It isn’t an official position statement by the ATF, just one persons opinion, but it should be helpful in generating support for the Hearing Protection Act of 2017, H.R. 367.
The bill now has two local sponsors with Lee Zeldin adding his name last week.
“Michael Fifer, CEO of Sturm, Ruger & Co., took a strong political stance on Wednesday during the company’s earnings call. In addition to advocating support for the Second Amendment, Fifer also pledged large donations to the National Rifle Association, said the company will urge customers to call their congressional representatives … In support of the Second Amendment, Fifer said Sturm, Ruger & Co. will donate $2 to the NRA for every gun it sells, and it will match all donations to the NRA up to $5 million until the election on November 8 …”
Antigunners at the Daily News are getting an erection over this:
“College students in Brooklyn are about do to something the National Rifle Association has refused to — build a smart gun …
NRA is not a manufacturer.
Eric knows a lot about gun safety.
“… “The NYPD’s range officers will help work out the kinks,” said Adams, who thought of the idea after the murders of Police Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos in 2014. “We want to do something the NRA has prevented gun manufacturers from doing.” …”
The NYPD has yet to work out the kinks with regular guns.
“… Adams turned to borough colleges — the Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Pratt University and New York City College of Technology among them — to work on the project. The one with the best proposal gets $1 million from Adams’ budget to advance the program …”
“… The plan already has been blessed by City Hall. “The city is proud to take the lead in anti-gun violence strategies, and looks forward to testing out this new gun technology,” a spokeswoman said. The NRA didn’t respond to requests for comment.”
They were too busy laughing.
Fresh on the heels of Kahr abandoning plans for a new plant in Orange Co. and moving across the river comes news that Remington is looking into moving to Tennessee:
“One of the nation’s largest gun manufacturers, Remington Arms, has looked at sites around Nashville for a potential corporate relocation or expansion that would likely include hundreds of manufacturing jobs … Remington is among a growing number of gun manufacturers nationwide that have been courted by states pitching themselves as more gun-friendly … Remington’s roughly 1,200-employee plant in Ilion makes rifles such as the Bushmaster semiautomatic weapon, which is now banned under New York’s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, the first law passed by any state post-Newtown … People familiar with Remington’s exploration of sites said the company looked around the Nashville area as recently as within the past month …”
Fisking Nigam Arora’s article, “Five Reasons Gunmakers Have Nothing To Fear From 3D Printed Guns“:
Regulation: It would seem that it would be difficult for the government to regulate 3D printed guns in the same way as traditional guns … The government may choose to act smarter and instead of regulating the printing of guns, it may simply regulate the sale of 3D printers. All 3D printers are run by software. The government may simply insist that 3D printer manufacturers install software that prevents printing of a hollow cylinder of a certain size, a firing pin, or a certain type of spring.
Additive manufacturing is a big deal and offers so much potential that stiffing the technology isn’t going to happen. Any sort of DRM-type controls should work just as well as they have with movies, music, software, etc.
Reliability: 3D printers typically use plastics … There are higher end materials that can handle more heat but they are more expensive … The ability to print guns with reliability on par with conventionally manufactured guns at a competitive price is far, far away.
Accuracy: Making a rudimentary gun is relatively easy, but making a gun that fires accurately is not that simple. In my review, the prospects for manufacturing guns using inexpensive 3D printers and materials with the same accuracy as that of traditional guns in the near future are poor.
What about in 5 years? 10 years? How long did it take for the personal computer to become ubiquitous?
Cost: For a law-abiding citizen, who does not mind registering his gun(s), 3D printed guns are not likely to be cost competitive for a long time to come.
Really? Defense Distributed made their first gun on a second-hand $8000 printer earlier this month. A couple weeks later someone else made an improved version on a ~$1800 printer. How long until someone has a go on the $999 printer? How about the $399 model?
Also, who seriously believes people are going to register them?
Tradition: In my experience, gun enthusiasts tend to be traditionalists. They like their guns not only because they are weapons but also for their craftsmanship, aesthetics and heritage. Can you see a gun enthusiast proudly displaying a plastic gun that looks like it is made of Legos next to his prized possessions in his gun rack?
Tradition is important. That is why Colt still makes Peacemakers. That hasn’t stopped other manufacturers from making affordable, quality replicas with modern manufacturing techniques. It will be the same with printed guns.
The NYC teacher’s pension fund has divested it’s portfolio of gun companies. With $46.5 billion in assets, dropping a measly $13.5 million in investments is nothing, and probably goes on all the time as part of managing a fund that size. Nevertheless, Comptroller John Liu did try to score some cheap political points:
“… “There is no need to support these companies, whose products can destroy lives and shatter communities in the blink of an eye,” said Comptroller Liu. “Our investment portfolio gains nothing by doing business with these firms, and this is a sound decision that sends an important message about our commitment to addressing the plague of gun violence in every possible way.” …”
According this post at GothamSchools, trustees are legally required to only invest or divest in shares that are in the best interest of the fund’s long-term health. Given that the firearms industry is one of the few sectors of the economy doing well right now it must have been hard for Liu to say that with a straight face.
Interestingly, the vote to divest was not unanimous:
“… Raymond Sarola, a senior policy adviser in the mayor’s office of pensions and investments, said in a statement, “Pension decisions should rarely, if ever, be based on other criteria except what’s best for pensioners, which should benefit taxpayers, as well.” …”
He’s right. It’s just really ironic that a guy who works for Mayor Mike is the one who said that.
Maybe Liu deserves the benefit of the doubt and we should take him at his word that he is really looking out for the pensioners best interests. So, hows the rest of his investment strategy paying off?
“Comptroller John Liu has awarded $6 million in contracts to manage city pension funds to a firm under investigation by New York federal and state prosecutors over claims it ripped off millions from public-employee pension systems around the world, The Post has learned. Boston-based State Street Corp. has faced litigation from state governments in Washington and California, as well as the United Kingdom, dating back to 2009 — each alleging the company fraudulently overbilled their retirement funds during so-called “foreign exchange” trades. But that didn’t stop Liu from doing business with the company — his administration disclosed the contract in Friday’s public record …”
Well, maybe he’s just got a lot on his mind right now:
“When then-City Councilman John Liu won his landmark victory for city comptroller in 2009, his campaign celebration was electric, with the collective energy of hundreds of public workers who saw him as their new champion … But in the time since that halcyon night, some in labor might be in the market for a new champion. Liu is increasingly on the defensive since the arrest of his campaign treasurer, Jenny Hou, on campaign finance fraud charges more than a week ago …
Reports from around the country show a strong interest in firearms:
Seemingly oblivious to the fact they’re losing the culture war, the Times calls upon Obama to go after Congress on the issue:
“… Mr. Obama talked about starting “a broader conversation” about reducing gun violence. The best place to start is in Congress, which has been grossly negligent toward constituent safety for the past 20 years as it bows to the demands of the gun lobby … Mr. Obama is free of the pressures of campaigning — and free to lead the nation toward sensible laws that can help reduce the flood of guns and related homicides. The need for strong leadership on this issue is growing as statehouse politicians cave to ever more lethal demands from the gun lobby …”
Congress, however, is not free of re-election worries and that should keep any gun control proposals bottled up, assuming Obama even cares enough about the issue to try and do something on it.