Articles by Herschel Smith

Source.

EVANSVILLE, Ind. (WFIE) – In the state of Indiana, gun owners no longer need any sort of permit to carry a handgun while in public spaces. For less than a year, this has been the case after the state removed the requirement for handgun permits, and some in law enforcement aren’t happy about the change.

Before the Indiana state legislature officially removed the requirement for handgun permits, many in law enforcement weren’t convinced.

“I, along with most of my other law enforcement colleagues, were very apprehensive about this,” said Vanderburgh County Sheriff Noah Robinson.

Before the change, a gun owner looking to have a gun in public had to go to their local sheriff’s office or police department for the application and eventually, the Indiana State Police would say either yes or no.

Sheriff Robinson says this gave law enforcement valuable information. Without it, it raises more questions as they try to determine if a suspicious person with a gun is allowed to have it.

“Before, that determination was made in a quiet office over a period of weeks where someone would investigate your background and make that determination,” said Robinson. “We now have to do that on the side of the road. It’s not practical.”

The law doesn’t allow violent felons to have handguns in public, but that doesn’t always apply to those with patterns of violent behavior or mental instability who wouldn’t have been approved for a handgun permit.

“I think it decreases public safety, I think it decreases officer safety, and time will tell whether that’s borne out or not,” said Robinson.

Sheriff Robinson says permits were also valuable when they found people doing things they shouldn’t and they found a gun on them. When other charges didn’t apply, having the gun meant they could arrest the person and take and gun away.

It was also an additional source of information for them when approaching people.

“To have had the information and had that taken away from us is frustrating, because it took a system that wasn’t broken and broke it,” said Robinson.

Or perhaps this made an unconstitutional system finally constitutional.  Everything depends on perspective, yes?

This is a remarkable set of admissions from a CLEO.  They want decisions about your God-given rights to be made in a quiet room with no one watching over their shoulder and no recourse for faulty decisions that infringe on your rights.  He said so.

Also, note the use he sees in the permitting scheme.  For conditions where “other charges didn’t apply,” he could always get his man with a weapons charge.  But what does this mean – other charges didn’t apply?  It means, I take it, that the alleged perpetrator wasn’t really guilty of the crime for which he had been accused.  The LEOs are thus the judiciary in this circumstance.  He’s really guilty of doing something we don’t want, but we can’t prove it beyond as reasonable doubt.  But we can surely prove he was carrying a weapon, so there, perp.  Take that.

As for whether someone is carrying a weapon, his officers should always assume that is the case.  It’s the case with permitted carriers, and it’s the case with criminals who never obeyed the law anyway.  So what’s changed?

Nothing.  And he can’t point to blood running in the streets because of permitless carry because it hasn’t happened.

The sky is falling.  But not really.

Source.

Just days after Illinois became the ninth U.S. state to ban assault rifles, the state already hit a roadblock to implementing the law: defiant sheriff’s offices.

At least 74 Illinois sheriff’s departments have publicly vowed to defy elements of a recent gun-control law signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker, which banned assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and switches. The offices have vowed to not check if weapons are registered with the state or house individuals arrested only for not complying with the law.

As the number of uncooperative sheriff’s offices increased, Pritzker has made his own vow – to ensure those members of law enforcement who fail to “do their job… won’t be in their job.”

The Illinois Sheriffs’ Association issued a statement Wednesday expressing continued opposition to the law. Simultaneously, dozens of sheriff’s offices began to post nearly identical messages promising they would not check for compliance with the law or arrest offenders of the law.

Jim Kaitschuk, executive director of the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association, said he drafted the statement which sheriff’s offices began to sign or modify.

“Therefore, as the custodian of the jail and chief law enforcement official for DuPage County, that neither myself nor my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will we be arresting or housing law abiding individuals that have been charged solely with non-compliance of this Act,” DuPage County Sheriff James Mendrick wrote in a statement, which was mirrored by dozens of other offices.

With a population of over 920,000 residents, DuPage County is the largest county to defy the law.

ABC News was able to identify at least 59 sheriff’s offices that issued a nearly identical statement, the main identifiable difference between the statements being the letterhead and name of the county in the text of the statement.

In total, at least 74 offices said they plan to not use resources to enforce elements of the law, impacting nearly 4,000,000 Illinois residents, or over 30 percent of the state’s residents.

Other than DuPage county, the most populous counties in Illinois – Cook, Lake, and Will Counties – have not issued any statement opposing the law. The deadly 2022 Highland Park parade shooting took place in Lake County, which is enforcing the law. Most of the sheriff’s offices opposing the law reside in counties with less than 100,000 residents, though nine defiant counties have populations exceeding 100,000.

Kaitschuk said he disagreed with the idea that sheriffs have an obligation to check compliance with the law or house offenders in their jails.

“That is not a charge that is provided to us, or mandated to us in the bill that passed and was signed by the governor,” he said.

Many of the sheriffs defying the law have described their opposition to the law as akin to civil disobedience to protect the Second Amendment.

“We will not be enforcing it in this county; I will also not house anyone in my jail that has violated this act because we know it to be an unlawful act by the general assembly and the governor,” Jefferson County Sheriff Jeff Bullard Sr. said in an online video.

Sangamon County Sheriff Jack Campbell, whose jurisdiction covers nearly 200,000 residents, signed a modified version of the statement. In an interview with ABC News, Campbell based his opposition to the law due to both adherence to the constitution and the ineffectiveness of the law.

“The law will have zero impact on the murder rate in the state of Illinois,” Campbell said.

Some offices took less defiant stances which include waiting for movement from the courts or legislative action.

“I understand that our nation had witnesses frequent tragedies involving gun violence and I am in no way attempting to minimize the impact these events have had,” St. Clair County Sheriff Richard Watson wrote in a statement, in which he said he opposed the law but did not promise to defy it.

When asked why he decided to not enforce the law rather than wait for action from the courts, Campbell returned his belief that the law is unconstitutional and will eventually be struck down.

Pritzker addressed the defiance, commenting that members of law enforcement who fail to enforce it might lose their job.

“The fact is that yes there are of course people who are trying to politically grandstand, who want to make a name for themselves by claiming that they will not comply,” he said. “But the reality is that the state police is responsible for enforcement, as are all law enforcement all across our state and they will in fact do their job or they won’t be in their job.”

Kaitschuk rebutted the idea that Pritzker has the authority to fire members of law enforcement, especially elected sheriffs.

“I’m just not aware of any provision that provides the governor that opportunity to do so,” he said.

I’m not aware of any such provision either, but I do have a question.  Who pays the salary of the county Sheriffs?  If it’s the county, they’re good to go.  If it’s the state, then someone else holds all the cards.

As we discussed earlier, these are the initial baby steps of nullification.  The wheat will get sorted from the chaff as things move forward.

The “wheat” of the Sheriff’s Departments must follow through on action to arrest any officer who enforces the law, or else the nullification will have no effect.

I’m sure you can find the link for it so I won’t provide it here.  As I’ve said before, I don’t own any pistol-braced weapons.  Nonetheless, I’m sure readers need to know this information.  Most readers already know, but if you don’t, you are the one who needs to hear these things.

Seen at All Outdoor.

Frankly it didn’t seem like a very educated or enlightened review to me.  I’m not sure what sort of shotgunner routintely shoots sporting clays with a 22″ barrel and thus has trouble with a 30″ barrel.  That seems odd to me.

However, the gun looks beautiful to me.

I normally keep up with new offerings and so it surprised me that I hadn’t seen that Savage had come out with new over-unders.  I do like the fact that it has an adjustable cheek riser.

Savage should have sent the shotgun to me for review.  I would have examined the quality of the walnut, the finish, the parts fit-up, the lockup, etc., and reported back honestly and completely, after putting many hundreds of rounds through the gun (quail season is ending soon so I would be limited to the clay range).

With the Beretta 686 running for $2,400. the Beretta 694 running for $4,500, the Benelli over-unders running for that or higher in some cases, the Beretta DT11 running for $11,000, it’s nice to finally see an American made over-under for a reasonable price (< $1,000) and good finish and fit-up.  If it indeed can claim that – as I said, Savage didn’t send it to me for review.

Source.

Under the majority’s rule, the defendant wins by default whenever the government fails to prove that a statute unambiguously criminalizes the defendant’s conduct.

Um, yes.  And so what’s wrong with this?  Why wouldn’t any grammar school child come to the same conclusion?  A fortiori, why wouldn’t any educated lawyer come to the same conclusion?

Why would this only have to come from the majority’s rule?  Why isn’t it prima facie obvious to anyone with two brain cells?

It’s effective immediately.  Folks like Rock River Arms and Springfield Armory who ensconce in Illinois now cannot even sell to customers in their own home state.  It’s too bad they didn’t ride the “Gun Valley Moves South” train when it left the station.  I know the gun community.  Some will be reluctant to buy from a manufacturer who cannot even sell their products to folks in their own state.  By the way, Colorado is effectively doing the same thing.

The list of guns citizen in Illinois cannot have is long.  Very long.  You cannot even own tactical shotguns under the new law as best as I read it (I did note that they didn’t specifically mention the Beretta 1301, although I’ll also mention that the new law “strengthens the assault weapons ban by also allowing Illinois State Police to update the list as needed,” Welch said”).  So the ban includes whatever the cops want it to include.

Also, they are preempting the SCOTUS decision on Terry Stops: “If police stop a car driven by a semiautomatic gun owner, they can instantly check to ensure its legally owned.”  What sense this makes one can only guess – if a gun owner has registered the weapon why wouldn’t it be assumed that it’s a “legally owned weapon?”

Also, it’s back to the way it was before Bruen – you cannot have that gun with you (you know, the only ones left not on the list) when you leave home.  You cannot carry it on your person.  So, it’s all the rage now for the communist states to pretend that Bruen doesn’t exist and that the supreme court never spoke to the matter.

I have supreme confidence that this law will be adjudicated, and I expect this law to be struck down, but I’m not sure how long it will be before that happens.  In the mean time, they want citizens to register their guns if they are “grandfathered in.”  Some Sheriffs have said they will not comply, dozens and dozens, somewhere around 70 at last count.

But what does this mean?  Here is one clue.

But that’s not good enough.  Merely refusing to assist the state police isn’t doing anyone any good.  For this to have teeth the Sheriffs would need to ensure that not only were they constitutional Sheriffs, but their deputies were constitutional deputies as well, and that the city and township PDs agreed with this stance.  Those are the preconditions for success.

That would all lead to the next necessary step, which would be a threat to arrest any state police who came into their counties to enforce the new law, and the stomach to follow through with it.  Finally, if those counties have militia to whom the Sheriff could go for assistance, that may prove to be necessary as well.

Do any of the Sheriffs have the stomach for this?  I seriously doubt it.  I’ve said before, nullification laws or threats are dangerous for the citizens if they aren’t serious and don’t carry both the threat and reality of force behind them.  If they are weighty and enforced, they serve as a check on centralized power and authority to infringe on God-given rights.

Illinois is just at the beginning of this whole affair.  Chicago has decided the way it will be for everyone else in their state.  Whether the balance of the state lets it stand will be up to them.

Goodness, there has been so much ink spilled over this subject I can’t even begin to rehearse it all.  Here is an interesting recent piece.

In past years I have run several series of tests with commercial and experimental barrel-cleaning media in an effort to take barrels that had been fired back down to base metal, with no carbon or copper fouling as a starting point. A part of the test was to see which medium worked as advertised and which was less effective than expected. The tests were divided into cleaners that relied on chemical action to realize the expected results and cleaners that were abrasive in nature to remove the fouling. The results were verified via bore scopes with magnification to validate the findings.

It was no surprise that we found that some barrels responded to some of the chemical cleaners better than others. This was particularly prevalent with the smoothness of the barrel’s interior surfaces. Match-grade barrels that had been lapped to remove any irregularities or imperfections cleaned down to bare metal without too much effort. Run of-the-mill production barrels fouled earlier and were more difficult to clean almost universally, though there were a few notable exceptions.

Upon examining the barrels that fouled quicker, it was found that microscopic voids and tool marks left from the original manufacturing process were the greatest contributors to lead, copper or carbon fouling. The rougher the barrel’s interior, the quicker it fouls.

Even after cleaning down to bare metal with the abrasive cleaners, some barrels still needed chemical cleaners to remove the fouling embedded in the voids and irregular spots.

After thoroughly cleaning a barrel down to bare metal and removing all perceivable fouling and contamination, a tight-fitting clean patch pushed through the barrel still had a very slight discoloring present due to the vapor-thin residues left by the cleaning agents. This was not really a concern because the bore scope verified the condition of the bore to the satisfaction of the test.

Out of curiosity, we tried a few cleaners that had nothing to do with firearms, but were excellent cleaners that left no smudges or residual film in their intended application. What we found worked to enable a clean patch in and a clean patch out was glass cleaner. It removed everything but the shine after the hard work was done by the chemicals and abrasives.

I am not recommending you use glass cleaner on your Ruger, I’m just stating a finding that may be of interest.

We’ve discussed this before, but it doesn’t appeal to me as prima facie wise to remove everything.  I need to be convinced before I believe it.

Microscopic voids, minor erosion, stress corrosion cracking, tooling marks, and the like, are part of the scene.  No surface will be free of imperfections.

The very first round after removing all of the copper and lead will refill all of those imperfections with copper and lead.  Why continue to beat yourself up over trying to get it all out as if the gun had never been fired?

Anyway, I know that Paul Harrell uses soap and water, others use copper cleaners, others use solvents and still others use odorless mineral spirits (I do on shotguns).

I have never heard of using Windex on the inside of barrels.  I’d have to study the effect of ammonia on metals (SS, carbon steel, MoCr, etc.) before I was comfortable with that.  At a minimum I’d make sure to remove every last bit of the Windex with solvent and patches, and then oil it, before setting it aside.

Have readers ever used Windex on barrels?

Source.

If you move a rock from one place to the next you may have inadvertently disturbed the home of a tiny critter living beneath it. Moving stones can also contribute to soil erosion or destroy the delicate microhabitats plants and animals need to survive. Also, moving a rock to add to the top of a cairn could cause the whole thing to come down, rather defeating the object.

[ … ]

So what should you do if you see a rock cairn? Well, the advice from the National Parks Service is to leave them well alone, no tampering, building, or adding to existing ones. Don’t be tempted to kick them over either. If that won’t convince you, maybe the law will: the practice of moving the rocks could be seen as vandalism which is illegal.

Yea whatever.  The NPS doesn’t own the earth or any part of it.  “The cattle on a thousand hills” and all of creation belongs to God.

I wouldn’t like it very much if a vandal built a rock cairn to mislead me on the trail.  But some of them are needful as long as they are located correctly.  As for that little critter who might get disturbed if I move one, he can find another place to live.

If I need to collect rocks to build a fire ring, that’s what I’ll do.

Shooting Illustrated.

Both UPS and FedEx allow only FFLs, law enforcement agencies and specific governmental entities to ship and receive firearms of any type, for any reason. That means unless you happen to be an FFL, you’ll have to enlist the services of one to both send your rifle to a gunsmith or to a manufacturer for warranty repairs, or to receive your rifle from either. An added complication is that in order for FFLs to use UPS or FedEx for this purpose, they must first apply for and receive approval to be a firearm shipper from the company they want to use. As an FFL myself, I can attest that this process is neither simple nor a hoop that every FFL will choose to jump through. UPS takes it one step further by requiring that firearm parts only be shipped by FFLs as well. What constitutes a firearm part? According to the UPS representative who serviced my old account, UPS considers a firearm part to be “anything that would be assembled to make a gun or added to a gun,” such as magazines, small parts, aftermarket furniture or any other components.

Moving on to brighter skies, USPS appears to mirror federal guidelines when it comes to the shipping of rifles. “Publication 52” is the postal service’s main-source document for firearm-shipping rules. According to section 432.3, so long as the rifle is unloaded and all other laws (state, local, etc.) are in full compliance, a non-FFL may mail a rifle to another non-FFL within the sender’s state of residence. Outside of one’s state of residence, it may be mailed to an FFL or to yourself (in care of someone else), in advance of your arrival at the destination address. Specific rules are outlined for each of these situations, so check local, state and USPS regulations before shipping that family heirloom off into the wild blue yonder, whether for repair or use in a different state.

USPS regulations are elusive on the topic of FFLs returning firearms to their lawful owners. However, “27 CFR § 478.148” states that an FFL may return a firearm (or like replacement) to its owner across state lines. There are no restrictions on shipping firearm components and parts through USPS, except that receivers and frames that ATF classifies as firearms must be shipped as firearms.

[ … ]

USPS requires that you declare the firearm and certify that it is unloaded before handing your package over to them. At no time may ammunition be shipped with a firearm (regardless of shipping method). You may be required to show a copy of the receiving FFL’s license and include a copy of your driver’s license with the firearm as well. A note for the receiving party is always a good idea. One of my outgoing rifle shipments, also last year, arrived at the receiving end completely out of the box. In fact, there was no box at all, just a rifle in a case. Thankfully, the paperwork was also in the case, so the receiving gun shop had sufficient information to be able to contact me for guidance.

Even though long-gun shipping has become more complicated in recent months, it’s still not overly difficult. By following the relevant laws and shippers’ rules, you can get your rifle where it needs to be without much fanfare.

I think the bottom line is that we’re probably going to have to either [a] drive it to where it needs to go, or [b] go through an FFL.  FFLs know it’s necessary to ask them for this service, so they charge for it.  I don’t blame them – the FFL costs money to maintain.

The murky thing is “firearm parts.”  Thus far I haven’t had any problems ordering things like ammunition, charging handles, BCGs, etc., and I’ve received barrels in the mail before.

But you can count on the federal code making things as difficult as possible.

Seen here.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated a probability of success on the merits of their Second Amendment challenge to the relevant provisions of Chapter 131 Section 7(a), which criminalizes carrying handguns in certain “sensitive places,” subparts 12 (public libraries or museums), 15 (bars, restaurants, and where alcohol is served), 17 (entertainment facilities), and 24 (private property), as well as section 7(b)’s ban on functional firearms in vehicles. The State may regulate conduct squarely protected by the Second Amendment only if supported by a historical tradition of firearm regulation. Here, Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants will not be able to demonstrate a history of firearm regulation to support any of the challenged provisions. The deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, as the holders of valid permits from the State to conceal carry handguns, constitutes irreparable injury, and neither the State nor the public has an interest in enforcing unconstitutional laws. Accordingly, good cause exists, and the Court will grant the motion for temporary restraints. An accompanying order of today’s date shall issue.

The effects of Bruen continue to be felt.  This is the right decision.  These courts all know that they can be disciplined by the Supreme Court.

But this is just the beginning.  There will be hundreds more where necessary.  I predict the gun control laws will continue to fall, including AWB, magazine capacity limits, showing good character, ad numerous permitting schemes.

Furthermore, I expect constitutional carry to come up again in the South Carolina legislature.  I also expect constitutional carry to pass in Florida because they’ve committed to it on video now.  If this doesn’t include open carry then it will be a failure.