Ceska zbrojovka Uhersky Brod, better know as just CZ, and best know in the states for CZ-USA and Dan Wesson, announced their official acquisition of the American icon firearms company, Colt.

Colt is one of the three iconic American firearm brands, we have many younger and well known companies today but Colt stands with Ruger and, more closely, Smith & Wesson in legacy. Both S&W and Colt will be marking their 2nd Century in business when we roll into the 2050’s.

This is a bittersweet moment for many.

On the one hand, it is sad to see an American legend pass into the control of a European held power to join H&K and FN in international small arms competition.

On the other, Colt has been on the struggle bus for a long time. Failing to adapt to the market again, and again, and again… they were over shot by FN, their direct US Gov, LE, and Civi market competitor, in the early 2000’s as FN gave the people what they wanted (SCARs and ARs and new handguns) and Colt… didn’t.

Colt failed at launching their Retro rifles, which were twice the price of the essentially equally good to Brownells and Troy offerings of the M16A1 and XM177 but just with an authentic pony on the side. That wasn’t worth an extra $1,000+

They failed with the CM901, which was supposedly supposed to take on the SCAR17 and HK417 rifles… Two of those three rifles are still selling as fast as they come available, and for nearly $4,000.. one I found on clearance when Walmart stopped selling tactical rifles (it had been in the case nearly three years at that point, I kept track) and was finally given away. Guess which.

Their last great innovation, and still honestly a very good rifle, was the LE6940. That 2009 introduction, which sported a monolithic, one-piece, freefloat barreled upper, is still an excellent AR offering but is older and very middle of the pack. It also doesn’t sport some of the easy and low-cost-to-add modern conveniences, like a QD sling point stock (it has one on the front) or a non-A2 pistol grip. They did a 6920 variant, the EPR, that finally did those things but it was like Colt didn’t care at that point, they still has M4 and M4A1s to build and that was fine.

Despite everything not being fine.

Then in twilight of 2019 Colt made the Big Whoopsies and closed off AR sales. A decision they would immediately renege on as 2020 brought record demand and they couldn’t miss that cash grab. But the North (America) remembers and the Colt name as it stood, was mud.

Colt made a decent, if dated, rifle and terrible decisions. Even as I was building my M4 in the panic, they would not get my money for an authentic upper (and a decent price) because of their 2019 choices.

CZ, on the other hand…

CZ’s name is near gold in the gun community, they have a “gun hipster” reputation but its the hipster who makes you think that all hipsters aren’t bad folks because this one is cool.

The CZ75 is iconic, the P-10 is a well respected striker gun, the Shadow 2 is a top tier competitive pistol, the Bren 805 and Bren 2 were (and are) refreshing additions to the modern rifle/carbine market, the CZ Scorpion was a welcome addition to PCC’s/SMGs and CZ boldly went hard to make it a civilian accessible product, and Dan Wesson maintains their solid reputation for 1911’s.

CZ holds gun industry good will capital the old Colt does not, CZ as a company has expressed attitudes that the American consumer market vibe with and enjoy. Their fight to make their tactical products available and their focus on making exceptional and accessible (affordable) handguns the run well has endeared the funny little hipster company with the unpronounceable name to the American consumer.

So I have high hopes of a renewed and reinvigorated Colt.

Although for some years the editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association have clearly taken an approach to the Second Amendment that is a threat to civil rights, this article, “Three Interventions to Address the Other Pandemic–Firearm Injury and Death”, is more balanced than might be expected. That said, there is still the usual implication that somehow guns act on their own and if only they would change their behavior things would be better. And if firearm homicides decreasing each decade are “pandemic”, why is that term applied to the worldwide SARS-Cov-2 contagion?

The authors have three recommendations. The first of these is to enhance safe storage of firearms. On the face of it, who could argue? The issue becomes how burdensome such an approach might be. Presumably, we would be safer as automobile drivers if we all wore helmets, but most of us aren’t inclined to take this step due to the inconvenience and burden.

Similar issues arise with regard to firearms. Worse, while helmets presumably wouldn’t make us poorer drivers, some storage methods might make firearms for personal defense less readily available, making them less useful and us less safe if they are suddenly needed.

In this context, the authors discuss the possibility of family members or friends holding the firearm of someone who is experiencing a mental health crisis. This seems quite reasonable, although enemies of the Second Amendment have been successful enough in placing restrictions on who may possess firearms that family members, in many states, would be breaking the law if they performed that service.

In discussing this recommendation, the authors talk about acceptance “across the political spectrum.” This is always desirable, but as a rhetorical maneuver it tends to limit discussion and debate, and conveys support for a position which is more favorable to the Second Amendment’s enemies than to those of us seeking to preserve our civil rights.

A second recommendation, which has been more seldom discussed, is a voluntary do-not-sell list. This would entail laws allowing individuals to voluntarily and confidentially restrict their own ability to purchase firearms. This could be done by placing one’s name into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to prevent gun purchases from dealers.

In states that have enacted such laws there are provisions to allow individuals to have their names removed later, but over only after a delay. They observe that under this law in Virginia, which goes into effect in 2021, the person can request removal from the list at any time, but such a request would take effect only after a 21-day waiting period.

Proponents believe that because many suicides seem impulsive, they will be prevented by waiting periods to purchase guns. But surveying other countries as well as our own history shows that suicide rates do not correlate at all with rates of civilian gun ownership.

Problems would arise from such legislation including using information about voluntary restriction as evidence that these individuals remain unfit to exercise their Second Amendment rights. They might also provide tools to be used against them in many other contexts, such as divorce or custody conflicts, or professional licensure. Although placing one’s name on such lists would supposedly be “confidential”, disclosure of “confidential” material may be compelled, or even stolen.

The third recommendation is for “red flag” laws, which have been widely discussed and found by Second Amendment advocates (like DRGO) to be highly problematic. Many concerns have been raised as to due process and the ongoing suspicion that these laws are something like the Hotel California–easy to lose your firearm, tough to get it back.

The idea of more responsible weapons storage raises the larger issue of learning gun safety. It seems probable that those favoring safe storage rules laws are do not favor teaching firearm safety in schools as a means of reducing accidents involving guns. It is odd that many who see education as solving all manner of problems are reluctant to see it as the key to firearms safety.

As they begin their paper, the authors talk about the Biden administration’s likely attention to reducing firearm related deaths and injuries, and in this context note that “there are limits to what policies could be implemented at the federal level given the makeup of the new Congress and the Supreme Court.“ Fortunately, it is hard to imagine the current Court endorsing greater restrictions on gun ownership.

But the new administration is a different beast. Its own stated goals encompass suppressing the right to keep and bear arms, rather than defending Americans’ constitutional rights as was sworn on January 20.

.

.

—Thomas E. Gift, MD is a child and adolescent psychiatrist practicing in Rochester, New York, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Rochester Medical School, and a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

All DRGO articles by Thomas E. Gift, MD