Supreme Court step in? (supremecourthistory.org)

This petition was generated by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the Massachusetts Federal District Court’s dismissal of the original suit. The First Circuit held that those two questions could be answered in the affirmative, making American gun makers somehow responsible for the horrific violence perpetrated by Mexican drug cartels. The First Circuit, incredibly, ruled that Mexico’s alleged injuries were a “foreseeable” result of the defendants’’ actions. This means producing and selling legal products according to US law.

The Mag Life Blog has previously covered this case in some detail. You can read those articles here and here. But we’ll do a quick summary and talk about why this is important. We’ll also touch on how the anti-gun movement in the United States is ultimately behind this whole thing and what those bad actors hope to gain.

Mexico’s Claims

Mexico’s extraordinary allegations seek to blame US gun companies for their own government’s failed policies. The suit claims that US gun makers produce semi-automatic weapons, especially guns like the AR-15, and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, some of which are smuggled into Mexico to the drug gangs. The complaint further alleges that these companies willfully take no steps, aside from those required by US law, to mitigate the damage caused by their products’ misuse in Mexico.

That’s literally it. Mexico is suing gun makers for following the law and legally selling their products. Their complaint does not cite even one illegal activity in which these companies are engaged. But Mexico says they should go further than US law dictates by voluntarily not making guns the Mexican government doesn’t like and only selling them to people who can demonstrate a particular need for them.

That wish list basically mirrors Mexican gun laws, which is certainly no coincidence. The country literally has ONE gun store. It’s on a military base in Mexico City. Only rich, powerful, connected people can own a firearm, and even then, you take what they decide to give you. Mexico boasts that it grants fewer than 50 firearm licenses per year.

Some of Mexico’s allegations are unbelievably wild, like claiming that Smith & Wesson’s M&P (Military & Police) marketing incites people “to battle against the military and police.” (Emphasis added). It’s truly ridiculous.

Mexican flagMexican flag
Mexico’s lawsuit would be laughable were its potential consequences not so dire. (istockphoto.com)

The Petition

The defendants say the Supreme Court should grant the petition for the following reasons:

  1. “The First Circuit’s proximate cause holding creates a split and conflicts with this Court’s precedent.”

Basically, the First Circuit goes against established case law and creates a split among the Circuit Courts and several State Supreme Courts. This is important to whether the Supreme Court will accept the petition. Splits, especially among the federal appellate courts, potentially create judicial havoc, meaning the high court is likely to address it.

  1. “The First Circuit’s aiding-and-abetting holding defies this Court’s precedent.”

A lower court deliberately ruling against Supreme Court precedent is a no-no. This may also prompt the petition’s acceptance.

  1. “The questions presented are exceptionally important.”

The petition says that the First Circuit’s logic “exposes a wide swath of industry to liability for doing nothing more than making available legal and non-defective products that can be criminally misused downstream.” Additionally, “Mexico’s brazen attempt to regulate the American firearms industry based on its foreign interests poses a grave threat to the sovereignty of the United States, its citizens, and their Second Amendment rights.”

The second point addresses American sovereignty and the dangers of allowing foreign governments to dictate our laws and citizens’ rights through our own court system. Allowing the First Circuit’s decision to stand opens American companies to limitless frivolous suits by governments seeking to deflect blame from their failed policies. It really does boggle the mind, and one wonders what the First Circuit was thinking.

The petition lists two additional legal reasons for acceptance that go beyond the scope of this article. You can read the entire petition on the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s website, nssf.org.

John FeinblattJohn Feinblatt
Everytown President John Feinblatt has long been a Michael Bloomberg operative. (usagunblog.com)

Bad Actors

If you’re thinking Mexico’s lawsuit is about bankrupting American gun companies, you’d be right. The case has no legal merit despite the First Circuit’s ruling. Mexico’s US attorneys no doubt chose Massachusetts for the case because of a sympathetic appellate court. The City of Chicago’s recent lawsuit against Glock has the same ultimate goal. But Chicago didn’t have to shop for sympathetic judges since it’s, well, Chicago, and they are already governed by the anti-gun 4th Circuit.

But those two cases have something else in common. Each is being pushed by a prominent American gun control organization. Everytown Law, the legal division of Everytown for Gun Safety, is litigating on Chicago’s behalf. The Mexican government allied with the Brady group (I don’t know what their correct name is this month) and a firm of left-leaning Austin, Texas lawyers to bring their suit.

So, US gun control groups are now aligned with foreign governments to bring down legitimate American companies they don’t like. They can’t get their way politically, so they’re trying to destroy an entire industry through ridiculous lawsuits. Even if they don’t win, companies can only defend themselves in court for so long. Especially when their opponents can pay their lawyers with tax money. And they’ve already tasted some success with Remington’s $73 million settlement with the Sandy Hook parents.

That’s why the Biden Administration and anti-gun lawmakers are so hell-bent on repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. They want to sue gun companies into oblivion when criminals misuse their products, just as Mexico is trying to do. Even ridiculous cases must be defended in court, and lawyers aren’t cheap. Those companies would be overwhelmed in short order. Of course, no one ever accused gun controllers of being ethical.

Brady President Kris BrownBrady President Kris Brown
Brady President Kris Brown is helping a foreign government sue US companies to push her agenda. (americas1stfreedom.org)

Turncoats

But gun control groups aren’t the only ones siding with outside interests. Twelve State Attorneys General filed signed a 26-page legal brief supporting Mexico in 2022. Those Attorneys General are from Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Oregon. The District of Columbia’s AG signed on for good measure. Again, those AGs supposedly represent American citizens, yet they have sided with a foreign government aiming to limit those citizens’ Constitutional rights. But such are the priorities of the anti-gun movement.

What’s at Stake?

The defendant’s petition answers that question quite clearly, and it deserves to be reprinted here:

The First Circuit’s decision, it reads, “has dire implications for American sovereignty, as it allows a foreign government under the guise of litigation to regulate (if not eliminate) the manufacture and sale of common firearms in the United States. Simply put, Mexico detests the American system that makes firearms readily available to law-abiding citizens in accordance with the Second Amendment. It makes no secret of its view that ordinary citizens should not be allowed to buy an AR-15 or a firearm capable of holding over ten rounds. And it finds abhorrent how law-abiding Americans have the liberty to obtain such firearms without having to beg for the government’s grace.”

“Absent this Court’s intervention, Mexico will be handed a de facto domestic regulatory tool as it saddles the American firearms industry with burdensome litigation, far-reaching compulsory discovery, and the specter of a multi-billion-dollar judgment that it can wield to bully the industry into altering its practices. And that says nothing of Mexico’s proposed injunctive relief, which seeks to impose gun control regulations that Congress has repeatedly rejected. That is not all. Even if the defendants prevail down the road in this suit, so long as the decision below remains good law, it invites other countries to run the exact same play with the exact same basic complaint.” A footnote points out that some countries have already promised to do so.

dollar signsdollar signs
This is what Mexico’s lawsuit is ultimately about. Pushed by the Brady Group, they hope to bankrupt American gun makers. (wallpapercave.com)

The petition continues, saying that “Giving foreign sovereigns the power to impose the burdens of such litigation gives them a Damoclean Sword to dangle over the head of the American firearms industry. Indeed, in passing PLCAA, Congress recognized that the severe costs of defending suits like this one could pressure firearms companies to curtail their business practices, jeopardizing democratic control. (PLCAA prohibits efforts to “use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce”); (“[The industry is] in danger of being overwhelmed by the cost of defending itself against these suits.”). That danger is especially acute when it comes from foreign governments, as they seek to use lawfare to suppress American firearms with no accountability to the American people.”

What Now?

Well, we wait to see whether the Supreme Court accepts the petition. I’m no lawyer, but I think the split opinions among the lower courts, combined with a foreign government trying to limit American citizens’ Constitutional rights, would make this an easy call. But you never know. Nor can we predict with any certainty how the high court would rule in the end. I’d say I’m cautiously optimistic, but the stakes are too high to blow sunshine up your backside. We’ll keep you updated.

#Gun #Makers #Supreme #Court #Review #Billion #Mexican #LawsuitRead More

Cart

Your Cart is Empty

Back To Shop