A 36-year-old former delivery driver for UPS was arrested Friday and facing federal gun trafficking charges after he allegedly stole multiple shipments of firearms, jewelry and cell phones from a company’s shipping hub in Ontario.
“This is an unusual case,” said Carlo DiCesare, Riverside’s special assistant U.S. attorney prosecuting the case. “It was a large number of firearms that were stolen, and they were stolen from a reputable shipping company.”
Curtis Hays was said to have taken multiple packages, containing more than 70 guns, which were supposed to be delivered to Turner’s Outdoorsman in Rancho Cucamonga, California, back in 2012. Hays instead handed the firearms over to 35-year-old Dennis Dell White Jr., of Moreno Valley, who in turn illegally sold the guns, which included 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber handguns.
A 16-count indictment against Hays was filed on July 23. Hays was arraigned in federal court the day of his arrest, which took place without incident, and White is also due to be arraigned within the next few weeks.
Both Hays and White are facing charges for conspiracy, six counts of theft of firearms, six counts of receipt and possession of stolen firearms, two counts of theft, receipt, and possession of good in interstate commerce. In addition, White is also being charged with being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition.
If convicted, both the stolen goods charge and the conspiracy charge could result in up to a five-year sentence and each individual weapons charge could carry a penalty of 10 years. Additionally, White could face an extra 10 years for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition.
Authorities said they became privy to the illegal activity when they were contacted by Turner’s Outdoorsman explaining that they were missing several firearms shipments, which typically were shipped from out-of-state gun manufacturers and processed through the Ontario facility.
“Certainly there is a huge market out there,” DiCesare said of black market gun sales in the state. “What the full extent of it is – I don’t know if anyone knows.”
EUGENE, Ore. – Outdoor Life is the latest in a long line of major hunting publications to recognize BOWTECH brands for their outstanding quality and value. The magazine named the Stryker Solution and the Diamond Carbon Cure as 2014 Great Buy Award winners in its August issue.
The latest awards for Stryker and Diamond continue a dominant streak for the BOWTECH brands among major editorial awards in the hunting industry. The BOWTECH family of brands has received multiple awards from Outdoor Life since 2012.
“At BOWTECH we pride ourselves on innovations that exceed our consumers expectations,” said Jeff Suiter of BOWTECH Marketing. “We are producing technologies in the industry that keep us well ahead of our competition, and next year we plan to continue leading the way. Just wait.”
“Outdoor Life’s ratings give you the unbiased and accurate truth on outdoor gear,” said Andrew McKean, Editor of Outdoor Life. “Products are thoroughly tested, and winning items earn the title based exclusively on the hard data and scores. So when we say a particular item is the best, you can take that to the bank.”
An interim legislative study will look once again at allowing licensed faculty, staff and students to carry weapons on Oklahoma college campuses. Higher education officials say it would make campuses more dangerous.
Allowing students, faculty and staff to carry guns on campus would make Oklahoma’s colleges and universities safer, say lawmakers who are pushing for the change.
Officials at Oklahoma’s two largest campuses couldn’t disagree more.
“Placing guns on campus, except in the hands of highly trained law enforcement officers and professionals, would be a serious mistake and would lead only to tragic results,” University of Oklahoma President David Boren said.
“To put our university students, faculty and staff at risk in this way makes absolutely no sense.”
Rep. John Enns, R-Enid, and Sen. Ralph Shortey, R-Oklahoma City, argue that licensed gun owners should be able to protect themselves on state campuses.
Enns said statistics show 20 percent of students will be assaulted at some point during their four years on campus.
“I hear from a lot of parents of college kids, and I hear from college kids, as well,” he said.
“For anyone to say our college campuses are safe, that’s totally not true.”
Currently, a licensed gun owner can carry a weapon on campus only with the written consent of the college president.
“The laws are not meant to protect you. They’re meant to punish the violator,” Enns said.
Shortey agrees the focus is wrong.
“If there were a predator out there whose prey is young college-aged women and he wanted to assault them, where would he go to do that? He would go to a place where they are vulnerable, where they are unarmed and where he has the highest chance of success. And that is a college campus,” Shortey said.
Campus gun policy should be built around the faculty, staff and students who are on the campus every day, he said.
Shortey said statistics show crime rates are higher on campuses than the areas surrounding them.
“I have never seen statistics that support that,” said Michael Robinson, Oklahoma State University’s chief public safety officer. “Your chances of being mugged in the city on the strip are much greater than on campus.
“It depends largely on your behavior either place,” said Robinson, who became OSU’s police chief 10 years ago after 20 years of municipal police work.
Schools are required to submit annually reports of crimes to the federal government under the Clery Act.
The most recent numbers posted for aggravated assaults on campus show OU had one each in 2010 and 2011 and none in 2012, and OSU had three in 2010 and one each in 2011 and 2012.
Reports of forcible sex offenses on campus at OU numbered two in 2010, 13 in 2011 and eight in 2012. At OSU, there were three reports in 2010, six in 2011 and eight in 2012.
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE:RGR) announces that for the second quarter of 2014 the Company reported net sales of $153.7 million and fully diluted earnings of $1.12 per share, compared with net sales of $179.5 million and fully diluted earnings of $1.63 per share in the second quarter of 2013.
For the six months ended June 28, 2014, net sales were $323.5 million and fully diluted earnings were $2.34 per share. For the corresponding period in 2013, net sales were $335.4 million and fully diluted earnings were $2.83 per share.
The Company also announced today that its Board of Directors declared a dividend of 45¢ per share for the second quarter, for shareholders of record as of August 15, 2014, payable on August 29, 2014. This dividend varies every quarter because the Company pays a percent of earnings rather than a fixed amount per share. This dividend is approximately 40% of net income.
In addition, the Company announced that its Board of Directors expanded its authorization to repurchase shares of its common stock from $25 million to $100 million.
Chief Executive Officer Michael O. Fifer made the following observations related to the Company’s 2014 second quarter performance:
Our sales decreased 14% from the second quarter of 2013 due to a reduction in demand for firearms and accessories.
Our earnings decreased 31% and our EBITDA decreased 25%, from the second quarter of 2013. The main drivers of the reduced operating margins were the reduced sales volume, a product mix shift away from unusually strong sales of higher-margin firearms accessories last year, and increased depreciation expense.
New products represented $57.1 million or 18% of firearm sales in the first half of 2014.
The decrease in the estimated sell-through of Ruger products from distributors to retailers and the decrease in industry demand as measured by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) background checks (as adjusted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation) for the second quarter and six months ended June 28, 2014 follow:
Period ended June 28, 2014
Q2 Six Months
Decrease in estimated Ruger Units Sold from Distributors to Retailers
Decrease in total adjusted NICS Background Checks
The estimated sell-through of our products from distributors to retailers in the second quarter was adversely impacted by the following:
the reduction in overall industry demand,
the aggressive discounting of many of our competitors, and
the absence of recent significant new product introductions from the Company.
Nonetheless, the estimated sell-through of our products from the independent distributors to retailers for the six months ended June 28, 2014 was the second highest in the Company’s history, exceeding the estimated sell-through from the first half of 2012 by 83,100 units or 10%.
Cash generated from operations during the six months ended June 28, 2014 was $35.6 million. At June 28, 2014, our cash totaled $47.4 million. Our current ratio is 2.3 to 1 and we have no debt.
In the first half of 2014, capital expenditures totaled $22.8 million, much of it related to tooling fixtures and equipment for new product introductions and to upgrade and modernize manufacturing equipment. We expect to invest approximately $40 million on capital expenditures during 2014 as we continue to prioritize new product development.
In the first half of 2014, the Company returned $20.0 million to its shareholders through the payment of dividends.
At June 28, 2014, stockholders’ equity was $207.1 million, which equates to a book value of $10.67 per share, of which $2.44 per share was cash.
Today, the Company filed its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. The financial statements included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q are attached to this press release.
Tomorrow, July 30, 2014, Sturm, Ruger will host a webcast at 9:00 a.m. ET to discuss the second quarter operating results. Interested parties can access the webcast at www.ruger.com/corporate or by dialing 866-314-5232, participant code 75848002.
The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q is available on the SEC website at www.sec.gov and the Ruger website atwww.ruger.com/corporate. Investors are urged to read the complete Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to ensure that they have adequate information to make informed investment judgments.
Remington is addressing issues surrounding the troublesome launch of their hotly-anticipated R51 single-stack subcompact. This was one of the most talked-about pistols in the days leading up to SHOT Show 2014 and one of the most talked-about guns after the show, although for completely different reasons.
The R51 is an updated, modern take on the classic Remington Model 51 .380 ACP pistol designed by John Pedersen dating back to 1917. It uses a clever hesitation-locked delayed blowback to cycle the action.
But immediately after the pistols hit the market people ran into serious and potentially dangerous problems with the new guns, ranging from failures to feed to bulging cases, a sign that the slides were coming out of battery too fast while the system was still under high pressure levels.
Other problems like loose sights and rough edges pointed to a hasty launch and, realistically, quality control issues. The R51′s reputation sunk in just a few weeks.
It wasn’t too long before Remington removed the R51 from much of their website (it is still listed in the 2014 catalog as well as on their promo page) and the pistol disappeared from store shelves.
Now Remington has acknowledged the flawed launch and are giving existing owners of R51 pistols a chance to send them back for a free replacement. As a consideration Remington will return the replacements along with two extra magazines and a custom Pelican case to everyone who sends their R51s back.
Given the nature and severity of the issues some R51 pistols have demonstrated, we highly recommend that all R51 owners give Remington a call at 1 (800) 243-9700, even if there is a wait for the replacement pistols.
Remington expects the R51 to re-enter production in October later this year.
Here is the R51 update in full:
July 25, 2014
Remington R51 Pistol Product Update
Earlier this year, we launched the innovative R51 subcompact pistol to critical acclaim. During testing, numerous experts found the pistol to function flawlessly. In fact, they found it to have lower felt recoil, lower muzzle rise and better accuracy and concealability than other products in its class.
However, after initial commercial sales, our loyal customers notified us that some R51 pistols had performance issues. We immediately ceased production to re-test the product. While we determined the pistols were safe, certain units did not meet Remington’s performance criteria. The performance problems resulted from complications during our transition from prototype to mass production. These problems have been identified and solutions are being implemented, with an expected production restart in October.
Anyone who purchased an R51 may return it and receive a new R51 pistol, along with two additional magazines and a custom Pelican case, by calling Remington at (800) 243-9700.
The new R51 will be of the same exceptional quality as our test pistols, which performed flawlessly.
A Federal Court of Appeals overturned a 2011 injunction Friday won by Florida doctors against a state firearms owner’s privacy law.
The suit, brought in part by the Florida chapters of the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics, had won an injunction by a lower court in what became known popularly as the “Docs vs. Glocks” case. That injunction was struck down this week in a 2-1 ruling by a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta.
“We find that the Act is a valid regulation of professional conduct that has only incidental effect on physicians’ speech,” wrote Circuit Judge Gerald Tjoflat for the majority in the mammoth 161-page rulingin the case of Wollschlaeger v. Governor of the State of Florida published Friday.
The case dates back to 2011 when Florida Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, signed the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act into law that discouraged health care workers to ask patients questions about firearms that were not directly relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety. Violations of the law could trigger fines, restriction of practice, return of fees, probation and suspension or revocation a health care professional’s medical license by the state.
The act had been passed by the Florida legislature following a series of complaints from patients that medical personnel were asking unwelcome questions on firearms ownership during interviews. In one case mentioned in the complaint, a health care provider falsely told a patient that disclosing firearm ownership was a Medicaid requirement. In another, a mother was separated from her children while medical staff asked the children whether the mother owned firearms.
However, just four days after Scott signed the new law, a number of physicians filed suit in U.S. District Court against the state, arguing that the new measure would violate their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The argument garnered an injunction by the court from U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke to prevent most of the provisions of the act from taking effect. This injunction was upheld by the court on a permanent basis in 2012, which led the state to successfully appeal it to the Eleventh Circuit.
Tjoflat, a 1975 appointment by President Gerald Ford, explained that the court found “[t]he Act simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient’s care.” He went on to explain that so long as a health care provider acted “in good faith within the boundaries of good medical practice” that they had no reason to fear the new Florida law.
District Judge L. Scott Coogler, a President George W. Bush appointee, joined Tjoflat in the majority position of the three member panel while Circuit Judge Charles Wilson, a 1999 President Bill Clinton appointment, disagreed, calling the law an unconstitutional prohibition on free speech.
“Regardless of whether we agree with the message conveyed by doctors to patients about firearms, I think it is perfectly clear that doctors have a First Amendment right to convey that message,” wrote Wilson in his dissent.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, whose executive director Howard Simon in a releasestated, “We are astounded that a court would allow the legislature to override the free speech rights of doctors and medical personnel,” in support of Wilson’s views
Gun rights advocates in the Sunshine state see this case as a big win for the Second Amendment.
“The court confirmed the correctness of the intent of the legislation,” Marion Hammer, president of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida and past president of the National Rifle Association, told Guns.com Friday. “The intent is to protect the privacy of firearms owners and to stop the political interrogation of gun owners and the children of gun owners when they seek medical care.”
Hammer continued, saying “When the court said that the legislation ‘simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient’s care’ — they nailed it.”
The Tennessee Arms Company has just made a lot of dreams come true. This polymer receiver company has just announced clear AR-15 lower receivers, real-life Ghost Guns.
Since the emergence of polymer receivers on the AR-15 market people have been wondering if it would be possible to produce a clear lower receiver — many plastics are transparent, but like most that get used to produce firearms, gun polymers are reinforced with glass or carbon fiber — they’re inherently not see-through.
Against odds, the Tennessee Arms Company has developed a very transparent lower receiver. They are intended for display and educational purposes as they don’t have any fiber reinforcement, although they can withstand some use as the foundation for working rifles.
With these transparent Ghost Gun receivers it’s easy to see just how the fire control group works. They are still legally firearms, of course, serial numbers and everything.
They are made using U.V.-stabilized Nylon and weigh in at a scant 3.6 ounces. They work with standard lower parts kits and Tennessee Arms recommends and carries CMMG LPKs. Some fitting may be required, this isn’t your everyday lower receiver.
For people who want a tough-as-nails polymer lower they of course continue to manufacture standard opaque receivers in a variety of colors with optional custom laser engraving. The clear lowers are the only receivers Tennessee Arms won’t laser-engrave as the engraving really doesn’t show up well.
These lowers also show off the brass reinforcements used to make Tenn. Arms Co.’s receivers, threaded inserts inside the oversized buffer tower extension as well as for the pistol grip screw. Unlike most polymer lowers, Tenn. Arms Co. receivers will hold up to repeated furniture changes without risk of ruining the threads, and they’re unlikely to be over-torqued.
It took a while for the company to get the process of making transparent lowers a reality. Without reinforced polymer these clear receivers have different cooling and constriction rates, but the company has succeeded at moving from proof-of-concept receivers to production receivers.
These receivers show a little bit of mold marking that makes them a little foggy, although they can be touched up with a small torch or heat gun for a glassier finish. Of course, you melt it, you bought it.
The Ghost Gun stripped lower is hands-down one of the coolest products to hit the AR-15 market in a while, and even though it may not be hugely practical, there’s no doubt these are going to be popular.
In fact, the Tennessee Arms Company is expecting pretty high demand for their true Ghost Gun lowers, and even priced at $59 — a marginal premium over their standard lowers — they’re projecting up to a three-week wait time on delivery.
“Assault weapon.” Sixteen-round “clip.” A box of “bullets.” When it comes to firearms, there’s no shortage of misused terminology. Sometimes the error is committed innocently, a simple mistake owing to the shooter’s ignorance. A common example is the interchangeable use of “clip” and “magazine.” However, other misused terms are more harmful. They aren’t just inaccurate; their frequent use can negatively affect the public perception of firearms. Referring to a semi-automatic carbine as an “assault rifle” — a term that implies a fully automatic action designed for purely offensive purposes — is the biggest offender. More on that later.
Anti-gun groups, politicians and biased members of the media often use such terms incorrectly — sometimes due to lack of knowledge but often with malicious intent. So, if we as gun owners don’t accurately apply firearms terminology, who will? How can aspiring shooters, genuine journalists or the public at-large hope to receive reliable information? Here are some of the most commonly misused and confused gun terms.
Clip vs. Magazine You know that boxy rectangular thingy that holds cartridges and slides into the bottom of your semi-auto pistol? It’s not a clip — no matter how often the term is misused. It’s a magazine.
A magazine holds shells under spring pressure in preparation for feeding into the firearm’s chamber. Examples include box, tubular, drum and rotary magazines. Some are fixed to the firearm while others are removable.
A cartridge “clip” has no spring and does not feed shells directly into the chamber. Rather, clips hold cartridges in the correct sequence for “charging” a specific firearm’s magazine. Stripper clips allow rounds to be “stripped” into the magazine. Other types are fed along with the shells into the magazine — the M1 Garand famously operates in this fashion. Once all rounds have been fired, the clip is ejected or otherwise released from the firearm.
In essence, clips feed magazines. Magazines feed firearms.
Assault Rifles vs. Assault Weapons vs. Semi-Automatic Rifles The term “assault rifle” is perhaps the most commonly misused gun term, and certainly it’s one of the most damaging to the public’s perception of firearms. Most often, the media, anti-gun groups and all-too-many gun owners incorrectly use it to describe an AR-15 rifle.
As noted by David Kopel in an article in the “Journal of Contemporary Law,” the U.S. Department of Defense defines assault rifles as “selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between sub-machine gun and rifle cartridges.” The AR-15 and other civilian carbines errantly called assault rifles do no such thing. They are semi-automatic, non-battlefield firearms.
To add further clarity, “AR” also does not stand for “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle” — as is occasionally implied — but rather ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950’s.
However, anti-gun groups have been hugely successful applying the false label to convince Americans that AR-15’s and other semi-auto rifle platforms are a fully automatic, public threat. Much of the mainstream media now uses the “assault rifle” label broadly and without question.
To further capitalize, anti-gun groups completely invented the term “assault weapons” to broadly cover everything from home-defense shotguns to standard-capacity handguns — anything they wish to ban.
In fact, according to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of ‘assault rifles’ so as to allow an attack on as many additional firearms as possible on the basis of undefined ‘evil’ appearance.”
So, while the term “assault rifle” is frequently misused, the term “assault weapon” doesn’t even really exist.
Accuracy vs. Precision These seemingly synonymous terms are often used interchangeably, but they describe two distinct aspects of shots on target. Accuracy is a measurement of the shooter’s ability to consistently hit a given target; precision is essentially the tightness of his groups.
That’s the same thing, you say? Perhaps further examples are in order. The best illustration of the differences I’ve come across is courtesy of an unlikely source: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The NOAA’s article “Accuracy vs. Precision” was written with surveyors in mind, but its examples include four, four-shot groups by a rifleman (who we shall assume has a perfectly zeroed firearm and is aiming for the center of the target).
In example No. 1, the rifleman’s four shots are scattered all across the target. This is neither precise nor accurate.
In example No. 2, the rifleman places a tight four-shot group in the upper left of the target. This is precise (the shots are close together) but not accurate (the shots are far off-center).
In example No. 3, the rifleman lands a fairly wide four-shot group near the center of the target. He is accurate (his shots are near the intended target) but not precise (it’s a wide group).
In example No. 4, the rifleman delivers a nice, tight, four-shot group directly to the bullseye. This is both accurate (he hit the center of the target) and precise (all four shots were close together).
So, while a rifle that consistently produces tight groups is often described as “accurate,” it’s more properly an indication of good precision.
Pistol vs. Handgun There is some gray area with this one. Some use the term “handgun” to describe any hand-held firearm, but only use “pistol” in reference to semi-automatic handguns — not revolvers. I’m of the school that believes pistol and handgun may be used interchangeably. Here’s why.
One authoritative source, The NRA Firearms Sourcebook, defines a pistol as “a generic term for a hand-held firearm. Often used more specifically to refer to a single-shot, revolver or semi-automatic handgun.”
Then there’s the historical record. Though there’s debate over whence the term “pistol” arose, by the late 16th century it was commonly used to describe any hand-held gun. It even appeared in works by William Shakespeare. Then along came Samuel Colt, who described his cylinder-firearm invention as a “revolving pistol.”
“Pistol” was an established part of the vernacular long before the semi-auto handgun. Therefore it’s safe to say all handguns are pistols, and all pistols are handguns.
Pocket Pistol vs. Sub-Compact Pistol Every sub-compact pistol is a pocket pistol, but not all pocket pistols are subcompacts. Let me explain.
A sub-compact pistol is simply a small, concealed-carry-friendly version of a particular full-size model. For example, the Springfield XD 9mm Subcompact is a 3-inch barrel version of the full-size 9mm XD with 5-inch barrel. There are no standard dimensions per se that constitute a subcompact, and thus sizes vary among manufacturers.
“Pocket pistol,” on the other hand, is a generic, somewhat slangy term for any small handgun suitable for concealed carry in a pocket or otherwise. The Ruger LC9, for instance, is a pocket pistol. However, it is not a subcompact. It is a stand-alone pistol, not a smaller version of a full-size gun.
Cartridge vs. Bullet vs. Caliber Given the vast differences between the terms “bullet,” “cartridge” and “caliber,” it’s amazing anyone with a modicum of experience would confuse them. And yet how many of us have been in a gun store when someone walked in looking for “a box of .30-’06 bullets” when he obviously wanted actual cartridges?
A “bullet” is merely the projectile that exits the barrel. Specifically, it’s a non-spherical chunk of lead, copper or other material intended for use in a rifled barrel. The bullet’s “caliber” is a numerical approximation of the bullet’s diameter, often expressed in millimeters or hundredths of an inch.
“Bullet” should not be used interchangeably with the term “cartridge” — a bullet is a mere component of it. Cartridges consist of the case, primer, propellant and projectile. In the case of rifles and handguns, the bullet is seated in the cartridge case. Cartridge is also an accurate term for any shotshell.
Extractor vs. Ejector There are two main errors with these terms: using them interchangeably or the false assumption that the extractor also ejects spent shells. Designs vary, so some generalities are in order.
In most firearms, the extractor hooks onto the head of a chambered cartridge and pulls it rearward as the action is cycled. The extractor alone does not eject the spent casing — that’s the job of the ejector.
In many semi-automatic firearms, the ejector typically looks like a small blade positioned opposite the ejection port. In a nutshell, the extractor pulls the shell rearward until it contacts the ejector, which flings it out the port.
There are exceptions. Some double-barrel shotguns, for instance, are “extractors-only.” They are equipped to slightly extract spent shells from the chamber, easing removal by the shooter’s fingers. Other double-barrel shotguns have ejectors that spring spent shells from the gun — no need for extractors.
Shells vs. Shotshells The confusion with the term “shells” perhaps stems from its similarity to the word “shotshells.” I’ve run across folks under the impression that “shells” only refer to shotgun cartridges (shotshells). In reality, “shells” is an accurate — albeit somewhat colloquial — descriptor for any handgun, rifle or shotgun cartridge or cartridge case.
Shotshell, on the other hand, refers to a round of shotgun ammunition — most accurately one that contains pellets rather than a slug or other projectile.
Suppressor vs. Silencer Here’s a differentiation that tends to get people fired up. Many firearm experts believe that the term “silencer” has no correct usage — rather, it’s an inaccurate slang term for “suppressor.” Suppressors aren’t silencers, they argue, because they don’t actually “silence” the firearm. Guns that fire silently exist only in Hollywood. Suppressors merely moderate escaping gases, greatly reducing but not eliminating noise.
The NRA Firearms Sourcebook makes the distinction clear, defining a suppressor as “a device attached to the muzzle of a firearm to reduce the noise of discharge. Sometimes incorrectly called a ‘silencer.’”
I believe that’s the most accurate definition. However, here’s where things get muddy: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms uses the term “silencer” in its official paperwork.
So, I suppose, either term is accurate. Still, I advise sticking with “suppressor” and avoiding use of the word “silencer.”
Natalie hits a bunch of good points in this. I see why people don’t like the idea of killing for sport…. but they don’t understand that there would literally be 10 billion deer smashing cars everywhere if people didn’t hunt.
It should be required reading for anyone traveling with their firearms.
How to travel with a firearm
“Have gun, will travel,” is not as simple as it sounds.Whether you’re planning to attend a competition, going on a distant hunt, or just want to take along a firearm for your own personal-defense when you travel away from home, you absolutely need to know the rules of how to legally travel with your gun.
For airline travel, always check the regulations for the specific airline you’re
using, as well as the federal TSA regulations, too. Get to the airport earlier than you would if you weren’t checking a gun, and make sure your gun is unloaded and in a locked case before you even drive onto the airport grounds.
If you normally carry concealed, make sure you stop, unload, case, and lock up your carry gun before you arrive at the airport. But be discreet! You don’t want to have to pull into a fast food parking lot and have bystanders witness you taking off your shoulder holster and casing your gun in plain view.
When you get to the airport, print out regulations particular to that airline so that, if the TSA agent appears uninformed or asks you to do something you know is either incorrect or unnecessary, you can point (respectfully) to the regulations and argue your case. You should also always bring paperwork along with you to prove that you are traveling to an event, class or competition, such as a match entry form or competition letter. Remember, the airlines have all the power. A pilot can refuse to fly you, if you act ornery about your gun.
About gun cases: Whether traveling by plane, train, or automobile, you’ll want a proper lockable hard-sided case for that gun. Always lock the case prior to check in and expect to wait while TSA checks the bag after you’ve unlocked it in front of them. Also, airlines will allow you to travel with some ammo, and you can find the rules for how to pack this item in each airline’s regulations.
Finally,Julie Golob, captain of Team Smith & Wesson and frequent traveler, advises, “Smile! Be as helpful and friendly as possible throughout the entire gun check-in process. Even if you come across an agent who seems to have a significant disdain for you and your firearm, be courteous. A negative attitude won’t help the situation,”
Here’s where traveling with a firearm gets really interesting.
And, again, it helps to print out official publications regarding firearms transportation from the jurisdictions you will be traveling to or through, to have on hand if you get stopped. (Of special note, according to the NRA-ILA website (www.nraila.org), there are five states that have “strict and complicated” gun laws. They are California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.)
If you’re not carrying concealed for self-defense purposes, your firearms need to be unloaded and cased. If you are carrying concealed, check with all the states you will grace with your presence, to make sure you are complying with their rules. The website of a state’s attorney general will list all state concealed carry laws, as well as whether your state has carry reciprocity with the state/s you want to drive through or visit.
If you are pulling a trailer or camper, also check rules and regulations of each state you are traveling through, as to whether and how your firearms and ammunition may be transported in these recreational structures.
Finally, keep your ammo cased and separate from the firearms.
Guide to the Interstate Transportation of Firearms
The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action published a Guide to the Interstate Transportation of Firearms on June 30, 2014. There is no federal law that regulated transporting guns.
Mexico doesn’t want you in the country with your guns—period—though there are limited exceptions for hunting.
Canada will allow guns in the country for hunting. You’ll need to check with the U.S. Embassy in Canada, as well as the Canadian Consulate in the U.S. (information is available on this website, before traveling to that country.)
For other countries, rely on your outfitter, competition host, or other reliable source, along with the affiliated U.S. Embassy, to get all the facts on firearms transportation before you pack.