Categories
The Green Machine You have to be kidding, right!?!

Army RANGER Officer Charged With CONDUCT UNBECOMING! ZERO Accountability…

I still cannot believe that a “man” like this guy got an officers commission in the Regular Army. That and make it up to Lt. Colonel. I mean did’nt anybody notice anything strange  about this “man”?

But I can easily believe that the Army covered for him and let him slide out of any real potential punishment. Like trading his posting at lovely San Luis Obispo to say a place in Kansas (Ft. Leavenworth United States Disciplinary Barracks) Where a sex offender like him would be most warmly greated by the Staff and “Guests” of Uncle Sam.

Grumpy the disgusted by this!

Categories
All About Guns Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE You have to be kidding, right!?!

Mexico tries to fine gun manufacturers by David

We wrote a while back that Mexico is suing US gun manufacturers because their products are heavily used by drug gangs and criminals in Mexico. Got shot down, right?

Now, we in the US have a law passed a couple of decades back called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). At that time, one of the key tactics used by gun-ban groups was to sue gun manufactures at the drop of a hat . Kid uses a 40 year old Colt to shoot someone? Sue Colt.  Gun store gets robbed and a stolen Glock is used to rob someone three states away? Sue Glock. The idea was that if they continually forced gun makers to defend these bull$hit suits, pretty soon they would go bankrupt from legal fees even if they never lost. PLCAA says that if the guns are legally manufactured and sold, the gun companies’ responsibility for wrong-doing ends there.

If the gun is defective or deceptively marketed, they are still liable. (This is the “protection gun makers from lawsuits no other manufacturer has” that Biden and company whines about. Most companies are already protected by case law – you can sue a bar for serving a drunk driver because they are a proximate cause, but not Ford because they made the drunk’s Mustang, right?) The plethora of suits caused Congress to pass PLCAA.

But here is how the gun groups describe it:

PLCAA is a law that protects the gun industry from civil liability for harm caused by negligence, defective products, or irresponsible behavior. It denies justice to victims and survivors of gun violence and perpetuates the flow of crime guns into communities of color.  Brady.org

So many lies…

Anyhoo, Mexico is suing seven manufacturers and a distributor, alleging negligence, defective product, barratry, piracy, simony, and for all I know indecent exposure. (They also want to know how Mexican Army guns wind up in the hands of the narco-gangs… cough cough ARMY CORRUPTION cough cough. Different article.)

Now, any normal person would say they can’t do that, right? They’ve already been shot down once. Oh no… the 1st Circuit steps in.

U.S. appeals court on Monday revived a $10 billion lawsuit by Mexico seeking to hold American gun manufacturers responsible for facilitating the trafficking of weapons to drug cartels across the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturnedThe Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower-court judge’s decision dismissing the case on the grounds that a U.S. law barred Mexico from suing Smith & Wesson Brands (SWBI.O), Sturm, Ruger & Co and others.
Mexico’s lawyers argued the law only bars lawsuits over injuries that occur in the U.S. and does not shield the seven manufacturers and one distributor it sued from liability over the trafficking of guns to Mexican criminals.
U.S. Circuit Judge William Kayatta, writing for the three-judge panel, said that while the law can be applied to lawsuits by foreign governments, Mexico’s lawsuit “plausibly alleges a type of claim that is statutorily exempt from the PLCAA’s general prohibition.”
He said that was because the law was only designed to protect lawful firearms-related commerce, yet Mexico had accused the companies of aiding and abetting illegal gun sales by facilitating the trafficking of firearms into the country.  Reuters
Knowing that other than warranty work, once gun companies sell their guns to a distributor they are legally protected, should be sufficient. But these judges (whose decisions were reversed two out of three times last year ballotopedia) are saying “well,  since it is not a US suit it can proceed” (?!)
Welcome to Ford getting sued for making that Mustang.  Kinda makes you want to sue Mexico for all that fentanyl coming from them…

 

Categories
All About Guns You have to be kidding, right!?!

1967 High Standard Gun Catalog Brochure

Categories
All About Guns The Green Machine You have to be kidding, right!?!

Coastal Defenses and The Endicott Era

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

Experts expect California’s background checks for ammunition law to go to US Supreme Court sacramento By Kenny Choi

The war on regulation in California is escalating.

Gun violence prevention advocates say it’s saving lives, while gun rights supporters argue it’s regulation overkill.

“If you ask me if it was something that made shooting difficult, yes it was,” said Stolfi.

Stolfi is using a World War 2 era M-1 carbine for target practice.

“The imposition of needing a background check, and vendors not wanting to send ammunition to California, it became problematic for me to find this ammunition for this rifle with ease,” said Stolfi.

The Cloverdale resident has been buying gun powder and primers to hand load cartridges for many of his rifles since the tighter ammo restrictions were put in place.

Experts expect the case that is challenging state law requiring background checks for purchasing ammunition to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. For Bradley Stolfi, he supports common sense gun regulation.

“I think every firearm should require a background check and it should be thorough,” said Stolfi.

But a state law implemented in 2019 requiring in-person background checks for ammunition isn’t one of them.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

Maybe, California To Require ANNUAL Firearm “Registration” Just Like Your Vehicle

Categories
A Victory! Allies

Idaho Bill Bans Public Contracts For Companies That Discriminate Against Gun Industry By Mark Chesnut

A measure recently introduced in the Idaho legislature seeks to keep companies that discriminate against firearms-related businesses or groups from receiving contracts from the state government.

Senate Bill 1291 was introduced in the state Senate earlier this week. The measure would prohibit public contracts with individuals or companies that are boycotting those that engage in or support the manufacture, distribution, sale or use of firearms, and would also require companies that contract with the state to disclose if their policies discriminate against the firearms industry.

Interestingly, the measure also includes the same protections for a few other industries that often find themselves in the crosshairs of so-called “progressives.”

Per the text of the measure, no company can be granted a state contract if it is engaged in, or plans to engage in, a boycott of any individual or company because the individual or company: “(a) Engages in or supports the exploration, production, utilization, transportation, sale or manufacture of fossil fuel-based energy, timber, minerals, hydroelectric power, nuclear energy or agriculture; or (b) Engages in or supports the manufacture, distribution, sale or use of firearms, as defined in section 18-3302(2)(d), Idaho Code.”

As the legislation’s language explains, “boycott” means, “without a reasonable business purpose, refusing to deal with an individual or organization, terminating business with an individual or organization, or taking another action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with an individual or organization because the individual or organization: (i) Engages in a particular business sector; (ii) Engages in a particular business sector and does not commit or pledge to meet standards beyond applicable federal and state law; or (iii) Does business with an individual or organization that engages in a particular business sector.”

If the legislation passes, it will be in effect for contracts executed on or after July 1, 2024. As for contracts issued before that date, the legislation states: “Any contract executed prior to July 1, 2024, that violates the provisions of this section shall not be renewed unless the contracting authority obtains the written certification described in subsection (1) of this section.”

The measure will first be considered in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

 

Categories
You have to be kidding, right!?!

Marine Left for Dead in Mojave Desert Sparks Internal Investigation

Categories
A Victory! Darwin would of approved of this! Well I thought it was funny!

BEST DAD EVER!!!

Categories
You have to be kidding, right!?!

God has a wicked sense of humor at times