Categories
Author: Grumpy
This week, I got a chance to do something we rarely do here on Guns America Digest. I got to take a second look at a rifle, with some upgrades from the aftermarket. This particular rifle really opened my eyes to new possibilities, and I really wondered what it could do with just a little bit of octane booster. I’m talking about of course the Bergara B14R in 22 Long Rifle.
In our last review, I called the B14R the best value in rimfire today. Which got me in a bit of hot water with some of you. Considering my test model has a street price of $1049, some offense was taken. I was in fact educated about how you could buy a 22 at Auto Zone for two wooden nickels and a book of Green Stamps back in the old days after you walked uphill in the snow to school. Both ways. And look, I get it. If the end goal is to plink cans in the backyard or shoot squirrels, the Bergara is no question overkill. Point taken. But for the intended customer, dudes either shooting precision rimfire matches or using it as a trainer for PRS competition, I stand by my words. Nothing even comes close in the price range. To put it in perspective, a barreled action from Vudoo Gun Works starts at $1770. Yes, for a 22 Long Rifle. And by barreled action, they mean no stock. Or trigger. Yes, that is the price in US Dollars, not Rupees or Pesos.
Given that is the market, the B14R is an absolute steal at $1049. Or $649 for just a barreled action, so you can put it in whatever stock you like. And our test gun performed absolutely magnificently, with one notable exception. The factory trigger, while both crisp and adjustable, just wasn’t in my opinion good enough. It did drop down to 2.5 pounds, which is great by some standards. But if we are talking real boy precision gun, I really like to go a bit lighter. I also genuinely wondered if we could squeeze more accuracy out of the Bergara if we eliminated that weak link. In our previous test, we achieved ½ MOA groups. But I had to fight for them. If there was the potential for even better accuracy, I felt obligated to go find the right tool to get it.
Fortunately, the B14R accepts Remington 700 Triggers (and stocks), which is the most prolific bolt action on earth when we count clones. And also helpful in this case, the most used custom actions such as Defiance and Surgeon are 700 actions in fancy dress. Instead of knocking around the local gun shop asking opinions, we went straight to the pros. The Precision Rifle Series is home to the best rifle shooters on earth today. Fortunately for us, they also happen to be data nerds, and there are statistics covering everything about the sport from caliber choice to what the top dogs had for breakfast readily available. Looking at the triggers page, the choice was obvious.
Of the top 100 shooters in PRS, 48% use a single brand of trigger. Seven out of the top ten competitors use it as well. TriggerTech, despite being a young company, absolutely dominates the sport. Not only are TriggerTech triggers fantastic in use, but they are notoriously durable. Thanks to the patented free-floating roller between the sear and the trigger, they are also all but dustproof. In environments where competitors’ products lock up, TriggerTech will keep working just like that annoying Bunny from the ’90s.
In a nod to the fact that we are building on a bargain gun, I opted for once to go with the bargain trigger. TriggerTech makes several grades of Rem 700 trigger, with the Diamond being the flagship. The Diamond adjusts to below 4 ounces and will set you back $275 to $294 depending on the lever shape desired. For our project, I opted to go one step down. The TriggerTech Rem 700 Special will only adjust down to 1 pound, but shaves off nearly $100. I picked this one for two reasons really. First, 1 pound is about as low as I like to go anyway. I have had some triggers in the ounces of pull weight, and a man has to know his limitations. 1 pound-ish is my sweet spot for personal use. Second, I picked the Special specifically to defeat the Geiselle Super 700 Trigger. I have owned and loved the Geiselle, and it served us well. You may remember the review we did on it, where it replaced an allegedly adjustable factory Remington 700 trigger. And in the process, dropped that rifle’s accuracy from 1 MOA to 1/2MOA in the time it took to install two pins. Well, the world has moved on. Not only is the TriggerTech a full half a pound lighter on the bottom end of adjustment, but it is also $50 cheaper.
True to reputation, TriggerTech is worth every penny. It is so crisp and clean as to defy the description. I don’t pull this card out often, but it bears a little ego stroke creds dropping in this context. I was a military sniper in two services for most of two decades. There is nothing else like the TriggerTech for a bolt action. Buy this one if you want to upgrade. Don’t bother with anything else. And if you can swing it, get the Diamond. If you don’t love the 4 ounces, you can always adjust it back up to a max of 32 ounces if it makes you nervous. The felt difference in our Bergara rifle was night and day after the trigger swap. No dollar you are going to spend on your gun is going to matter more than this one.
Since we had some wait time as the trigger was created for us, I went looking around for other aftermarket modifications. And I stumbled onto an incredible find. The TriggerTech trigger was supposed to be the star of this show, but it was very nearly upstaged by a company called Mack Brothers. A smaller shop out of South Dakota, Macbros.com blew my socks off with their contribution.
Mack Brothers make a wide variety of gun stuff, from suppressors to their own actions (from Titanium no less). And now that I have discovered them, we will be reviewing some other products. But for the Bergara, they have a magazine that is absolutely brilliant.
In our last review, I mentioned that the B14R magazines are the same size and feel like a short action AICS magazine, by design. Not only is that necessary to fit all Rem 700 stocks, but it makes the reload drill the same as with your centerfire rifle. But, as you can imagine, it leaves a lot of space cramming 10 rounds of 22LR in a magazine sized for 308. Mack Brothers, I like to think while having a Mount Rushmore brew and staring at a cornfield, said “hey, what if we just used both sides of the magazine?” So they did. For the same size as a regular 10 round Bergara magazine, you effectively get 20 rounds. Like a jungle mag, you just rotate 180 degrees, and you have 10 more on tap. While the magazine is $95, it does take the place of two $37 Bergara mags for the same space. And the Mack Brothers is CNC machined out of aluminum, unlike the plastic Bergara mag. In a word, magnificent.
With all that done, we headed to the range to find out if the B14R was hiding some more accuracy in that carbon fiber barrel. And the answer was yes, kind of. In our first test, we had ½ MOA groups from both Lapua Center X and SK Match. With our new trigger, we did get to just below ½ MOA this time with the Lapua, but not by much. .46 MOA, which is still very impressive for a 22LR. And I’m not too proud to say, that could very well be all I was capable of that day. But I will tell you this, those groups were MUCH easier to achieve with the TriggerTech on board. Even if we reached the mechanical limit of the B14R, which I doubt, it was still a solid investment.
This combination of the Bergara B14R, the TriggerTech Special, and the Mack Brother’s magazines is amazing. It is the most fun I have had with a 22 in quite some time. Especially given current ammunition circumstances, it may be time to think about a precision 22. If it was my money, this is the setup I would be looking for.
For more information on Bergara Click HERE
For more information on TriggerTech Click HERE
Categories
Rifles – WW1 Uncut: Dan Snow
I am an inveterate gun store browser. A good portion of the wear and tear on my aging knees must have come from kneeling in front of glass front showcases in order to better see the Colt New Service in the back corner. The only real problem with this happy habit is the amount of time and gas it takes to travel from one gun shop to the next.
However, I have found a way to scan multiple gun stores in search of something I need (or want) and do it from my office in a quick session. Of course, I am referring to the phenomenon of online auction or purchase of firearms. It is a perfectly legal practice by which the registered transfer of ownership occurs between two FFL dealers, sometimes thousands of miles apart.
Easily run programs allow you to see what is available in the way of, say, .44 Special Colt Shooting Masters. It is an interesting way to look for guns of specific types. This blog is not about online gun buying as much as it’s about a recent purchase I made and the unique set of features I had to unravel.
First of all, I buy shooters. The so-called “safe queens” usually hold little interest for me. I am more likely to be looking for solid working condition Smith & Wesson, Colt and Ruger revolvers for use in various custom gun projects. Some solid bargains have come my way and a scratch, dent or spot of rust, easily repaired in the refinishing process, often drops the bottom line in my favor.
I get a lot of fun out of bringing a classic of yesteryear back to work or using it as the basis for a one-of-a-kind custom gem. Here, I’ll offer a bit of necessary background information and then dig into a very interesting new resident of my collection. It came from a gentleman in Texas, who accurately described every feature and flaw in his online listing.
The gun is a S&W, an old-line gunmaker who used a unique process for almost every gun made in its first 100 years of production. As a control measure in the fitting part of the manufacturing process, the company stamped the gun’s serial number on five major assemblies (sometimes six or seven) that make up a gun.
The number is on the frame (butt flat), barrel (forward of the threading), cylinder (rear face), extractor (inside face) and yoke (rear flat). Sometimes, they also marked one or both grips. To a latter day buyer, this tells him that all of these assemblies are complete and original. This also suggests that the gun has had a clear service life.
It must have been a tedious system to keep going, so it is understandable to see it stopped in the late ’50s. This was at about the time the company started assigning model numbers to their various models. Revolvers from then to now have the model number on the frame cutout for the yoke.
Still in what can be described as very good condition, the arm is a Model 27-2 and so marked. It is built on a so-called “three-screw” frame with a 6.5″ barrel, standard hammer and target trigger. The Model 27 was always an elite revolver, right from its 1935 origins as the legendary Registered Magnum.
Every Model 27 got a special touch in the checkering applied to the entire top surface of the gun. From the rear sight down the top of the frame, across to the slim barrel rib and all the way down to the front sight ramp, there is crisply applied metal checkering. The price was right and Model 27s of better than just shooter grade are hard to find, particularly when they have the puzzling enigmas like good ol’ #N92819.
The right side of the barrel is marked “.38 S&W Special Ctg.” The company never made Model 27s in that caliber. Also, there is no checkering on the barrel rib or on the long leaf of the rear sight.
More puzzling yet, there is a serial number on the barrel and… it doesn’t match the gun!
I think we can conclude that the original barrel was removed and replaced with a barrel from another revolver. In the immediate post-war era, Smith & Wesson returned to producing an N-frame revolver in .38 Special called the Outdoorsman.
It dated to the early 1930s and was the basic framework for the Registered Magnum. When it made its post-war re-appearance, the Outdoorsman got the ’50 Target features of several highly-sought-after N frames in .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .44 Special and .45 ACP.
That’s why we have the curious situation of a barrel, manufactured in 1953, serialized (#S97081) and installed on a frame. It was shipped as a finished gun to Rex Firearms in New York in late May of that year. At some completely unknown point in time, it was removed and re-installed on a different model and caliber revolver.
Actually, the only real difference between an N-frame target barrel in .38 Special and one in .357 Magnum is the caliber marking and checkering on the magnum tube. Records tell us that the original gun (#N92819) was part of a shipment of 27 miscellaneous Smiths that went to Watkins-Cottrell in Richmond, Virginia. All of the forgoing is factual. My observation is that of a sound and sturdy N frame S&W with some apparent contradictions and no great wear. It shoots good.
Why did all of this happen? I have to speculate on this one. My first speculation was that the gun was owned by a peace officer who worked for an agency that would not permit those nasty Magnums, either ammo or gun. The original .357 Magnum cylinder is in the gun, but the barrel marking would be “legal.”
If that one is true, he did not fire it much. Another possibility is that something happened to the original—bent, bulged, cracked—and this was the only possible replacement at that time and place. It’s also possible that the owner wanted to make it a .38, because that cartridge is associated with match accuracy to a greater degree than the .357.
However, the history of the gun, as well as the history of the cannibalized barrel, offer a more credible possibility. The original 1973 gun had the unique and desirable 3.5″ tube, and our anonymous owner wanted a longer barrel. Yeah, you’d best believe I’d love to find that snubby tube in somebody’s parts drawer, but I’d never be able to identify it, because they quit serializing major parts well before this barrel was made.
Stay tuned for more in the story of how a plain model 27 ‘Smith came to national attention.
For several years the FBI has been operating a shadow gun ban regime whereby Americans who are not prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law are being denied their Second Amendment rights without due process. This extralegal practice was brought to light again in recent weeks in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit case Turaani v. Wray. The case revealed that the FBI’s current administration of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System amounts to a may-issue gun purchasing scheme that is incompatible with the proper adjudication of a Constitutional right.
For more than a decade, gun control advocates and their allies in Congress have pushed legislation that would prohibit those on one of the federal government’s watch lists from purchasing firearms through the NICS system. As the federal government’s watch lists are oftenerroneous and the procedures for placing an individual on them are nebulous, opaque, and do not comport to any reasonable standard of due process, such legislation would empower the government to extinguish Americans’ Second Amendment rights with nearly unfettered discretion.
Given that such measures are a threat not only to Americans’ Second Amendment rights, but also their First and Fifth Amendment rights, NRA has been joined by the American Civil Liberties Union in opposing this dangerous legislation. NRA is not opposed to prohibiting dangerous individuals from possessing firearms, but the government must be forced to prove that an individual is dangerous by securing a conviction against them in a court of law.
Despite Congress having repeatedly rejected this may-issue scheme for gun ownership, the FBI has pressed forward with their shadow gun ban.
In 2013, the Congressional Research Service published a report titled, “Terrorist Watch List Screening and Background Checks for Firearms.” The document made clear that the FBI was checking the government’s watch lists during NICS background checks. Moreover, if a person came up on a list the transfer would be flagged and delayed. The report explained,
As part of the background check process, NICS typically responds to a federally licensed gun dealer, otherwise known as a federal firearms licensee (FFL), with a NICS Transaction Number (NTN) and one of three outcomes: (1) “proceed” with transfer or permit/license issuance because no prohibiting record was found; (2) “denied,” indicating that a prohibiting record was found; or (3) “delayed,” indicating that the system produced information suggesting that there could be a prohibiting record.60 In the case of a possible watchlist match, NICS sends a delayed transfer (for up to three business days) response to the querying federally licensed gun dealer or state POC. During a delay, NICS staff contacts immediately the FBI Headquarters’ Counterterrorism Division and FBI Special Agents in the field, and a coordinated effort is made to research possibly unknown prohibiting factors. If no prohibiting factors are uncovered within this three-day period, firearms dealers may proceed with the transaction at their discretion.
Therefore, the FBI delays, as a matter of practice, firearms transactions involving individual for whom they have no information suggesting they are prohibited from possessing firearms. This would be bad enough if it involved a temporary delay, however, the FBI does not clear the delay. Rather, the non-prohibited individual must rely on the Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL or gun dealer) to proceed with firearm transfer once three business days have elapsed since the NICS check was initiated, as they are permitted to do by law. Such “default proceed” transfers are at the FFL’s discretion and some FFLs are reluctant to transfer a firearm under these circumstances. If a person delayed in this manner is unable to acquire the firearm from a reluctant FFL after a default proceed, the FBI has denied a non-prohibited individual their right to purchase a firearm.
In Turaani v. Wray, the FBI went a step further.
According to the facts presented in Judge Jeffrey Sutton’s opinion, in 2018 the plaintiff (Turaani) attempted to buy a firearm from an FFL. The requisite NICS check resulted in a delay. Then, as Sutton described,
The next day, FBI agent Jason Chambers went to the dealer’s house, which doubled as his place of business, to speak to him about Turaani. Chambers wanted to see what information Turaani had provided about himself and explained that “we have a problem with the company” Turaani “keeps.” He showed photographs of Turaani with another person of apparent Middle Eastern descent, whom the dealer did not recognize. And Chambers left his contact information with the dealer.
Turaani followed up with the dealer a few days later to purchase the gun. The dealer explained that he had received a visit from the FBI. While he “technically could sell the gun” because the three-day delay had passed without further prohibitions on the sale, the dealer told Turaani that he was “no longer comfortable doing so.
To recap, the FBI delayed the firearm transfer of a non-prohibited individual merely due to “the company” he “keeps.” Then the FBI paid a visit to the FFL that all but assured the firearm transfer would not go forward. Of course, freedom of association is an essential component of the First Amendment right.
Following the FBI’s actions, Turaani then filed suit, claiming that the federal government had impermissibly restricted his rights. However, the Sixth Circuit ruled for the government, claiming that while the FBI did share information with the FFL that made the dealer reluctant to transfer the firearm, they did not force the FFL to halt the transfer.
What the court failed to fully appreciate is that FFLs are licensed by the federal government and subject to its oversight. There is an obvious measure of coercion attendant a visit from the FBI to an individual whose livelihood is directly regulated by another branch of the Department of Justice.
The FBI’s shadow ban regime could be used to target any number of politically disfavored groups and individuals.
Consider the 2009 U.S. Department of Homeland Security report “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” The report explicitly targeted Second Amendment supporters and returned military as potential terrorists, stating,
The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
Further targeting gun rights supporters for heightened scrutiny, the report went on to explain,
Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.
In recent months, rhetoric about using the federal government to target those with divergent political views as “terrorists” has reached a fever pitch. The ACLU and other civil libertarians have warned about attempts to empower the federal government to pursue a new and misguided domestic war on terror. Former CIA Director John Brennan even suggested that the national security apparatus be turned on libertarians.
As bad as the current shadow gun ban regime is, there is legislation moving through Congress to make it even worse. H.R. 1446, would eliminate the three-day default proceed on NICS checks and would empower the FBI to indefinitely block FFLs from transferring firearms.
Under the bill, there would no longer be a set timeframe under which the FFL could proceed with a transfer if the FBI failed to give a definitive answer to a NICS check. An unresolved delay would become a presumptive prohibition on the transfer, even if the FBI never identified a disqualifying record.
Instead, the intended transferee – who already filed the Form 4473 with the FFL – would have to file a second petition with the government making the exact same declarations of eligibility and, once again, asking the FBI to rule on the matter.
But what would happen if the FBI didn’t resolve the follow-up petition?
In that case, the bill would require the FFL to wait at least 10 additional business days from the date the intended recipient filed the petition to consider making a default transfer. How the intended recipient is supposed to prove to the FFL the petition was even filed in the first place is not specified. This onerous and nebulous appeal procedure would only serve to exacerbate the threat posed by FBI’s current abuses.
The prejudices and unproven hunches of federal bureaucrats should never determine the exercise of a Constitutional right. That is why NRA members and other gun rights supporters must continue to work to oppose legislation that would give the federal government further discretion over the exercise of Second Amendment rights or compound the government’s current abuses.
Colt is bringing back its famous big-bore revolver, the Anaconda in .44 Magnum, for 2021. Now in production and starting to ship, the Anaconda is returning in both 6-inch and 8-inch models.
The .44 is based on Colt’s updated .357 Magnum design, scaled up and reinforced for the hard-hitting cartridge. Of course, shooters can always shoot friendlier .44 Special ammunition at the range.
These guns are returning with all the same looks as the originals, with full-length underlugs, ventilated rib topstraps, and Colt’s semi-bright polished finish. They ship with target sights including adjustable rear sights and a red ramp up-front.
The double-action revolvers chamber six rounds in the cylinder and are built on forged stainless steel parts. They are shipping with Hogue over-molded rubber grips to help with the recoil, which are replaceable with standard Python grips.
In addition to the grips, the sheer mass of these guns will help with hot-loaded magnum ammo. The 6-inch model weighs in at 53 ounces, while the 8-inch weighs a hefty 59 ounces, unloaded.
The trigger pull on these is about 12 pounds in double action, and 5 pounds in single action, and is characteristically smooth in both. The .44 Anaconda is about 7.5 inches tall and 13 or 15 inches long, depending on the model.
It’s possible that Colt also has plans for other chamberings, like .45 Colt, but for now, they’ll have no trouble finding buyers for their new-production .44 Magnum Anacondas. Even at the suggested retail pricing, which, in all fairness, is the same as the .357 Magnum Pythons.
See Also: CZ Buys Colt! Colt’s Manufacturing and the CZ Group Agree To Terms
As of now the MSRP on these snake guns is $1,499, which is a premium over the re-launched Colt Cobras, ranging from $699 all the way up to $1,299, depending on the model. Still, real-world and online pricing can be less, although it might take time for prices to come down.
For many shooters, this may be their first chance to shoot one of these classic revolvers, since original examples from the ’90s are getting harder and harder to find. And because these are new production guns, they’re going to be a lot more shootable, with originals becoming collector’s items and safe queens.
Between these being the new hotness and today’s market for firearms, if you want one and see one in stock, you had better move fast. These will not stay on shelves for long.
For more information about Colt, visit them online.
Victims’ families sue over ammo sold to accused school shooter by Tennessee company
3
VIEW ALL PHOTOS
FILE PHOTO – People embrace outside the Alamo Gym where students and parents wait to reunite following a shooting at Santa Fe High School Friday, May 18, 2018, in Santa Fe, Texas. ( Michael Ciaglo/Houston Chronicle via AP)
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A Tennessee-based online retailer accused of illegally selling ammunition to a student who fatally shot 10 people at a Texas high school in 2018 won’t be dismissed from a lawsuit filed by families of those killed and injured, a judge has ruled.
Lucky Gunner is accused of not verifying the age of Dimitrios Pagourtzis when he bought more than 100 rounds of ammunition before the May 2018 shooting at Santa Fe High School, located about 35 miles (56.33 kilometers) southeast of Houston.
This photo provided by the Galveston County Sheriff’s Office shows Dimitrios Pagourtzis, who law enforcement officials took into custody Friday, May 18, 2018, and identified as the suspect in the deadly school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, near Houston. (Galveston County Sheriff’s Office via AP)
Pagourtzis was a 17-year-old junior at the time of the shooting. Federal law prohibits minors from purchasing handgun ammunition, and bars licensed gun companies from selling handgun or shotgun ammunition to minors.
Lucky Gunner and its owners had argued they were immune from litigation under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which prohibits firearms and ammunition manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when their products are used in crimes.
But Judge Jack Ewing in Galveston last week denied the company’s request and ordered it pay for the plaintiffs’ attorney fees related to the company’s efforts to be removed from the case.
The claims against Lucky Gunner are part of a lawsui t against the suspect’s parents, Rose Marie Kosmetatos and Antonios Pagourtzis, who are accused of knowing their son was exhibiting extreme behavior and yet failed to prevent him from accessing their firearms, which authorities believe were used in the shooting.
FILE PHOTO – A man hugs a woman outside the Alamo Gym where parents wait to reunite with their children following a shooting at Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, Texas, on Friday, May 18, 2018. (Michael Ciaglo/Houston Chronicle via AP)
“This ruling says loud and clear that a company selling ammunition to minors can’t hide behind the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” said Alla Lefkowitz, with Everytown Law, the litigation arm of the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety. The group is representing the family of Sabika Aziz Sheikh, a Pakistani exchange student killed in the shooting.
Attorneys for Lucky Gunner did not immediately return emails seeking comment Monday.
Lucky Gunner had faced a similar lawsuit after the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting in Colorado in which 12 people were killed. But a federal judge dismissed that lawsuit in 2015.
Pagourtzis, now 20, has been ruled incompetent to stand trial and has been receiving mental health treatment at a state hospital.
The state of California has agreed in a settlement to provide another 90-day window to allow gun owners to register their legally owned “assault weapons.”
Gun-rights groups argued in a lawsuit that the state’s registration website was down for much of the week prior to the previous deadline, which put thousands of gun owners in legal jeopardy. Gun owners who tried but failed to register their “bullet button” semi-automatic rifles due to technical difficulties will not be prosecuted for missing the previous July 1, 2018, deadline, according to the settlement.
“We’ve always believed that this was about giving gun owners a reasonable opportunity to comply with the law and not be made felons at the stroke of midnight because the State couldn’t operate a website,” noted George M. Lee, an attorney for the pro-gun side. “With the Court’s approval, the injunction will afford significant legal protections for possibly tens of thousands of gun owners.”
The Second Amendment Foundation also celebrated the win.
“It’s fair to say our lawsuit prevented guns from being banned and confiscated, and their owners from being prosecuted,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president Alan M. Gottlieb.
As GunsAmerica reported at the time, hundreds of individuals contacted gun-rights groups in the wake of the July 1st deadline. Some reported constant crashes and errors while using the California Firearms Application Reporting System (CFARS), and others reported being granted access to personal information that did not belong to them.
SEE ALSO: Exclusive: Public Records Prove California Gun Registration Was a Total Disaster
A total of 6,213 individuals successfully registered 13,519 “assault weapons” before the deadline. Franklin Armory’s Jay Jacobson said at the time he was “stunned that the number is so low.”
California has not yet announced when the 90-day window will begin, but they agreed in the settlement to accept online as well as paper registrations.
Now gun-rights groups in California are turning their attention to a much more momentous cause: overturning the “assault weapon” ban entirely.
“With this important agreement to protect the rights, liberty, and property of California gun owners behind us, we now look forward to striking down the State’s ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ and restoring Second Amendment rights through our Miller lawsuit, other actives cases, and future litigation,” said the Firearm Policy Coalition’s Senior Director of Legal Operations, Adam Kraut.
SEE ALSO: Federal Judge Rules California Ammo Background Check Law Unconstitutional
Filed in 2019, Miller v. Becerra would overturn California’s ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez secured the case last year after striking down the state’s “high-capacity” magazine ban and the state’s requirement to pass a background check before purchasing ammunition.
Anti-gun groups were livid when Judge Benitez was assigned the case while gun-rights groups are hopeful that he’ll hand down a favorable ruling.
To read all the terms of the latest settlement, click here.