The inch was seemingly given, so it is not surprising to see pursuit of the mile. Gun ban advocates are emboldened by their perceived victories in firearm production changes, and Ruger is the latest target on a list that won’t end until the firearm prohibition lobby decides what guns are allowed to be sold or courts step in to enforce the law.
Earlier this month, Everytown for Gun Safety, along with Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, formally demanded that Sturm, Ruger & Co. cease production of their new RXM pistol, stating that “Ruger must pull the RXM from the market unless and until it changes the pistol’s design.”
In his letter, Attorney General Tong references Glock’s recent announcement that they will discontinue various handgun models before asserting that Ruger, under Connecticut law, “must enact reasonable controls to prevent the sale or distribution of legal firearms that can easily be converted to illegal firearms.” He then demands “a statement from Ruger as to what it intends to do with the RXM,” followed by a lengthy list of documents, records, and financial information that Ruger must “preserve for future production.”
As of press time, Ruger had not responded, and the RXM is still being offered for sale.
It is telling that Everytown and Attorney General Tong see the bad guys in this scenario as the companies that are “involved in the sale or distribution of legal firearms,” rather than the criminals who violate existing federal (and often state) laws that prevent the manufacture or possession of machine guns or of parts designed and intended to convert a legal firearm into a machine gun. Guns can be illegally modified in any number of ways, including by simply shortening barrels or stocks with hacksaws. They can also be stolen and used to commit illegal acts. Should firearm prohibitionists succeed in dictating design standards to inhibit illegal “convertibility,” they will simply move on to demanding guns that incorporate technology to discourage theft or unauthorized discharge. Indeed, they are already doing so in some cases.
Whether firearms are discontinued from production due to corporate strategy, user demand, technological advancements, or anti-gun legislation and lawsuits, the headlines will claim victory from the anti-gun side, and the anti-gun lobby will consider the move a mandate and a roadmap to the next target.
This latest demand on Ruger is a case in point, combining anti-gun legislation and coordinated action by both private gun ban groups and anti-gun state officials. As we have reported, several jurisdictions sued Glock over its supposed “design flaws,” which in effect are that its gun are not impervious to criminal modification. Then California essentially banned the sale of Glocks in one of the nation’s largest markets by legislation, prompting litigation by NRA and others.
Meanwhile, just this year, Connecticut enacted the so-called Firearms Industry Responsibility Act (FIRA), empowering the state attorney general to bring civil enforcement actions against gun manufacturers that sell products “designed in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable to promote conversion of a legal firearm into an illegal firearm.” Violations can result in not only punitive damages and injunctive relief, but courts can impose penalties up to $5,000 per violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. This, they say, makes the RXM illegal, even though they cannot point to a single violent crime committed with an illegally modified RXM.
No less a gun banner than Joe Biden had declared during his term in the White House that “If I get one thing on my list—the Lord came down and said, ‘Joe, you get one of these’—give me that one….” That one wish was to repeal the Protection of Lawful in Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a critical federal law that protects against frivolous lawsuits meant to disrupt and bankrupt the firearms industry. And while thankfully this “one thing” was not bestowed upon Joe, his White House Office of Gun Violence made undermining the law a priority, including by promoting legally dubious legislation such as FIRA in the states. As we have explained, such legislation makes compliance with the law a constantly shifting target for gun industry members, with anti-gun enforcement officials moving the bullseye case-by-case.
In all this, they are abetted by activist lower courts, which – despite this year’s U.S. Supreme Court opinion affirming and reinforcing the PLCAA’s protections – create loopholes that effectively turn the law on its head. As even liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson correctly observed, the PLCAA stands for the proposition that it is the legislatures (bound by the Second Amendment), not anti-gun activists, that determine what guns are legal for sale. Yet another case misinterpreting the PLCAA emerged from a federal court in Connecticut just last week.
Anti-gun extremists are not sending these demand letters with a goal of public safety but to seize control of the firearms industry through administrative action and lawfare. While it is unclear what the next steps are for Glock, Ruger and others, what is clear for NRA is that preservation and support of the PLCAA is critical. Protective state legislation remains a priority, as are ongoing efforts to protect and regain pro-gun legislative majorities in Congress and the states.
One thing is for sure. Firearm prohibitionists aren’t waiting for the Almighty to intervene on their behalf. Rather, they intend to bedevil the gun industry through their own efforts, no matter how many laws and real criminals they have to ignore in the process.
More Like This From Around The NRA
