Shooter’s Log Weekly Wrap Up — October 25-31, 2015

One step forward…and two steps back so it may seem. Sometimes it feels like gun owners are continually fighting an uphill battle. Minnesota is now proposing a ban on lead ammo for hunting and California’s Lt. Gov. introduces sweeping ammo restrictions. On the other hand, at least gun owners are fighting—we have politicians and pro-gun organizations in our corner. The city of Los Angeles is being sued and there doesn’t seem to be much support for more control. Read what both sides of the gun debate have been up to this week in this Shooter’s Log rundown of the firearms news headlines.

Reducing Gun Violence in our Neighborhoods Act Introduced

New York Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez introduced a sweeping gun control bill called the “Reducing Gun Violence in our Neighborhoods Act.”

The law would:

  • Enact a $100 federal tax on every firearm sold.
  • Require gun owners to report missing, lost or stolen firearms.
  • Establish a national database on lost guns.
  • Require all firearms to have a “passive identification capability” (Smart guns technology).

Amish Man Files Federal Lawsuit After Denied Sale of Firearm

A photo ID is required when purchasing a firearm, however, what if your religious beliefs prevent you from having your picture taken knowingly? Andrew Hertzler is Amish and was prohibited from buying a firearm because his state-issued ID does not have his picture on it. Hertzler has filed a federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania claiming rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which protects the freedom to practice your religion.

The lawsuit reads, “Mr. Hertzler confronts Hobson’s choice: either forego his constitutional right to keep and bear arms in defense of himself and his home, or violate his religion. By knowingly and willingly sitting for a photograph, even for a state-issued identification document, Mr. Hertzler would be violating his religion by taking a graven image of himself. Thus, Mr. Hertzler’s religious freedom has been substantially burdened—in order to exercise his fundamental right to possess a firearm for defense of himself and his home, the Government is requiring him to violate a major tenet of his sincerely held religious belief.”

U.S. Army Will Pick Firearm Finalists in January

Side view of the flat dark earth Cerakote finished Beretta M9A3 9mm pistol
The U.S. Army rejected Beretta’s M9A3 for its new sidearm.

For years, we have known the United States Army is looking to replace its Beretta M9 sidearm for a new pistol. Finally, in January 2016, the Army will be accepting guns from various manufacturers. The three finalists will vie for a $580 million contract.

Though the Army cannot reveal which manufacturers will be submitting firearms for testing, it is reported that Smith & Wesson has an M&P-like pistol for submission, as well as Beretta’s APX.

Senator Chuck Schumer is requesting the gun manufacturer that wins the contract to be required to develop “smart gun technology” as well as stop doing business with the 1 percent of gun dealers that are “merchants of death.”

Alternative Ammunition Manufacturing Act (HR 3802) Introduced

HR 3802, the Alternative Ammunition Manufacturing Act was introduced into the House. The law requires BATFE to respond to ammo manufacturers within 60 days of an application for a waiver to produce ‘alternative’ ammo made of brass.

Lawrence Keane, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) senior vice president said, “This legislation will allow ammunition manufacturers to more quickly bring to market alternative hunting ammunition products to serve consumers in markets such as California where traditional ammunition is banned for hunting and for those hunters who prefer to use alternative products.”

The Safety For All Act of 2016 Filed

California’s Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom filed the Safety For All Act of 2016. Included on the bill is a total ban on “large-capacity” magazines, issuance of ammo purchase permits, bans private sales of ammo, requires a database of people who buy ammo, bans purchase of ammo from out of state, requires ammo sellers to have a special permit, as well as other highly restrictive ammo ordnances. To help fight against this act, click here.

Los Angeles Sued Over Magazine Ban

Thirty California Sheriffs, two other law enforcement groups, the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) and civilians are suing the city of Los Angeles over it’s complete ban on magazine that hold more than 10 rounds. The ban goes into affect November 19, 2015, unless the courts agree on a stay. The NRA states, “The lawsuit challenges the magazine possession ban on legal “preemption” grounds, because California state law specifically allows for the possession of such magazines.”

If the courts don’t move, citizens living in Los Angeles will have to surrender, sell or transfer to an FFL, remove or permanently alter any gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Under Investigation

New York City Mayor de Blasio, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, and the Department of Consumer Affairs are cracking down on The site has been subpoenaed for its records of sales and advertising. New York City says that people who advertise on for a person to person sale of a firearm violate federal background check laws, as well as a law requiring sellers to have a “second-hand gun dealer’s license.” Mayor de Blasio said, “In the absence of any concerted federal action to mandate background checks and tighten the marketplace of guns running amok in our country, New York City must use every tool at our disposal to save lives.”

South Carolina One Step Closer to Permitless Concealed Carry

H3025, the South Carolina Second Amendment Empowerment Act passed its second reading 90-18 in South Carolina’s House. The bill allows those in South Carolina who may legally own a firearm to conceal carry without a permit or license. Open carry will still be prohibited.

The bill also makes possible for South Carolina to recognize all other states’ concealed carry permits and licenses.

The bill requires one more reading in the House and then will need to pass the Senate. It is reported that Governor Haley supports the bill.

Minnesota Proposes Lead Ammo Ban

The Minnesota Department of National Resources is proposing a ban on lead ammo in its Wildlife Management Areas, as well as statewide for specific small game. The ban is limited to lead shot and does not apply to rifle ammo or hunting with slugs. The Department is also proposing many other new hunting rules and regulations. To read them all, click here.

To oppose any new restrictions on hunting and shooting, visit the Minnesota Gun Owners Political Action Committee to see how you can support and help gun owners and hunters in Minnesota.

New Hampshire Committee Passes Suppressor Bill

The New Hampshire House Fish and Game and Marine Resources Committee passed a suppressor bill 7 to 5. HB 500 would legalize hunting with suppressors in New Hampshire.

Product News

C Products Defense Introduces New Magazines

C Product Defense showcased its magazines at this year’s NASGW show. C Products Defense mags are the most-tested magazines in the world, the company claims. One undisclosed “major firearms manufacturer” put over 100,000 rounds through a C Products mag without a failure.

The company also debuted two new 7.62x39mm AR mags—a 28 rounder and a 20 rounder. C Products Defense Vice President, Bill Rogers said, “For those who have a job description where the difference between “bang!” and “click!” can mean the difference between life and death, this is extremely significant.”

Buy C Products Defense magazines here.

Hornady Reveals New Products That “Change Everything”

Last week, the Shooter’s Log wrote about Hornady’s sneak peek at its new 2016 product line. This week, Hornady revealed what that new product is—the ELD Match line of bullets with a Heat Shield Tip, which will withstand high temperatures. Check out the video below to learn more.

& Wesson Introduces New Pistols

Smith and Wesson introduced four new pistol models. The new engraved SW1911 features custom-designed machine engraving with a stainless steel slide and frame, Rosewood grips, 5-inch barrel, glass-bead finish, 8-round magazine and a 3-dot sight system. Two new threaded barrel models were introduced—the 9mm Performance Center M&P Ported and the M&P C.O.R.E. Finally, S&W introduced a ported M&P Shield.

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

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. In reference to the investigation – this is nothing more than an orchestrated show by de Blasio who is once again trying to appear as if he is doing something really big. The reality is Armslist can blow their nose on de Blasio’s subpoena and toss it in the trash without any legal repercussions.

    Why? Because this so-called investigation is nothing more than a fishing expedition based on speculation without a shred of real evidence – as such, no self-respecting court would issue a judicial subpoena without actual evidence and therefor this has to be a non-judicial subpoena which pretty much anyone can issue in NYC. And as I’ve already inferred, amounts to nothing more than tissue paper.

    As usual, another massive waste of taxpayer dollars by the mentally unstable liberal left.

    1. @ G-Man

      Right, “SEVEN” Benghazi Hearing’s and $5.6-Million US TAXPAYER DOLLAR’s Later. And WHAT “ZIP”.

    2. @ Servitor,

      Spoken like a true mentally defective liberal. It takes a special kind of human deficiency to stoop so low as to think these two investigations could ever be compared after the lives that were lost due to Hilary’s negligence. You are simply disgusting for taking it there.

      Ask any respectable conservative and they’ll tell you their moral compass points towards seeking the truth at any cost, and the price to get there is no object. Only liberal degenerates could confuse the need to investigate real evidence of actual crimes that led to the loss of life and still dismiss it over cost.

      Your statement isn’t surprising, but rather expectedly on par for the course within the repugnant liberal talking points… as usual.

    3. @ G-Man.

      In October 2012, a State Department Budget was Submitted for ~$2.641Billion for US Embassy Security World Wide. The GOP Congressional Controlled House Oversight Committee, “SHORTED” the Budget Request by ~$330Million. WHERE EXACTLY WAS THAT MONEY GOING TO COME FROM “SLICK”. YOU GOT ANSWER’S FOR EVERYTHING, SLICK. ANSWER THAT ONE SLICK.

    4. @ Servitor,

      Given the gears in your liberal mind are wired to turn in the wrong direction (left as opposed to right), it is understandable that your latest reply would make no sense whatsoever.

      Your post was nothing more than nonsensical random banter lacking any form of logic in relation to my last comment – whereby I cited how disgusting you are for having stooped so low as to compare a lawful Congressional investigation of a US Ambassador’s murder at the hands of the incompetent Hilary Clinton, yet somehow think it appropriate to reduce the importance of that investigation to a bogus and warrantless fishing expedition of by de Blasio which is based on nothing more than his political posturing and a guess.

      Regardless, the question you posed for me has an easy answer. So easy that it should never have been a question… that is unless you are a mindless liberal that only knows how to follow the liberal talking points.

      So, the only way to help you answer your own question is to point out the stupidity of it by asking you a rhetorical question in return: How do you think a State Department budget cut which occurred a month after the Benghazi attacks could possibly have impacted a situation that had already occurred?

      The answer: It couldn’t, and therefore serves absolutely no purpose or point in the context of our dialogue exchanged thus far. So that pretty much ends that.

      Now then “SLICK”, even though your question was way off topic and into the liberal left field, I will remain courteous and utilize my vast government career experience to enlighten you further as to why any budget cuts you’ve mentioned would not have affected the events that unfolded in Benghazi.

      Aside from the obvious I’ve already pointed out – that being that the cuts you speak of didn’t occur until after the Benghazi incident, you need to learn that the entire State Department budget is broken down into sub-categories and reviewed and allocated separately.

      One of those sub-categories is dedicated specifically to the security and protection of each embassy mission’s personnel and facilities. The budget and Congressional Oversight Committee you’ve brought into question actually had already increased the Security portion of the budget by $8.7 billion (with a “B”) dollars the prior year and exclusively set those funds aside entirely for bolstering just Middle Eastern embassy security. That included additional security for the Benghazi Embassy throughout 2012.

      However, Secretary Clinton saw fit not to share any of that money with Ambassador Stevens and denied him help despite his many warnings and desperate please for addition security. The reason is that Obama had already touted as one of his shinning accomplishments that he’d already won the war on terrorism. To maintain his illusion, Obama desperately needed to make things appear safe and normalized at Middle Eastern Embassies.

      If Hilary had increased security at any Middle Eastern embassy it would have contradicted Obama’s claims of victory. So in order to continue to tow the Obama party line of crap, Secretary Clinton chose to risk sacrificing the Ambassador’s life despite his many pleas for help. But as it goes for most liberals, reality backfired on her and someone really did die. Thereafter the cover-up ensued.

      So Congress gives Hillary an extra $8.7 billion dollars the previous year for additional security measures and you ask the ridiculous question as to how the State Department is going to make up the measly “$330Million” cut the following year?

      Like a true liberal you mindlessly followed your talking points memo and never took the time to research which portion of the budget that small amount was originally allocated. Instead, as a liberal you automatically assume it is a “SHORTAGE” that must be made up from somewhere else. Of course it would never occur to you that everyone else is tightening belts and maybe those funds were decided by Congress as no longer necessary.

      If you did any research you’d know those funds were not pulled from security details, but instead came out of Hillary’s irresponsible job placement program within the State Department. You know, the one she used to pay back favors by creating and handing out plush embassy staff jobs to her unqualified donors by sending them on nice vacations to pleasant areas abroad. Well thanks to her and Obama’s incompetence we can scratch France off that pleasant list.

      So yeah “SLICK”, I do have an answer for everything. So there’s your answer “SLICK”. Deal with it “SLICK”!

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.