Izhmash, the manufacturer of Kalashnikov AK assault rifles, said its sales were up 57.4 percent last year at 5.73 billion rubles (about $190 million).

Civilian weapon sales rose 25 percent and a similar increase is expected this year, Izhmash press secretary Yelena Filatova said.

Production is to increase 30 percent this year, to 5.1 billion rubles, she added.

In September 2011, Chief of the Russian General Staff Nikolai Makarov said the Defense Ministry had stopped procuring AK-74 rifles because of oversupply, indicating that new models of small arms and light weapons would replace it.

The AK-74 is the most widely used and well-known assault rifle in the world. It is used by some 50 armies around the world, as well as countless guerrilla movements.

Now this is worth noting because it does mean that not only is this the most commonly used firearm in the world at present, but is probably the most widely illegally trafficked firearm as well. While fingers continue to point at American firearms, where is the mainstream media reporting on the AK-74 sales? And notice that the Russian military has an oversupply but the sales are increasing, so where are those guns going?

A related story also noted, “Venezuela plant to make 50 million Kalashnikov rounds annually,” which is a huge number. Could those bullets be fueling the cartel wars in Mexico? Just asking…

One Election Away Indeed!

This week USA Ammo offered an ad that has gotten some mainstream attention. We have to hope it increases their sales too!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fUPDSpCcdg

We would like an answer too, and would once again like to remind anyone who only thinks the police should have guns of what this could mean. Bad cops could be arms – and ammo – suppliers to the bad guys.

This weekend The Monitor ran a story titled, “Mexican national jailed for allegedly smuggling ammunition,” and it included this passage:

“Authorities report that Martinez-Bernache was arrested Wednesday at the Gateway International Bridge in Brownsville after he attempted to smuggle 4,000 cartridges of .223 caliber ammunition and 1,000 cartridges of 7.62 caliber ammunition without a license.

“This type of ammunition is commonly used in high-powered assault rifles, authorities said.”

If authorities said that this was “used in high-powered assault rifles,” than those authorities prove they aren’t much of a gun authority.

Here is the problem. The .223 caliber ammunition is for the AR-15 or M-16, and it was actually designed to be a lower-powered bullet than the .30 caliber that was used in the M1 or M14. Those could be considered “high-powered,” but the .223 is generally considered an intermediate cartridge and thus not technically “high-powered.”

The other problem is that the 7.62 caliber ammunition comes in 7.62x54mmR, which is the old Russian standard for the WWI era bolt action rifles, as well as World War II Soviet era semi-automatic rifles. But the Soviets were among the first to see that this high-powered round was over-powered for combat needs, and created the 7.62x39mm round for the SKS. This was later used in the AK-47, which is considered an assault weapon, while the semi-automatic versions could be deemed assault weapon styled.

The point is that the 7.62x39mm is also an intermediate round, so this story is just another example of media misinformation.

Rolley suggests this effort would cut down on crime and random gunfire. Of course how he expects to enforce this law is not clear. If Rolley had watched any episodes of HBO’s The Wire, which is set in Baltimore, he would know that the fictional drug gangs drove vast distances to obtain supplies of drugs, and even drove miles outside the city to burn disposable mobile phones (burners as they were called). What would stop criminals from driving outside the city to stock up on ammunition?

We feel that Rolley would just use this as an excuse to push for even greater restrictions against firearms and ammunition. Let’s hope that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others from Mayors Against Illegal Guns don’t jump on this band wagon.

A proposal by Baltimore, Maryland mayoral candidate Otis Rolley to levy a tax of $1 per cartridge in an effort to cut down crime and random gunfire in the city is typical of an anti-gun liberal who decries urban violence but offers a way for government to profit from it while not solving the problem, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Rolley, a Democrat, is quoted by WBAL news acknowledging that raising the cost of firearms won’t work “because many criminals don’t purchase new guns, and they can be borrowed or even rented in some areas.”

“Sounds like Rolley’s trolley has left the tracks,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “If this guy actually believes that criminals rent firearms, he must live on Fantasy Island. Criminals steal firearms, even from the police, and when they do, they also steal the ammunition. Clearly, this one dollar-per-bullet tax idea comes from someone who doesn’t have a clue about criminals or the way they operate, but he does know about raising taxes.”

Rolley told a reporter that the tax would curb random shootings, especially around the holidays, by making it too expensive for people to indiscriminately discharge firearms.

“Tell that to someone who spends $300 on Fourth of July fireworks,” Gottlieb observed. “Rolley is really looking for a new revenue vehicle to fatten the city coffers, and sticking law-abiding citizens with the bill.

“Imagine what the First Amendment reaction from the press might be,” he said, “if Rolley had proposed a one-dollar tax per word in every newspaper in the city. There would be howls from every editorial board in the state, calling it a nutty idea that would not pass constitutional muster. The same goes for this proposed Second Amendment tax on recreational shooters, hunters and citizens concerned about personal protection.

“Rolley really needs a reality check,” Gottlieb concluded. “He ought to bite the bullet on this goofy proposal that shows just how far anti-gun extremists will go.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

The article notes that the EPA did not try to ban lead ammunition, noting:

“Last August, a rumor began circulating among pro-hunting and fishing groups that the agency was poised to ban the use of lead in bullets and shotgun shells. The claim soon went viral on right-wing blogs and TV shows. Before long, the president of the National Rifle Association joined the fray freakout, warning that this might be yet another ‘vehicle to implement gun control.’ GOP House members proceeded to lash out at the nonexistent move as an ‘assault on rural America.’”

Mother Jones notes that the Center for Biological Diversity did petition the EPA to consider banning the use of lead in ammo and fishing tackle.

CNSNews.com noted however, that several groups signed the petition, a fact not noted on Mother Jones:

“Petition signatories include the Center for Biological Diversity, American Bird Conservancy, Association of Avian Veterinarians, Project Gutpile, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.”

CNSNews.com also offered this information:

“The environmental activist groups note that the EPA is specifically prohibited from regulating ammunition or firearms under the Toxic Substances Control Act.”

However, while the EPA did not actually push for the banning of lead ammunition, it did accept public comments, which could be read that the agency did not dismiss the calls from the environmental groups out of hand, as it rightfully should have done given the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.

Those groups know the EPA cannot change laws and instead they looked for the group to do an end run around Congress. Thus this isn’t such a wild conspiracy theory after all.

This has been our concern if Obama is re-elected in 2012. Already the POTUS supported last year’s attempt by the EPA to ban lead ammunition, and the POTUS along with the State Department in essence banned the re-importation of American made M1 rifles from South Korea.

But if re-elected is gun control going to be the agenda? This week proof came out, but it isn’t getting much mainstream media play.

The Greenly Gazette is reporting that Sarah Brady was told by Obama that gun control was on his agenda, quoting Brady:

“I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

Isn’t this coming from the then-Presidential candidate who promise to have an open government with transparency? But let’s also consider this article from The Huffington Post from March, titled “Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Policy.” That story offered this telling statement:

“…the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.”

The question to ask is where is this going to go? Should we worry about what is going under the radar, or could all this backfire for the POTUS?

NSSF responds to today’s New York Times editorial attacking traditional ammunition. http://tiny.cc/nxs9x

The New York Times
Letters to the Editor
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

To the Editor:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) correctly rejected a petition by anti-hunting groups to ban the use of all traditional ammunition manufactured with lead components based on a statute passed by congress over 35 years ago (“Another Misguided Idea From the Gun Lobby,” May 17, 2011). As even one of the petitioners has acknowledged, the proposed ban would have applied to all ammunition, not just hunting ammunition, thereby affecting not only sportsmen, but the military, law enforcement and all responsible gun owners. Bipartisan legislation, sponsored by the co-chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, which is the largest caucus in congress, seeks to further clarify the existing exemption of ammunition from EPA jurisdiction and to exempt sport-fishing tackle. Over 35 of the nation’s largest conservation groups support this commonsense legislation.

The science of wildlife management is based on managing populations, not on preventing isolated instances of harm to individual animals. If wildlife management were to be based on preventing harm to individual animals then presumably hunting would be banned. Hunting, however, is a critical management tool, and the excise taxes paid on the sale of the ammunition you demonize is the primary funding source for wildlife and habitat conservation in the United States. Absent sound scientific evidence of a population impact caused by the use of traditional ammunition, there is no justification for further restricting or banning its use.

The proper agencies to protect wildlife are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 50 state fish and game agencies. To illustrate this point, the Fish and Wildlife Service, not the E.P.A., barred the use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting many years ago.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study does not, as you claim, show a health risk to hunters who consume game harvested with traditional ammunition. Quite the opposite is true, as demonstrated by the study showing that the average hunter had blood lead levels less than half that of the average American – including those walking the streets of Manhattan. There has never been a documented case of lead poisoning, let alone elevated lead levels, caused by consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition. Once again, the arguments posed in your editorial are agenda-based science and don’t hold up to factual scrutiny.

Alternative ammunition made with substantially more expensive metals comprises just 5 percent of the ammunition market in the United States. Banning traditional ammunition, based on emotion rather than science, will result in skyrocketing prices for ammunition.

Indeed, by needlessly banning traditional ammunition, price sensitive hunters and target shooters as well as fishermen will be priced out of their sport, and funding for wildlife and habitat conservation will dry up.

Sincerely,

Lawrence G. Keane
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
National Shooting Sports Foundation

About NSSF
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 6,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, log on to www.nssf.org.

Since the tragic shooting in Tucson this past January, there have been renewed calls to “ban” any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

The NRA has issued a response:

“Despite the burdens it would put on honest Americans, Rep. McCarthy’s bill wouldn’t stop a criminal from obtaining magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

“Tens of millions of Americans own countless tens of millions of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; even Rep. McCarthy admits that confiscation of existing magazines would be impossible. Anything that common can be stolen or bought on the black market. And even if no magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds were available, a criminal could still use multiple smaller magazines, multiple firearms, more powerful handguns, or weapons other than firearms.”

We agree completely. The ban would be impossible to enforce, and would only make criminals of law abiding citizens. But maybe that’s part of the agenda of the anti-gun crowd.