Viewpoints

In a recent Gun Owners of America email, the group called out Republicans who support gun control, in particular Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania.

Three professors of finance and economics in Texas wrote a gun rights–related op-ed piece that was distributed to several newspapers in the state last week. In the article, they said, 'As college professors, we want to reduce the odds of a Virginia Tech massacre happening on a Texas college campus. That's why we encourage the Texas Legislature to allow concealed carry on the state's college campuses.'

An article on NJ.com said the state Supreme Court will tackle gun control today when it considers whether cities and towns may enact laws limiting the sale of firearms. The justices will hear arguments on Jersey's City's attempt to limit handgun purchases to one per month. An appeals court last fall overturned the 2006 ordinance, saying the city had overstepped its bounds because state law already monitors those sales. The lower court said municipal governments don't have…

President Obama got off the helicopter in front of the White House, carrying a baby piglet under each arm. The squared-away Marine guard snaps to attention, salutes and says: 'Nice pigs, sir.' The president replies, 'These are not pigs. These are authentic Arkansas Razorback Hogs. I got one for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and I got one for Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi.' The squared-away Marine again snaps to attention, salutes, and says, 'Excellent trade, sir.'

President Obama got off the helicopter in front of the White House, carrying a baby piglet under each arm. The squared-away Marine guard snaps to attention, salutes and says: 'Nice pigs, sir.' The president replies, 'These are not pigs. These are authentic Arkansas Razorback Hogs. I got one for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and I got one for Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi.' The squared-away Marine again snaps to attention, salutes, and says, 'Excellent trade, sir.'

I am a longtime subscriber and will continue to be for the indefinite future. I have the highest regard for your publication and consider it to be an invaluable resource to assist me in selecting firearms for future purchase. Your conscientious, almost scientific, approach to testing methods seems fair and reasonable. It is comforting to know that, since you don’t accept commercial advertising, your advice is far less likely to be biased in favor of one brand over another for fear of irritating any certain manufacturer and thus losing an advertising revenue source. You are the Consumer Reports of firearms in my opinion—and for that, you deserve great respect. However, unlike Consumer Reports, you do not test virtually every product currently in production in a particular category. This is your prime failure, I think. For example, I was excited to find that your January 2009 issue included a report on 6.8 SPC AR-style rifles, a particular caliber and type of rifle I intend to purchase very soon. However, I was also immediately disappointed to see your report did not include those two brands currently at the top of my list for consideration—Barrett and Bushmaster. This follows a pattern that has a long history and is my primary disaffection with your magazine. You only cover a small slice of what is available. This doesn’t give me the warm and fuzzy that I’ll be buying the best rifle; only that I’ll be buying the best among those few you tested.

I am a longtime subscriber and will continue to be for the indefinite future. I have the highest regard for your publication and consider it to be an invaluable resource to assist me in selecting firearms for future purchase. Your conscientious, almost scientific, approach to testing methods seems fair and reasonable. It is comforting to know that, since you don’t accept commercial advertising, your advice is far less likely to be biased in favor of one brand over another for fear of irritating any certain manufacturer and thus losing an advertising revenue source. You are the Consumer Reports of firearms in my opinion—and for that, you deserve great respect. However, unlike Consumer Reports, you do not test virtually every product currently in production in a particular category. This is your prime failure, I think. For example, I was excited to find that your January 2009 issue included a report on 6.8 SPC AR-style rifles, a particular caliber and type of rifle I intend to purchase very soon. However, I was also immediately disappointed to see your report did not include those two brands currently at the top of my list for consideration—Barrett and Bushmaster. This follows a pattern that has a long history and is my primary disaffection with your magazine. You only cover a small slice of what is available. This doesn’t give me the warm and fuzzy that I’ll be buying the best rifle; only that I’ll be buying the best among those few you tested.

The NRA Competitions Division recently announced four bits of news important to shooters:

Administrator's Note: We saw Frank Brownells' advice in the March 27 Brownells Web Bench e-letter and thought his comments about current AR15 market shortages were on point. We got permission to post them on GunReports.com.

The U.S. Military has awarded Winchester Ammunition a five-year contract with a maximum value of $30 million for 9mm frangible training ammunition.

Putting an end to nine years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear New York City’s request to continue a lawsuit that sought to hold firearms manufacturers responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms. The city’s lawsuit was originally filed in 2000 by then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and was continued by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. After the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by Congress in 2005, a federal judge threw out the New York lawsuit. Then in April 2008, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, saying the new law was constitutional. Among the companies sued were Beretta USA Corp., Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., Colt’s Manufacturing Co. LLC, Sturm, Ruger & Co. and Glock GmbH.

Putting an end to nine years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear New York City’s request to continue a lawsuit that sought to hold firearms manufacturers responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms. The city’s lawsuit was originally filed in 2000 by then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and was continued by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. After the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by Congress in 2005, a federal judge threw out the New York lawsuit. Then in April 2008, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, saying the new law was constitutional. Among the companies sued were Beretta USA Corp., Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., Colt’s Manufacturing Co. LLC, Sturm, Ruger & Co. and Glock GmbH.