You Want To Cut Military Numbers? Fine, Provided You Take These Steps....

Today the administration announced plans to reduce the size of our military to pre-WW2 levels.  In addition to huge cuts in active duty military forces, significant cuts will also be made in the Guard and Reserve.  A great many aircraft will be retired, and the Navy is likely to see even more ships retired and not replaced.

You may be surprised to read that I actually have mixed feelings about this.  On one hand, the founders never envisioned a large standing military.  We have only maintained a large standing Army since 1941 - prior to that our policy was to raise large armies when needed and disband them at the end of the conflict.  The Navy did maintain larger forces, since it takes time to build ships and train sailors.  The same could be said of Air Forces.

On the other hand, this isn't 1850 - military jobs are now much more technical and require much more training.  This makes it harder to quickly put together a force - land, sea or air - then it was in earlier times.  It also makes maintaining such a force very expensive.

So, what is the answer?  I believe it is the same system that the Founders envisioned: A relatively small national army (and Guard and Reserve), backed up by a large "people's militia" composed of virtually all able bodied persons of military age.

A people's militia worked well for 125 years - it could work today.

The primary mission of the militia would be to provide a large pool of people who have some military training and could quickly be "trained up" to full military standards in time of emergency.  In addition, a database would be maintained of all of their civilian skills so that they could be matched with military jobs (MOSs) as quickly as possible.  Essentially, this would "pre-load" the military's training programs enabling a modern force to be raised much more quickly.

In addition to the above, the militia - which would be under state authority in time of peace - would have units specializing in just one role.  The missions of these "people's militia" units would include the following:

• To provide backup to state wildland firefighting forces.

• To provide manpower for disaster relief efforts.

• To provide backup to police in controlling civil disturbances (riot control)

• In time of war, when other forces are at the front, to function as a "Home Guard".    The wartime missions of the militia could include providing security for critical infrastructure, the pursuit and apprehension of downed enemy pilots and if, God forbid, the enemy should invade, reinforcement of first line military units.  These are the same roles the British Home Guard fulfilled during WW2. 

Every citizen would be required to undergo 6 months training - with very minimal pay provided  - in all the above roles, and at the end of which they would bid for one of the four specialties based upon their scores - with conscientious objectors only being assigned to disaster relief or fire fighting units.  They then would be assigned to a unit in their community that specializes in one of the four missions.

As in the past, militia members would be required to buy and maintain in good working order, their personal equipment (firearms, fire fighting protection gear, etc) with loans being available for those unable to pay cash for them.  Firearms would be civilian legal weapons capable of firing military ammo.  (Rifles in .223 and .308, pistols in 9mm and .45.)  Prices of other gear, such as protective clothing for firefighting, would likely drop in response to demand.  Used equipment would be avialable as members completed their time of service.

Militia units would report for training and inspection one day per quarter.  Citizens would be assigned to a first line unit for 10 years and a second line unit for an additional 10 years.  They could volunteer for additional service if they are physically able.  

This system served our nation well for 125 years, and with modifications, it could do so again.  Additionally, it would be very important to "mothball", rather than scrap, aircraft and other critical equipment.

In addition to making the nation more secure, this training would take us back to a time when young people learned responsibility and otherwise "grew up" during basic training.  Again, this is a very good thing.

Are there many details to be worked out?  Of course there are - but such a program could be operated at low cost per man, provide a great deterrent to our enemies and potentially enable us to lower our active duty and "ready reserve" forces even further with less risk. 

What The 9th Circuit's Landmark Ruling On Concealed Carry Actually Means

UPDATES ADDED AT BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE

Yesterday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a landmark ruling in regards to the right to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.  In short, the Court ruled that all law abiding citizens must be allowed some method of carrying a functional firearm for self defense, because the 2nd Amendment secures such a right.  Applied to California's Concealed Weapons Permitting (CCW) laws, this ruling requires issuing agencies to issue a permit to any law abiding citizens who fulfill training and background check requirements.  They can no longer simply decide that the applicant does not have sufficient need.  If upheld, this ruling makes a CCW permit a right that can only be denied for cause (such as a felony conviction or other facts that demonstrate the person cannot be trusted with a firearm in public).

Here are a number of facts that have not been made clear in news reports:

1) This ruling is far from unique.  Many news reports - likely relying upon disinformation from anti-gun rights groups - have stated or implied that this is the first time that an appeals court has ruled in this way.  This is not true.  The 7th Circuit issued a virtually identical ruling that forced Illinois to establish a concealed carry system that issues permits to all qualified persons.  (It is significant that Illinois did not appeal.)  In two other cases, the rulings went the other way - but one of these rulings was based upon the fact that the person involved never applied for a permit, and therefore it does not apply.  So, at this point two appeals courts have ruled that a permit is a right under the 2nd Amendment and one has ruled that it is not.  What makes this ruling so very significant is that the 9th Circuit is well known to be the most liberal of all federal appeals courts.  If they cannot win at the 9th Circuit, they probably cannot win at the Supreme Court.

2) This ruling does not take effect immediately.  The 9th Circuit's action sends this case back to the trial court level, with direction that the lower court consider a CCW permit to be a right under the 2nd Amendment.  Appeals may very well delay this by months to years. Once the case gets there, the District Court will basically have no choice but to issue a "summary judgement" requiring the San Diego Sheriff to issue permits to anyone meeting training and background check requirements.  All other jurisdictions under the 9th Circuit will need to conform as well.

This ruling does provide a great deal of legal "cover" to Sheriff's and Police Chiefs who wish to issue permits to all qualified applicants for simple "self defense".  We therefore may see some issuing authorities change their policies to conform with the ruling much sooner than others.

3) As noted above, this ruling will be appealed.   The first appeal, which is virtually certain, would be to the entire 9th Circuit, as opposed to the three judge panel that issued the ruling.  Since the cost is relatively low and a loss would not extend the number of states affected by the ruling, there is no reason why San Diego would not appeal to the entire court.  No matter how this ruling goes, the loosing side has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.  However, if this case cannot be one by San Diego in the 9th Circuit, it is unlikely that they could ever win in the current Supreme Court.  An appeal to the Supreme Court, if accepted, would result in a ruling with nationwide effect.  Other states, such as New York and New Jersey, would likely quietly ask San Diego not to appeal for this very reason.  Gun right's advocates would like prefer such an appeal for the same reason.

Given that five states (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont, Wyoming) permit their residents to carry concealed or openly without a permit and four more (Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico) permit the open carry of firearms without a permit, there is a chance (albeit a small one) that the Supreme Court could rule that states must permit some form of carry without a permit.  After all, if 18% of states are operating under such systems, it tends to indicate that permits are of no benefit.  If they are of no benefit, than the infringement upon the 2nd Amendment right cannot be justified.  San Diego would do well to consider this before appealing.

Should either side appeal to the Supreme Court, there is a very good chance that the appeal will be heard, since either way previous appeals go, there is a split between appeals courts that requires clarification. 

4) 43 states, or 86% of all states, already operate CCW systems virtually identical to

States in Green or Blue already have permit systems in compliance with the ruling.

what the court ruling requires.  None of them has turned into the "Wild West" or experienced any increase in gun crime.  No state, in the 25 years history of "Shall Issue" concealed carry, has ever seriously considered repealing their law.  The court's ruling simply brings California into step with the vast majority of other states.

So, while this ruling is a huge win for gun rights, the fight is far from over.  Stay tuned, the next few months will be interesting.

Update 2-14-2014:

An excellent article on the ruling, by a lawyer familiar with gun law, can be found HERE.

In it Eugene Volokh explains why the rulings by the 9th and 7th Circuits are almost certain to be upheld.  Quoting from the ruling:

[T]he California scheme does not prevent every person from bearing arms outside the home in every circumstance. But the fact that a small group of people have the ability to exercise their right to bear arms does not end our inquiry. Because the Second Amendment “confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms,” we must assess whether the California scheme deprives any individual of his constitutional rights. Thus, the question is not whether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latter question is a resounding “no.”

The bottom line is that the Supreme Court has twice ruled that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right.  The Amendment is clear that it protect both a right to "keep" (within one's home) and "bear" meaning to carry outside the home.  In it's 2nd ruling the high court held that this protection is "fundamental to or system of ordered liberty" - indicating that it affords a high level of protection.  Furthermore, in the Heller decision, the court foresaw it's application to the carrying of firearms, stating explicitly some places that can be "off limits" while carrying.  If the court did not see the right extending outside the home, the court could have simply said, "this ruling does not extend to carrying a gun outside the home".  They didn't.  Instead they addressed the issue - likely indicating that they do believe there is a right to carry. 

The other appeals courts have chosen to ignore these facts and will not recognize any right to carry until the Supreme Court forces then to do so.  Chance are very good that this is going to happen in the near future.


Update 2-15-2014:

Many in the gun rights community were critical of Governor Brown when he signed the ban on unloaded open carry of firearms - while others predicted that by doing so, he was "teeing up" a win on concealed carry.  Well, according to a well respected and unbiased expert, it appears that Governor Brown indeed set up Thursday's decision:

"UCLA professor Adam Winkler, an expert on gun laws, called the ruling "a huge victory for gun owners in California."

"They have been seeking the right to carry concealed weapons for years now," Winkler said.

Citing the 2012 ban on the open carrying of guns, Winkler said: "Gun control advocates have no one but themselves to blame for this ruling. You have to give someone some option to carry a gun."

He said that the ban on openly carrying unloaded guns affected relatively few people because most gun owners don't want the attention and questions that guns in public attract. But many more people might apply to carry concealed weapons, he said. "If you don't want many guns on the street, the answer is open carry," Winkler said."

(Source - LA Times Article)

Gun control advocates continue to be in denial in regards to the scope of the Heller/McDonald Supreme Court rulings.  They just cannot accept the fact that the 2nd Amendment protects a personal right.  This is but the latest example of what happens when gun control advocates act like these rulings never happened.  Even though the court was abundantly clear that firearms "in common use" by the public cannot be banned, they continue to attempt to ban so called "assault weapons" - even though they are the best selling firearms on the market.  Expect the next big ruling to strike down one of the many bans of such guns, probably in California.

Why Gun Control Has No Effect On Suicide Rates

Why Dr. Vivek Murthy, Pres. Obama's Surgeon General Nominee, Is Lying or Incompetent

Dr. Vivek Murthy (via tweet): "18,000 annual gun suicides. 80% suicide success with guns, 2% without. Most survivors never reattempt."

Dr. Murthy is wrong - furthermore, he either knows that the above statement is false, or he is too incompetent to know that it is wrong.  In either case, he is not qualified to be Attorney General.

Unlike this doctor, I have actually worked in field of EMS.  I was called to literally thousands of "suicide attempts".  I saw this problem up close, virtually every day, for a decade.  I put that in quotes because the vast majority of people who supposedly attempt suicide DO NOT INTEND TO ACTUALLY DO SO.  They are simply acting out to manipulate others (most common) or as a cry for help.  When I was working, the stats I saw indicated that this was the case in over 98% of females "attempting suicide" and about 75% of males - and my experience bears this out.  These people do not want to "succeed" so they use a method that kills slowly and can be reversed.  They do not use a gun, jump from a building or step in front of a bus - because they would actually die!  (Understand: I believe these people do need help!)  By the way, these people "reattempt" many, many times.

Those who actually want to die are much more likely to use a firearm, jump from a building. slash a major blood vessel, or simply step in front of a bus or train.  They may take a quick acting drug or poison and hide without telling anyone.  They may drown themselves or use another method.  They usually "succeed" because they actually want to die.

The doctor commingles these two very different groups in order to achieve the goal of promoting gun control.  Of course, if firearms are a huge factor, than we should see a lower suicide rate in nations where they are not available.  As one might expect, this is not the case.

The countries listed below (except the US) have virtual or actual bans on civilians owning guns.  The US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world.  The suicide rate is expressed in the number per 100,000 of the population.

South Korea (Actual ban), China (Actual ban), Japan (Virtual ban), Russia (Virtual ban), Taiwan (Virtual ban), 

United States (Highest gun ownership rate in the world)

Two things are clear:

1) Removing guns does not prevent or limit suicides, it only changes the method.  If it helped, than we would see a lower rate in nations where they are not available. Dr. Murthy is wrong.

2) Cultural and social factors likely are much larger factors that the availability of any one method of suicide.  Two factors seem to dominate the nations with the highest suicide rates: Oriental culture and/or a high rate of alcohol abuse. Looking at the highest rates of suicide on  this chart, all but one of the 13 nations with the highest rates of suicide are either oriental or part of the former Soviet Union or it's satellites - which are well known for having very high rates of alcohol abuse.

Looking at more of an apples to apples comparison, let's compare the US, Canada (more gun control but still lots of guns) and the UK (very low gun ownership rate, very strict gun control):

So, above we see three nations that are culturally similar, but with very different gun laws ranging from relatively permissive (the US) to a ban on all handguns and very strict controls on other guns (the UK).  The suicide rate in all three nations is virtually identical (within 4% of each other).  Again, gun laws have absolutely no effect at all.  More proof that Dr. Murthy is wrong.

This is very basic research and very basic facts.  The doctor surely knows them very well.  The fact that he is willing to prostitute his medical credentials in order to advance his political goals disqualifies him for the office to which he is nominated.

Obama's Plan To Use His New Surgeon General To Ban Guns

A few months ago Sen. Harry Reid (undoubtedly at the urging of Pres. Obama) DESTROYED 200+ YEARS OF SENATE TRADITION BY ABOLISHING THE FILIBUSTER FOR POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS.  While not mandated in the Constitution, the requirement that 60 Senators had to agree to end debate served as a critical check on executive power.  It is quite rare for the president's party to hold 60 votes in the Senate, thus it was necessary for the president to appoint people to positions requiring confirmation who could get at least some support from the other party.

 This system worked exceedingly well for the nation's entire history - until Reid and Obama decided to scrap it in their pursuit of raw political power.  Now the most radical president we have ever had can appoint people just as radical as he is with no fear that they will not be confirmed.  Another step in the fundamental transformation of America.

Many have wondered why Reid and Obama would do this, since, when the other party gains power, it could be used against them.  Hopefully they are only short sighted - but my question is: What if they aren't?  What if the plan is to make sure - by any means necessary - that they never face that situation?  After all, no one in over 200 years made this move for precisely that reason.  Why are these two men so confident that they will never be in the minority?  What are they willing to do to make sure this doesn't happen?  More about this later.

One exception to this could be Obama's appointment of a new surgeon general (Dr.Vivek Murthy) who is an anti-gun rights zealot.  After vowing to accomplish radical gun control by going around congress, this comes as no surprise.  MAKE NO MISTAKE, THIS IS AN EFFORT TO ACCOMPLISH GUN CONTROL VIA, YOU GUESSED IT: OBAMACARE.  Think about it.  If the surgeon general were to find that gun ownership posed a "significant health risk" (not true, but since when does that matter?) - could the administration rig the system so gun ownership required the payment of a huge health insurance "premium surcharge"?  But nothing in the law permits this you say.  Since when has this mattered in Obamacare?  The president has simply modified it as he has seen fit.  Obamacare is the greatest expansion of government power in the history of our republic - because healthcare touches everyone.  Instead of banning guns, this approach is one that gun control advocates have often used: Make owning guns so difficult and expensive that only a well off minority can afford to do so.  

The NRA and other gun rights groups know this and have begun to lobby against Dr. Murthy's appointment, as have pro-gun rights reporters.  Some have seen this coming since the inception of Obamacare.  None of this should surprise gun owners, since the gun control movement twists and misapplies laws at will in order to accomplish its' goals - witness California AG Harris's move to ban all semi-auto handguns using existing law. 

Given that doctors kill (via medical malpractice) over 600 times as many people as are killed with so called "assault rifles" and roughly 17.5 times as many people as are murdered any kind of firearm, one might very well ask why the medical community isn't dealing with its' own problems first?  Why are they going after our gun rights?  After all, this could save many more lives.  The truth is that saving lives is but a pretense - the real goal is the systematic disarming of the American people.  Anything that does this must be made a priority,  This must be accomplished by any means necessary.  IT DOES MAKE ONE WONDER WHY.  It makes me wonder if this has something to do with why Reid and Obama think their party will never loose power.

While the filibuster existed, there was zero chance that anyone as radical as Dr.Vivek Murthy could ever be confirmed.  Now it is at least a chance that he may be confirmed.  However, given that gun control could not get past the Democratically controlled Senate, and that the election is even closer now, there is a very good chance that he may find it impossible to get the 50 votes he needs.  One thing is sure, if this man is confirmed, he will do everything possible to abolish your right to own guns.  He must be stopped.   The future of our constitutional republic may depend upon it.

Why Gun Registration and Gun Bans Don't Work

Dirty Little Secrets of Gun Control

First, much of what follows is from this excellent article.

1) None of the recently passed laws would have stopped ANY of the recent, high profile  shootings that prompted them.  Every single one of the firearms used in every one of them was purchased from a dealer, with a background check.  Many were registered in compliance with state laws.  So called "Assault Weapons" bans also would have had no effect, because all of the shootings could have been (or were) accomplished with a semi-auto handgun and ten round magazines - and the Supreme Court has ruled that these cannot be banned.

2) Criminals do not register guns (Dah!) - and they can't be prosecuted for failure to do so (it would be self-incrimination).  Only otherwise law abiding citizens can be prosecuted for failure to register.  Furthermore, although it is a felony federally and in most states for a prohibited person (mostly felons and the severely mentally ill) to possess or even to attempt to purchase a firearm they are almost never prosecuted.  In short, gun laws are seldom used against criminals.

3) Most otherwise law abiding citizens also will refuse to register their guns.  Rates of compliance range from 17% (UK Pump/Semi Shotguns) to 32% (Canada - long guns) to 12-30% (Connecticut - "Assault Weapons").  Canada eventually gave up after the cost rose from 2 million dollars to over a BILLION DOLLARS - all to get less than 1/3 of the long guns registered.   In any case, most guns remain hidden from government.  Of course, these are all estimates (mostly from government agencies in charge of registration) - because before registration, how do you know how many guns are really out there?

4) Registration of long guns is likely unconstitutional.  The D.C. Court of Appeals has already ruled so, in a case that is headed to the Supreme Court.  Since there is a Constitutional Right to own firearms, government must present a compelling reason why this right is restricted in any way.  The court ruled that because they are used in 60% of homicides, handguns registration can be justified,  Since long guns are seldom used in crimes, the court ruled that it was both "legally novel" and unconstitutional.  Absent a massive change in it's makeup, the Supreme Court is likely to affirm this ruling, ending all long gun registration nationwide.

5) Absent a totalitarian government, gun bans and gun registration do not work.  No gun confiscation has ever happened without registration preceding it.  This is why compliance is so low.  There is no reason to expect that compliance with gun "buy back" or other confiscation measures would be any better.  So, how do you make sure all the guns are registered?  If you ban them, how do you make sure you get them all?  It is at this point that many no gun owners and even political liberals begin to "see the light".  In order to really "control the guns" other civil liberties, especially the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches must be violated.  Door to door sweeps must be conducted.  Entry must be forced into any home that refuses.  Any place that a gun can be hidden must be searched.  How is this to be accomplished in America, without provoking a second American revolution - especially when people were rightly outraged over phone "metadata" being collected?  Even these measures would not find all the guns, as more than one dictator has learned.

6) In the US, guns are traced quite successfully without registration.  Since 1969, all guns sold by dealers have required identification and a record of the purchaser, which is kept at the dealer (called a FFL).  For over 20 years a FBI background check has also been required.  If a FFL goes out of business, the records are sent to the ATF.  In addition importers and manufacturers keep records of where each gun they make or import is sent, as do distributors.  It is thus a simple thing to trace a gun from manufacturer to dealer to buyer - all without registration, and usually in just a few hours.  The key here is that a crime is required to do the search and only the gun(s) involved are searched.  This is quite a bit like the process cops go though to get phone records, which are at least as useful in solving crimes.

7) Some of the recent shootings could have been stopped if the background check database were simply more accurate.  Too many felons and too many people adjudicated mentally incompetent are not making it into the database - which allows them to pass the check and buy a firearm - albeit still illegally.  The NRA and other gun rights groups have advocated fixing this problem, as have some, but not all, gun control groups - but it simply isn't getting done.

8) Most of the recent high profile shootings could have been stopped if police sent more people in for mental health evaluation.  Many of the people who committed these horrible shootings displayed bizarre behavior in public and were the subject of police contact - often tens of times - and yet were never sent to a mental health professional.  Had this happened, it is highly likely that, at a minimum, they would have been committed, triggering a lifetime firearms ban.  If duly reported, they would never be able to buy a firearm though legal channels.

After we fix the broken background check system by fixing the two problems listed above, and we start prosecuting the majority of those who try to buy guns illegally (instead of the .3% we currently prosecute) we can and should look at "universal" background checks.  Until we fix these problems we are only expanding a critically flawed system.  That's yet another dirty little secret of gun control.

How California's Attorney General Is Effectively Banning Handguns

AG Harris's Slow Motion Gun Ban
(Updates at bottom of post)

To understand how she is doing this, you have to understand a bit about California's complex gun laws - and how she has been able to assemble these component laws into a virtual ban.

Component one: The State Approved Handgun List.  For many years, in order to be sold by a gun dealer, a handgun must be on California's "roster" of "not unsafe" handguns.  This law was passed with the stated purpose of making handguns more expensive so that the poor could not afford them.  It does this in three ways:

First, it requires safety testing - which to the author's dismay, most of the so called "Saturday Night Specials" passed.   In this regard, it failed.

Second, the gun's manufacturer or importer, AND NO ONE ELSE, must pay a fee every two years to keep it on the roster of "not unsafe" handguns.  How a gun becomes less safe because a tax has not been paid is beyond me - but this has the effect of banning the commercial sales of most used handguns EVEN IF THEY HAVE PASSED THE TEST!  This, of course, has the same effect as a ban on the sale of used cars would - it prices people out of the market.  This, of course, was the whole idea.

Third, to be placed on the list, a "new model" handgun must incorporate an ever expanding list of so called "safety features" - many of which have questionable safety value.  This has the effect of limiting the number of handgun models available, making smaller models unavailable, and increasing the cost of models that are able to pass the test. 

If you are still thinking that this law is about safety, consider this: POLICE ARE EXEMPT.  That's right, California police agencies can and usually do issue guns that are supposedly unsafe.  In fact, the most common handgun issued to police - the Glock - lacks the "safety features" now required to get on the list.

Of course, this is likely unconstitutional since the 2008 Heller decision by the Supreme Court which made firearms ownership a civil right.  (Imagine if the government tried to regulate what books could be sold in the name of public safety!)   Gun rights groups are currently challenging it.

Component two: Microstamping requirement.  Several years ago, the legislature passed a law requiring technology that stamped the guns serial number on the fired casing be added to the requirements to get on the "roster" as soon as it became "feasible".  Although not one gun maker believes this is feasible,  AG Harris has decreed that it is now feasible and that it shall now be required to get on the roster.

Of course, this only bans new models - guns previously certified should be able to remain on the list as long as the manufacturer pays the fee.  However, AG Harris has figured out a way around this.

Component three: A "unique" definition of a "new design".  No one would consider a car with leather seats instead of vinyl seats a "new model" or "new design" - but, under AG Harris, ANY change is now considered a "new model" that must meet ALL new requirements - including the non-existent microstamping technology.   For instance, if the alloy of metal used to make a safety lever is changed, Harris now considers that to be a new model.  Since it is routine for manufacturers to make such small changes, VIRTUALLY EVERY PISTOL WILL EVENTUALLY NEED TO BE RETESTED AND RECERTIFIED. 

In spite of the fact that California is a huge handgun gun market - one of the largest in the nation at about 8% of all sales - the two largest manufacturers of pistols in the nation - Smith & Wesson and Ruger - have already announced that they will not attempt to certify any new models in California.  In the past, these two gun makers have bent over backwards to meet California requirements in ways others have not, often designing models specifically to meet the state's mandates.  Not any more - and if the nation's two largest pistol makers can no longer comply, it is all but certain that no one can.  So as models are "bumped off" the roster due to tiny changes, or even the allegation that tiny changes have been made, they will not be recertified.  They will just disappear from the market.

Of course, both gun owners groups and the gun industry are suing - but one thing is sure, this is an attempt to ban all modern handguns, one model at a time.  For more information, check out the links below:

Tom Gresham interview with the CEO of Ruger

Ruger CEO video interview on Guns.com

Online Article by the NRA

Smith and Wesson's statement on the issue

Forbes Magazine article

Breitbart.com article

2/10/2014 - From Calguns foundation:
"In January, The Calguns Foundation published its report on the roster’s effects on the California handgun market, which illustrates that the roster is an effective ban on handguns in common use for self-defense. The report, based on the California Department of Justice’s own roster database, shows that an average of 59 semi-automatic handguns have been removed from the roster every year for the past decade. However, 58 handgun models have already been removed by DOJ since January 1 of this year, with many more removals expected in coming months."
MORE HERE

2/27/2014 - Ruger has announced that none of it's semi-auto handguns will be available sometime this Fall.   

4/8/2014 - As dozens of handguns fall off the register and can no longer be sold, the NRA and Ruger have produced a video in which experts in their fields explain in detail how microstamping is completely impossible to implement.  The requirement is that it work 100% of the time, with ALL ammo.  It must imprint the case in two places - the primer and the cartridge case. They have been able to get it to work intermittently on the primer.  It's even less reliable on the cartridge case - because they can be made out of so many different materials. Brass, Steel, and Aluminum are all used and in some unknown way manufacturers are supposed to get it to work 100% of the time.