Category: A Victory!
WASHINGTON, D.C. -(Ammoland.com)- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) released its final rule surrounding pistol stabilizing devices killing off the market for the items unless court challenges prove successful.
The new rule (ATF final rule 2021R-08F) was published on the ATF’s website today and is set to be posted on the Federal Register on Monday, one day before the industry’s largest trade show, SHOT Show. The regulation will affect millions of Americans that currently own pistol stabilizing devices. What has been considered pistols for years will now be regarded as short barreled rifles (SBR) and be subjected to the National Firearms Act (NFA).
The proposed rule used a form known as “Worksheet 4999” to determine if a firearm equipped with a pistol brace would be considered an SBR by using a point system. The ATF ditched the form in favor of a widespread declaration that almost every pistol equipped with a brace of any kind would be considered an SBR.
“Worksheet 4999 was intended to ensure uniform consideration and application of the statutory definition of those terms. Based on the comments received, the Department agrees that the proposed Worksheet 4999 and point system did not achieve these intended purposes,” the Final Rule reads.
Under the new rule, any firearm that is “designed or redesigned made or remade and intended to be fired from the shoulder” will be considered an SBR.
This designation includes devices such as pistol stabilizing braces which the ATF assumes the shooter installed to be able to shoulder the gun. Also, if a firearm merely has the surface area that would allow it to be fired from the shoulder, the ATF might consider it an SBR if it has a weight or length consistent with a rifle.
Any pistol with a length of pull that is consistent with that of what would be found in a rifle would be considered an SBR. Any adjustable attachments, such as a multi-position buffer tube, would also automatically make the pistol an SBR. If the shooter places an optic on their firearm that requires an eye relief that is consistent with what’s used on a rifle, such as a scope, then that gun will also be considered a short barreled rifle. If a firearm has the surface area to be fired from the shoulder, such as a firearm equipped with a nonadjustable buffer tube, then that will be considered an SBR, basically making every AR-15 pistol and SBR.
“Whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations,” the document reads.
The ATF will also look at marketing material offered by the manufacturer to determine if installing that device on a firearm will convert it to an SBR. Several lawsuits involve companies suing over California’s law preventing the advertisement of firearms to people under the age of 18, including safety classes.
The ATF will also look at how the people in the firearms community use a gun to determine whether it is an SBR. You could use a device as intended by the manufacturer and still violate the rule if others use it in a way that is not consistent with how the manufacturer designed the device to be used.
There is a 120-day grace period to apply for a tax stamp for any device now considered an SBR that was previously considered a pistol.
Although the ATF states a 120-day grace period to register a pistol as an SBR, the ATF only promises not to enforce NFA rules on these devices for 60 days. The ATF will give a tax forbearance for the $200 tax stamp fee. A tax forbearance means that the ATF will not collect the $200 tax fee, although, by the law, you still owe the fee; it just will not be collected. The rule is set up the way it is because the ATF cannot waive a tax.
Gun owners must use e-Forms to file for the tax stamp. Only individuals would qualify for the tax stamp on devices with pistol stabilizing braces. If someone wanted to put the firearm into a trust, they must first register as an individual and then pay the $200 transfer fee to transfer it into a trust. Many people who own NFA items prefer having their firearms in a trust.
Some states do not allow for SBRs. Gun owners in those states do have options.
They could add a 16-inch or greater barrel, converting the firearm from a pistol into a rifle. In the past, the ATF has stated that a pistol could never be converted into a rifle, but the regulation seems to change this determination. The pistol stabilizing device could also be removed, and the gun owner can modify their firearms not to be able to accept a pistol brace. The gun owner also has the option of destroying the firearm. The final option would be turning the gun into the ATF for zero compensation.
The new regulation is expected to cost gun owners over $260 million. It is expected to cost the federal government over $3 million. In addition to the cost, it will put an increasing burden on the already overwhelmed NFA division of the ATF. the ATF claims that the average wait time will be 90 days, although Silencer Shop is showing a wait time of eight months for a tax stamp. Not only will it bog down the new tax stamp applications for SBRs, but it might drastically increase the wait time for other NFA items, such as sound suppressors.
There will be challenges to the new rule. The Second Amendment Foundation has an ongoing case in a federal District Court in North Dakota over the new regulation. Other legal challenges are expected shortly from other Second Amendment organizations.
Ammoland News reached out to SB tactical for a comment on the final rule but has not received one at the time of this writing.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
Alec Baldwin and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed will face criminal charges for the October 21, 2021 fatal shooting of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, the Santa Fe District Attorney said this morning.
Close to 16 months after Baldwin took the life of Hutchins and wounded the movie’s director Joel Souza with a loaded gun on the set of indie western Rust, New Mexico First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies today has finally unveiled her decision as to who should be charged and not charged in the tragic incident.
“After a thorough review of the evidence and the laws of the state of New Mexico, I have determined that there is sufficient evidence to file criminal charges against Alec Baldwin and other members of the Rust film crew,” Carmack-Altwies said Thursday. “On my watch, no one is above the law, and everyone deserves justice.”
In charges set to be formally filed by the end of the month, Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed will each be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in Hutchins’ death.
Heading towards a hearing before a state judge and then a jury trial, the first charge is a fourth-degree felony with sentencing of up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine. The second charge, which is formally an involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a lawful act charge, is also a fourth-degree felony punishable by up to 18 months in jail and up to a $5000 fine. However, the second charge additionally carries a firearm enhancement. That gives the offense a punishing mandatory five years behind bars if Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed are found guilty.
Long a key figure in the events surrounding Hutchins’ death, Rust assistant director David Halls reached a plea agreement with prosecutors for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon. The industry vet faces a suspended sentence and six months of probation, the D.A.’s office said today. While Baldwin has in the past vowed to fight any charges, Halls’ plea deal and the cooperation he likely has had with prosecutors could become a major factor for the actor going forward.
“If any one of these three people—Alec Baldwin, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed or David Halls—had done their job, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today. It’s that simple,” stated Andrea Reeb, the special prosecutor assigned to the case. “The evidence clearly shows a pattern of criminal disregard for safety on the ‘Rust’ film set. In New Mexico, there is no room for film sets that don’t take our state’s commitment to gun safety and public safety seriously,” Reeb added.
Over the months, while the Santa Fe Sheriff’s office put the final touches on its wide ranging investigation of the late 2021 shooting at the Bonanza Creek Ranch, the D.A. has been partially planting the seeds for today’s announcement.
An August 30 letter to the New Mexico Board of Finance from Carmack-Altwies revealed the D.A’s possible intentions to prosecute as many as four individuals with criminal and homicide charges related to Rust including “one of the possible defendants” being “well known movie actor Alec Baldwin.” In her ask, Carmack-Altwies was requesting $635,000 for the matter, but was only granted $317,750 by the state.
Much has happened around the Rust tragedy on-screen and in the courts, as many have waited on Carmack-Altwies’ decision.
In an ABC news interview with George Stephanopoulos in December 2021, Baldwin insisted he never actually pulled the trigger of the gun that took Hutchins’ life during a quick-draw rehearsal move in a church location on the set of Rust. Just minutes before the shots that killed Hutchins and wounded Souza, Baldwin was told by Assistant Director Dave Halls that the 1880s Colt prop weapon was a “cold gun, as many witnesses including Hall have asserted. Seemingly indifferent to his own tone, Baldwin also told the Good Morning America co-host in the now infamous sit-down, that he had been told by people who are in the know, in terms of even inside the state, that it’s highly unlikely that I would be charged with anything criminally.”
Just a couple of weeks prior to the anniversary of the tragedy, Baldwin and Rust producers reached a settlement with the Hutchins Estate on October 5, 2022, ending the wrongful death suit brought forth in mid-February against the production and the actor, who also served as a producer on the $7 million budgeted film.
Part of the agreement entailed the DP’s husband Matthew Hutchins becoming an executive producer on the resurrected Rust movie, which was scheduled to start reshooting this month. While the production has been scouting locations in California, such as Simi Valley, Deadline heard, no official word has been given about the Western fully resuming production and where it would actually film. There is also no word if Rust has been able to get insured, a necessary requirement to make a movie.
At the time the deal with the Hutchins estate was made public, the Santa Fe-based District Attorney made sure that there was no perception this was all over. “The proposed settlement announced today in Matthew Hutchins’ wrongful death case against Rust movie producers, including Alec Baldwin, in the death of Halyna Hutchins will have no impact on District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies’ ongoing investigation or her ultimate decision whether to file criminal charges in the case,” her office said in a quickly issued statement.
Staying in the public eye over the last year, Baldwin was set to star in the spy movie Chief of Station, shooting in Budapest, however, the actor had to vacate the role over scheduling issues back on October 31.
As civil lawsuits and that wrongful death action from Hutchins’ family hit court dockets in New Mexico and California over the last year, the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office in late 2022 finally made public the FBI assisted police report which detailed the calamities that ensued before the shooting of Hutchins on October. 21, 2021.
The raw 551-page report cast suspicion on Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, among others on what appeared to be an openly problematic set. Dolly grip Ross Addiego, for instance, claimed to police that the armorer and her crew had issues that involved “negligent discharges”. The armorer was preparing one of six guns and one of the revolvers went off toward her foot. A few minutes later at the cabin set, a discharged gun went off that wasn’t announced, which would have been assistant director Dave Halls’ responsibility to announce, per Addiego.
Besides the live round in the gun in Baldwin’s hand, the FBI found five more rounds of live ammo on the Rust set, the report detailed. Additionally, the report cast doubt on Baldwin’s assertion that he never pulled the trigger. “With the hammer at full cock, the revolver could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional,” the document stated.
The report also went into detail on other instances of guns going off on Rust.
Reese Price, a key grip, told authorities that “accidental discharge” occurred twice during the course of one day on set. “One of the accidental discharges occurred by ‘armorer girl’ who was messing with a gun,” Price told authorities. Souza, in his interview with the cops, reported there wasn’t any negligence on the set, and didn’t believe the armorer intermingled live rounds with blanks.
While staying in the public eye over the last year, multi-Emmy winner Baldwin hasn’t been in front of the camera much professionally since the Rust shooting. Baldwin was set to star in the spy movie Chief of Station, shooting in Budapest, however, the actor had to vacate the role over scheduling issues back on October 31.
In that vein, in mid-November last year, Baldwin took on the role of plaintiff and hit Rust armorer Gutierrez Reed, first assistant director Halls, property master Sarah Zachry, and weapons and rounds supplier Seth Kenney and his company with a negligence lawsuit.
Filed in LA Superior Court, the action claimed that “Baldwin has also lost numerous job opportunities and associated income” because of what happened on Rust. “For example, he’s been fired from multiple jobs expressly because of the incident on Rust and has been passed over for other opportunities, which is a direct result of the negligence of Cross-Defendants Gutierrez-Reed, Halls, Kenney, PDQ, and Zachry,” stated the cross-complaint paperwork prepared by Quinn Emanuel attorney Luke Nikas for Baldwin.
Along with a much challenged but still enduring suit from Rust‘s script supervisor Mamie Mitchell, that matter remains before the California courts.
_____________________________________________________ Gee thats too bad & here is his possibly future Cellmates. Grumpy 
Of course he could pull an OJ as you can never know, right?
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker quickly became furious when what appears to be a majority of Prairie State county sheriffs announced they will not enforce the state’s new restrictive gun control law banning so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines.
According to MyStateLine, the new law requires current owners of affected guns to register them with the State Police. It also bans the future sales “of about 100 different semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, and rifles.”
Pritzker, who speedily signed the legislation, had a fit when sheriffs began telling their constituents they won’t enforce the ban. According to WGN and WTVO, “As are all law enforcement all across our state and they will in fact do their job or they won’t be in their job,” Pritzker told reporters.
But Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, which is preparing to file a federal lawsuit against the new law, told Ammoland News in a telephone conversation sheriffs are elected, and Pritzker cannot fire them.
“I don’t know how much (the resistance by sheriffs) will play into” the lawsuit scenario, Pearson said.
But he does know how the public is reacting, and up and down the state, “people are furious.” Since Pritzker signed the legislation—HB 5471—Pearson said the ISRA office telephones have been “ringing off the hook.”
In addition to banning future sales of semiautomatic firearms, the new law bans .50-caliber firearms.
KSDK News reported Greene County Sheriff Rob McMillen and Macoupin County Sheriff Shawn Kahl posted on their department Facebook pages they will not enforce the law. McMillan accurately predicted his decision would get plenty of concurring opinions from other Illinois sheriffs. Sheriff Kahl said he believes the new law violates the Second Amendment.
Likewise, according to MyStateLine, Winnebago County Sheriff Gary Caruana, Lee County Sheriff Clayton Whelan and Ogle County Sheriff Brian VanVickle shared the same sentiments. In their statement, they said HB 5471 “is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.”
ShawLocal.com reported that DeKalb County Sheriff Andy Sullivan, among others, issued a statement drafted by the Illinois Sheriff’s Association.
“As the custodian of the jail and chief law enforcement official,” Sullivan said, “[I] proclaim that neither myself nor my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will we be arresting or housing law-abiding gun individuals that have been arrested solely with non-compliance of this Act.”
As it turns out, Illinois is not the only state where sheriffs are fed up with gun control laws pushed by governors. Out in Washington State, where Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson are calling for an “assault weapon” ban, the Washington State Sheriff’s Association issued a letter declaring, “We…believe the proposed restrictions will serve to erode constitutionally protected rights without addressing the root causes of violent crime. We are particularly concerned with the proposed so-called ‘assault weapons ban’ and ‘permit to purchase’ laws.
“Restrictions that shift focus from offenders to law-abiding citizens send the wrong message and erode constitutional guarantees upheld by the United States Supreme Court,” the letter adds.
“The Governor’s proposed legislation is also inconsistent with Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution, which mirrors the language of the Federal Second Amendment,” the sheriffs say. “The new proposals to restrict gun ownership would further infringe on rights that have been clearly and repeatedly established.”
Pritzker and Illinois Democrats call their new law the “Protect Illinois Communities Act.” County sheriffs now saying they won’t enforce the law’s provisions evidently believe this law’s title is wholly erroneous.
Published reports quote Ogle County’s VanVickle, who observed, “This appears to be another rush to judgment on a bill that was introduced with very little oversight and very little public review.”
Concurring, Stephenson County Sheriff Steve Stovall stated, “There is so many unknowns, it’s another one of those laws that passed that they put unrealistic expectations out there, and there is no way to follow those things up.”
Pearson, at the ISRA offices, told AmmoLand one development in the aftermath of Pritzker’s bill signing is that his organization’s membership numbers are climbing. Every year, ISRA sponsors an event in Springfield, the state capital, that attracts several thousand gun owners. This rally and march are called IGOLD, and Pearson said this year’s event, scheduled March 29, will likely see a record turnout if current emotions continue running high.
As noted by KSDK News, Madison County Sheriff Jeff Connor and Tom Haine, the county’s State’s Attorney, issued a joint statement that noted, “…We expect a strong court challenge to HB 5471 in short order. We trust that this legislative overreach will not stand. In the meantime, we remain focused on reducing violent crime. Therefore, pending further direction by the courts, the Madison County Sheriff’s Office will not expend its limited resources to check whether otherwise law-abiding gun owners have registered their weapons with the State, nor will the Madison County Sheriff’s Office be arresting or housing otherwise law-abiding individuals solely due to non-compliance with HB 5471.”
Writing on Facebook, Stephenson County’s Stovall summed it up: “Let me be clear, this piece of legislation will do nothing to make our communities safer! Criminals don’t follow the laws. That is what makes them criminals. This unconstitutional legislation infringes on our 2nd Amendment Rights, which makes any enforcement of HB5471 contrary to my oath of office.”
Pretty soon, that sentiment will likely be at the heart of ISRA’s promised federal lawsuit.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
Millions of Americans face the threat of federal felony charges over guns they purchased legally thanks to a new rule released by the ATF.
The agency announced plans to publish the final version of their rule reclassifying pistol braces, a popular firearm accessory, on Friday. The rule, which President Joe Biden requested as part of his efforts to unilaterally reform gun laws, would effectively ban the use of braces unless registered with the ATF. Anyone who does not comply with the rule could be subject to upwards of ten years in federal prison despite the agency previously ruling the braces were legal multiple times over the past decade.
“While firearms equipped with ‘stabilizing braces’ or other rearward attachments may be submitted to ATF for a new classification determination, a majority of the existing firearms equipped with a ‘stabilizing brace’ are likely to be classified as ‘rifles’ because they are configured for shoulder fire based on the factors described in this rule,” the ATF said in the rule. “Because many of these firearms generally have a barrel of less than 16 inches, they are likely to be classified as short-barreled rifles subject to regulation and registration under the [National Firearms Act (NFA)] and [Gun Control Act].”
The agency says that nearly everyone with a pistol-brace-equipped gun is “violating the NFA by possessing an unregistered rifle with a barrel of less than 16 inches.”
The rule has wide-ranging implications for many American gun owners as pistol braces have exploded in popularity since the ATF first determined they did not convert pistols into heavily-regulated short-barrel rifles back in 2012. The exact number of braces already in circulation is unclear, but the number is well into the millions. The ATF itself estimates three to seven million of the devices exist. The Congressional Research Service puts the number much higher at somewhere between 10 and 40 million.
The Biden Administration’s decision to move forward with the ban comes after hundreds of thousands of comments opposing the regulation were left during its public comment period. It also comes in the immediate aftermath of the Fifth Circuit ruling against the Trump-era bump stock ban. That policy was implemented through the same rulemaking process and after the ATF had also previously declared bump stocks to fall outside the NFA’s purview, which could foreshadow legal problems for the new pistol brace rule.
Attorney General Merrick Garland (D.) defended the rule change and said it was necessary to prevent crimes committed with guns he believes should be subject to NFA regulations.
“Keeping our communities safe from gun violence is among the Department’s highest priorities,” he said in a statement. “Almost a century ago, Congress determined that short-barreled rifles must be subject to heightened requirements. Today’s rule makes clear that firearm manufacturers, dealers, and individuals cannot evade these important public safety protections simply by adding accessories to pistols that transform them into short-barreled rifles.”
The NFA requires Americans to register all rifles that have barrels shorter than 16 inches and pay a tax of $200, a process that can take nearly a year, or face federal felony charges. However, the law defines “rifles” as guns that are “designed and intended” to be shouldered. The ATF initially determined firearms equipped with pistol braces, which are designed to be strapped to a shooter’s forearm instead of pressed against their shoulder, are not rifles and, therefore, not subject to NFA regulations.
For the next decade, the agency issued often vague or contradictory determinations on different versions of pistol braces that were subsequently created. At one point during the Obama Administration, the agency claimed the act of pressing a pistol brace against a shooter’s shoulder constituted a redesign of the product turning it into an illegal unregistered short-barrel rifle only to later rescind that declaration under the Trump Administration. The inconsistency led to increasing complaints the agency doesn’t use any objective measure for determining the legality of the devices.
Now, under the Biden Administration, the agency’s new rule purports to be more objective but still relies on subjective measures, including whether the agency believes “indirect marketing” of a brace shows it is meant to be shouldered. Ultimately, it classifies nearly all pistol-brace-equipped firearms as unregistered short-barrel rifles. The agency gave Americans who own pistol-braced guns a few options to avoid potential prosecution.
“Any weapons with “stabilizing braces” or similar attachments that constitute rifles under the NFA must be registered no later than 120 days after date of publication in the Federal Register,” the agency said,” or the short barrel removed and a 16-inch or longer rifle barrel attached to the firearm; or permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached; or the firearm is turned in to your local ATF office. Or the firearm is destroyed.”
The rule faces substantial political opposition. In addition to the hundreds of thousands of public comments opposing the rule, nearly every member of the Senate Republican caucus sent a letter to Attorney General Garland demanding he withdraw of the rule during the summer.
“The way the proposed rule is written makes clear that ATF intends to bring the most common uses of the most widely possessed stabilizing braces within the purview of the NFA,” the senators said in the letter. “Doing so would turn millions of law-abiding Americans into criminals overnight, and would constitute the largest executive branch-imposed gun registration and confiscation scheme in American history.”
Gun-rights groups have promised to fight the rule in court. Erich Pratt, Gun Owners of America senior vice president, said his group is already writing up a lawsuit.
“This administration continues to find new ways to attack gun owners, and this time their target is brace-equipped firearms that allow persons with disabilities to safely and effectively use pistols,” he said in a statement. “We will continue to work with our industry partners to amplify the disapproving voices in the firearms industry, and the Gun Owners Foundation, our sister legal arm, will be filing suit in the near future.”
Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said they will update their active case against the agency over its handling of braces.
“The Second Amendment Foundation already has a lawsuit filed against ATF over arm braces and will amend it to include their new attack,” he told The Reload.
A new law in San Jose, Calif., mandates that all city gun owners own insurance covering costs related to accidental gunshot injuries or deaths.PHOTO: /ASSOCIATED PRESS
Dave Truslow, a San Jose, Calif., tech-industry retiree and firearms instructor, recently started storing his collection of more than 100 guns out of town because he wanted to get ahead of a new city law requiring him to carry liability insurance for them.
“I decided I did not want to be required to comply with this,” Mr. Truslow said of the law, which went into effect Jan. 1.
San Jose’s law, the first of its type in the nation, mandates that gun owners in the city of nearly one million have insurance covering costs related to accidental gunshot injuries or deaths. The law doesn’t require policies to cover criminal misuse of firearms.
The law was pushed by former Mayor Sam Liccardo after a series of mass shootings in the area. Mr. Liccardo, a Democrat who recently stepped down due to term limits, said he thinks the law ultimately will result in insurers offering lower premiums to gun owners who safely store and handle their firearms, much like auto insurers give discounts for good driving.
Former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo says he began to push for the insurance law after mass shootings in the area.PHOTO: HAVEN DALEY/ASSOCIATED PRESS
“Just as insurance was a mechanism to dramatically improve road safety . . . insurance with guns could similarly have that effect,” Mr. Liccardo said.
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
What’s News
Catch up on the headlines, understand the news and make better decisions, free in your inbox every day.
Gunowners who object to the law, including Mr. Truslow, said they already took safety measures such as keeping their firearms in safes. City officials should spend more time focusing on fighting gun violence, he said.
Gun-rights groups filed lawsuits in response to the ordinance last year before it went into effect. A federal judge tossed out the suits but said that some of the claims could be refiled because the complaints had been drafted before the U.S. Supreme Court decided an important Second Amendment case last summer known as New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
In that case, the Supreme Court threw out New York’s restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in public, a decision that since has been invoked by judges in striking down several firearm restrictions.
In response, gun-control advocates in state and local governments have looked toward new approaches that could hold up in court. California last year passed a law allowing individuals to sue gun makers over violations of the state’s gun restrictions, basing on a Texas law allowing private individuals to sue to enforce abortion restrictions.
New Jersey Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy in December signed a law akin San Jose’s insurance law, which requires at least $300,000 in insurance coverage related to injury, death, or property damage for people with permits to carry guns in public.
The San Jose law applies to all gun owners, regardless of whether they carry them in public.
Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said his organization is preparing new legal challenges to San Jose on Second Amendment grounds. “This is just a way to make it too costly to own a gun,” Mr. Michel said.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Should all gun owners be required to carry liability insurance? Why or why not? Join the conversation below.
A city spokeswoman didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Advocates on both sides of America’s gun-rights debate say they are watching the San Jose law closely. The measure’s success or failure could determine whether such laws are adopted elsewhere.
A California state lawmaker has proposed a bill to require gun-liability insurance statewide.
Obtaining the insurance required by San Jose likely won’t be difficult for most people, said Janet Ruiz, a spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute, an industry trade group. Most homeowners- and renters-insurance policies cover the type of liability described in the new law, she said.
A vigil at San Jose City Hall in 2021 honored victims of a shooting.PHOTO: AMY OSBORNE/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
A few insurers offer stand-alone gun-liability policies, but most don’t, according to the institute.
Mr. Liccardo said the law doesn’t call for San Jose’s police department to proactively check whether people with firearms have insurance. But gun owners will be required to carry proof of insurance with their firearms much as drivers do, he said.
As one example, he said officers could check if they responded to a domestic violence call and a gun was present. Those not in compliance face fines of up to $1,000.
Accidental shootings accounted for 1% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. in 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of accidental shooting deaths ticked up in 2020, but in general has been falling for decades, according to the CDC.
Write to Zusha Elinson at zusha.elinson@wsj.com
The financial institution abruptly closed both the business and personal accounts of Brandon Wexler over the Christmas holidays. Wexler is a longtime customer of the bank, having had personal accounts for over 25 years and business accounts for at least 14 years.
In a letter to the dealer, obtained by The Reload, Wells Fargo claims a review of the account deemed Wexler’s business “too risky.”
Wells Fargo performs ongoing reviews of its account relationships in connection with the banks responsibilities to manage risks and its banking operations. We recently reviewed your account relationship and as a result of this review we will be closing your above referenced account. The accounts are expected to close by February 9, 2023 or you may contact the bank to initiate closure at an earlier date. The bank’s decision to close your accounts is final. Please note the bank reserves the right to close the subject accounts sooner than February 9, 2023 if circumstances arise that warrant an earlier closing. Also be aware that some circumstances may delay the closure of your accounts to learn more refer below to what may delay account closure
A Wells Fargo representative gave a statement to The Reload and denied the bank closed Wexler’s accounts because of his industry.
Jennifer L. Langan, Head of communications for CSBB & Consumer Lending at Wells Fargo, disputed Wexler’s claim that the closures were due to his work as a gun dealer.
“Based on our analysis of the risk associated with this customer, we made a decision to close the accounts,” she told The Reload. “Our decision is not based on the industry.”
However, a second letter from Wells Fargo to Wexler indicates that isn’t a completely honest statement. The banking giant explicitly says the reason for yanking the business account is because their guidelines prohibit them from “lending to certain types of businesses.”
Wells Fargo performs ongoing reviews of account relationships in connection with the company’s responsibility to oversee and manage risk and its business operations. We have reviewed your relationship with Wells Fargo and have determined at this time to close your account, effective 12/23/22. As of the date of this letter you may no longer make purchases or take cash advances. The reason for this action is:
Banking guidelines excludes lending to certain types of businesses
The Wex Gunworks owner isn’t an unknown quantity in the industry or business in general. Wexler has been a go-to industry source for media over the years, including The New York Times, CNN and ABC. Given the longstanding relationship with Wells Fargo, Wexler feels certain this is a case of industry discrimination.
“I’ve been with them for 25 years,” he told The Reload. “I’m a professional fireman. I do everything the right way. It’s messed up.”
Wells Fargo has indicated in the past they intend to pull away from banking relationships with gun dealers and pro-second amendment organizations like the NRA.
Wexler says he is currently weighing his legal options.
“I don’t care about the money. It’s more about making a point here. The public really needs to know about this. It’s not right.”
You’ve probably heard someone you know or, at least, someone online opine that police shouldn’t shoot to kill when they draw their firearms. Instead, they should wound people by hitting a leg or an arm. The most ignorant of this crowd ask “why not just shoot the gun out of the criminal’s hand?”
Our commander-in-chief, President Joe Biden, is apparently one such person. While giving a speech at the National Action Network’s Martin Luther King Jr. Day breakfast in Washington, the “leader” of the free world decided to weigh in on your local police force should be handling situations where a firearm is necessary.
“We have to retrain cops,” said Biden. “Why should you always shoot with deadly force? The fact is if you need to use your weapon, you don’t have to do that.”
Incredible.
Firstly, getting shot in the leg or the arm doesn’t guarantee one survives being shot. Hitting an artery is a solid way to bleed out swiftly if help doesn’t come soon enough.
That said, it’s pretty clear that Biden and people like him have watched one too many action movies. In cinema, the gunman of great skill retains an unchanging grim, if not uncaring expression as he casually shoots the extremities of his opponent, rendering them helpless and allowing him to get the info he needs. Even in the midst of chaos, he never loses his cool and his aim is always perfect.
In real life, adrenaline is shooting through the body putting the brain in fight or flight mode. The hands can get very shaky and one’s aim becomes less reliable. Even if the person wielding the gun is steady and aiming as best they can in these high-stakes situations, his target might be moving swiftly or even shooting back, making the shooter’s aim that much less accurate.
Hitting a limb is a gamble and the odds aren’t in favor of the shooter. The shot is likely to either miss or hit the larger part of the person’s body.
This is why police are trained to shoot at center mass when relying on deadly force. They aren’t trained to shoot to wound, it’s to kill. Anything else risks the life of the officer and runs the risk of hitting anyone behind the target.
Biden clearly doesn’t understand this because Biden, like many anti-gun Democrats, has little to no experience with firearms. He’s had all of his needs for protection taken care of for him. Yet he moralizes about what the people who protect us every day should do when in situations he’s never, and will never, be in.
This is just another example of a Democrat’s need to virtue signal in ignorance making it possible for people who know better to be put in danger.
