Time for summer fun shooting that is….this year my goal is to attend a 3-gun event or a tactical shoot.

anyone want to join me?

for information check here.

Michigan 3 gun combat

ACT Shooters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHWfy0a5KBE

Copyright © 2010 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Tags: Ammo SalesAmmo ShortageBackground ChecksFBIGun RetailersGun SalesGun ShopsNICS

USA Gun Owners Buy 14 Million Plus Guns In 2009 – More Than 21 of the Worlds Standing Armies Combined
That is 14,033,824,000 billion+ rounds of Ammo..you think that is why we have an Ammo shortage?

Total NICS Gun Buyer Background Checks 2009

Washington, DC –-(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the year reported 14,033,824 NICS Checks for the year of 2009, a 10 percent increase in gun purchases from the 12,709,023 reported in 2008.

So far that is roughly 14,000,000+ guns bought last year!
The total is probably more as many NICS background checks cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time by individuals.

To put it in perspective that is more guns than the combined active armies of the top 21 countries in the world. countries by number of troops

Of the NICS background checks preformed less than and average .005% were denied, showing, overwhelmingly, that law abiding American citizens are the ones buying guns and that criminals are getting their guns elsewhere.

14,033,824,000 billions rounds of Ammo
Assuming each gun buyer bought 1000 rounds of ammo for each purchase, and you and I know that it is way, way more than that, that would be easily 14,033,824,000+ billions rounds of ammo fired by USA gun owners.

What percent of people were killed or injured by this ammo…it is just to infinitesimally small for me to calculate?

Crime At Record Lows
This record year in firearms background checks show that Americans are solidly in-favor of exercising their civil right to Keep and Bear Arms.

In a year were crime has reached an all time record low what is plainly clear is that more guns equal LESS CRIME!

Countries By Number Of Troops: Source Wikipedia

This is an evaluation of overall firearms and ammunition purchases based on low end numbers per Federal NIC instacheck data base Statistics. The numbers presented are only PART of the overall numbers of arms and ammunition that have been sold.

The actual numbers are much higher.

Firearms Manufactures Working Hard To Keep Up

Michigan Hunting Shows and Expos

HUNTIN’ TIME EXPO 2010

Our 19th aniversary of celebrating the 2nd Amendment and hunting, in the United States!

Why travel all over the country when you can target your efforts in the largest hunting market in the world? The Huntin’ Time Expo offers you this incredible market January 29-31, 2010 in Grand Rapids! This all-hunting show is geared for serious hard-core hunters not “tire kickers”. Come join in the fun and see what the excitement is all about!

The Delta Plex is located off US 131, one mile north of downtown Grand Rapids. This excellent location conveniently delivers hunters from Grand Rapids, Muskegon, Holland, Grand Haven, Kalamazoo and others WITHOUT experiencing traffic, parking and load-in headaches.

Grand Rapids is one of the top 10 fastest
growing cities in the country!

The Delta Plex offers offers over 80,000 square feet of MAIN FLOOR exhibitor space making The Huntin’ Time Expo West, the largest ALL HUNTING show in the state! (FREE WEEKEND PARKING!)

Huntin’ Time Expo West show dates and times

January 29-31, 2010

Delta Plex Arena
Grand Rapids, MI

January 29 2 PM – 9 PM

January 30 9 AM – 7 PM

January 31 10 AM – 5 PM

Check out the sale section, new sale running on Savage Rifles now through February 28th.

Will Your Gun Rights Live or Die?

Coming up in our lives is perhaps the most critical Supreme Court decision in a century. Sometime towards summer of this year the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is going to decide on the case McDonald vs. The City of Chicago. Oral arguments begin March 2nd. The implications are immense.

A favorable ruling for McDonald would overthrow the Chicago ban on handgun ownership and would open the floodgates for an immense wave of (likely successful) pro-gun lawsuits against American cities, counties, and States.

Second Amendment advocates felt that a win in the Heller decision was vitally important for gun owners (JPFO filed a “friend of the court” brief in Heller). Well, McDonald is Heller on steroids.

McDonald is Heller on steroids.

A victory for gun owners could profoundly change the face of our nation. State by State by State, gun prohibitionists could finally be rousted out and smashed into impotence. Remember that Heller only dealt with guns in the District of Columbia. Let us remind ourselves: D.C. is not a State.

JPFO has also filed a “friend of the court” brief on McDonald. Go here to read the brief in full. The ramifications of this ruling could either impact the Second Amendment for the better … or for the absolute worst.

What McDonald does is attempt to persuade the Supreme Court to bring the Second Amendment under the “protection” of the 14th Amendment. This is called “incorporation” in legalese.

Here is the immediately relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SCOTUS has opined, over decades of decisions, that, because of the 14th Amendment, the States must obey the First Amendment. The high court has also found the same for the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as other specific sections of the Bill of Rights.

… the States must obey the First Amendment.

However, until the Heller case, SCOTUS, since 1939, had literally kept 2A off the table, an untouchable “States Rights” issue. But Heller forced 2A right up to the front burner. The Supreme Court rather obviously had to pay attention to Heller, as D.C. is its immediate jurisdiction. So many pro-gun strategists see Heller as the “wedge” needed to open to door to McDonald.

But, as with all things legal, there are some unsettling ramifications. McDonald would undeniably give added power to the Federal government. No increase in federal power has ever benefited gun ownership. One need look no further than the “Gun Control Act of 1968” and the BATFE, with its draconian registration and “tracing” schemes, to understand this reality.

No increase in federal power has ever benefited gun ownership.

But in McDonald, it would seem, this added federal power, because it would add support to the individual right to gun ownership, would most likely be a positive thing. After all, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in all the States have actually been nurtured (or at least certainly not hindered) by “incorporation” under the 14th Amendment.

It seems a relatively safe bet that States with existing pro-gun stances would not be restricted by a positive McDonald decision. Or so we assume.

What is obvious is that the gun prohibitionists do not like what they see coming down the pike with McDonald. Are they hoping for a miracle?

Are they hoping for a miracle?

What could happen between now and the end of March to toss McDonald into disarray? Several events come to mind:

1. What if a horrific “lone gunman” massacre takes place?

Remember, both Australia and New Zealand reacted hysterically against gun ownership under such circumstances. And don’t ever forget that Patrick Purdy’s schoolyard slaughter in Stockton, CA was the emotional fuel that launched the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban”.

Could such another appalling event result in the inclusion of “weasel clauses” in the language of a McDonald verdict, or even a complete victory for gun prohibitionists?

Look to the pitifully anti-gun Anti Defamation League for an indication of how such a horrific (yet convenient) tragedy might be scripted.

The ADL is shrill in its concern about “white supremacists”. Therefore look for a “lone gunman”  to be white. For the “shock and awe” psychological effect to be truly wrenching, the unarmed victims will have to be either blacks … or Jews. The ADL and its ilk desperately need to be able to wring their hands in perversely satisfied anguish and scream out: “We told you so! We told you so!” or…

2. What if one of the Justices who voted in favor of Heller (and can therefore be assumed to vote favorably in McDonald) was to die between now and March?

Heller was a five to four win. What if a “pro-gun” Supreme Court justice was to die, or be killed, before McDonald is decided? What if Barack Obama is then able to bring forth a rabidly anti-gun candidate as a replacement before McDonald is decided? Are there enough votes in the Senate to deny such an appointment? Don’t bet on it.

What if a “pro-gun” Supreme Court justice was to die, or be killed, before McDonald is decided?

3. What if a prominent politician, bureaucrat, spokesperson, or worshipped celebrity is reportedly killed by a “lone nut case”?

4. What if another terrorist attack occurs? Mass casualties would create the perfect excuse for martial law, and an end run around the Constitution, making any decisions by the Supreme Court irrelevant.

Anybody familiar with the American history of clandestine government and elite class (establishment) activities since WWII should not be shocked if any of the above mentioned scenarios occur.

Yes, friends of freedom, crucial times are upon us. Pay very close attention, and redouble your effort to save the Second Amendment. JPFO has plenty of “intellectual ammunition” on our site waiting for you to use, such as its ground breaking award winning films “2A Today for The USA” and “No Guns for Negroes“. Be sure also to visit the “Freedom Flyer” page for links to some of JPFO’s most important material.

http://www.bushmaster.com/acr/

Taking pre-orders now! contact kevin@tottss.com for quote and availability

By David Crane
defrev (at) gmail (dot) com

January 15, 2010
Updated on 1/16/10

On January 4th, 2010, DefenseReview published a quick piece on the new “leaked” Remington ACR (Adaptive Combat Rifle) video. Well, something rather interesting has since occurred involving the ACR. According to RFC Express, a website covering “US Federal District Court, Recently Filed Cases”, a company designated as “RMDI, LLC” is listed as the Plaintiff in a federal lawsuit (Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-00029-DAK) vs. Defendant(s) Remington Arms Company, Inc., Bushmaster Firearms, Rock River Arms, and MagPul Industries. The “COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT” federal lawsuit was, according to RFC Express, just filed on Thursday, January 14, 2010 (yesterday) in a Utah District Court. Remington and Bushmaster are part of the Freedom Group, which is owned by Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.

RMDI, LLC is a limited liability company owned by Alex Robinson of Robinson Armament (ROBARM), maker of the XCR Modular Weapon System tactical rifle series. DefenseReview has been informed by Alex Robinson that the lawsuit involves a patent that Mr. Robinson has on an “ambidextrous magazine release (a.k.a. ambidextrous mag release) and bolt hold-open”, and that thefirearms involved in the alleged patent infringement/violation are the Remington ACR (previously known as the Bushmaster ACR) 5.56mm NATO (5.56×45mm NATO)/.223 Rem. tactical rifle, MagPul Masada ACWS (from which the ACR was derived and developed), Rock River Arms (RRA) LAR-8 7.62mm NATO (7.62mm NATO)/..308 Win. rifle, and the MagPul Massoud 7.62mm NATO/.308 Win. rifle. The official lawsuit document confirms this.

The official lawsuit document, which Defense Review has purchased and downloaded from the RFC Express website, states that the lawsuit is over U.S. Patent No. 7,596,900 (the “’900 patent”) entitled “Multi-Caliber Ambidextrously Controllable Firearm,” issued on October 6, 2009 to inventors Alexander J. Robinson, Darin G. Nebeker, and Jon C. Holway. It further states that “Defendants are liable for infringement of the ’900 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.”

The lawsuit document continues:

“Upon information and belief, one or more of the Defendants’ acts of infringement
were made or will be made with knowledge of the ’900 Patent. Such acts constitute willful
infringement and make this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285 and entitle RMDI to enhanced damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

There’s a Chinese saying “May you live in interesting times.” This situation should help make for an interesting SHOT Show 2010. Speaking of SHOT, you’ll be able to find Alex Robinson/Robinson Armament at the Serbu Firearms booth (#20034). Serbu makes the Serbu BFG-50 single-shot bolt-action .50 BMG rifle, Serbu BFG-50A mag-fed semi-auto .50 BMG tactical rifle, and Serbu SUPER-SHORTY 12-gauge tactical/combat shotgun.

Click here to view the original/official PDF version of the official lawsuit document.

The following is a copy of the federal lawsuit, in its entirety.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -1-
JAMES B. BELSHE (USB No. 9826)
jbelshe@wnlaw.com
CLINTON E. DUKE (USB No. 9784)
cduke@wnlaw.com
AMBER B. LEAVITT (USB No. 11412)
aleavitt@wnlaw.com
WORKMAN | NYDEGGER
1000 Eagle Gate Tower
60 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: (801) 533-9800
Facsimile: (801) 328-1707
Attorneys for Plaintiff RMDI, LLC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
RMDI, LLC, a Utah limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
REMINGTON ARMS CO., INC., a North
Carolina corporation, BUSHMASTER
FIREARMS INT’L, LLC, a Maine limited
liability company, ROCK RIVER ARMS, INC.,
an Illinois corporation, and MAGPUL
INDUSTRIES CORP., a Colorado corporation,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-00029-DAK
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
INFRINGEMENT
Honorable Judge Dale A. Kimball
RMDI, LLC (“RMDI”) brings this action against defendants Remington Arms Co., Inc.,
Bushmaster Firearms Int’l, LLC, Rock River Arms, Inc., and Magpul Industries Corp. (collectively
referred to hereafter as “Defendants”), and for good cause of action alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. RMDI, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
Utah with its principal place of business in North Salt Lake City, Utah.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -2-
2. On information and belief, Remington Arms Co., Inc. (“Remington”) is a North
Carolina corporation with headquarters in Madison, North Carolina, has designated its registered
agent for purposes of service of process as CT Corporation System, 150 Fayetteville Street, Box
1011, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601, and is doing business in this judicial district.
3. On information and belief, Bushmaster Firearms Int’l, LLC (“Bushmaster”) is a
Maine limited liability company with headquarters in Windham, Maine, has designated its registered
agent for purposes of service of process as National Registered Agents, Inc., P.O. Box 509,
Readfield, Maine 04355, and is doing business in this judicial district.
4. On information and belief, Rock River Arms, Inc. (“Rock River Arms”) is an Illinois
corporation with headquarters in Colona, Illinois, has designated its registered agent for purposes of
service of process as Mark A. Larson, 1042 Cleveland Road, Colona, Illinois 61241, and is doing
business in this judicial district.
5. On information and belief, Magpul Industries Corp. (“Magpul”) is a Colorado
corporation with headquarters in Longmont, Colorado, has designated its registered agent for
purposes of service of process as Douglas Wayne Smith, 400 Young Court #1, Erie, Colorado
80516-8441, and is doing business in this judicial district.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the provisions of the Patent
Laws of the United States of America, Title 35 of the United States Code.
7. Subject-matter jurisdiction over RMDI’s claims is conferred upon this Court by 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
8. On information and belief, Defendants have solicited business in the State of Utah,
transacted business within the State of Utah and attempted to derive financial benefit from residents
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -3-
of the State of Utah, including benefits directly related to the instant patent infringement cause of
action set forth herein.
9. On information and belief, Defendants have placed their infringing products into the
stream of commerce throughout the United States, which products have been offered for sale, sold
and/or used in the State of Utah and/or in the District of Utah.
10. More specifically, on information and belief, Defendants have offered for sale and/or
sold their products through various retailers located in Utah, including, but not limited to,
Gallenson’s, Basin Sports, Good Gun Guys, Hammerback Guns, Kent Shooters Supply, Lee’s Gun
Shop, “Get Some” Guns & Ammo, Smith and Edwards, Big 5, and Cabela’s.
11. Defendants, directly or through their subsidiaries, divisions, groups or distributors
have committed acts of infringement in this judicial district, are subject to personal jurisdiction in
this judicial district, and/or are doing business in this judicial district.
12. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and/or 1400.
ACCUSED PRODUCTS
13. Remington, directly or through its subsidiaries, divisions, groups or distributors,
makes, sells and/or offers for sale or allows others to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale infringing
products, including, but not limited to, the product identified as the Adaptive Combat Rifle, or ACR.
14. Bushmaster, directly or through its subsidiaries, divisions, groups or distributors,
makes, sells and/or offers for sale or allows others to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale infringing
products, including, but not limited to, the product identified as the Adaptive Combat Rifle, or ACR.
15. Rock River Arms, directly or through its subsidiaries, divisions, groups or
distributors, makes, sells and/or offers for sale or allows others to make, use, sell and/or offer for
sale infringing products, including, but not limited to, the product identified as the LAR-8.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -4-
16. Magpul, directly or through its subsidiaries, divisions, groups or distributors, makes,
sells and/or offers for sale or allows others to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale infringing
products, including, but not limited to, the products identified as the Masada and the Massoud rifles.
17. Defendants’ products listed in paragraphs 13-16 above are collectively referred to
hereafter as “the Accused Products.”
18. The Accused Products do not necessarily represent an exhaustive list, and additional
products may be added pending further discovery.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
PATENT INFRINGEMENT
19. On October 6, 2009, U.S. Patent No. 7,596,900 (the “’900 patent”) entitled “Multi-
Caliber Ambidextrously Controllable Firearm,” a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, was
duly and legally issued to the inventors Alexander J. Robinson, Darin G. Nebeker, and Jon C.
Holway.
20. RMDI is the owner by assignment of all right, title and interest in and to the ’900
patent, including the right to sue for and recover all past, present and future damages for
infringement of the ’900 patent.
21. Upon information and belief, Defendants, directly or through their subsidiaries,
divisions, groups or distributors, have infringed and continue to infringe the ’900 patent by making,
using, selling and/or offering to sell, or inducing or contributing to the infringement of the ’900
patent in the United States, including in the state of Utah, one or more of the Accused Products that
are covered by one or more of the claims of the ’900 Patent, including, but not limited to, claim 1 of
the ’900 Patent.
22. Defendants are liable for infringement of the ’900 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -5-
23. Defendants’ acts of infringement have caused damage to RMDI, and RMDI is
entitled to recover from the defendants the damages sustained by RMDI as a result of the
Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.
24. As a consequence of the infringement complained of herein, RMDI has been
irreparably damaged to an extent not yet determined and will continue to be irreparably damaged by
such acts in the future unless the defendants are enjoined by this Court from committing further acts
of infringement.
25. Upon information and belief, one or more of the Defendants’ acts of infringement
were made or will be made with knowledge of the ’900 Patent. Such acts constitute willful
infringement and make this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285 and entitle RMDI
to enhanced damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, RMDI prays for the following relief:
A. Judgment that Defendants have each infringed the ’900 Patent;
B. An order requiring Defendants to account for and pay to RMDI all damages
caused by their infringement of the ’900 Patent, whether lost profits or a reasonable royalty, and
to enhance such damages by three times in light of Defendants’ willful infringement, all in
accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284;
C. Entry of a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 enjoining
Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons in active concert or
participation with them from further acts of patent infringement;
D. An order that RMDI be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the
damages caused to it by reason of Defendants’ patent infringement;
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -6-
E. A declaration by the Court that this an exceptional case and that RMDI be granted
its reasonable attorneys’ fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285;
F. An award of costs to RMDI; and
G. Any other relief that the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
RMDI demands trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable.
Dated: January 14, 2010. WORKMAN | NYDEGGER
By: /s/ James B. Belshe
James B. Belshe
Clinton E. Duke
Amber B. Leavitt
Attorneys for Plaintiff RMDI, LLC