News

Shooter’s Log Weekly Wrap Up, July 26-Aug. 1, 2015

Presenting the Shooter’s Log weekly wrap up of the major news and trending stories that affect gun owners from July 26 through August 1, 2015.

Influential Organization Asks Obama to Hit Gun Companies where it Hurts—Their Wallets

The Metro Industrial Areas Foundation (Metro IAF), an organization that organizes organizations—yeah, I don’t know either—penned an op-ed piece in the New York Times telling the Obama Administration to start hitting gun manufacturers right where it hurts—their wallets. The piece, titled “A Way to Control Guns” says that since Obama failed to pass new gun control laws through legislation, he should demand gun manufacturers to be more “responsible” when developing and selling products. Why does the group think this would help further the Administration’s and other anti-groups’ agendas? The Metro-IAF says that 40 percent of gun purchases are made through government contracts arming our nation’s peace officers. If the government demanded gun manufacturers to make “smart guns,” sell only through “responsible dealers” (whatever that means) and develop “safer and less lethal products,” that “over time” these demands would “prevent many thousands of deaths.”

The op-ed piece touts the group’s “Do Not Stand Idly By Campaign.” They write:

“For more than a year, we and fellow religious leaders across the nation have worked to persuade President Obama to use what we believe is the most powerful tool government has in this area: its purchasing power. The federal government is the nation’s top gun buyer. It purchases more than a quarter of the guns and ammunition sold legally in the United States. State and local law enforcement agencies also purchase a large share. Major gun manufacturers depend on these taxpayer-funded purchases. For the government to keep buying guns from these companies — purchases meant to ensure public safety — without making demands for change is to squander its leverage.”

Just because you haven’t heard of the Metro Industrial Areas Foundation (Metro IAF) network, doesn’t mean they aren’t a big deal. The group created the first living wage law in the country, as well as aided the passage of universal health care in Massachusetts.

Glock Sued by Former Attorney and Chief Operating Officer

In a story that reads like a bad made-for-TV drama, Glock’s former attorney and chief operating officer, Paul Jannuzzo filed suit against Glock, Gaston Glock, and two lawyers this month for what he says was the orchestrated planned demise of his character. He seeks damages for:

  • False incarceration
  • Public humiliation
  • Damage to reputation and professional livelihood
  • Lost earning capacity
  • Legal fees

John Renzulli, one of the lawyers named in the suit said, “The complaint lacks merit, and I am looking forward to vigorously defending this case in court.”

After leaving Glock, Jannuzzo was indicted on racketeering charges and gun theft. He spent 3.5 years in prison.

Gov. Lifts Ban on Guns at Alabama Rest Stops

Two weeks ago, Yellowhammer News reported that Alabama had suddenly banned guns at rest stops. World traveled fast through the wires and Alabama’s Governor, Robert Bentley took note. Last Thursday, he Tweeted, “I have ordered the AL Department of Transportation to remove signs banning weapons at all Alabama rest stops to comply with state law.” The signs have been up since 2013. I don’t know about you, but rest stops are one place in particular I make sure I’m always armed.

Arming Military Hits Legal Barriers

Following the shooting deaths of soldiers at a recruiting station and a naval reserve center in Chattanooga, Tennessee, armed Patriots stepped in to protect military recruiters all over the nation. Many state governors issued executive orders arming the National Guard stationed at all military installations. However, arming our troops here at home has hit legal barriers. The shooting at the recruiting station occurred on private—not federally owned land—and therefore, state and local law supersedes. Most military recruiting stations are located in privately owned strip malls, where guns may not be allowed. Not only that, but due to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prevents the government from utilizing the military as a law enforcement agency domestically, the military are not armed unless in combat or on base. A spokesperson for California Representative, Duncan Hunter said, “As much as we would like to say you have to arm all these guys, it’s too problematic through the huge patchwork of state and local laws, and that creates a huge patchwork of complications.” In response, Duncan and Senator Steve Daines (R-Montana) drafted a bill called the Securing Military Personnel Response Firearm Initiative Act (SEMPER FI Act) reiterating that armed service members are not to use their weapons against domestic civilians as law enforcement.

Brady Campaign wants Gun Dealers to Pay Compensation to “Victims of Gun Violence”

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to help the ATF in shutting down gun dealers who sell guns before a background check is completed. The Brady Campaign, backed by U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL), is asking gun dealers to implement a “Code of Conduct” in order to stop what the group calls “bad apple gun dealers.” This “Code of Conduct” requires dealers to carry insurance to pay for “victims who are entitled to compensation.”

The Brady Campaign’s President, Dan Gross says, “Federal law enforcement knows who the ‘bad apple’ gun dealers are. Yet these dealers remain open and unchanged in their unethical and often illegal practices.” You can read the entire “Code of Conduct” here.

Marine Corps to Replace M16

The Army has already started the transition and now several Marine commands are backing the recommendation to replace the rifle that has served our forces since the Vietnam War—the M16, for the shorter and lighter M4 carbine. A joint response from the Marines reads, “The proposal to replace the M16A4 with the M4 within infantry battalions is currently under consideration at Headquarters Marine Corps.” The final decision is up to Commandant General Joseph Dunford. The Marine Corps already has 17,000 M4 rifles in inventory, so the switch wouldn’t (initially) require any spending or new contracts. The Military Times reports, “Wider adoption of the M4 is a part of an overall small-arms modernization strategy…” The M16 would move to a support role.

In case you missed them, here are the top 10 read blog posts this week:

What developing stories are you closely following? Are there any stories would like us to cover more in-depth? Tell us in the comment section. If you have a news story you would like to share, send us a link at content@cheaperthandirt.com.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (6)

  1. so the brady bunch wants the gun people to compensate for gun damage.Interesting-I want the Federal Government and Sanctuary Cities to compensate All American citizens who have been harmed by illegal aliens criminal activities.Failyre to enforce laws does not excuse their responsibility for inaction.The brady bunch cannot have it both ways.

  2. Sorry, but there is no circumstance in which state / local law “supersedes” federal law. It doesn’t matter whether recruiting stations are on public or private property or on Mars — the federal government, under the Supremacy Clause, is the only level of government that could ever say whether military members may exercise the basic human right of armed self-defense. In fact, in even the most restrictive sates, state gun control laws expressly do not apply to military members on active duty. AS to the power of the federal government to tell military members they cannot be armed, under existing federal law the federal government may do so only (a) to further a legitimate government interest and (b) in the “least restrictive means” possible.

    Posse comitatus has nothing to do with this issue. Service members engaging in the basic human right of armed self-defense are not thereby engaged in use of military force against civilians for the purpose of law enforcement.

    And Duncan Hunter, albeit a former Green Beret officer, is a known putz who can’t navigate his way around the law with a room full of lawyers. There is no “patchwork” of laws as Duncan’s representative claimed — the US Supreme Court has declared that it is the law of the land that EVERY law-abiding citizen has the basic human right of armed self-defense. Under the Supremacy Clause, that trumps any state law to the contrary — and puts the matter into the legitimate government interest / least restrictive means context to severely limit government at any level from interfering with that right (even if the 2nd Amendment did not expressly say that and other gun rights “shall not be infringed”).

    The ONLY legally valid reason military people may ever be disarmed is for the sake of “good order and discipline.” Anything keeping service members from making their own personal decision to arm themselves off base, in derogation of their basic human right of armed self-defense, adds absolutely nothing to good order and discipline (and disarming members barely add anything to good order and discipline on base for that matter).

  3. Say, you’re on the battlefield. armed with you weapon produced to only be fired by you. An enemy bullet disables your weapon during a firefight. Looking around, you spot one of your team down so you grab his weapon in order to keep fighting… only it won’t work for you. The same could be applied to an officer on the street. It could also be applied in a theater where one of the people shot was armed and you had the opportunity to save lives by taking their weapon and shooting the perp. Or, perhaps you are out hunting and end up in a confrontation with a bear which has invaded your camp. Maybe the nearest rifle is your hunting partner’s. It’s you or the bear. Can you outrun the bear to get to a firearm which only you can use? Or should you just bend over, tuck you head between your legs and kiss your a$$ goodbye?

    Of course, these are hypothetical situations, but the idea of such safety measures is just as hypothetical. They work fine at the range, but not in other places where exigencies arise.

    And here comes another idea to force the manufacturers to produce such weapons. The government has consistently lied about the unemployment rate, and here they are with a way to kill more jobs.

    Until the 2nd Amendment is rescinded by participation of the entire population and not by politicians, all government actions are illegal with regard to individual firearms. That is the mandate of the Constitution. But the government and special interest groups seek to violate the rights of all by circumventing the Constitutions included procedures for change simply because they know they can’t get enough votes to change the Constitution without such means, and without trying to stuff the ballot boxes with the votes of illegals turned legal.

  4. Here we go again- the obama machine wants to further hurt American companies by crippling them in any way possible their ability to profit and therefore to provide product and jobs.This is what happens when you put a complete neophyte in office who has drunk the socialist Kool-aid. If Obama were smart he would stay in Kenya and crown himself King of the Kenyan Socialist State.He could then ruin that economy.Ha.

  5. Who can tell me if the M4 carbine is better or worse than the M16, I had a M16A2 with an M203 on it, inspection arms sucked but I loved it. I know it would only go to spec ops and the infantry, so, is the Marine Corps going in the right rifle?

    1. the M4 is not a better weapon, the twist rate is to fast 1:7 which in select fire mode will over heat the barrel and cause all types of troubles from jams to barrels blocked explode, etc. also you loose the distance..

      all m4’S I have seen has the CAR stock which i hate.they are 14′ barrels. shorter sight radius. to require battery operated sights to use sucks when your batteries dies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.