Archive for the 'Guns' Category



Eighth U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals: Police Cannot Stop Open Carriers For Open Carry Where Open Carry Is Legal

BY Herschel Smith
2 weeks, 3 days ago

Dean Weingarten on a recent Eighth Circuit decision:

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in August reversed that decision and ruled Officers Nathan Kaiser, Tobias Hite and Shane Jensen violated his Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The judges took issue with the reason for the stop, saying a report of a person with a handgun isn’t enough to create a reasonable suspicion of a crime, and in Nebraska and Lincoln people can openly carry handguns.

[ … ]

Officer Kaiser relied on an incident report that did not contain information sufficient to create reasonable suspicion that Duffie had already, was, or was about to commit a crime. See United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 227 (1985) (extending Terry to the investigation of completed crimes). Nebraska law permits individuals who are at least 18 years old to open carry handguns in public. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-1202, 28-1204 (2009). The City of Lincoln does not restrict an individual’s right to open carry except in certain locations. See Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Ordinances § 9.36.130. Moreover, the mere report of a person with a handgun is insufficient to create reasonable suspicion. See Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 272 (2000)

I thought I found all of the articles on and instances of open carry, but I missed this one.  I’m glad that Dean wrote on this.  It adds to our collected wisdom and information concerning what the courts think of this kind of behavior by the police – at least, some courts, even if they refuse to do anything about it.

For God’s sake.  The 58-year-old black pastor is a double amputee.  He fell all over the place trying to comply with the idiot’s command.  He injured himself and under other circumstances I can see death resulting from his fall (if he had landed differently).

The only disappointing thing about this judgment is that the cops weren’t fired and put in prison.  The circumstances are not necessarily similar to but dovetail with the decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where they found that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police violated the rights of Nathaniel Black, even though Black was apparently a criminal and did indeed break the law.

Nathaniel Black was part of a group of men in Charlotte, North Carolina who local police officers suspected might be engaged in criminal activity. In particular, Officers suspected that after seeing one of the men openly carrying a firearm – which was legal in North Carolina – that there was most likely another firearm present. When police began frisking the men one by one, Mr. Black wished to leave, but was told he was not free to leave. Officers chased Mr. Black and discovered that he possessed a firearm; it was later discovered that he was a previously convicted felon. Mr. Black was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Before the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Mr. Black moved to suppress the evidence against him. His suppression motion was denied, he entered a guilty plea preserving a right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion, and he was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, determined that the officers had improperly seized Mr. Black, suppressed the evidence against him, and vacated his sentence.

This was the right decision.  Open carry is legal in North Carolina, and without this being a “Terry Stop” – and it most certainly wasn’t – Mr. Black should not even have been detained.

If you are a CLEO or a Chief of Police reading this, listen to me well.  If open carry is legal in your state, you cannot stop someone for open carry.  I know it sounds so obvious and common-sense that this shouldn’t have to be said.  But apparently with the police it does indeed have to be pointed out – again, and again, and again.

Only an idiot doesn’t understand this, or if you understand and refuse to implement and comply, you’re just a criminal with a badge.

North Carolina Constitutional Carry Bill: It’s Not All That It Seems

BY Herschel Smith
2 weeks, 6 days ago

WRAL.com:

— A House committee voted Wednesday in favor of a bill that would eliminate North Carolina’s requirement that people obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

House Bill 746 creates “parity” for people who are allowed to carry guns openly but suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of the law if they put on a jacket and cover up their holstered sidearms simply because they lack a concealed carry permit, said sponsor Rep.Chris Millis, R-Pender.

“This bill would allow law-abiding citizens to be able to carry concealed, regardless of obtaining the mandatory government permit, and this ability to carry concealed is only in places where it is currently allowable to openly carry a firearm,” Millis said, noting 13 other U.S. states have similar rules on the books.

Concealed carry permits are issued through a county sheriff’s office, which conducts a criminal background check and looks for records of mental illness or incapacity. The requirement has long been a sore spot with gun rights advocates, who say it gives sheriffs too much power to deny gun owners what they say is their constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.

Grass Roots North Carolina has worked hard for this bill, and I certainly support it.  I also enjoyed meeting GRNC face to face at the recent gun show in Charlotte, and was pleased to hear that some of them read my articles.  But this bill isn’t all that it seems.

Oh to be sure, it’s potentially carry without a permit, but let me ask you a question?  Why would this be the case?

The North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association has taken no position on the bill, but said it’s pleased legislators didn’t also move to revoke permits required to buy handguns. County sheriffs are a key voice in the debate because they issue handgun permits.

The North Carolina Sheriff’s Association has taken no position on the bill.  They couldn’t care less.  It tells you why right in that single sentence.  To give you a little background, at one time the CLEO had to issue both permits to carry and permits to buy a handgun.  The permit to carry involved a lot more than permits to buy, including a comprehensive review of medical records that you must turn over to the CLEO.

They still do that, and they also still issue permits to buy handguns, but oops, what do you know, unintended consequences and all, the CLEOs need more time and more money and more personnel because that mental health screening that was previously done for CHP holders – yea, that one, well, they do it for all handgun purchases now.

So just to buy a handgun requires one and the same process as a CHP holder goes through.  Recognizing constitutional carry is a bit of a ruse and misdirect when they have just now incorporated the full CHP process into handgun purchases.  While several months ago some state senators waxed confused and apologetic over the behemoth new system they didn’t know they were creating, it’s almost as if they planned this whole thing to begin with.

Pardon me if I don’t get giddy over constitutional carry in North Carolina.  Get rid of the communist CLEO permitting system for handgun purchases and then I’ll think you’re actually doing something about liberty in North Carolina.

The Chattering Class On Suppressors

BY Herschel Smith
3 weeks, 3 days ago

The Hill:

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun rights groups are fighting to change the public perception of “silencers” — or “sound suppressors” — that reduce the noise of gunfire.

Although the gun industry originally popularized the word “silencer” a century ago, now lobbyists are hoping to gain some distance from the term in large part because of fears that Hollywood has distorted the name. Their concern is that the popular concept of the device prompts fear about their use, which could in turn influence policy.

Unlike their portrayal in Hollywood films, pro-gun groups have noted that silencers are not completely silent and claim it would be more accurate to refer to these devices as sound suppressors.

They reduce the noise of gunfire enough to protect ears, but not so much that mass shooters could go undetected, the NRA says.

“The [sound suppressors] were a victim of the success of his marketing,” said Knox Williams, president of the American Suppressor Association, which is working with the NRA on this issue. Williams referenced Hiram Percy Maxim, who first used the term in the early 1900s when he invented what he referred to as the Maxim Silencer. The term later caught on with legislators and regulators.

“He labeled it as a silent firearm, and people took it for gospel,” Williams said of Maxim.

The NRA, American Suppressor Association (ASA), and National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) all invited the media to gun ranges this week to demonstrate that sound suppressors are far from silent.

But gun control groups fear using the term “sound suppressor” risks watering down the danger such devices, according to them, represent.

“It’s all semantics,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

“Focusing on the name distracts people from the real conversation,” Watts said. “They did the same thing with the debate over whether to use the term ‘assault rifles’ or ‘semiautomatic rifles,’ and then the whole conversation shifted to ‘What are we going to call these things?’”

“They want to get into semantics about the language, so we don’t talk about how dangerous they are.”

Hey, I know it’s difficult to fathom, but you inside-the-beltway types look stupid when you fabricate crap like this.  No one I know, except for educated gun owners, is talking about the hearing protection act.

Not anyone with whom I work, not anyone with whom I converse every day, no one.  No one is talking about how much they fear suppressors.

So let me tell you what this is all about.  The control lobby doesn’t want guns to be less intrusive and difficult to shoot than they are now.  Right now, they are loud to the point of hurting your ears permanently without hearing protection.  Even with hearing protection they announce their presence.

But with suppressors it will be less intimidating for new shooters, women and others who may have need of learning gunmanship but don’t want the loud noise.  This … the control lobby cannot have.  So beltway folks like The Hill have to make up stuff to seem like all of America is scared of something.

Chattering, fear mongering, making a story where there isn’t one.  Take your pick, or add to the list.

Off-Duty Correction Officer Shoots Himself And Woman While Showing Off At Hell’s Kitchen Bar

BY Herschel Smith
1 month ago

NY Daily News:

He just had to show off his gun.

Police arrested an off-duty city correction officer who brandished his gun in a Hell’s Kitchen restaurant to impress two women – then accidentally shot himself in the finger and one of his companions in her right foot, officials said Wednesday.

Correction Officer Mario Carrillo was charged with assault and reckless endangerment for the boneheaded move inside the Mamasita Bar & Grill on 10th Ave. near W. 54th St. on Tuesday night.
The 56-year-old guard, a five-year employee of the Department of Correction, had joined two women at the restaurant at about 8 p.m. and was talking about his job when he pulled out his off-duty Glock to show them how it worked, officials said.

A moment later, the pistol went off.

“It appears he may have been displaying it,” a police source said.

Well gosh.  I just hate it when that happens to me.  We always laugh, and laugh, and laugh if the wounded ones are willing to laugh about it and shrug it off.

Notice the third person the author applies in the article, as if the gun has a personality of its own and does things volitionally.  “A moment later, the pistol went off.”

Remember boys and girls.  Only authorized journalists can be considered professional writers.  And only LEOs are tactically well trained enough to handle guns.

Solving The LEO Problem With Open Carry

BY Herschel Smith
1 month ago

Robert Farago at TTAG writes about Columbia Police Chief Skip Holbrook’s invective against open carry.  Two days after I did.  One commenter writes:

“Open-carry law or not, when citizens see someone with a gun, they will call the police. When responding to “person with a gun” calls…”

When someone calls 911 to report a ‘man with a gun’ ask what he was doing. Unless the answer establishes reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, tell the person that open carrying is lawful and end the call.

Hey look, I solved the problem.

Um, except that I solved it two days earlier when I said this.

It would be a good opportunity for 911 services to educate people on the new state law.  “Ma’am, what was he doing with the gun?  Was he brandishing it or pointing it at someone?”  No.  “Well then, he wasn’t breaking any laws.  Open carry is legal in South Carolina.”

Well, he was acting erratically.  “Hmmm … what do you mean by that?”  Well, I don’t know, he just seemed shifty.  “Ma’am, seeming shifty isn’t illegal.  Please hang up and call us when there is a law or regulation being broken.  Otherwise, you are wasting our time.”

This conversation is entirely plausible.  Don’t discount it as an example to follow for 911 operators, or classroom material.

Or more than a year ago when I dealt with Texas open carry and LEOs objected the same thing.  Or even longer ago than that whenever open carry comes up in whatever state it does.

But Robert’s readers wouldn’t know anything about what other gun rights bloggers say because Robert doesn’t link other gun rights bloggers.  Or if they do know anything about what other people are saying, they’re not getting it from Robert.

Columbia Police Chief Skip Holbrook Inveighs Against South Carolina Open Carry

BY Herschel Smith
1 month ago

The State:

Columbia, SC – Although law enforcement has always been a challenging, difficult and dangerous job, the past few years have been some of the most challenging ever.

Far fewer people are choosing to go into law enforcement, and many experienced officers are leaving the field, making it difficult for police agencies to maintain adequate staffing levels, all while violent crime is on the rise in many large cities. Columbia is not immune to this trend. Targeted attacks on law enforcement (Dallas, Baton Rouge) and a rise in line-of-duty deaths have further complicated an incredibly stressful and dangerous job.

It’s against this backdrop that the S.C. House passed a bill to make it legal for people to openly carry handguns in the state, with certain location exceptions. The bill won’t become law this year, but it will be front and center when lawmakers return to Columbia in January, and we need to understand its implications.

The right to bear arms is fundamental to our democracy, but the sale, purchase, ownership and carrying of guns comes with great responsibility and use of common sense, and I firmly believe an open-carry law will significantly complicate police interactions with citizens, resulting in many unintended consequences.

Open-carry law or not, when citizens see someone with a gun, they will call the police. When responding to “person with a gun” calls, officers have few details to help them quickly determine an armed individual’s intent and whether that person poses a threat to public safety or the individual.

No doubt, we would encounter many innocent, law-abiding people who were armed in compliance with an open carry law. But some will be violent criminals, perhaps even gang members, who don’t yet have a felony on their record that prohibits them from possessing weapons.

Also let’s not forget the numerous and frequent protests, demonstrations and marches in our city. Open carry could make it extraordinarily difficult for police to protect those exercising their right to assemble and protest peacefully. There is no denying that easily accessible firearms add fuel to already emotionally charged situations, which too often results in tragedy.

Recently, Columbia police officers answered a call about a “person with a gun acting erratically” at a local Wal-Mart. It was just the second day on the job for one of the responding officers. Upon their arrival, the officers were easily able to identify the suspect, but because he was in a store with many innocent people nearby, the officers allowed him to leave the store before engaging with him. Obviously, this was a tense, dangerous situation, putting a large number of our citizens and our officers at risk as the armed suspect moved from Wal-Mart through a parking lot and into another business, ignoring officers’ commands.

Imagine this same scenario if South Carolina had an open-carry law.

Conceivably, there could have been many individuals with weapons displayed when officers arrived, making it extremely difficult to distinguish between the suspect(s), accomplices and innocent bystanders.

This entire line of argument is so full of shit I barely know where to begin.  There is a deeper problem here than just his argumentation, but I’ll get to that after I spend a few paragraphs fisking his invective.

He begins by invoking memories of the Dallas cop shooting and the possible implications of open carry for response to that event.  But as we’ve covered concerning that event, the Dallas police on the scene responded to the shooter based on their knowledge of his location and eventually killed him with robotics and explosive ordnance (if I’m not mistaken, the first of its kind in American history, which might also have implications for due process – what if he wasn’t the real shooter?).

The alleged open carrier was toting a rifle slung across his back, entirely legal in Texas even then, and police “identified” him as a “suspect” via social media.  He wasn’t a suspect, he was guilty of nothing, and social media was worthless in that situation.  The investigation of social media wasn’t conducted by LEOs on the scene of the shooting, and thus no resources (used to respond to the individual who allegedly did the shooting) were taken up with this “investigation.”  It was entirely wasted effort to prove nothing, including the notion that open carry had something to do with the event.  The investigation didn’t affect LEOs on the scene in any way, shape or form.  It didn’t stop them, and it didn’t help them.  It was completely irrelevant to everything that happened that night.

So based on this, we know that Holbrook’s invocation of Dallas fails on every point.  Next, Holbrook invokes the idea that calls will be made to the police.  To which we may respond, so what?  It would be a good opportunity for 911 services to educate people on the new state law.  “Ma’am, what was he doing with the gun?  Was he brandishing it or pointing it at someone?”  No.  “Well then, he wasn’t breaking any laws.  Open carry is legal in South Carolina.”

Well, he was acting erratically.  “Hmmm … what do you mean by that?”  Well, I don’t know, he just seemed shifty.  “Ma’am, seeming shifty isn’t illegal.  Please hang up and call us when there is a law or regulation being broken.  Otherwise, you are wasting our time.”

This conversation is entirely plausible.  Don’t discount it as an example to follow for 911 operators, or classroom material.  But then Holbrook begins the weirdest exploration in this whole commentary when he discusses the notion of violent gang members who have never committed a felony and have no record.  To which we might all ask, “What the hell are you talking about?”

If you want to invoke gun ownership generally, then your invective targets too much because criminals bent on harm can conceal as well as carry openly.  You, Mr. Holbrook, began by asserting that there is a right to carry weapons, and you have devolved into violent people (who have absolutely no record) having guns, which has nothing to do with open carry which is the supposed topic of this article.  Good Lord, man.  Take a class in rhetoric or logic.

That violent people who have been found guilty via due process are already prohibited from purchasing weapons via form 4473 isn’t mentioned because it doesn’t fit your narrative.  Your narrative is that we need you to perform this function, and clearly we don’t.

I say clearly because for the final problem I’ll mention (there are so many I have to draw the line somewhere), you completely ignore the operating data from right across the state line in North Carolina where we are a “gold star” traditional open carry state.  None of the problems you say obtain actually do in North Carolina, and we have cities too, and we have beaches, and we have sprawling urban areas, and rural areas, and mountains, and whatever you have.  We have more of it.  Open carry simply hasn’t been the problem you say it should be.  And if the data proves you wrong, then you’re wrong.

But that leads me to the final anchor of my response.  I smell a rat.  No, not Holbrook, although he seems rattish enough to me, but the rat I smell ensconces in the South Carolina Senate.  There may be many of them.  I have called most senates dens of iniquity housing gargoyles and demons.  I think I’m correct in that assessment.

I suspect this.  I suspect that South Carolina senators don’t really want to do this because they are cop suckers.  They delayed this just long enough that it forces it to the next session of the senate.  It’s easy enough, and it could have hit the governor’s desk, but it was delayed.  We all know it.  Just admit the truth.  They delayed this so that cops could inveigh against the proposal.  If a cop says it, it must be right.  We are law and order people.  After all, we support cops, right?

But lawmakers have no more right to dictate how we carry our weapons that they do to dictate whether we have them in the first pace.  All gun control laws are an infringement on our God-given rights to bear arms, and thus they are immoral.

I’m disappointed in the commentary, Holbrook.  Give me some real red meat to chew on.  This one was too easy.

Remington Ordered To Pay $500,000 In Personal Injury Case

BY Herschel Smith
1 month ago

Guns.com:

A federal judged ruled against Remington Arms in a personal injury case despite arguments that the gun maker is protected under Louisiana law.

Judge Ivan Lemelle ruled that the case has merit under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, saying the law protects gun makers from lawsuits except in cases involving a defective firearm. He awarded $500,000 to the plaintiff, Precious Seguin, for her claim holding Remington liable for producing a defective product.

According to court documents, Seguin was injured during a hunting excursion in October 2013. As she tracked the blood trail of a wounded deer with her father, brother and a family friend, her father’s Remington 710 bolt-action rifle discharged as they made their way through the brush. The bullet struck her right buttock, traveled through her hip and exited through her right elbow.

The lawsuit argues the rifle’s trigger design, the infamous Walker Fire Control, a mechanism that has been linked to almost a dozen deaths and numerous injuries, allowed the gun to discharge without the pull of a trigger. In Seguin’s case, her father had the rifle strapped over his shoulder and pointed upward until a branch knocked it up and backward, at which time the safety moved to the fire position and unintentionally discharged. Before Seguin was injured, they had not experienced an unintentional discharge with the rifle.

So this is more on the Walker Fire Control System.  Good grief, people.  I was among the most vocal critics of Remington on the gun blogs, using my engineering credentials to advocate that Remington had misled their constituency and gun buyers, and in fact they’re still lying.  The Remington 700 has indeed been tested to fire when the trigger isn’t being pulled.  Their own test data shows it.  Good Lord!  Their own test data shows it.

But how far do we take this?  Now that Remington has settled the issue in court, it’s finished.  Let it go.  Everyone who knows anything about guns – and you shouldn’t be a hunter if you don’t know anything about guns – knows what Remington has been charged with, and knows that Remington settled.

Legal settlements mean something or they don’t.  Besides, I don’t know what really happened on that day Seguin was injured since I wasn’t there, and neither do any of my readers, and neither does the idiot judge who ordered this payout.

It’s time to put this to bed.  It’s finished.  Buy Remington, or don’t.  It matters not to me.  But this issue is closed as far as I’m concerned.  I hope Remington’s lawyers end this swiftly and surely.  If they don’t, let me make it clear.  At this point I have no compassion left for people who want to sue Remington for damages from a trigger system that has been recalled.  Do your homework, people.

 

Maj. Gen. Scales Traffics In Half Century Old Rhetoric On Stoner Design

BY Herschel Smith
1 month ago

Task & Purpose:

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales hates the M16 family of rifles, and he won’t stop until everyone knows it.

Scales has spent the last few years railing against the standard-issue infantry rifle as little more than a lighter but less effective version of the infamous M16 model that left so many American troops dead in the jungles of Vietnam (In response to Scales’ condemnation of the M4 in the pages of The Atlantic in January 2015, Task & Purpose’s Christian Beekman mounted a vocal defense of the rifle).

Wednesday was no different. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Scales decried the Department of Defense’s post-World War II small-arms programs as “inferior.” Thousands of American troops “have died because the Army’s weapon buying bureaucracy has consistently denied that a soldier’s individual weapon is important enough to gain their serious attention,” said Scales in his prepared testimony.

“A soldier in basic training is told that his rifle is his best friend and his ticket home,” he told assembled lawmakers. “If the lives of so many depend on a rifle why can’t the richest country in the world give it to them?”

[ … ]

To their credit, DoD officials are moving slowly but surely to outfit ground forces with new weaponry. In November, the Marine Corps’ 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines began conducting pre-deployment exercises to evaluate the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle as a replacement for the M4, which replaced the M16A4 in infantry battalions in 2015.

“It is the best infantry rifle in the world, hands down,” Chief Warrant Officer 5 Christian Wade told Military.com of the IAR at the time. “Better than anything Russia has, it’s better than anything we have, it’s better than anything China has. It’s world-class.”

This is a weird article.  As soon as the author is done with Scales, he launches into a discussion about how the DoD gets it with the USMC work on the IAC – which I would point out, is a 5.56 mm gun.

This is the same, tired old rhetoric we saw half century ago, and the alleged problems Scales likes to cite have all gone away.  McThag summarizes.

The M16A1 and its M193 ammunition stopped being the standard more than thirty years ago and was replaced with the M16A2 and M855.

The M16A2, where almost every part was revised, isn’t even the standard today; that’d be the M4A1.

M855, even, is on its way out with the advent of M855A1.

In a nutshell, everything that was causing problems in 1969 has been revised and replaced.  The bore diameter didn’t cause those three guys you constantly cite to die with broken rifles.

It’s far more likely the lackluster quality control from the mighty UAW workforce at Colt had more to do with it than the design.

To former Major Ehrhart; the infantry half kilometer was “lost” to artillery.

Remember combined arms?

Well, the max effective range of the small arms overlaps the normal range of artillery.  So, yes, the infantry half kilometer demands a larger bore size, I suggest 60mm for starters.  Willard even posits that the reason we’re having problems in Afghanistan is the enemy has figured out where our small arms peter out and won’t close; because to close is to die.  If to close is to die, then it means our weapons do work.

Don’t use logic on Scales.  He won’t listen, or he’ll cite the battle of Wanat, where we ensconced a platoon of soldiers in a valley after letting enemy fighters prepare for a total of one year to attack them with a battalion size force.  Scales blamed that one on the M4 too.

And don’t tell Scales that the Army doesn’t teach soldiers to shoot anymore.  He won’t listen.  Because shut up.

If you want to have a larger bore weapon, then buy one.  I have a larger bore rifle than the 5.56 mm too.  But remember that you always give up something to get something, and that all decisions concerning weapons selection are a compromise.

As for Scales, who exactly pays this guy to continue to work the Stoner system over with false rhetoric?

Note To Rock River Arms

BY Herschel Smith
1 month, 1 week ago

RRA responds:

Larson took after the good folks at The Truth About Guns, which she referred to as an ‘activist website’. “This boils down to a small, so-called gun-rights activist website that took the majority of things out of context, to make it sound like Rock River Arms and Springfield Armory were IFMA,” she said. “We did not have control over all actions. IFMA acted autonomously on our behalf.”

[ … ]

Larson then decried Illinois politics, which have almost become a blood sport.“I can’t get into all the details of the politics, as this is still a very real threat,” she told Mark. “Now, we are left with partial truth and fake news driving wedges between the different parts of our firearms community.”

Listen to me.  This is the wrong response.  The only wedge that has been driven is between RRA and your customer base.  The gun community – at least as far as I can tell – is pretty much in full agreement on this issue.

I don’t particularly care for TTAG either.  Their writers resolutely refuse to link anyone or exchange traffic, or frankly even debate issues within the gun community by their completely ignoring other gun web sites.  I once sent Robert a link and he responded that he would be happy to publish me as a writer if he gets the first 24 hours before I post the article to my own site.

Um … no.  That isn’t how this works.  But in spite of the disagreements between me and TTAG, they followed this issue fairly well and published the full truth as far as I can tell.  If not, then challenge the facts.  Don’t call them “fake news,” or “activist website,” or a “so-called gun rights web site.”

That’s insulting.  I wouldn’t even do that.

South Carolina Firearms Retention Bill

BY Herschel Smith
1 month, 1 week ago

Guns.com:

The pro-gun bill, H. 3429 sponsored by Republican Rep. Alan Clemmons, was passed last week by the South Carolina Senate on a 35-3 vote. The House unanimously concurred, sending the measure to Gov. Henry McMaster for consideration.

If signed by the governor, the bill will allow those filing for bankruptcy to retain up to three firearms, so long as the total value of those firearms does not exceed $3,000.

Hannah Hill, a policy analyst for the South Carolina Policy Council, a conservative think tank, argued in The Nerve that guns should not be exempted from bankruptcy.

“There is no reason to exempt guns from bankruptcy except for the fact that they’re, you know, guns,” Hill said. “And here’s where Second Amendment rights activists often go off the rails: government may not stand in the way of the free exercise of a right, but it is under no obligation to ensure that you DO exercise that right or that you have the wherewithal to do so. If chronic laryngitis kept you from exercising your First Amendment rights, the government wouldn’t be obligated to pay for your treatment.”

The National Rifle Association has supported the bill all the way, with its Institute for Legislative Action describing the legislation as a measure meant to “recognize the fundamental right to personal protection by ensuring citizens who have fallen on hard times, financially, will not be required to sell all of their firearms maintained for personal protection in order to satisfy their debts.”

And here’s where Hill goes off the rails.  Let’s suppose that a woman goes off the deep end, starts running around with another man and then files for divorce, essentially taking the man for just about all he’s worth and forcing him to start over in life in middle age.

Think it can’t happen?  I know two men whom I love very deeply to whom that has happened.  Bankruptcy was in store for one of them, and he had to liquidate his entire gun collection for her.  This bill prevents that from happening.

But here is my disappointment.  The South Carolina senate has proven that it can actually pass a pro-gun bill and send it to the governor’s desk.  They can also do that with open carry and constitutional carry, but chose to lock it down in committee until it died for this session.

For this reason the S.C. state senators have a bulls eye painted on their backs.  I won’t forget.  Gun owners won’t forget.  This bill is a weak installment for gun rights, and doesn’t even come close to making up for not passing constitutional carry.  Weak tea won’t suffice, gentlemen.


26th MEU (10)
Abu Muqawama (12)
ACOG (2)
ACOGs (1)
Afghan National Army (36)
Afghan National Police (17)
Afghanistan (678)
Afghanistan SOFA (4)
Agriculture in COIN (3)
AGW (1)
Air Force (31)
Air Power (9)
al Qaeda (83)
Ali al-Sistani (1)
America (7)
Ammunition (27)
Animals in War (4)
Ansar al Sunna (15)
Anthropology (3)
Antonin Scalia (1)
AR-15s (95)
Arghandab River Valley (1)
Arlington Cemetery (2)
Army (52)
Assassinations (2)
Assault Weapon Ban (26)
Australian Army (5)
Azerbaijan (4)
Backpacking (2)
Badr Organization (8)
Baitullah Mehsud (21)
Basra (17)
BATFE (55)
Battle of Bari Alai (2)
Battle of Wanat (17)
Battle Space Weight (3)
Bin Laden (7)
Blogroll (2)
Blogs (7)
Body Armor (17)
Books (2)
Border War (7)
Brady Campaign (1)
Britain (27)
British Army (35)
Camping (4)
Canada (2)
Castle Doctrine (1)
Caucasus (6)
CENTCOM (7)
Center For a New American Security (8)
Charity (3)
China (10)
Christmas (8)
CIA (23)
Civilian National Security Force (3)
Col. Gian Gentile (9)
Combat Outposts (3)
Combat Video (2)
Concerned Citizens (6)
Constabulary Actions (3)
Coolness Factor (2)
COP Keating (4)
Corruption in COIN (4)
Council on Foreign Relations (1)
Counterinsurgency (215)
DADT (2)
David Rohde (1)
Defense Contractors (2)
Department of Defense (131)
Department of Homeland Security (16)
Disaster Preparedness (3)
Distributed Operations (5)
Dogs (6)
Donald Trump (1)
Drone Campaign (3)
EFV (3)
Egypt (12)
El Salvador (1)
Embassy Security (1)
Enemy Spotters (1)
Expeditionary Warfare (17)
F-22 (2)
F-35 (1)
Fallujah (17)
Far East (3)
Fathers and Sons (1)
Favorite (1)
Fazlullah (3)
FBI (8)
Featured (177)
Federal Firearms Laws (18)
Financing the Taliban (2)
Firearms (637)
Football (1)
Force Projection (35)
Force Protection (4)
Force Transformation (1)
Foreign Policy (27)
Fukushima Reactor Accident (6)
Ganjgal (1)
Garmsir (1)
general (14)
General Amos (1)
General James Mattis (1)
General McChrystal (41)
General McKiernan (6)
General Rodriguez (3)
General Suleimani (7)
Georgia (19)
GITMO (2)
Google (1)
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (1)
Gun Control (502)
Guns (1,133)
Guns In National Parks (3)
Haditha Roundup (10)
Haiti (2)
HAMAS (7)
Haqqani Network (9)
Hate Mail (7)
Hekmatyar (1)
Heroism (4)
Hezbollah (12)
High Capacity Magazines (11)
High Value Targets (9)
Homecoming (1)
Homeland Security (1)
Horses (1)
Humor (13)
ICOS (1)
IEDs (7)
Immigration (57)
India (10)
Infantry (4)
Information Warfare (2)
Infrastructure (2)
Intelligence (22)
Intelligence Bulletin (6)
Iran (169)
Iraq (378)
Iraq SOFA (23)
Islamic Facism (45)
Islamists (71)
Israel (18)
Jaish al Mahdi (21)
Jalalabad (1)
Japan (2)
Jihadists (80)
John Nagl (5)
Joint Intelligence Centers (1)
JRTN (1)
Kabul (1)
Kajaki Dam (1)
Kamdesh (9)
Kandahar (12)
Karachi (7)
Kashmir (2)
Khost Province (1)
Khyber (11)
Knife Blogging (2)
Korea (4)
Korengal Valley (3)
Kunar Province (20)
Kurdistan (3)
Language in COIN (5)
Language in Statecraft (1)
Language Interpreters (2)
Lashkar-e-Taiba (2)
Law Enforcement (3)
Lawfare (6)
Leadership (5)
Lebanon (6)
Leon Panetta (2)
Let Them Fight (2)
Libya (14)
Lines of Effort (3)
Littoral Combat (8)
Logistics (49)
Long Guns (1)
Lt. Col. Allen West (2)
Marine Corps (245)
Marines in Bakwa (1)
Marines in Helmand (67)
Marjah (4)
MEDEVAC (2)
Media (36)
Memorial Day (3)
Mexican Cartels (24)
Mexico (30)
Michael Yon (5)
Micromanaging the Military (7)
Middle East (1)
Military Blogging (26)
Military Contractors (4)
Military Equipment (24)
Militia (4)
Mitt Romney (3)
Monetary Policy (1)
Moqtada al Sadr (2)
Mosul (4)
Mountains (17)
MRAPs (1)
Mullah Baradar (1)
Mullah Fazlullah (1)
Mullah Omar (3)
Musa Qala (4)
Music (16)
Muslim Brotherhood (6)
Nation Building (2)
National Internet IDs (1)
National Rifle Association (17)
NATO (15)
Navy (21)
Navy Corpsman (1)
NCOs (3)
News (1)
NGOs (2)
Nicholas Schmidle (2)
Now Zad (19)
NSA (3)
NSA James L. Jones (6)
Nuclear (53)
Nuristan (8)
Obama Administration (218)
Offshore Balancing (1)
Operation Alljah (7)
Operation Khanjar (14)
Ossetia (7)
Pakistan (165)
Paktya Province (1)
Palestine (5)
Patriotism (6)
Patrolling (1)
Pech River Valley (11)
Personal (34)
Petraeus (14)
Pictures (1)
Piracy (13)
Pistol (2)
Pizzagate (21)
Police (255)
Police in COIN (3)
Policy (15)
Politics (319)
Poppy (2)
PPEs (1)
Prisons in Counterinsurgency (12)
Project Gunrunner (20)
PRTs (1)
Qatar (1)
Quadrennial Defense Review (2)
Quds Force (13)
Quetta Shura (1)
RAND (3)
Recommended Reading (14)
Refueling Tanker (1)
Religion (120)
Religion and Insurgency (19)
Reuters (1)
Rick Perry (4)
Rifles (1)
Roads (4)
Rolling Stone (1)
Ron Paul (1)
ROTC (1)
Rules of Engagement (75)
Rumsfeld (1)
Russia (29)
Sabbatical (1)
Sangin (1)
Saqlawiyah (1)
Satellite Patrols (2)
Saudi Arabia (4)
Scenes from Iraq (1)
Second Amendment (192)
Second Amendment Quick Hits (2)
Secretary Gates (9)
Sharia Law (3)
Shura Ittehad-ul-Mujahiden (1)
SIIC (2)
Sirajuddin Haqqani (1)
Small Wars (72)
Snipers (9)
Sniveling Lackeys (2)
Soft Power (4)
Somalia (8)
Sons of Afghanistan (1)
Sons of Iraq (2)
Special Forces (25)
Squad Rushes (1)
State Department (18)
Statistics (1)
Sunni Insurgency (10)
Support to Infantry Ratio (1)
Supreme Court (3)
Survival (14)
SWAT Raids (53)
Syria (38)
Tactical Drills (1)
Tactical Gear (1)
Taliban (167)
Taliban Massing of Forces (4)
Tarmiyah (1)
TBI (1)
Technology (16)
Tehrik-i-Taliban (78)
Terrain in Combat (1)
Terrorism (92)
Thanksgiving (6)
The Anbar Narrative (23)
The Art of War (5)
The Fallen (1)
The Long War (20)
The Surge (3)
The Wounded (13)
Thomas Barnett (1)
Transnational Insurgencies (5)
Tribes (5)
TSA (14)
TSA Ineptitude (11)
TTPs (1)
U.S. Border Patrol (5)
U.S. Border Security (14)
U.S. Sovereignty (17)
UAVs (2)
UBL (4)
Ukraine (3)
Uncategorized (42)
Universal Background Check (3)
Unrestricted Warfare (4)
USS Iwo Jima (2)
USS San Antonio (1)
Uzbekistan (1)
V-22 Osprey (4)
Veterans (2)
Vietnam (1)
War & Warfare (212)
War & Warfare (40)
War Movies (3)
War Reporting (18)
Wardak Province (1)
Warriors (6)
Waziristan (1)
Weapons and Tactics (57)
West Point (1)
Winter Operations (1)
Women in Combat (19)
WTF? (1)
Yemen (1)

June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006

about · archives · contact · register

Copyright © 2006-2017 Captain's Journal. All rights reserved.