Articles by Herschel Smith

Prince Law.

Late yesterday, I received an email from an individual containing a letter from ATF which was a response to a correspondence requesting the correct method to “measure a firearm with a ‘stabilizing brace’ and folding adaptor.” It was explained that the correspondence was sent in the form of an email over a year ago and that the person had received a response via email shortly after it was sent. This letter was unsolicited and came over a year after the original request and response.

[ … ]

Based on the letter, ATF is taking the position that because a stabilizing brace is not an integral part of the firearm, it is not relevant to the overall length measurement. Why does this matter? A number of individuals have been building AR pistols or other similar pistols that have utilized a stabilizing brace. Some have opted to add a vertical foregrip. However, based on this interpretation, those people may find that they have manufactured an “AOW”, which is subject to the restrictions of the National Firearms Act (“NFA”).

[ … ]

ATF has taken the position that once a vertical foregrip has been added to a firearm, it is no longer designed to be fired when held in one hand, removing it from the definition of a pistol, even though ATF previously lost this argument before the Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. Fix, 4 Fed. Appx. 324 (9th Cir. 2001).

Further, ATF has consistently held that the overall length of 26 inches is the breaking point for concealability. Put another way, if the firearm has an overall length of less than 26 inches, it places it into a category of arms that could be considered to be regulated by the NFA depending on their other characteristics. If it has an overall length greater than 26 inches, it could remove it from those class of firearms, again, depending on their characteristics.

Law-making by memorandum.  Any time you change your mind, just write a new note.

Related.

Daily Caller:

The Supreme Court should dismiss a challenge to New York City’s gun transportation ban because a new ordinance will moot the case, city lawyers told the justices Wednesday.

The ordinance and a newly enacted state law will give the plaintiffs who challenged the transportation ban everything they have sought in court, making dismissal the appropriate course, city lawyers wrote in a letter to the high court.

The new city regulation gives petitioners everything they have sought in this lawsuit,” assistant corporation counsel Richard Dearing wrote. “The new state law, upon signature by the governor, will make the case doubly moot.”

If the case is not dismissed, the city will continue arguing the dispute is moot in a legal brief due Aug. 5. They will not address the merits of the controversy, Dearing wrote.

If, however, this Court prefers to allow briefing (and potentially oral argument) to play out, respondents will file a brief on the designated due date maintaining in greater detail that the case is moot,” the letter reads.

Respondents do not intend to address whether the Constitution entitles petitioners (or any other residents of New York City with premises licenses) to transport their handguns from their homes in the city to second homes, or to firing ranges or shooting competitions beyond municipal borders, where they have a legal right to possess them. Respondents no longer have any stake in that legal question,” it adds.

It’s men like this who give other lawyers a bad name and reputation.

Essentially, they have presumed to boss the Supreme Court around, and told them that the case should be dismissed because it is moot, but if the case isn’t dismissed, they’ll just argue extensively in front of the court, attempting to embarrass everyone there, that the case is moot.

Not only that, they’ve conceded absolutely nothing, except what the petitioners ask for.  They didn’t concede that the constitution has any bearing on this, and they won’t argue the case on those merits.

Take note of the legal tricks and shenanigans here.  If the Supreme Court decides that the constitution does have bearing, and that they do in fact have a right under the constitution to what they asked for in their petition, New York lawyers can respond by saying that the Supreme Court case is and was un-argued.  The Supreme Court decided something that wasn’t asked, something the SCOTUS really doesn’t like to do.  Now, the court can do just that, but my bet is that they won’t, not with Roberts at the helm.

They’re taking their ball and going home because they’re bitches.

General Cornwallis had as his strategy to conduct war in South Carolina, taking and holding the important port city of Charleston, and then move north through North Carolina, meeting up with General Howe to end the campaign.  It was a bold plan, and he had dealt a blow to the continental forces on the field of battle on a number of occasions.

But the size of the continent and the temperament of the people made it impossible to prosecute a war of this kind with the forces and lines of logistics he had at his disposal.  The linchpin of his plan called for the utilization of loyalist forces to do battle with patriots.

Enter Major Patrick Ferguson, who was tasked by Cornwallis with leading loyalist forces, whom he had no difficulty recruiting in his sweep through South Carolina.  He sent a message to the patriots: “If you do not desist your opposition to the British Arms, I shall march this army over the mountains, hang your leaders, and lay waste your country with fire and sword.”

Not dissuaded from battle, the patriot forces, enhanced mainly by the “Overmountain men,” decided to give chase to Major Patrick Ferguson and the loyalists.  The loyalist forces heard of the plan because of a couple of deserters from the patriot forces, and decided to retreat to the protection of Cornwallis and his forces.

The Overmountain Men had ridden horseback for a protracted period to convene with other forces, much of it sleeping in the day and riding at night.  But now they had to move quickly.  After convening, they had to ride horseback through the night, and much of the day, and prosecuted battle in the afternoon hours with no sleep.  Yet they dealt a decisive blow to the loyalist forces.

Many of the Overmountain Men were under the age of 18, raised hard and experienced in the American bush and hills.  In the small townships in the Appalachian mountains, the men had to stay and tend crops, tend livestock, and protect the family.  Sons had to be dispatched to fight the campaign.  Women and men, mothers and fathers, lined the roads and sang hymns as their sons rode by and they dispatched their sons to war.  They saw it as a religious quest.

The patriot victory at King’s Mountain had great significance.  Cornwallis, who had planned to use a victory over the patriots there, held his plans in abatement.  His plans to use loyalists completely shattered and abandoned, he got bogged down in a guerrilla campaign in South Carolina in the bush and swamps.  He finally set out through North Carolina, but his forces were so depleted, sick and without logistics that all he could manage was a retreat to the coast to ensconce until surrender.  His lines of logistics had effectively been cut by the patriots.

This marked the turning point of the campaign.  Cornwallis won conventional victories, but was never able to manage the insurgency in South Carolina.  The British lost, and General Howe wasn’t far behind the surrender of Cornwallis.

This fourth of July, celebrate the lives of the great men who brought you what liberty you enjoy.

News from Virginia.

Vincent Smith wasn’t in the office when a fellow Virginia Beach city employee opened fire there, ultimately killing 12 and wounding five in the carnage five weeks ago.

After getting notice of the shooting that afternoon in Building 2 of the Virginia Beach Municipal Center, Smith, 49, raced to the nearby emergency operations center, where he helped out until late in the night.

It was soon clear that although law enforcement arrived within two minutes of the report May 31 of an active shooter, the gunman had been able to move through offices and fire at fellow city employees without being confronted by another firearm.

Now, Smith, the city’s division manager for construction services, is taking action in hopes of preventing such a situation from occurring again.

“Their policy failed, and it failed their employees, and we’ve got to do something different,” Smith said of Virginia Beach officials in a phone interview Monday with The Daily Signal. “I’ll take it all the way to the Legislature if I have to.”

Bringing back a petition he started over three years ago to allow city employees to carry a concealed firearm at work, Smith so far has garnered support from almost 5,000 of Virginia Beach’s estimated 450,000 residents, many of them fellow city employees.

Among the petition’s original 260 signees was construction project manager Herbert Snelling, the only person to lose his life in the shooting who wasn’t a city worker. His family described Snelling, 57, as a gun rights activist and a man “who loved Jesus deeply.”

Smith’s petition seeks to overturn a policy that prevents the resort city’s 6,000 employees from carrying a concealed handgun in the workplace.

Good.  This is just the way God intended it to be.  This is good for city workers.  Now, what about everyone else?

Shooting Illustrated.

In the late 1980s, gunwriter Dean Grennell took .451 Detonics Mag. brass and trimmed it to the same overall length as the .45 ACP cartridge case, thus creating the .45 Super. Grennell wrote an article for the February 1988 issue of Gun World Magazine, discussing his new version of the .45 ACP, which was capable of pushing a 185-grain bullet to 1,300 fps. In the August 1988 issue of Gun World Magazine, a second article about the .45 Super—written by Tom Ferguson—appeared. Ferguson was interested in Grennell’s concept cartridge, but he wanted to take things a step further. He took a handful of .451 Detonics Mag. brass and a 1911 pistol to Ace Hindman of Ace Custom 45s. Hindman came up with the idea of heavier springs in the 1911 to make it more suited to the higher-pressure cartridge.

In 1994, Fernando Coelho—owner of Triton Cartridge—reached out to Garey Hindman, Ace’s son, who was still converting 1911s and even some Smith & Wesson Model 4506 pistols to accommodate the.45 Super. The problem with the cartridge was a lack of suitable brass. Coelho had recently started Triton Cartridge and felt that with his background in load development, coupled with actual in-house pressure testing, he would be able to come up with reliable, factory-loaded, .45 Super ammunition. A deal was struck and Coelho reached out to Starline Brass to get the ball rolling. The folks at Starline worked with Coelho to establish correct internal case-wall dimensions, web-area thickness and overall hardness of the cartridge case.

But, just like the .300 BLK found fame because of its name, the.45 Super—as a commercial cartridge—was doomed because of what it was called. You see, when Ace Hindman passed away, his son trademarked “.45 Super.” When Triton made factory-loaded .45 Super ammo, Garey Hindman would get a royalty, which was something a bit unusual in the ammunition business. Because of this, no major firearm or ammunition manufacturer would offer .45 Super guns or ammunition. There was also the concern that a shooter might load and fire .45 Super ammo in a vintage .45 ACP revolver or an old 1911 and get an unpleasant surprise.

All this led to the birth of the .450 SMC. Coelho was fed up with the inherent issues of the .45 ACP/.45 Super cartridge case and the damage being done to the potential growth of the .45 Super. One of the case problems was primer flow; you could experiment with different brands of primers and powder, but most of the time primers would flow back around the tip of the firing pin. The solution: switch to a small-primer pocket and utilize a small-rifle primer. Coelho reached out to Starline again, asking the company to make .45 Super brass with a small-primer pocket. That solved the primer-flow problem and Triton Cartridge soon began offering factory-loaded .450 SMC ammunition. It was loaded to a maximum average pressure (MAP) of 32,000 psi, which is slightly higher than .45 Super pressures, but still less than the 37,500 psi pressure of the 10 mm. The new name—.450 SMC—solved the trade-mark problem, and Triton had two loads: a 165-grain bullet at 1,450 fps and a 230-grain bullet at 1,150 fps.

When Triton went out of business in 2003, it looked like the .450 SMC was doomed. But, another new ammunition company stepped up to offer one of the most potent and practical magnum-category, .45-caliber, defensive-handgun cartridges ever created. Mike McNett of DoubleTap Ammunition recognized the usefulness of the .450 SMC and his Cedar City, UT-based company now offers six .450 SMC loads.

Comparatively speaking, the hottest factory 185-grain .45 ACP load you can buy will generate only about 1,140 fps, and the fastest 230-grain offering only about 1,000 fps. Essentially, what you get with the .450 SMC are 10 mm velocities with a .45-caliber instead of a .40-caliber bullet.

Of course, since no one is manufacturing .450 SMC handguns, what you’re probably wondering is what you have to do to shoot .450 SMC in your .45 ACP. Well, a .450 SMC cartridge can be fired in any .45 ACP handgun. However—and this is a big however—it should only be fired in full-size .45 ACP handguns that have a +P rating. (A 20- to 22-pound recoil spring in your favorite 5-inch 1911, or a 21- to 23-pound spring in a Glock.)

This is a great article.  I was unaware of all of that history, and as I said, I have 450 SMC and carried it recently.

I’m not really sympathetic to getting “nasty surprises” because the burden to do what’s smart should rest squarely on the shoulders of the user.  In other words, don’t be an idiot.  However, I do understand issues of legal liability.  They haven’t completely gone away with the 450 SMC design.

Then there is this: “A 230-grain load fired from the .450 SMC cartridge out of a 5-inch 1911 will generate about 78 percent more recoil than a 230-grain load fired from a .45 ACP.”

With the .450 SMC (Short Magnum Cartridge) you get > 10mm velocity with a heavier bullet.  What you have to accept is the heavier recoil.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

For the past week the jury had been listening to arguments in a civil rights case that pitted Angela Zorich of south St. Louis County against the St. Louis County Police Department and four of its officers. In April 2014, the county’s tactical operations unit busted down Zorich’s door at the request of problem properties unit Officer Robert Rinck because their gas had been turned off. In the raid, an officer shot and killed the family’s 4-year-old pit bull, Kiya.

The full week of trial was necessary, she said, to get the parties to where they ended up Monday morning, when St. Louis County offered to settle the case for $750,000 just before closing arguments were to begin.

So have you made changes to policy to call off those dumbass SWAT raids?  Have you made changes to policy not to send cops out to harass people for not paying bills?  Have you thrown the participating cops in jail?

Over what, you ask?  Withholding evidence, animal cruelty, breaking and entering, assault with a deadly weapon, trespassing, damage to private property, and kidnapping.  But no, instead of the cops paying for this, the taxpayer is left with the tab.

Over unpaid utility bills.  Over unpaid utility bills.

Via reader Ned, FreeThoughtProject:

The Free Thought Project has reported on multiple instances in which entire groups of people were detained and forced to show ID or submit to a search. However, during these questionable situations, police were able to reasonably articulate suspicion that a crime had been committed or was about to be committed. Over the weekend, at a popular Michigan City bar, there was no crime and no one had been suspected of committing a crime.

Despite these facts, more than a dozen officers raided this peaceful establishment in which patrons were enjoying their Saturday night. Police officers with the Michigan City Police Department blocked all the exits and the rights violating process began.

After police trapped them inside, every person in the bar was forced to line up and submit their identification to one of the many police officers who had setup laptops. Only after they submitted to the background checks were the patrons allowed to leave.

In the state of Indiana, a person only has to show their identification to law enforcement only if they have been stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation. Obviously, every single person inside this bar was not suspected of a crime, which made this process unconstitutional.

However, as the video shows, police didn’t accuse anyone of committing an infraction and detained them anyway.

What’s more, according to our sources at the bar that night, not a single arrest was even made.

As the video shows, the police officers running everyone’s IDs, couldn’t have cared about due process. Indeed, when Manna Carter, the woman who took the video, asks one of the officers why they are doing this, his response was, “because we can.”

As Carter questions them, the police attempted to justify this raid by claiming to be a part of some excise enforcement operation for the Alcohol & Tobacco Commission. However, the state of Indiana has an its own department for this known as the Indiana State Excise Police (ISEP).

More over, this was not some attempt to catch underage drinkers or a bar selling unlicensed booze. This was a sweeping raid and subsequent mass detainment of dozens of innocent people who were all forced to submit their information to police — probable cause be damned.

Even more damning is the fact that in an interview with TFTP, Carter said that no police officers from the ISEP were there that night and all the officers involved were from MCPD.

TFTP also reached out to the ISEP and the MCPD to inquire about which statute gave them the authority to carry out such rights-stomping exercise, however our calls and emails have yet to be returned.

The Supreme Court rule on “Terry Stops” means nothing according to the police.  They are a law unto themselves.

Oh, and make note of the reply.  “Because we can.”  Not a single one of these officers cared about their oath to uphold the constitution.  They may not be judged on this in time, but they certainly will in eternity.

The giddy celebrations of the American left over the wonderful New Zealand law seem to have subsided, and you don’t hear much about it any more.

It was one of the defining moments as New Zealand grieved after a pair of deadly mosque attacks: a near-unanimous parliamentary vote in April to ban assault-style rifles and similar weapons.

The lawmakers’ move was immediately acclaimed by gun-control advocates worldwide as an example of decisive collective action in a nation unified in horror by the March 15 assaults in Christchurch that left 51 people dead.

Then the momentum began to slow.

Growing opposition from New Zealand’s pro-gun groups has complicated efforts to round up the now-banned firearms under a buyback program. Lawsuits are threatened.

Gun-control advocates argue that compensation rates may not be fair and warn of a possible spike in black-market sales.

The government, meanwhile, is faced with a sobering set of challenges over how to enforce the new law.

There is no national registry for many of the weapons targeted by the ban, including the AR-15 – a semiautomatic rifle that has been used in mass shootings in the United States and is often at the center of American gun-control debates.

As a result, estimates of the numbers of newly banned weapons vary widely. So far, about 700 firearms have been voluntarily surrendered.

Authorities are “operating a little bit in the dark,” said Joe Green, gun-safety specialist and former arms control manager for the New Zealand Police.

[ … ]

Stuart Nash, the minister for police, announced last week that nearly 200 collection events would take place over the next three months in community hubs, including in some of the country’s largest sports stadiums.

“We urge people to stay calm,” Mike Clement, New Zealand Police’s deputy commissioner of national operations, told The Washington Post.

“We acknowledge that you’re a law-abiding citizen and through no fault of your own you now find yourself in possession of firearms that are now illegal,” he said, but he noted that once the amnesty period expires, there is no excuse for holding on to weapons.

[ … ]

But Yasbek pointed out that some of the banned weapons, including AR-15 rifles, fall into Category “A” in the New Zealand licensing system, which means they were not required to be registered in police databases and as such will be impossible to trace.

“These weapons are unlikely to be confiscated by police because they don’t know of their existence,” she said. “These will become black-market weapons if their owners choose not to comply with the law and become criminals instead.”

That’ll do it.  Call them “criminals.”  That’ll make them turn in the guns.  I’m sure their feelings will be hurt by the indictment.

On the other hand, if you declare them all criminals, what have they got left to lose?  Why not convert them all to fully automatic?  If they’re going to traffic in the black market now, what’s to stop them from acquiring more powerful weaponry?

That may be a less than fortuitous turn of events for the New Zealand police, yes?  Too bad.  Should have thought about that beforehand.

Via 357 Magnum, this report from New York.

A former NYPD narcotics detective snared in a corruption scandal testified it was common practice to fabricate drug charges against innocent people to meet arrest quotas.

Nah.  No record, no night in jail, no inability to get jobs, nothing.  Nothing is going to happen to them anyway.  Nothing.

This is what happens when you take corrupt men and put them in charge of prosecuting an unnecessary and immoral war on the American people.

Quotas.  Hardening of the heart to the plight of the victims.  Lying.  Cheating.  Falsification of documents.  Violation of your oath.  Harming other men for the sake of your own advancement.

David Codrea:

… a Facebook colleague has alerted us to a source that just doesn’t get it: The White House.

Per its explanation of the Constitution:

“The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.”

[ … ]

I just got done creating a White House petition.

“Recognize that the government does not ‘give citizens the right to bear arms,’’ it asks, further explaining and requesting:

“The White House website section on the Constitution instructs ‘The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.’ This is exactly wrong and contradicts the very nature of unalienable rights, the clear intent of the Founders and the understanding of the right as articulated by the Supreme Court.

“Privileges are granted. Rights are inherent to the condition of being human. The Second Amendment didn’t create a right to keep and bear arms — it acknowledged a right that was already assumed and accepted at the time of ratification. Nobody in government gave us that right, so it’s not theirs to take away.

“Please correct your website description and make an announcement about the change.”

I signed.  You should too.  It’s simple and quick.  This is 3-second activism.

I would add that the notion of unalienable rights is based on the condition of being human only insofar as you accept the notion of man as made in the image of a Holy God.  It’s beyond the scope of this little post to engage in a debate over the concept of Lockean “natural” rights versus a Christian world and life view.

I disagree with Locke, I am a Calvinist.  Nature is impersonal, powerless, and confers nothing at all on any man or animal.  In fact, according to a naturalistic world view, man is an animal.  Animals kills each other all the time without regard for moral righteousness.

The subject here is moral righteousness.  What is right, just, absolute, an unalienable.  That can only come from God and His immutable law-word, not nature.