As SIG SAUER’s John Hollister says, “Do it for the children.” The Hearing Protection Act of 2015 (H.R. 3799) would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act.
Let your voice be heard, but not your firearms.
As SIG SAUER’s John Hollister says, “Do it for the children.” The Hearing Protection Act of 2015 (H.R. 3799) would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act.
Let your voice be heard, but not your firearms.
Las Vegas, NV – January 19, 2016 – The American Knife & Tool Institute (AKTI) today announced its plans to increase its lobbying efforts in order to prompt reform of knife laws in 2016.
To accomplish this reform, AKTI has brought on ADS Ventures, a Boston, MA and Washington, DC-based government and public affairs firm with a practice specializing in defense and national security issues. The team, headed by Liesl Grebenstein and supported by Savannah Kelleher, has been working with AKTI for several years, but the new contract will enhance efforts focused on federal efforts to pass the Knife Owners’ Protection Act (KOPA), and state efforts to ease restrictions on auto-open knives, as well as preemption. The legislative reform agenda will ensure the protection of knife owners’ Constitutional rights.
“AKTI has an aggressive legislative reform agenda in 2016,” said CJ Buck, AKTI’s Board President. “We are confident that through AKTI’s leadership, and the work of ADS Ventures, it will be a successful year for the organization as we further our mission to ensure your right to own, carry, and use knives and edged tools.”
For nearly 20 years, AKTI has served as the go-to resource for knife owners looking to ensure that they comply with all local, state, and federal laws related to knives. One of the biggest complaints and points of confusion AKTI hears about from lawful knife owners involves the patchwork laws related to the ownership and possession of knives. While citizens are making every effort to comply with patchwork state and local laws, it has become clear that there is the need for comprehensive reform.
“AKTI and its members have been successful in clarifying and correcting poorly conceived and ambiguous legislation and educating legislators on knife issues on behalf of all knife owners,” said David Fee, AKTI’s Legislative Chair. “We support reasonable, responsible legislation and measured non-partisan efforts to resolve issues. We’re excited to see how we can further this objective in this and coming years.”
More about AKTI
The American Knife & Tool Institute (AKTI) is a non-profit organization (501(c)6) representing all segments of the knife industry and all knife users. Formed in true grassroots fashion by concerned industry leaders after considerable discussion with individual knifemakers, knife magazine publishers, and a broad section of the knife community, AKTI has been the reasonable and responsible voice of the knife community since 1998. AKTI’s mission is to ensure that Americans will always be able to make, buy, sell, own, carry and use knives and edged tools. To learn more, please visit www.akti.org.
Never mind that they tried this once before and it not only didn’t work but cost them a majority in the Congress. Never mind that prohibitions don’t work. Never mind that the majority of Americans don’t want this. Democrats in the House of Representatives have introduced a new bill to make the guns many SSD readers own, illegal to manufacture. Naturally, the bill also covers ‘large capacity ammunition feeding devices’.
One of the things that always strikes me about these bills as they pop up is the obsession the anti-2Aers have with guns. They love to make lists of types of firearms, the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’. It’s really kind of creepy. If only they put that kind of effort into cutting red tape so businesses could create jobs.
I encourage you to read the full text of this bill that is currently in committee.
The day before Thanksgiving, President Obama signed the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act into law. While one of its most sweeping changes is the creation of a new retirement plan for military personnel, an interesting provision in the legislation which will transfer up to 100,000 M-1911A1 pistols to qualified recipients via the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Previously, CMP has been limited to transferring rifles such as the M-1 Garand.
SEC. 1087. TRANSFER OF SURPLUS FIREARMS TO CORPORATION FOR
(a) AUTHORIZATION OF TRANSFER OF SURPLUS FIREARMS TO CORPORATION FOR THE PROMOTION OF RIFLE PRACTICE AND FIRE- ARMS SAFETY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 40728 of title 36, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
THE PROMOTION OF RIFLE PRACTICE AND FIREARMS SAFETY.
‘‘(h) AUTHORIZED TRANSFERS.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary may transfer to the corporation, in accordance with the procedure prescribed in this subchapter, surplus caliber .45 M1911/M1911A1 pistols and spare parts and related accessories for those pistols that, on the date of the enactment of this subsection, are under the control of the Secretary and are surplus to the require-ments of the Department of the Army, and such material as may be recovered by the Secretary pursuant to section 40728A(a) of this title. The Secretary shall determine a reasonable schedule for the transfer of such surplus pistols.
‘‘(2) The Secretary may not transfer more than 10,000 surplus caliber .45 M1911/M1911A1 pistols to the corporation during any year and may only transfer such pistols as long as pistols described in paragraph (1) remain available for transfer.’’.
(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Such title is further amended—
(A) in section 40728A—
(i) by striking ‘‘rifles’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘surplus firearms’’; and
(ii) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘section 40731(a)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 40732(a)’’; (B) in section 40729(a)—
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘section 40728(a)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (a) and (h) of section 40728’’; (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘40728(a)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (a) and (h) of section 40728’’; and
(iii) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘and caliber .45 M1911/M1911A1 surplus pistols’’ after ‘‘caliber .30 and caliber .22 rimfire rifles’’;
(C) in section 40732—
(i) by striking ‘‘caliber .22 rimfire and caliber .30 surplus rifles’’ both places it appears and inserting ‘‘surplus caliber .22 rimfire rifles, caliber .30 surplus rifles, and caliber .45 M1911/M1911A1 surplus pistols’’; and
(ii) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘is over 18 years of age’’ and inserting ‘‘is legally of age’’; and (D) in section 40733—
(i) by striking ‘‘Section 922(a)(1)-(3) and (5)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in sub-section (b), section 922(a)(1)-(3) and (5)’’; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new sub-
section: ‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—With respect to firearms other than caliber .22 rimfire and caliber .30 rifles, the corporation shall obtain a license as a dealer in firearms and abide by all requirements imposed on persons licensed under chapter 44 of title 18, including maintaining acquisition and disposition records, and conducting background checks.’’.
(b) PILOT PROGRAM.—
(1) ONE-YEAR AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the Army may carry out a one-year pilot program under which the Secretary may transfer to the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety not more than 10,000 firearms described in paragraph (2).
(2) FIREARMS DESCRIBED.—The firearms described in this paragraph are surplus caliber .45 M1911/M1911A1 pistols and spare parts and related accessories for those pistols that, on the date of the enactment of this section, are under the control of the Secretary and are surplus to the requirements of the Department of the Army.
(3) TRANSFER REQUIREMENTS.—Transfers of surplus caliber .45 M1911/M1911A1 pistols from the Army to the Corporation under the pilot program shall be made in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 407 of title 36, United States Code.
(4) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—the Secretary initiates the pilot program under this sub-section, the Secretary shall submit to Congress an interim report on the pilot program. Secretary completes the pilot program under this sub-section, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a final report on the pilot program. this subsection shall include, for the period covered by the report—
(A) INTERIM REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after
(B) FINAL REPORT.—Not later than 15 days after the
(C) CONTENTS OF REPORT.—Each report required by
(i) the number of firearms described in subsection
(a)(2) transferred under the pilot program; and
(ii) information on any crimes committed using firearms transferred under the pilot program.
(c) LIMITATION ON TRANSFER OF SURPLUS CALIBER .45 M1911/M1911A1 PISTOLS.—The Secretary may not transfer firearms described in subsection (b)(2) under subchapter II of chapter 407 of title 36, United States Code, until the date that is 60 days after the date of the submittal of the final report required under subsection (b)(4)(B).
Additionally, the law requires the Department of Defense to develop procedures allowing military personnel to carry personally owned firearms on base, pursuant to local laws.
A Congressional staff delegation consisting of Professional Staff Members from the House and Senate Armed Services`1qw Committees visited key DoD research & development facilities in the Boston area this week. Among other stops, the staff spent time at the Natick Soldier Systems Center where they were briefed on the base’s cutting-edge R&D work. Natick Soldier Systems Center is a crucial part of the development process for warfighter gear and equipment, with groundbreaking work on individual items ranging from combat helmets and soldier electronics to combat feeding and shelter systems.
The base itself consists of four key units including, the Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, the U.S. Army Institute of Environmental Medicine, Program Manager Field Sustainment, and the Integrated Logistics Support Center….. it truly is “all about the solider.” And as one of the main industry liaisons, the base serves as an integral player in the DoD’s R&D efforts on improving gear and equipment for the end-user. Natick Soldier Systems Center maintains capabilities and technologies that are one of a kind, such as the Doriot Climatic Chambers, which was recently upgraded in partnership with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The base’s location also provides a unique ability to bring some of the nation’s greatest minds due to its proximity to some of the nation’s greatest research institutions such as Harvard University, MIT, Worcester Polytechnic Institute and the University of Massachusetts system.
Recently, a post regarding a Senator’s position on a pending government procurement resulted in some rather interesting comments on civilian control of the military. I exchanged some messages with LTC Terry Baldwin (USSF, Ret) and we agreed that it needed to be addressed. This is what he came up with. It’s a good historical reference, and well worth the reading, whether you are an informed citizen or a student of the profession of arms.
There is legitimate purpose, coherent logic and sound reasoning behind every element and mechanism associated with our Constitutional Republic. None is more fundamental to our form of government than iron clad civilian control of the military. In peace and war. In June of 1787, James Madison addressed the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on the dangers of a permanent army. “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.” Based on the European model of his day Madison declared. “The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.” The fact that Madison, one of the most vocal proponents of a strong centralized government—an author of the Federalist papers and the architect of the Constitution—could evince such strongly negative feelings against a standing army is significant and telling(1).
The final draft of the Declaration of Independence contained numerous references to King George’s militarism (particularly his attempts to render the army independent of civilian authority). By the end of the War of Independence, distrust and even hatred of a standing army had become a powerful and near-universal article of faith among the American people. Many felt that the professional British army was nothing less than a “conspiracy against liberty.” The Quartering Act, which required colonists to provide housing and provisions for troops in their own buildings, was an especially obnoxious symbol of the corrupting power represented by the army. An issue which was later directly addressed in the 3d Amendment of the US Constitution. Many colonists held the sentiment that the redcoats stationed in the colonies existed not to protect them but to enforce the king’s unpopular policies at bayonet-point(1).
Other members of the founding generation worried that an armed, professional force represented an untenable threat to the liberty of the people generally. As Samuel Adams wrote in 1768, “Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it”. In our Republic that watchful oversight on behave of the people is exercised by our elected officials. Moreover, in Federalist No. 51, Madison argued that no single branch of government ought to have control over any single aspect of governing. Thus, all three branches of government must have some control over the military, and the system of checks and balances maintained among the other branches would serve to help control the military(1).
The powers of the individual Branches of government concerning the United States Military are clearly outlined in the Constitution. The separation of those powers concerning their duties and responsibilities are precise and distinct to each Branch. Article I which covers the governmental responsibilities of the Legislative Branch distinctly places the responsibility of provision for and maintenance of the military specifically in the duties of the United States House of Representatives and Senate. Article I, Section 8 – The Legislative Branch – “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy.” Article II, Section 2 – The Executive Branch – “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
Most military professionals, myself included, are in fact strong advocates of civilian control. Highly respected writing on War from Clausewitz to Sun-Tzu universally recognized and advocated an unbreakable link between political goals and military means. Historically where unrealistic or poorly defined political objectives became unsynchronized or decoupled from operational and tactical military actions, National mission failure is the likely result. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan would be some recent examples. Given the broad strategic implications that a decision to declare a war, invade a country, or end a conflict, have on the citizens of the country, those deliberations are best guided by the will of the people (as expressed by their elected representatives), rather than left solely to an elite group of military experts. The military serves as a special government agency, which is supposed to implement, rather than formulate, policies that require the use of certain types of physical force. Dr. Kohn succinctly summarizes this view when he writes that: “the point of civilian control is to make security subordinate to the larger purposes of a nation, rather than the other way around. The purpose of the military is to defend society, not to define it.”(2)
It can also be argued that militaries possess capabilities that are too powerful to be placed at the discretion of just a few people. Rather, they must be at the service of all citizens and used in accordance with the democratic will of the people. So concerns about maintaining an appropriate subordinate relationship between the military and civil authorities elected or appointed over them did not end in the 18th Century. In 1961, President Eisenhower warned in his farewell address of a military-industrial complex, where the military could wield indirect power or undue influence over Congress by enlisting arms manufacturers to lobby for increased military spending to benefit themselves and incidentally the military. This very real and troubling dynamic represents a potential end run around effective civilian control. And also presents an effective argument in favor of more civilian scrutiny and oversight of the military not less.
Of course, the most important institution supporting civilian control must be the military itself. The fundamental assumption behind civilian supremacy is the abstinence by the military from intervention in government and political life. The military should advise civilians, represent the needs of the military inside the government, but not advocate military interests or perspectives publicly in such a way as to undermine or circumscribe civilian authority. While a country may have civilian control of the military without democracy, it cannot have democracy without civilian control. Democracy is a disorderly form of government, often inefficient and always frustrating. Maintaining liberty and security, governing in such a manner as to achieve desirable political outcomes and at the same time military effectiveness, is among the most difficult dilemmas of human governance.(2)
Our Founding Fathers envisioned and built a most amazing governing construct. A mechanism designed with component gears that purposely grind against one another rather than mesh. An apparatus that is maintenance intensive and that we the people have a sacred duty to constantly repair and preserve. A machine that intentionally doesn’t save time, energy or manpower. An engine of liberty that deliberately works better when more of us participate and yet will still never function smoothly. A strange and marvelous instrument indeed. Ensuring that the military always remains firmly subordinate to civilian control was and remains a critical cog in that machine. Every aspect of when, where, why, against whom and how the Nation goes to war, prosecutes a war, or prepares for war is the peoples’ business. Attempting to argue that the military should have the autonomy or discretion to somehow dodge that oversight in time of war is simply wrong and directly contradicts our history and our Constitution.
For the purposes of this article I modified and paraphrased a great deal of the work of the two gentlemen below. But I happen to firmly believe in everything that is stated above. TLB
(1)Historian Christopher Hamner teaches at George Mason University, serves as Editor-in-Chief of Papers of the War Department, 1784-1800, and is the author of Enduring Battle: American Soldiers in Three Wars, 1776-1945.
(2)Richard H. Kohn is professor of history and chairman of the Curriculum in Peace, War, and Defense at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as well as executive secretary, Triangle Institute for Security Studies. Further, he is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of American Diplomacy.
On this first day of the annual meeting of the Association of the United States Army I find it fitting to tell you about a considerably smaller group of industry advocates. While lesser known, I occasionally write about the Warrior Protection and Readiness Coalition (WPRC).
For the most part, I write about a very narrow segment of the defense industry; those businesses that concentrate on protecting our service members. As I’m sure you’re aware, the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment (OCIE) industry historically has had a minimal presence on Capitol Hill, to the detriment of the needs of both the warfighter and industry. But not anymore.
Back in 2009, at the urging of DoD leadership, industry leaders took the initiative to bring a fragmented group of nine American companies together to speak with one voice to Congress on the need to sustain a industrial base. Never before in the history had the armed forces relied so heavily of rapid industrial innovation and production of personal protective equipment. No one wanted to see that capability go away due to the lack of a planning process. The result was the Warrior Protection and Readiness Coalition (WPRC), which has grown into a not-for-profit that enjoys an active membership of more than 40 companies dedicated to ensuring US warfighters and peacekeepers alike are properly supported and equipped for the full spectrum of missions.
I am proud to host this site and discuss many of these issues. Those of you who read, comment, and support this site through advertising are engaged daily not only with the US Department of Defense but also increasingly with foreign militaries. As our defensive posture continues to evolve and opportunities to sustain the domestic industrial base have diminished, the procurement process has become even more difficult at a time when the industry that supports the warfighter is extremely stressed.
Sequestration is our number one defense issue. The current standoff taking place between the President and Congress over the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an example of the collateral damage caused by sequestration. To adequately fund DoD around the constrictions of the sequester, Members of Congress have used the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account to add almost $85 billion dollars to meet the critical demands of our national defense. President Obama has repeatedly called this effort a “gimmick” and has threatened to veto the NDAA altogether. Both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees just approved a Conference Report containing this OCO funding. If the President vetoes the measure, more uncertainty remains around the necessary funding for the Department of Defense.
The result of this situation for our industry is continued uncertainty. Let’s face it. If there’s no budget, there are no orders for goods, and companies may well turn their efforts elsewhere, or close up shop altogether. This obviously directly effects the military. OCO funds are used with broad discretion, and while they may serve as a bandaid, they also create some havoc with the bean counters and lead to “feast or famine” situations for the military as well as their suppliers. You can’t conduct any long-term planning when the budget process is broken. Specific to our industry, you get a glaring lack of line item visibility for both PPE and OCIE. On top of that, the constraints of the Budget Control Act and sequestration have led procurement authorities to rely heavily upon lowest price/technically acceptable (LPTA) contracting methods in order to make those limited funds stretch as far as possible. While it sounds great on paper, choosing the lowest price over quality and best value for PPE and OCIE is a recipe for disaster both for the domestic industrial base as well as our warfighters.
Confronting these challenges head on may seem like an impossible task. You know as well as I do that not only are there current growing threats around the world (Russia, Syria, ISIS, North Korea) but the Berry compliant industrial base must be ready to meet unforeseen challenges within a moment’s notice. How many times to do we have to repeat history? Time and time again we have allowed our military’s industrial base to descend into disarray. The goal here is sustainment of capabilities; military as well as industrial.
The WPRC was founded to not only ensure the best available equipment for our warfighters and peacekeepers but to advocate on behalf of the American companies and manufacturers who provide the best available PPE and OCIE. Members and non-members alike have benefitted from their work. The WPRC has led the effort to discontinue the use of reverse auctions (RA) and Lowest Price/Technically Acceptable (LPTA) contracting for PPE/OCIE product categories. Margins are already thin and these types of purchases have resulted in winning bids that are just too good to be true. Over time these methods of procurement have led to missteps, including the procurement of substandard PPE. Just this year, the companies who are part of the WPRC worked together to successfully secure language in the NDAA that states:
“The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, in procuring an item of personal protective equipment or a critical safety item, use source selection criteria that is predominately based on technical qualifications of the item and not predominately based on price to the maximum extent practicable if the level of quality or failure of the item could result in death or severe bodily harm to the user, as determined by the Secretaries.”
This language is an important step in a continued process to ensure that our warfighters not only maintain a significant combat advantage but are as safe as possible while doing so. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Chair of the Senate Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee and Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA), Chair of the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee have been champions for this issue in Congress.
Here’s another win that I bet you haven’t heard of. The WPRC has also achieved a notable success by supporting legislation that requires DoD to provide line-item funding for PPE and OCIE in future budgets. Beginning next year, Program Managers and industry will have visibility into the spending plans of the service branches, allowing for far better planning within the government and industry on the best way to allocate precious resources to support the service branches. Up to now, everything has been haphazard. This is huge and will help planners get their arms around what has been happening.
There’s still a lot of work to be done. I urge companies to pay attention to the work being done by this non-profit association and consider adding their efforts to the advocacy work that leads to these types of accomplishments. It’s critical to our industrial base and to all those who serve in uniform, and it deserves our support. Congress needs feedback from the uniformed services as well as from industry. If we let it operate in a vacuum it will never know how to improve the acquisition process.
Unfortunately, what they do day-to-day is often missed but if I had to sum it all up in a single sentence, I’d refer to them as “Our Voice of Industry on Capitol Hill.” While it has taken time to gain momentum, this voice has been pretty effective so far, and the more that companies band together to alleviate uncertainty, the better they can concentrate on providing the best support to our troops.
I received this statement from AUSA earlier today and had to share it. I agree completely.
Statement of Gordon R. Sullivan, USA retired, Association of the U.S. Army President and CEO
“It is disappointing we sit on the sidelines watching the train wreck that is our defense budget process.
“Here we are at the start of a fiscal year with a patchwork appropriations that keeps our military funded only through Dec. 11, and with a veto threat over the defense policy bill. Everything that is happening was avoidable, if only our executive and legislative branches would work together in the name of national security.”
“In an increasingly uncertain world, failure to do something so essential as passing a defense budget does nothing to help the morale of our soldiers and other service members, nor being a credible friend and ally and a formidable foe.”