One of America's oldest gun manufacturers has filed for Chapter 11.

Courtesy of Daily Beast:

Remington Outdoor Co., one of America’s oldest gunmakers, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, according to CNN Money. The company announced that it was planning to file for bankruptcy in February, and has officially begun the process of restructuring its debt. Remington, which will remain in business during the bankruptcy, plans on reducing its debt by $700 million and contributing "$145 million to its subsidiaries." Its current owner, Cerberus Capital Management, will give up ownership of the company once the bankruptcy process is over. Remington makes the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle that was used in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting. Family members of the 26 Sandy Hook victims sued the company in the wake of the massacre. This comes as the parent company of Smith & Wesson reported low earnings in March, and Sturm Ruger’s gun sales fell 27 percent at the end of 2017.

Gee without the Obama boogeyman in the White House I guess frightening people into buying unnecessary weapons is a whole lot harder. 

And with all of this negative attention being directed at guns in America, I imagine that there are going to be a number of gun manufacturers who will be forced to tighten their belts a little.

Or possible quite a lot.

Gun manufacturer Beretta moves company from Maryland to Tennessee, not to avoid taxes but in search of lax guns laws.

Courtesy of NPR: 

The company recently moved its factory to Nashville, Tenn., because it says the law in Maryland threatened its business. The opening day was celebrated with shooting demonstrations and a warm welcome from state officials. 

The Italian gun maker says it's being driven out of its longtime U.S. home on the outskirts of Washington, D.C. The political culture there has grown hostile to guns and to the people who make them, the company says. 

The view couldn't be more different in the city of Gallatin. 

"They do what the people who live here really appreciate and respect and enjoy," says Mayor Paige Brown. "And so it's been a real pride thing for us." 

The state of Tennessee spent more than $10 million to woo Beretta. Gallatin has also thrown in a $2 million property tax break and 100 acres for free. 

Gov. Bill Haslam says the plant has made him the envy of his Republican colleagues. 

"I literally had the governors of Texas and Georgia and North Carolina and South Carolina and I'm sure a few others walk up and go, 'Dang, Haslam, that's one we really wanted,' " he says.

Makes sense. If your company is making a deadly product that the citizens want protection from, then you simply move to a place where profit takes precedence over human life every time.

After all isn't coal mining still one of the main drivers of Tennessee's economy?

And I guess that shooting in Chattanooga last year that left four Marines dead was not enough to convince the state to adopt stronger gun laws.

I wonder how many mass shootings it would take to do that?

Perhaps this will be a trend which will find more and more gun manufacturers moving to the more hospitable political climate down South, where of course folks unabashedly cling to their guns and religion and eschew such Northern ideals as public safety and corporate responsibility.

Sandy Hook families case against gun makers will go forward.

Courtesy of CT Mirror:  

A Connecticut state judge's decision Thursday allowing a lawsuit to go forward against the maker of the Bushmaster rifle used in the Sandy Hook killings focused attention on a law that Connecticut lawmakers – and now Hillary Clinton – hope to repeal. 

Remington Arms, maker of the Bushmaster rifle used to kill 20 first-graders and six staff members at Sandy Hook, is relying in its defense of the suit on a law Congress passed in 2005. Known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, it protects gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when crimes are committed with their products. 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., is hoping Congress repeals the law so it can't be decisive in the lawsuit, though there is virtually no chance of a repeal in the present Congress. 

The families of some of the children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School won a victory Thursday when Connecticut state Judge Barbara Bellis rejected the gun companies’ motion to dismiss the case citing PLCAA. She said the immunity granted the gun makers and dealers does not strip her court of jurisdiction to hear the case. 

“It’s a very positive step, possibly historic,” Blumenthal said. “I think we should be very glad and grateful that the Sandy Hook families have demonstrated this courage and strength.”

Good news for the Sandy Hook families, and for Americans as a whole.

Not such good news for Bernie Sanders who voted in favor of the law.

Bernie Sanders comes under fire for remarks concerning suing gun manufacturers.

Courtesy of New York Daily News:  

Presidential populist Bernie Sanders came under blistering fire Tuesday for opposing efforts by families of Sandy Hook shooting victims to sue gun manufacturers. 

Sanders, in an exclusive interview with the Daily News last week, said, “No, I don’t,” when asked if victims of a crime with a gun should be able to sue the manufacturer.

This of course elicited a response from Hillary Clinton who said:

“I was against it, and he was for it, to give immunity from liability to gunmakers and sellers,” front-runner Hillary Clinton told supporters at a campaign event at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn. “We can reverse this, and 92% of Americans and 85% of gun owners agree that we should.”

However she was not the only one to have sharp words for Sanders over his response.

Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy said the public doesn’t need “apologists for the NRA.” “He is just wrong,” Malloy, criticizing Sanders, told The News. 

“He is dead wrong on guns. He had an opportunity to educate the people of Vermont about guns. Vermont is small enough that he could have gone house to house to educate people about guns.” 

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy took to Twitter to shoot down Sanders’ gun stance, saying the presidential candidate is out of line. 

“For Sanders to say that the Sandy Hook families should be barred from court, even if the weapon was negligently made, is wrong,” Murphy tweeted. 

“Bernie is a friend, but this is really bad. Dems can’t nominate a candidate who supports gun manufacturer immunity.

As you know I am not a single issue voter, and I think single issue voters are idiots, however dealing with the shocking number of shooting deaths that we have in America, and the overwhelming number of guns in the hands of people who should never have even one in their possession, is a priority that I think most liberals have in common.

Personally after reading that New York Daily News interview with Sanders I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody still supports him in this race.

I guess cognitive dissonance is not only a trait to be found among the conservatives in this country.

Finally, something about Bernie Sanders that might give liberals pause.

Courtesy of The Daily Beast: 

“If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible?” he said to Jake Tapper on CNN. “Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer.” 

Now listen to one of the most viciously stupid men in Congress, Representative Louis Gohmert of Texas, a mere few weeks after the Sandy Hook Massacre. “

I refuse to play the game of ‘assault weapon.’ That’s any weapon. It’s a hammer.” 

Sanders was defending his vote for a 2005 law that protected gun manufacturers from lawsuits by victims of gun violence in a manner that big corporations in no other sector of the economy have received. It’s the same law that has prevented parents of the Aurora massacre victims from suing the manufacturer who didn’t think twice about selling 4,300 rounds to James Holmes via the Internet without so much as a cursory check. Whether marketing guns to kids or bullets designed specifically to kill cops, there is no getting around the fact that Sanders joined Blue Dog Democrats and right-wing Republicans in giving arms-dealer conglomerates a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Okay I have to admit, that one kind of stings. 

In fact this is one of my own personal crusades. I think that gun manufacturers, who sell products whose sole purpose is to kill (Which by the way is quite unlike a hammer.), should be held at least partially responsible if they are used to murder American citizens.

However having said that this one ideological disagreement does not suddenly make me want to jump off of the Bernie train.

After all let's face it, there are far more things I would disagree with Hillary Clinton about than I would Bernie Sanders.

And we all know that both of them, are significantly better choices than ANYBODY on the GOP side of the political aisle.

Anybody have a different opinion?

St. Louis area gun manufacturers introduce the pocket shotgun. Gee, what good timing.

Courtesy of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: 

This may not be the best time to establish yourself as a gun maker — with firearms sales slowing after several years of rapid growth — but that’s what two local companies are trying to do. 

Pevely-based Heizer Defense and St. Louis-based DoubleTap Defense are pushing new guns — sharing a common, and somewhat contentious, ancestry — targeting the highly competitive concealed carry market. 

Both companies are doing it with small, but powerful, handguns. Heizer has what it calls the Pocket Shotgun, a single-shot pistol that fires a .410-gauge shotgun shell. DoubleTap’s flagship is a two-shot pistol chambered to use .45 ACP rounds.

Yes a weapon with the power of the shotgun that an be easily concealed in a woman's purse or the rectum of a prison inmate. Nothing too concerning about that.

As you can see the pocket shotgun, pictured above, comes in various colors to match any lady's ensemble.

However since it IS a tiny shotgun, it might be wise to remove those high heels before firing those freedom bullets or you might find yourself tumbling ass over teakettle into a 2nd Amendment loving heap on the sidewalk.

What a country.

What a fucked up, increasingly dangerous, and racially intolerant country. 

CEO of gun manufacturer comes under attack by gun nuts. Her crime? Trying to market a gun that can only be fired by its owner.

Courtesy of the New York Times:  

Belinda Padilla does not pick up unknown calls anymore, not since someone posted her cellphone number on an online forum for gun enthusiasts. A few fuming-mad voice mail messages and heavy breathers were all it took. 

Then someone snapped pictures of the address where she has a P.O. box and put those online, too. In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. “Belinda?” the person wrote. “Is that you?” 

Her offense? Trying to market and sell a new .22-caliber handgun that uses a radio frequency-enabled stopwatch to identify the authorized user so no one else can fire it. Ms. Padilla and the manufacturer she works for, Armatix, intended to make the weapon the first “smart gun” for sale in the United States. 

But shortly after Armatix went public with its plans to start selling in Southern California, Ms. Padilla, a fast-talking, hard-charging Beverly Hills businesswoman who leads the company’s fledgling American division, encountered the same uproar that has stopped gun control advocates, Congress, President Obama and lawmakers across the country as they seek to pass tougher laws and promote new technologies they contend will lead to fewer firearms deaths. 

“Right now, unfortunately, these organizations that are scaring everybody have the power,” Ms. Padilla said. “All we’re doing is providing extra levels of safety to your individual right to bear arms. And if you don’t want our gun, don’t buy it. It’s not for everyone.”

Of course that was no good enough for the gun nuts, nor the NRA who said this: 

The National Rifle Association, in an article published on the blog of its political arm, wrote that “smart guns,” a term it mocks as a misnomer, have the potential “to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology.”

Yes, of course science is always the enemy for those who traffic in people's ignorance. 

Now if right about now you are suffering from some vague form of deja vu, don't worry you are not crazy.

Something about this technology has surfaced before on this blog, when Sarah Palin completely misunderstood it and took to Facebook to condemn "identifying bracelets." And then challenged Attorney General Eric Holder thusly:

Eric, you can replace my identifying bracelets with your government marker when you pry them off my cold, dead wrists. 

And, Eric, "You don't want to go there, buddy." 

- Sarah Palin

And that just about sums of the intellectual argument against this new technology, which even a child would recognize as potentially saving millions of American lives.

In a capitalistic society it is easy to see why the gun industry has such power.

Here is more from Business Insider:

 It’s all “Guns ‘N Roses” for the multi-billion dollar firearms industry, still blossoming in the United States. With strong lobbies, like the National Rifle Association, guns ‘n ammo are big business with big influence. 

The NRA’s best known spokesman,Wayne LaPierre, has pulled down an annual salary, close to a million dollars. In addition to fighting against gun control legislation, the NRA frequently takes its firepower to the courts, backing people and groups to expand gun ownership and access rights. 

I still think that those of us advocating more stringent gun control laws have the wind at our back, but it is important to remember that we are facing off against a behemoth with swimming pools full of money to spend. 

(Click the link at the top if the image does not expand for you.)

Growing number of firearm manufacturers may refuse to sell weapons to law enforcement if new gun control laws restrict them from selling to everybody.

Courtesy of Alaska Dispatch:  

A growing number of firearm firms in the US are vowing to reverse-boycott local and state governments that enact any new infringements on the Second Amendment. 

Vowing to close what they're calling "the police loophole," at least 50 US companies, ranging from gun machinists to gun shops, are now saying publicly they'll refuse to sell weapons and gear to police in places where governments have banned the use of the same gear by civilians. 

Quality Arms, located in Rigby, Idaho, writes on its website that it "will not supply any firearm or product manufactured by us or any other company, nor will we warranty, repair, alter or modify a firearm owned by any state, county or municipality that infringes on the right of its citizens to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment." 

The move comes as Congress and some state houses are considering new gun controls in the wake of the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The most direct target of the "police loophole" movement seems to be New York State, which put into law a raft of new gun control regulations, including limiting the size of magazines, last month. 

"Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York [so] we have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York," York Arms of Buxton, Maine, writes on its website. 

So far, none of the major gun manufacturers have joined the list, and it's an open question whether the smaller companies are bluffing or would even have occasion to sell directly to governments in New York State, for example.

I doubt that ANY of the major gun manufacturers, especially those that have contracts with law enforcement, would be willing to join such a ban, which makes it an empty gesture that smacks of desperation.

However it also reveals a very troubling mindset of those who create this death dealing instruments in that if they there are any restrictions places on who they can sell them to, regardless of that person's intent, they are saying they would be willing to further place the citizens of this country at risk by not selling weapons to law enforcement that would use them in defense of those citizens.

Sounds a little like passive aggressive terrorism to me.