web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

Second Amendment Case May Fizzle Out at the Supreme Court

Westlake Legal Group 02dc-scotus-facebookJumbo Second Amendment Case May Fizzle Out at the Supreme Court washington dc Supreme Court (US) Second Amendment (US Constitution) New York City gun control firearms Decisions and Verdicts

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade may not end up changing anything, judging from questioning at arguments on Monday that focused largely on whether the repeal of a New York City law made the case challenging it moot.

“What’s left of this case?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked. “The petitioners have gotten all of the relief they sought.”

The other three members of the court’s liberal wing made similar points. “The other side has thrown in the towel,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told a lawyer for the challengers.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a member of the court’s conservative majority, asked questions that seemed aimed at making sure that the case was truly moot. But two other conservatives, Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, seemed ready to decide the case, saying that the repeal of the law did not settle every question before the court.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh asked no questions.

The law had limited city residents who had “premises licenses” from transporting their guns outside their homes. It allowed them to take their guns to one of seven shooting ranges within the city limits, but it barred them from taking their guns anywhere else, including second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when they were unloaded and locked in a container separate from any ammunition.

Three city residents and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association sued to challenge the law but lost in Federal District Court in Manhattan and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second Circuit ruled that the ordinance passed constitutional muster.

After the Supreme Court granted review, the city repealed its law, apparently fearful of a loss that could sweep away other gun-control regulations, too. For good measure, New York State enacted a law allowing people with premises licenses to take their guns to their homes and businesses and to shooting ranges and competitions, whether in the city or not.

Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for the challengers in the case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280, said the restrictions imposed by the ordinance were at odds with the Second Amendment.

Richard P. Dearing, a lawyer for the city, responded that the ordinance was no longer on the books, meaning that there was nothing left for the court to decide.

The larger question in the case, one the court may not address, is whether lower courts have been faithfully applying its key precedent, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was decided by a 5-to-4 vote in 2008. The decision revolutionized Second Amendment jurisprudence by identifying an individual right to own guns, but it ruled only that the right applied inside the home, for self-defense.

Proponents of gun rights have been frustrated by lower-court rulings that have generally upheld various kinds of gun-control laws, often relying on a passage in the Heller decision that said some restrictions were presumptively constitutional.

“Nothing in our opinion,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in a passage that was apparently the price of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s fifth vote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Justice Scalia died in 2016, and Justice Kennedy retired last year.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

After Long Gap, Supreme Court Poised to Break Silence on Gun Rights

Westlake Legal Group merlin_151293738_52467552-c9f8-480d-a4c2-96f9db3e18fd-facebookJumbo After Long Gap, Supreme Court Poised to Break Silence on Gun Rights Thomas, Clarence Supreme Court (US) Suits and Litigation (Civil) Stevens, John Paul Second Amendment (US Constitution) Scalia, Antonin Kennedy, Anthony M Kavanaugh, Brett M gun control Gorsuch, Neil M firearms Decisions and Verdicts Constitution (US)

WASHINGTON — It has been almost 10 years since the Supreme Court last heard a Second Amendment case. On Monday, a transformed court will return to the subject and take stock of what has happened in the meantime.

The nation has had a spike in gun violence. And lower courts have issued more than 1,000 rulings seeking to apply the justices’ 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which established an individual right to own guns but said almost nothing about the scope of that right.

The new case concerns a New York City ordinance. Fearing a loss in the Supreme Court, to say nothing of a broad ruling from the court’s conservative majority on what the Second Amendment protects, the city repealed the ordinance and now argues that the case is moot. But the court may be ready to end its decade of silence, elaborate on the meaning of the Second Amendment and, in the process, tell lower courts whether they have been faithful to the message of the Heller decision.

Proponents of gun rights and some conservative justices say lower courts have been engaged in lawless resistance to the protections afforded under the Second Amendment by sustaining unconstitutional gun-control laws.

“The lower courts have, generally speaking, been defying Heller,” said George Mocsary, a law professor at the University of Wyoming.

Gregory P. Magarian, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, looked at the same evidence and came to the opposite conclusion. “By and large, the lower courts have played this whole game very straight,” he said. “They have taken Heller seriously.”

The decision in the new case may clarify matters. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch have already set out their positions, saying that the Supreme Court has tacitly endorsed dishonest rulings in the lower courts by refusing to hear appeals from decisions sustaining gun-control laws.

It was, Justice Thomas wrote in a 2017 dissent joined by Justice Gorsuch, part of “a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”

In another dissent last year, Justice Thomas returned to the theme.

“The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this court’s constitutional orphan,” he wrote. “And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message.”

Eight months later, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the court, replacing the more moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. And just a few months after that, the court announced that it would hear the case to be argued Monday.

The Heller decision was both revolutionary and modest. It ruled, by a 5-to-4 vote, that the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own guns — in the home, for self-defense. At the same time, it indicated that many kinds of gun regulations are permissible.

Justice Kennedy was in the majority in Heller decision, but he insisted on an important limiting passage, according to a 2018 interview with Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the main dissent and died in July.

“Nothing in our opinion,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in the passage that was the price of Justice Kennedy’s fifth vote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

The court’s only other Second Amendment case since then, McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, extended the Heller decision, which concerned federal gun laws, to state and local ones.

Recent scholarship tells a complicated story about how the Heller decision has been applied in the lower courts. A comprehensive study of Second Amendment rulings after the Heller decision through early 2016, published last year in the Duke Law Journal, found that the success rate for challengers was indeed low, at about 9 percent.

But the article concluded that “the low rate of success probably has more to do with the claims being asserted than with judicial hostility.” For instance, challenges by felons charged with possessing guns made up about a quarter of the cases and almost always failed, as the Heller decision itself seemed to require.

Other challenges, in criminal cases or brought by people without lawyers, were also seldom successful. But plaintiffs with lawyers in civil cases in federal appeals courts, the study found, had a success rate of 40 percent.

“Second Amendment challenges have overwhelmingly failed at a broad level,” said Joseph Blocher, a law professor at Duke, who conducted the study with Eric Ruben, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice. “Something like 90 percent of them failed. But when you dig down into the cases to see why they failed, it turns out that many of them were weak from the outset.”

“Courts are not reflexively rejecting Second Amendment claims,” Professor Blocher said. “There will be cases in which judges may not go far enough in protecting the right, but that’s not indicative of what critics have called ‘massive resistance’ or ‘nullification’ or ‘second-class rights treatment.’”

Still, said Brannon P. Denning, a law professor at Samford University in Birmingham, Ala., “there was a tendency to give Heller the narrowest possible reading.”

“Judges were saying that as long as there is not a complete prohibition of possession of a handgun for self-defense in the home,” Professor Denning said, “then pretty much on anything else we’re going to give the benefit of the doubt to the government.”

The New York City ordinance challenged in the new case allowed residents with so-called premises licenses to take their guns to one of seven shooting ranges in the city limits. But the ordinance barred them from taking their guns anywhere else, including second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when they were unloaded and locked in a container separate from ammunition.

Three city residents and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association filed a lawsuit challenging the law but lost in Federal District Court in Manhattan and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second Circuit ruled that the ordinance passed constitutional muster under the Heller decision.

After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280, the city amended its ordinance to allow people with premises licenses to take their guns to their homes and businesses and to shooting ranges and competitions, whether in the city or not. For good measure, New York State enacted a similar law.

The challengers have gotten everything they sought, the city’s lawyers told the Supreme Court, making the case moot. In response, the challengers said the case is still live because they may be entitled to seek money from the city and could suffer negative consequences for what was unlawful conduct while the ordinance was in place. They urged the justices not to reward the city’s “extraordinary machinations designed to frustrate this court’s review.”

Timothy Zick, a professor at William and Mary Law School, said supporters of gun regulation had reason to hope the justices would rule that the case is moot.

“The fear is that the court will accept the premise that what we need here is the most robust form of protection we can offer to this fundamental right because it’s been orphaned and disrespected,” Professor Zick said. “That, and the fact that this law is not a very good one, makes it understandable that you might not want this case to be the one that the court decides.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Must-See Tweets Displaying Chile’s Violent Response to Protesters Shows Us Why Gun Control Is a Bad Idea

Westlake Legal Group ff260d6b-4131-4295-9611-d5489b7c6ddd@news.ap_.org_ Must-See Tweets Displaying Chile’s Violent Response to Protesters Shows Us Why Gun Control Is a Bad Idea second amendment police brutality Guns gun rights gun control Front Page Stories firearms democrats Chile America 2A

Gun control advocates often laugh at people who like to say they keep their guns around because it prevents authoritarians in the government from getting out of control.

As they laugh, we see how the police dominate their unarmed citizenry with brutal force and cruel tactics. We’ve watched as it happened in China, Venezuela, North Korea, and now Hong Kong and Chile.

In Chile, what started as a protest about rising metro faires has blossomed into a full-on riot thanks to rising costs of living, with police reacting with overt violence. One Twitter user from Chile going by “pinkitsvne,” has tweeted out images and videos showing just how bad it has gotten.

One thing she noted, in particular, was how the government was manhandling protesters and rioters thanks to Chile being a “disarmed country.”

“THIS IS CHILE RIGHT NOW,” she tweeted. “The government set the military on the streets just because people were demanding rights. Salaries aren’t enough. WE ARE A DISARMED COUNTRY. They fight us with guns and we have bare hands.
Media is censoring this, please RT. MAKE THE WORLD SEE.”

The Twitter user posted other images and videos, including a GIF of police destroying public property and blaming protesters for the act.

One image, in particular, stands out, however. An unarmed older man can be seen holding his hand up to a Chilean officer who is pointing a gun directly at him. Included is a video of police firing guns at unseen protesters.

“This image makes me so so sad honestly. It’s literally representing what’s happening, a gun pointed at us when we just want to be heard,” tweeted pinkitsvne.

It’s possible that these shotguns contain beanbag rounds; they have has not been confirmed as having been shells that are deadly. Regardless, you can see how the police abuse their authority by shooting teargas into the property of protesters and even using batons to beat a child.

Those laughing at American people who want to keep their Second Amendment rights alive and well are the laughable ones. We see a constant stream of examples of what happens when a government doesn’t have the threat of violence looming against them, with Chile just being the latest.

Gun rights advocates are watching and learning. They’re paying attention to historical patterns that show that an unarmed populace is a conquered one. It’s only a matter of time before it overtly shows.

When Democrats tell us we need to give up our guns and America refuses, what we see in Chile is what it’s refusing.

The post Must-See Tweets Displaying Chile’s Violent Response to Protesters Shows Us Why Gun Control Is a Bad Idea appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ff260d6b-4131-4295-9611-d5489b7c6ddd@news.ap_.org_-300x199 Must-See Tweets Displaying Chile’s Violent Response to Protesters Shows Us Why Gun Control Is a Bad Idea second amendment police brutality Guns gun rights gun control Front Page Stories firearms democrats Chile America 2A   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

N.R.A.’s LaPierre Asks Trump to “Stop the Games” Over Gun Legislation in Discussion About Its Support

Westlake Legal Group 27dc-guns-facebookJumbo N.R.A.’s LaPierre Asks Trump to “Stop the Games” Over Gun Legislation in Discussion About Its Support United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J National Rifle Assn mass shootings LaPierre, Wayne impeachment gun control firearms

President Trump met in the White House on Friday with Wayne LaPierre, the chief executive of the National Rifle Association, and discussed prospective gun legislation and whether the N.R.A. could provide support for the president as he faces impeachment and a more difficult re-election campaign, according to two people familiar with the meeting.

During the meeting, Mr. LaPierre asked that the White House “stop the games” over gun control legislation, people familiar with the meeting said. It was not clear whether Mr. Trump asked Mr. LaPierre for his support, or what that support would look like.

In a statement Friday evening, an N.R.A. spokesman confirmed the meeting took place but insisted The Times’s account of the meeting was “inaccurate.”

“The N.R.A. categorically denies any discussion occurred about special arrangements pertaining to the N.R.A.’s support of the President and vice versa,” the statement said.

Mr. LaPierre has been a leader in an aggressive campaign by gun rights advocates to influence the White House in the months since the back-to-back mass shootings in Texas and Ohio. In a series of calls and meetings, he has tried to move Mr. Trump away from proposing any sort of background check measures akin to what he said after the mass shootings he might support.

Even before the launch of a formal impeachment inquiry, Mr. LaPierre’s influence on Mr. Trump has been clear. After a 30-minute phone call last month, Mr. Trump appeared to be espousing N.R.A. talking points when answering questions about guns.

“We have very, very strong background checks right now, but we have sort of missing areas and areas that don’t complete the whole circle,” the president told reporters last month, adding, “I have to tell you that it’s a mental problem.”

Privately, Mr. Trump has raised questions with his aides about the N.R.A.’s ability to help back his 2020 campaign the way it did in 2016, when it poured over $30 million into his election, more than any other outside group. He has voiced concerns that the group looks like it is going bankrupt and may lack the political clout it had last election cycle.

This year, the N.R.A. has been mired in investigations by attorneys general in New York and Washington, D.C. and beset by leaks about its lavish spending practices, while also facing restive donors and inquiries over its ties to Russia. And its finances have been strained.

Recent public filings have shown that it largely exhausted a $25 million line of credit that was guaranteed by the deed to its Fairfax, Va., headquarters, and borrowed against insurance policies taken out on its executives. Oliver North, who departed this year as the N.R.A.’s president in an acrimonious leadership fight, has said that the organization’s legal bills, running between $1.5 million and $2 million a month from its main law firm, have created an “existential crisis.”

In the midterm elections, gun control groups outspent the N.R.A., upending the usual political dynamics. But the organization still has considerable resources and more than five million members, many of whom overlap with Mr. Trump’s base. And rallying grass-roots support has traditionally been one of its strengths.

Aides have reassured Mr. Trump that the group is still in good enough financial shape to help him, even as his own political fortunes have shifted since the mass shootings.

For his part, Mr. Trump has been caught between opposing political pressures to do something on gun legislation and to maintain the status quo. He has idled in neutral while Congress has waited for a sign from the White House on what it plans to propose.

The White House has also been sending mixed messages on its intentions. Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and a senior White House adviser, was still calling around to senators this week, saying her father wanted to make a move on guns even as he faced impeachment. But Mr. Trump’s meeting with Mr. LaPierre on Friday indicated that his priority may be his own political survival rather than making any strides on guns.

In the meantime, White House aides and Mr. Trump himself have sought to blame House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who announced a formal impeachment inquiry against Mr. Trump on Tuesday, for lowering the chances of working together on bipartisan measures.

“It’s no secret the president wants meaningful solutions to protect American communities and potentially stop one of these tragedies from ever happening again,” said Hogan Gidley, a White House spokesman, “and he’s going to continue doing his job even though Democrats refuse to do theirs.”

Mr. Trump and Ms. Pelosi spoke about gun policy on Tuesday. Ms. Pelosi’s staff characterized the call as completely lacking in substance on gun measures. Mr. Trump said she cared only about impeachment.

“Nancy Pelosi is not interested in guns and gun protection and gun safety. Mr. Trump said during a bilateral meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine at the United Nations General Assembly. “All she’s thinking about is this.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Meets With LaPierre to Discuss How N.R.A. Could Support Political Defense

Westlake Legal Group 27dc-guns-facebookJumbo Trump Meets With LaPierre to Discuss How N.R.A. Could Support Political Defense United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J National Rifle Assn mass shootings LaPierre, Wayne impeachment gun control firearms

President Trump met on Friday with Wayne LaPierre, the chief executive of the National Rifle Association, to discuss how the N.R.A. could provide financial support for the president’s defense as he faces political headwinds, including impeachment, according to two people familiar with the meeting.

It was not clear whether Mr. Trump asked Mr. LaPierre for his support, or if the idea was pitched by the N.R.A. But in return for the support, Mr. LaPierre asked that the White House “stop the games” over gun control legislation, people familiar with the meeting said.

Mr. LaPierre has been a leader in an aggressive campaign by gun rights advocates to influence the White House in the months since the back-to-back mass shootings in Texas and Ohio. In a series of calls and meetings, he has tried to move Mr. Trump away from proposing any sort of background check measures that he said after the mass shootings he might support.

But caught between political pressures to do something and doing nothing on gun legislation, Mr. Trump has been idling while Congress waits for a sign from the White House on what it plans to propose. Mr. Trump’s meeting with Mr. LaPierre on Friday indicated that his priority may be his own political survival rather than making any strides on guns.

Meanwhile, White House aides and Mr. Trump’s allies have been seeking to blame Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who announced a formal impeachment inquiry against Mr. Trump on Tuesday, for lowering the chances of working together on bipartisan measures.

“It’s no secret the president wants meaningful solutions to protect American communities and potentially stop one of these tragedies from ever happening again,” said Hogan Gidley, a White House spokesman, “and he’s going to continue doing his job even though Democrats refuse to do theirs.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

China Detains FedEx Pilot Amid Rising U.S.-China Tensions

Westlake Legal Group 20fedex-1-facebookJumbo China Detains FedEx Pilot Amid Rising U.S.-China Tensions Pilots International Trade and World Market firearms Fedex Corporation China Blacklisting Airlines and Airplanes

SHANGHAI — Authorities in southern China have detained an American pilot who works for FedEx, in the latest in a series of difficulties for American travelers and companies in China.

The pilot had been waiting to catch a commercial flight out of the city of Guangzhou, where FedEx has a huge hub. In a statement, FedEx said authorities had found an object in his luggage, though it did not specify what the object was.

The pilot was released on bail, FedEx said. “We are working with the appropriate authorities to gain a better understanding of the facts,” it said in a statement and declined to comment further.

The Wall Street Journal, which reported the detention on Thursday, said that the pilot had been carrying nonmetallic pellets used in air guns, and that he was a United States Air Force veteran named Todd A. Hohn who had been trying to catch a flight to his home in nearby Hong Kong.

The Air Line Pilots Association International, the union representing most American pilots, declined to discuss the case, as did Mr. Hohn’s lawyer. The municipal foreign affairs office in Guangzhou declined to comment and referred questions to the police, who did not answer telephone calls.

FedEx is one of a number of companies that have been caught between Washington and Beijing as the trade war has intensified. But it is not clear whether the pilot’s detention was related to the company’s problems in China.

As trade frictions and other disputes fester between the United States and China and as China itself becomes more authoritarian, more Americans have found themselves stuck in China and unable to leave. A Koch Industries executive was held in southern China and interrogated for days in June before being allowed to exit the country.

The State Department issued a travel advisory for China in January, warning Americans, particularly those with dual Chinese-American citizenship, that they may not be allowed to leave China if they go there.

A growing number of foreign companies, particularly American companies but also Canadian and European businesses, have responded by scrutinizing but not prohibiting travel to China by executives and employees.

But the quick release of the pilot, although without allowing him to leave the country, may indicate that China is not eager to turn him into a bilateral issue, said James Zimmerman, a partner in the Beijing office of Perkins Coie, a global law firm.

“The fact that he was released is a critically important message and a positive sign — Beijing probably ordered his release to minimize the significance of the issue, and this is an indication that Beijing doesn’t want this case to be a huge distraction.” Mr. Zimmerman said.

Mr. Zimmerman said that China does not have a bail system as it is generally understood in the West. China relies more on severe travel restrictions on people who are released from detention but remain under investigation.

The detention comes as the United States and China are trying to reach at least a partial truce in their 15-month trade war. Chinese officials have been eager to head off further tariffs that President Trump has planned to impose on Oct. 15 and Dec. 15, but are also loath to agree to the broad Chinese policy changes sought by the Trump administration.

It was unclear on Friday if Chinese authorities had deliberately targeted the pilot because he worked for FedEx. The detention came as Chinese airports have visibly increased security measures in recent months. The authorities have paid particular attention to travelers going to or from Hong Kong, a semiautonomous Chinese territory where large and increasingly violent protests have taken place every weekend this summer.

China has strict laws not just against the possession of weapons but also against the possession of any kind of ammunition.

FedEx has had a series of difficulties in China in recent months. China has accused FedEx of delaying shipments last May by Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications giant accused by American officials of working with Chinese intelligence — accusations that Huawei denies.

FedEx has also been working with Chinese authorities to investigate how one of its American clients was allowed to send a gun to a sporting goods store in southeastern China. The gun was also detected and stopped by Chinese authorities.

Chinese nationalists have called in recent weeks for FedEx to be included on a list of “unreliable entities” that the country’s Commerce Ministry has been drafting. The drafting has begun in response to the United States Commerce Department’s decision to begin putting Huawei on an “entities list” of foreign companies to which goods can only be exported from the United States with special licenses.

Cathay Pacific, a large airline based in Hong Kong, has separately come under heavy scrutiny by the Chinese government after some of its employees expressed support for pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. China threatened to revoke the airline’s access to its airspace unless Cathay reined in its employees.

Cathay Pacific and FedEx are two of the largest airlines hauling Chinese exports to the United States. Much of China’s electronics exports, particularly higher-value items like iPhones, travel by air.

In addition to scrutinizing travelers to and from Hong Kong very closely, the Chinese government has also begun checking foreigners visiting or living in the country for any possession or recent use of drugs, sometimes even weeks or months before the foreigners came to China. That has also produced a series of detentions.

Travel experts now strongly advise anyone going to China to carry prescription medicines in their original containers, and not to carry any prescription medicines that may be illegal in China, like prescription cannabis.

FedEx is a well-known company in China as well as in the United States. By coincidence, HBO showed in China on Thursday night the Tom Hanks movie “Cast Away,” the fictional story of a FedEx manager marooned on a Pacific island for years.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Colt to Suspend Production of AR-15 Rifles for Consumers

The gun maker Colt said on Thursday that it would effectively suspend production of sporting rifles, including the AR-15, for the civilian market but continue to manufacture rifles for government weapons contracts.

In a statement on its website, Colt emphasized that the company remained “committed to the Second Amendment,” but cited market conditions for its decision.

“Over the last few years, the market for modern sporting rifles has experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity,” Dennis Veilleux, the company’s chief executive, said in the statement. “Given this level of manufacturing capacity, we believe there is adequate supply for modern sporting rifles for the foreseeable future.”

Colt’s decision is unlikely to make it more difficult for gun buyers to get their hands on powerful semiautomatic weapons, said Timothy D. Lytton, an expert on the gun industry at Georgia State University.

“If there’s market demand,” he said, “I’m sure there are other companies with the capacity to fill it.”

The AR-15, a military-style weapon, has been used in several recent mass shootings, including in Newtown, Conn.; Orlando, Fla.; and Parkland, Fla.

[Fans explain the appeal of the AR-15.]

Major retailers and other businesses linked to the gun industry have faced growing public pressure to take steps to curb gun violence in response to recent mass shootings. After a shooting in August at one of its stores in El Paso, Walmart said it would stop selling ammunition that could be used in military-style assault rifles.

Colt did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday. But in the statement, Mr. Veilleux emphasized that the company, whose products are available at more than 4,000 dealers across the country, would continue to manufacture handguns for the consumer market.

The financial effect of the decision is unclear. Colt, a private company, does not list sales for its sporting rifles on its website.

While Colt has framed it as an economic decision, Mr. Lytton said, the public pressure may have influenced the company. He noted that Colt was based in Hartford, Conn., not far from the site of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

“The mass shootings are probably making the company a little bit brand-sensitive,” Mr. Lytton said. “They’re probably feeling a kind of pressure or heat that manufacturers in other parts of the country may not be.”

The news that Colt would stop producing rifles for consumers was reported last week in an industry blog, The Truth About Guns, which cited an email the RSR Group, a firearms distributor, had sent to retailers saying Colt had informed it of the policy change. A spokeswoman for the RSR Group declined to comment.

And last week, a Colt marketing executive told the National Rifle Association’s publication Shooting Illustrated that the company had seen “a pretty sharp decline in rifle sales.”

“We listen to our customers,” the Colt executive, Paul Spitale, told Shooting Illustrated.

Colt is the manufacturer most closely associated with the AR-15, a lightweight, semiautomatic weapon. The Colt Armalite Rifle-15 Sporter hit the market in the early 1960s as the first civilian version of the military’s M16 rifle.

Over the years, however, the AR-15 has become a catchall for a range of weapons that look and operate similarly, including the Remington Bushmaster, the Smith & Wesson M&P15 and the Springfield Armory Saint.

With Harrowing Ads, Gun Safety Groups Push a Scarier Reality

Sept. 18, 2019

Westlake Legal Group 17Gunads6-threeByTwoSmallAt2X Colt to Suspend Production of AR-15 Rifles for Consumers gun control firearms Colt's Manufacturing Company
AR-15 Rifles Are Beloved, Reviled and a Common Element in Mass Shootings

June 13, 2016

Westlake Legal Group 14ar-15-videoLarge Colt to Suspend Production of AR-15 Rifles for Consumers gun control firearms Colt's Manufacturing Company
AR-15: The Gun Behind So Many Mass Shootings

Nov. 9, 2017

Westlake Legal Group AR15_COVERIMAGE_v2-videoLarge Colt to Suspend Production of AR-15 Rifles for Consumers gun control firearms Colt's Manufacturing Company

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Colt to Suspend Production of AR-15 Rifles for Consumers

The gun maker Colt said on Thursday that it would effectively suspend production of sporting rifles, including the AR-15, for the civilian market but continue to manufacture rifles for government weapons contracts.

In a statement on its website, Colt emphasized that the company remained “committed to the Second Amendment,” but cited market conditions for its decision.

“Over the last few years, the market for modern sporting rifles has experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity,” Dennis Veilleux, the company’s chief executive, said in the statement. “Given this level of manufacturing capacity, we believe there is adequate supply for modern sporting rifles for the foreseeable future.”

Colt’s decision is unlikely to make it more difficult for gun buyers to get their hands on powerful semiautomatic weapons, said Timothy D. Lytton, an expert on the gun industry at Georgia State University.

“If there’s market demand,” he said, “I’m sure there are other companies with the capacity to fill it.”

The AR-15, a military-style weapon, has been used in several recent mass shootings, including in Newtown, Conn.; Orlando, Fla.; and Parkland, Fla.

[Fans explain the appeal of the AR-15.]

Major retailers and other businesses linked to the gun industry have faced growing public pressure to take steps to curb gun violence in response to recent mass shootings. After a shooting in August at one of its stores in El Paso, Walmart said it would stop selling ammunition that could be used in military-style assault rifles.

Colt did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday. But in the statement, Mr. Veilleux emphasized that the company, whose products are available at more than 4,000 dealers across the country, would continue to manufacture handguns for the consumer market.

The financial effect of the decision is unclear. Colt, a private company, does not list sales for its sporting rifles on its website.

While Colt has framed it as an economic decision, Mr. Lytton said, the public pressure may have influenced the company. He noted that Colt was based in Hartford, Conn., not far from the site of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

“The mass shootings are probably making the company a little bit brand-sensitive,” Mr. Lytton said. “They’re probably feeling a kind of pressure or heat that manufacturers in other parts of the country may not be.”

The news that Colt would stop producing rifles for consumers was reported last week in an industry blog, The Truth About Guns, which cited an email the RSR Group, a firearms distributor, had sent to retailers saying Colt had informed it of the policy change. A spokeswoman for the RSR Group declined to comment.

And last week, a Colt marketing executive told the National Rifle Association’s publication Shooting Illustrated that the company had seen “a pretty sharp decline in rifle sales.”

“We listen to our customers,” the Colt executive, Paul Spitale, told Shooting Illustrated.

Colt is the manufacturer most closely associated with the AR-15, a lightweight, semiautomatic weapon. The Colt Armalite Rifle-15 Sporter hit the market in the early 1960s as the first civilian version of the military’s M16 rifle.

Over the years, however, the AR-15 has become a catchall for a range of weapons that look and operate similarly, including the Remington Bushmaster, the Smith & Wesson M&P15 and the Springfield Armory Saint.

With Harrowing Ads, Gun Safety Groups Push a Scarier Reality

Sept. 18, 2019

Westlake Legal Group 17Gunads6-threeByTwoSmallAt2X Colt to Suspend Production of AR-15 Rifles for Consumers gun control firearms Colt's Manufacturing Company
AR-15 Rifles Are Beloved, Reviled and a Common Element in Mass Shootings

June 13, 2016

Westlake Legal Group 14ar-15-videoLarge Colt to Suspend Production of AR-15 Rifles for Consumers gun control firearms Colt's Manufacturing Company
AR-15: The Gun Behind So Many Mass Shootings

Nov. 9, 2017

Westlake Legal Group AR15_COVERIMAGE_v2-videoLarge Colt to Suspend Production of AR-15 Rifles for Consumers gun control firearms Colt's Manufacturing Company

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Colt to Suspend Production of AR-15 Rifles for Consumers

The gun maker Colt said on Thursday that it would effectively suspend production of sporting rifles, including the AR-15, for the civilian market but continue to manufacture rifles for government weapons contracts.

In a statement on its website, Colt emphasized that the company remained “committed to the Second Amendment,” but cited market conditions for its decision.

“Over the last few years, the market for modern sporting rifles has experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity,” Dennis Veilleux, the company’s chief executive, said in the statement. “Given this level of manufacturing capacity, we believe there is adequate supply for modern sporting rifles for the foreseeable future.”

Colt’s decision is unlikely to make it more difficult for gun buyers to get their hands on powerful semiautomatic weapons, said Timothy D. Lytton, an expert on the gun industry at Georgia State University.

“If there’s market demand,” he said, “I’m sure there are other companies with the capacity to fill it.”

The AR-15, a military-style weapon, has been used in several recent mass shootings, including in Newtown, Conn.; Orlando, Fla.; and Parkland, Fla.

[Fans explain the appeal of the AR-15.]

Major retailers and other businesses linked to the gun industry have faced growing public pressure to take steps to curb gun violence in response to recent mass shootings. After a shooting in August at one of its stores in El Paso, Walmart said it would stop selling ammunition that could be used in military-style assault rifles.

Colt did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday. But in the statement, Mr. Veilleux emphasized that the company, whose products are available at more than 4,000 dealers across the country, would continue to manufacture handguns for the consumer market.

The financial effect of the decision is unclear. Colt, a private company, does not list sales for its sporting rifles on its website.

While Colt has framed it as an economic decision, Mr. Lytton said, the public pressure may have influenced the company. He noted that Colt was based in Hartford, Conn., not far from the site of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

“The mass shootings are probably making the company a little bit brand-sensitive,” Mr. Lytton said. “They’re probably feeling a kind of pressure or heat that manufacturers in other parts of the country may not be.”

The news that Colt would stop producing rifles for consumers was reported last week in an industry blog, The Truth About Guns, which cited an email the RSR Group, a firearms distributor, had sent to retailers saying Colt had informed it of the policy change. A spokeswoman for the RSR Group declined to comment.

And last week, a Colt marketing executive told the National Rifle Association’s publication Shooting Illustrated that the company had seen “a pretty sharp decline in rifle sales.”

“We listen to our customers,” the Colt executive, Paul Spitale, told Shooting Illustrated.

Colt is the manufacturer most closely associated with the AR-15, a lightweight, semiautomatic weapon. The Colt Armalite Rifle-15 Sporter hit the market in the early 1960s as the first civilian version of the military’s M16 rifle.

Over the years, however, the AR-15 has become a catchall for a range of weapons that look and operate similarly, including the Remington Bushmaster, the Smith & Wesson M&P15 and the Springfield Armory Saint.

With Harrowing Ads, Gun Safety Groups Push a Scarier Reality

Sept. 18, 2019

Westlake Legal Group 17Gunads6-threeByTwoSmallAt2X Colt to Suspend Production of AR-15 Rifles for Consumers gun control firearms Colt's Manufacturing Company
AR-15 Rifles Are Beloved, Reviled and a Common Element in Mass Shootings

June 13, 2016

Westlake Legal Group 14ar-15-videoLarge Colt to Suspend Production of AR-15 Rifles for Consumers gun control firearms Colt's Manufacturing Company
AR-15: The Gun Behind So Many Mass Shootings

Nov. 9, 2017

Westlake Legal Group AR15_COVERIMAGE_v2-videoLarge Colt to Suspend Production of AR-15 Rifles for Consumers gun control firearms Colt's Manufacturing Company

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

With Harrowing Ads, Gun Safety Groups Push a Scarier Reality

Westlake Legal Group 17Gunads6-facebookJumbo With Harrowing Ads, Gun Safety Groups Push a Scarier Reality School Shootings and Armed Attacks Sandy Hook Promise Political Advertising Newtown, Conn, Shooting (2012) mass shootings gun control firearms El Paso, Tex, Shooting (2019) Dayton, Ohio, Shooting (2019) BBDO New York

Going back to school means worrying about what to wear, deciding what classes to take and, increasingly, knowing what to do if someone appears on campus with a gun.

This reality in American classrooms is reflected in a harrowing ad being released on Wednesday from Sandy Hook Promise, a gun safety advocacy group created after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in 2012.

The spot, which will debut during the “Today” show, starts as cheerfully as any other back-to-school commercial, with a boy at his locker praising his new backpack.

[embedded content]

Back to School Essentials | Sandy Hook PromiseCreditCreditVideo by Sandy Hook Promise

Then, the testimonials darken. “These new sneakers are just what I needed for the new year,” one boy says as he sprints away from the sounds of screams and gunshots. “These new socks, they can be a real lifesaver,” a girl says, peeling off her knee-high hosiery to use as a tourniquet on another student’s bloody leg.

In the final scene, a girl huddles in a bathroom stall and types out a loving text to her mother on a glittery pink phone. Tears stream down her face.

“I finally got my own phone to stay in touch with my mom,” she says, closing her eyes at the sound of a door opening and footsteps approaching.

“Gun violence and school shootings are not easy subjects, and they shouldn’t be fun to watch,” said Nicole Hockley, a former marketing consultant who co-founded Sandy Hook Promise after her 6-year-old son, Dylan, died in the Newtown shooting. “The more we step away from reality, the less respect we’re giving to those who have to live through this.”

Since the Sandy Hook shooting, more than 400 people have been shot on campuses around the country. For many students, the excitement of returning to school is increasingly mixed with the anxiety of active shooter drills and shelter-in-place tutorials.

In response, gun safety activists are escalating their efforts. They’re investing more in ads, promoting them more aggressively and making them far more provocative and uncomfortable to view.

Guns have long been at the center of a divisive national conversation about public safety, personal freedom, partisan policymaking and corporate action. In August alone, 53 people died in mass shootings, including shoppers at a Walmart in El Paso and revelers in an entertainment district in Dayton, Ohio.

This month, Walmart said it would stop selling certain kinds of ammunition, discourage customers from openly carrying guns in its stores and encourage debate around gun reform legislation. Last week, the heads of nearly 150 companies, including Twitter and Uber, sent a letter to Senate leaders calling for stronger background checks on firearms sales and “red flag” laws.

In a blog post last month, the online firearms retailer K-Var wrote that it had been notified that NASCAR was shifting its position on guns and had demanded that ads featuring firearms be changed before they would be included in its official racing programs. The racing organization did not respond to a request for comment.

The gun industry is known for its savvy marketing strategies. It has courted women and children with firearm accessories and cartoons. The National Rifle Association, before a public breakup with its advertising firm, ran an influential online media arm called NRATV.

In the 20 days after the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, the N.R.A. doubled its spending on digital ads compared with the same period before the attacks, to more than $21,000 a day from $10,000, according to Pathmatics, which analyzes digital advertising data. On one day, the trade group spent more than $38,000.

But the groups opposing the gun lobby have begun to ramp up their marketing activity, too. Everytown for Gun Safety, an organization funded in part by former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, recently pledged to spend at least $2.5 million supporting gun control policies in Virginia before the election next year.

Last month, as part of a $350,000 campaign, the group released television ads pressuring four Republican senators, including Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida, to support background check legislation.

Giffords, the gun control organization founded by former Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, announced last month an ad campaign of nearly $750,000 that also focused on background checks.

Gun safety ads are being produced by top advertising agencies and promoted on popular platforms. Since 2014, Sandy Hook Promise has worked with the 128-year-old firm BBDO on several commercials, most of which have been directed by Henry-Alex Rubin, who was nominated for an Academy Award for best documentary in 2006.

The new Sandy Hook Promise ad will also be available online, and the group’s leaders said they had been told that several presidential candidates would share it on social media. They also said that they received $2 million in donated media placements from CNN, AMC, Condé Nast, iHeartRadio and more.

In the past, the advertising industry has been cautious about addressing politically sensitive topics, said Michael E. Kassan, the founder and chief executive of the media consulting company MediaLink. But he said that marketing companies now sensed that a significant portion of the American public had tired of bracing for the next mass shooting.

“There’s more willingness from agencies to be involved in conversations about gun safety,” he said. “Consumers have spoken in a loud voice, that they’re mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore.”

In Manhattan this summer, the gun safety group Brady teamed up with the artist WhIsBe to open a parody pop-up store called Back to School Shopping, which sold child-size bulletproof vests and lunchboxes packed with pepper spray and first-aid kits. Brady also worked last year with the Ad Council and the Droga5 agency on an ad campaign about children hurt or killed at home by improperly stored guns.

March for Our Lives, an advocacy group formed after a gunman killed 17 people last year at a high school in Parkland, Fla., linked up with the advertising agency McCann New York and won a top award at the Cannes Lions festival this year. Their ad, “Generation Lockdown,” showed office workers being taught about active shooter incidents by a young girl, who trains them not to cry because “it gives away your position.”

“We’re competing with the news cycle, where there’s a mass shooting every other week,” said Alex Little, a creative director at McCann who worked on the ad. “If your message isn’t as impactful, you’re never going to cut through.”

Last year, an ad from Sandy Hook Promise filmed from a school shooter’s point of view was nominated for an Emmy. (It lost to Nike’s “Dream Crazy” ad featuring Colin Kaepernick.)

The new Sandy Hook Promise ad is the first of the group’s commercials to portray blood. But Greg Hahn, the chief creative officer at BBDO New York, said that the spot, while stark, tries to avoid the polarizing debate on gun policy.

“We’re trying to unite people in the common good of saving kids’ lives, as opposed to saying we should ban guns,” he said. “It’s not about picking a side and defending it.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com