- Threat Watch
- Warrior Tools
- Body Armor
- Long Guns
- Accuracy International
- Desert Tactical Arms
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- Mosin Nagant
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- SIG Sauer
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Wilson Combat
Posts Tagged maryland
From The Federalist:
The Supreme Court has refused to hear “assault weapon” cases in the past. However, previous cases were lower profile and the result of narrow readings, not the backwards interpretation exhibited in Kolbe. In its bravado, the Fourth Circuit may have crossed a bridge too far, sparking national debate and possibly forcing the issue to finally make it to the Supreme Court.
The Kolbe court justified their holding through a misplaced reliance on Heller’s discussion of weapons not protected by the Second Amendment: “dangerous and unusual weapons” and those “most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like.” This reliance was completely out of context, most obviously because the M-16 and its stablemates are machine guns, not in common lawful use by civilians anywhere. This is a far cry from the pedestrian semi-automatic weapons Maryland actually targeted.
From The Trace:
Writing for the 10-4 majority, Judge Robert King of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said that the landmark Heller v. District of Columbia decision rendered in 2008 explicitly allows governments to regulate firearms similar in design and function to those issued to members of the military.
The decision marks the fifth time that a federal appeals court has upheld a state assault weapons law, but it goes further than those previous decisions. It is the first to exclude AR-15s and other similar guns from Second Amendment protection on the grounds that they are virtually indistinguishable from weapons of war. The court found that such designation overrides considerations of the common usage or suitability for home self-defense of a gun like the AR-15.
The judges in this case are choosing to be willfully ignorant of the weapons used at the time of the Constitution. There was no difference between arms used in the military/militia and those used for hunting or self defense. Townships had their own armories stocked with cannons (the equivalent of modern artillery). Their argument that the lethality of the weapons disqualifies the weapons is exactly what you would expect from elites in positions of power. They fear the power that the people would wield if allowed to keep and bear such weapons. On another point I would like to know how many of these judges have ever shot or held a gun, let alone own one.
From Grand View Outdoors:
The new bill proposed by Baltimore delegate Jill Carter would bar the sale, possession or use of so-called “imitation firearms” and would impose a $1,000 fine and up to a year in prison for any violation. The bill defines imitation firearms as “a toy, a device or an object that substantially duplicates or can reasonably be perceived to be a firearm or a handgun.”
There is no so-called “grandfather clause,” so according to the legislation, anyone who owns a toy or an air gun that’s defined as an “imitation” would be violating the law.
From The Washington Times:
“You think that Maryland would honor legitimate people with guns rather than charging people who are legitimately carrying but doing it incorrectly,” said Mr. Kramer, who was former deputy U.S. attorney for Maryland. “I would think that the police would want to take the time to go after those people who don’t have a legitimate right to have a gun rather than locking up people who have a valid license.
Full Press Release:
Beretta U.S.A. Corp., located in Accokeek, Maryland, announced today that it has decided to move its manufacturing capabilities from its existing location to a new production facility that it is building in Gallatin, Tennessee. The Gallatin facility is scheduled to be opened in mid-2015. Beretta U.S.A. had previously planned to use the new Gallatin, Tennessee facility for new machinery and production of new products only.
“During the legislative session in Maryland that resulted in passage of the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, the version of the statute that passed the Maryland Senate would have prohibited Beretta U.S.A. from being able to manufacture, store or even import into the State products that we sell to customers throughout the United States and around the world. While we were able in the Maryland House of Delegates to reverse some of those obstructive provisions, the possibility that such restrictions might be reinstated in the future leaves us very worried about the wisdom of maintaining a firearm manufacturing factory in the State,” stated Jeff Cooper, General Manager for Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
“While we had originally planned to use the Tennessee facility for new equipment and for production of new product lines only, we have decided that it is more prudent from the point of view of our future welfare to move the Maryland production lines in their entirety to the new Tennessee facility,” Cooper added.
The transition of production from Beretta U.S.A.’s Maryland facility to the Tennessee facility will not occur until 2015 and will be managed so as not to disrupt deliveries to Beretta customers. Beretta U.S.A.’s production of the U.S. Armed Forces M9 9mm pistol will continue at the Accokeek, Maryland facility until all current orders from the U.S. Armed Forces have been filled.
“We have not yet begun groundbreaking on the Tennessee facility and we do not anticipate that that building will be completed until the middle part of 2015,” continued Cooper. “That timing, combined with our need to plan an orderly transition of production from one facility to the other so that our delivery obligations to customers are not disrupted, means that no Beretta U.S.A. Maryland employee will be impacted by this news for many months. More importantly, we will use this time to meet with every Beretta U.S.A. employee whose Maryland job might be affected by the move to discuss with them their interest in taking a position at our new facility in Tennessee or, if they are not willing to do so, to lay out a long-term strategy for remaining with the Company while our production in Maryland continues.”
Beretta U.S.A. anticipates that the Gallatin, Tennessee facility will involve $45 million of investment in building and equipment and the employment of around 300 employees during the next five years.
Beretta U.S.A. has no plans to relocate its office, administrative and executive support functions from its Accokeek, Maryland facility.
Ugo Beretta, the owner of Italian arms manufacturer Beretta had this to say in the Washington Times:
These regulations also demean our law-abiding customers, who must now be fingerprinted like criminals before they can be allowed to purchase one of our products.
We have seen these types of legislative proposals in Maryland before, and they never seem to reduce crime. Maybe this is because the proponents of such legislation blame the product instead of human misconduct.’
I must say it is surprising to hear this opinion coming from a European, especially considering the fact that he is defending a right that they do not have in Italy.
After 35 years in Accokeek, Maryland, Beretta announced it will open a factory in Gallatin, Tennessee. They are constructing a $45 million dollar state-of-the-art manufacturing and research and development facility in Tennessee’s Gallatin Industrial Park
Explain to me how the laws that led to the following video are “common sense”. This is just ridiculous…
From The Washington Times:
Before the hearing, more than 1,000 gun rights advocates gathered outside the State House to voice their disapproval, echoing scenes that have played out in other state capitals, where the push for gun control by Democratic leaders in the wake of last year’s school shooting in Newtown, Conn., is getting blowback from Republicans as well as many conservative and rural Democrats.
Another gun law bites the dust, this time in Maryland. The same lawyer who won the Heller case and the case in Chicago is behind the challenge to the Maryland law.
“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” Legg wrote. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”
That’s why we call them “rights”.