Articles by Herschel Smith

TheAlaskan:

“So there you are, in your easy chair, watching an episode of law and order, and an army of cops come up your road and demand you come to the door. Last week, I would’ve gone to the door and asked, “what’s up, can I help you,” and possibly gotten slain.

This week, and from now on, I’m getting everyone with me (kids), on the floor or into the basement. I’m getting armed and I’m calling 911 and demanding to talk to the chief or better yet the ranking officer on the ground outside my home. I’m also calling my neighbors (in my case…few) to have them head my way to start rolling cell video with full acknowledgement by police who are present to muddy things up a bit.

It’s has become plain to me that our homes need to be hardened with shooting positions and safe egress points and perhaps, secret hiding spaces. Strategies need to be developed and practiced with family and like minded neighbors.

We are now living in and facing a lethal police state.”

Tucson.com:

But the attorney who crafted it for Republican state Rep. David Stringer said that still won’t let Arizonans keep their “bump stocks” if the federal government declares them illegal.

The legislation spells out the kind of firearms the state believes are necessary for those who are members of the state militia. Existing Arizona law already says that automatically includes all “able-bodied citizens of the state” between 18 and 45.

And just to be sure that folks who turn 46 don’t lose their gun rights because of new federal laws, HB 2057 also would expand the definition of the militia to remove the maximum age. But it would add a new requirement that they be “capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

The measure — and a companion constitutional amendment — were introduced by Stringer who said he wants to ensure that whatever occurs in Washington doesn’t interfere with the right of law-abiding Arizonans to possess firearms.

But Stringer left it to attorney Michael Taylor, who has some expertise in the area of gun rights, to come up with the actual language. And Taylor said it is crafted to conform to a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have upheld gun rights.

Courts will never decide in your favor, sir.  Never.  The festooned, robed tyrants will always decide for more communism.

That’s why this is toothless and powerless right out of the gate.  If you’re not willing to enforce this Arizona law by arresting ATF agents who enter the state and throwing them in the state penitentiary, and protecting your citizens by allowing them to purchase guns and ammunition regardless of form 4473 (which the FedGov will use to its advantage), then you’re setting your citizens up for illegalities and yourself up for failure and complete embarrassment.

You’re a loser.  Unless you act like you have some guts about this thing.  I have confidence you won’t do that, and neither will your fellow statesmen.

David Codrea:

The Department of Justice anticipates issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would interpret the statutory definition of “machinegun” in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to clarify whether certain devices, commonly known as “bump fire” stocks, fall within that definition,” a Tuesday Federal Register notice advises. “Before doing so, the Department and ATF need to gather information and comments from the public and industry regarding the nature and scope of the market for these devices.”

The document comment period ends on January 25, the notice continues, providing ways to send them in either by mail or via a submission form. The notice also provides background information, including a summary of claimed statutory authority as well as the ”justification” for the proposed rule, which unsurprisingly relies heavily on last October’s Las Vegas music festival murders to make the case that such controls are needed.

I knew this and had discussed it, but I’m torn on this.  On the one hand, I need to submit comments.  On the other hand, while I’ve seen ATF responses to my points before (concerning importation of shotguns), I’ve never been given more than cursory, dismissive treatment.  I don’t expect better treatment this time around.

I’ll let readers decide for me.  I need help if I’m going to submit comments.  My readers write better than I do, have more background in legal matters than I do, and can present the case better than I can.  I would actually like to submit comments from TCJ rather than just me.

If you have thoughts on this, whether merely single comments, multiple comments, or an actual outline for a response, please respond either in comments to this post or via email.  I’d rather it be in comments to this post since that will cause others to think about the issue and add to the information here.

As always with the federal bureaucracy, although we may want to call them names and curse at them, that will cause them to throw away our comments.  Keep it civil and make it something that will actually be difficult for them to deal with.

Via WRSA, this video on the Wichita Police Department home invasion and murder.

Remember what I said?

It doesn’t matter if he was armed, any more than it matters whether he was a gamer or if he was Swatted by another gamer.  While Swatting is illegal, the perpetrator didn’t do the shooting.  Being armed while answering the door isn’t illegal or immoral.  Gaming isn’t illegal or immoral.

While the media will present all of these misdirects as will the Sheriff when he finally presents his case to the public (the gamer did something illegal, my deputy thought he was armed, blah, blah, blah), the reality of the situation is that the shooter is a murderer, and the team that helped him is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

If he had answered the door armed with a rifle pointed in the direction of the perpetrators (the cops), that would have been entirely within his moral and legal rights.

But don’t expect any jury or judge in America to do anything but exonerate cops, ever, under any circumstances.  Because cops.  Heroes of the community, they are.  Brave souls who keep us safe, they are.

Or murderers.  You make your mind up about it.  I already have, long ago.  You want a police state?  Because this is how you get a police state.  But I’m certain that an internal affairs investigation will conclude that he followed department procedure.

Hey.  Do I get to shoot cops for making “furtive movements?”

Ammoland:

The bullet then continues to rise until, under the influence of gravity, it starts to fall back toward the sight-line. This highest point in the bullet’s flight, the “maximum ordinate,” is reached at 140m. At this range, the bullet is six centimeters above the sight line, but no more.

As it continues downrange, the bullet then falls back toward the sight-line, crossing it once more (this time on the way down) at 240m. This is the “second intersection.”

The bullet then continues to fall until it is, once again, six centimeters below the sight-line. This takes place at 260m.

So, between point-blank and 260m, the bullet is never more than six centimeters away from the sight-line, “all other things being equal.”

However, the foregoing holds true only when the rifle itself, as it is fired, is perfectly horizontal. When a shooting position necessitates the rifle be fired from a “rotated” position, the six-centimeter standard collapses after 150m.

Thus, I tell students that their M4 is basically a 150m gun. Within that range, it is deadly accurate, no matter the shooting position, no matter the wind, no matter most other factors.

The “back-curve zone” is that portion of the trajectory which lies between maximum point-blank range and the ultimate point of bullet impact. Any time a rifleman is working in ranges that involve the “back-curve” of the trajectory, that is, after the bullet has fallen more than six centimeters below the sight line (after the second intersection), the path of the bullet becomes harder and harder to predict.

[ … ]

Yet, today’s snipers are amazing is (sic) their ability to skillfully use the back-curve zone, and they enjoy my admiration! But, the rest of us, under “field conditions,” using generic military rifles, will squander much ammunition trying (mostly in vain) to get reliable hits there.

Well then.  I need to tell my former Marine that all that 500 yards qualification he did to earn the expert rifleman badge is worthless.  And all of those kills he had at greater than 150 were just fake news.

Who knew?

But wait, that’s not the whole story.

Governor Asa Hutchinson has informed the Arkansas State Police that he believes a 2013 law made open carry of hand guns the law of the land in Arkansas and they should act accordingly.

There is, as yet, no definitive court case that substantiates this view of the law. Ever since its passage, a debate has raged over the law’s meaning. Some contended it was merely meant to be a technical correction to Arkansas law that long had allowed the carrying of weapons on a “journey,” but not in all circumstances. Gun advocates argued that the wording validated open carry. Critics argue that such an expansive view might override some of the restrictions in law on where concealed weapons may be taken.

The governor’s letter comes as he faces a challenge in the Republican primary from Jan Morgan, a gun range owner who’s depicted Hutchinson (a former spokesman for the NRA) as somehow soft on guns (she was critical of some limitations added to the campus carry legislation, among others). His opinion carries no force of law, but the directive to an executive agency will have the effect of guiding state troopers, as indicated by a notice sent yesterday to troopers by Col. Bill Bryant, director of the State Police.

Context: An off-duty trooper in 2014 arrested a man who was carrying a weapon in a Searcy Walmart. He was acquitted of an obstruction of governmental operations misdemeanor charge, but lost a lawsuit at the circuit court level in which he sought to have his concealed carry permit restored. Judge Wendell Griffen rejected James Tanner’s argument that the 2013 law allowed open carry so long as no unlawful intent was present. The judge called that interpretation “senseless.” The judge ruled Tanner wasn’t entitled to get his license back because he openly carried a concealed weapon as a permit holder and refused to provide identification to an officer who asked for it. That case has not been appealed, court records indicate.

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge issued an official opinion in 2015 that indicated open carry was legal in Arkansas, but she also commented that confusion about the 2013 law suggested clarification would be useful. Her predecessor, Dustin McDaniel, had opined the law was only a technical correction, not legalization of unlimited open carry.

Rutledge also enumerated these caveats about open carry:

* Law officers can freely question anyone openly carrying a weapon about their purpose.

* Other statutes prohibit open carry in certain circumstances — in government buildings such as the Capitol, for example.

* Private property owners are entitled to keep firearms off their property, and armed people who refuse to leave can be prosecuted for trespass.

* The law doesn’t affect concealed carry statutes. All carrying concealed weapons still must comply with permitting and other requirements.

By “soft on guns,” Morgan means that Asa isn’t the gun rights supporter he purports to be.

Hutchinson hasn’t been hard enough on the gays and the transgenders; he once took a meeting with gun control advocates; he wouldn’t sign a meaningless anti-Sharia law bill; he’s supported the continuation of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

Arkansas is in fact a stop and identify state, but only for loitering.  The judge that decided the case against the open carrier, Wendell Griffen, is clearly an idiot and communist.  Expect the police to ignore the governor’s edict and work towards their communist ends.

As for the governor’s race, I don’t know what will happen.  But Arkansas is as much a mess as every other state.

The Wichita Eagle:

Blue and red lights flashed outside of the McCormick Street house just after 6 p.m. on Thursday. Curious of what was going on – Andrew Finch, 28, opened the door.

“I heard my son scream, I got up and then I heard a shot,” his mother, Lisa Finch, said Friday morning.

Finch and other relatives invited reporters into their home Friday morning – more than 12 hours after Wichita police said an officer fatally shot a 28-year-old man, who was identified by family as Andrew “Andy” Finch.

“We want Andy’s side of the story to be told,” his mother said.

On Thursday, Deputy Wichita Police Chief Troy Livingston said a substation received a call that there was a hostage situation in a house in the 1000 block of West McCormick — and that someone had been shot in the head.

“That was the information we were working off of,” he said, explaining that officers went to the house ready for a hostage situation and they “got into position.”

“A male came to the front door,” Livingston said Thursday night. “As he came to the front door, one of our officers discharged his weapon.”

Livingston didn’t say if the man had a weapon when he came to the door, or what caused the officer to shoot the man.

Finch said her son, a father of two young children, wasn’t armed.

There are a number of misdirects in this report.  Let’s address two of the most prominent and important.  First of all, the blame will be placed on the illegal practice of Swatting, or calling the police and reporting an active shooting or hostage situation.  The perpetrator will likely be found and dealt with, and the blame will be placed squarely on him.

The second misdirect for the readers is the question whether the innocent man was armed.  We’ve dealt with this in detail before.  First of all, the Castle doctrine is based on Biblical precept and it’s moral standing is rock solid.  Home invasions, whether by criminals bent on evil, or police criminalds bent on soldier-boy impersonations, are all immoral in the superlative.

Furthermore, we’ve seen that even if the police announce their presence, there is no compelling reason to believe that it is the police.  Criminals have become savvy to the ways of the police SWAT teams and make a pretense of the same kind of entry procedure.  Men announcing that they are the police may be the police, or they may not be and may intend on rape or murder.

It doesn’t matter if he was armed, any more than it matters whether he was a gamer or if he was Swatted by another gamer.  While Swatting is illegal, the perpetrator didn’t do the shooting.  Being armed while answering the door isn’t illegal or immoral.  Gaming isn’t illegal or immoral.

While the media will present all of these misdirects as will the Sheriff when he finally presents his case to the public (the gamer did something illegal, my deputy thought he was armed, blah, blah, blah), the reality of the situation is that the shooter is a murderer, and the team that helped him is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

The police in America have become the most dangerous hoodlums, thugs and murderers.  As I’ve said before, I feel more comfortable around gangsters who might threaten me than I do around goober cops who have no discipline or moral compunction about shooting innocent people.

And they’ll leave our bump stocks alone.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) is decrying the latest push from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) for bump stock gun control, contending that part of the solution is to defund the ATF altogether.

The GOA’s statements come after the DOJ announced that the ATF is weighing whether to redefine the term “machinegun,” so as to include accessories that do not convert semiautomatic firearms into automatic ones. This would place firearm accessories like bump stocks on par with actually firearm conversion devices, therefore bringing an entire new category of firearm accessories under the auspices of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Placing such accessories under the purview of the NFA would require bump stock owners to pass a background check, be fingerprinted, photographed, and pay a $200 tax to the federal government.

GOA executive director Erich Pratt told Breitbart News, “Gun Owners of America will rally its members in opposition to any proposed restrictions on bump stocks by the ATF.  GOA holds that any such limitations are unconstitutional and would open the door to additional regulations, even while doing nothing to stop evil people from committing heinous acts.”

Well, of course that’s true.  The way to stop the unconstitutional infringement the mere existence the ATF poses is to entirely defund the ATF, forcing the bureaucracy to send all of its employees pink slips.  It won’t happen because the Senate and Congress believes in this infringement just like the executive does.

By the way, you’re aware, aren’t you, that the ATF is preparing to fold in bump stocks to the NFA?  The reddit link on this can be found here.

Hugh Latimer deals with nonpermissive carry, and does it in an interesting context.

The Bible has very little to say about dealing with a secular government. When it does talk about it, it is usually within the context of finances (Give unto Cesar…) or God’s punishment. We are expected to be good citizens because our faith demands moral decisions based upon the ethics that God lays out. Our citizenship is first with the Kingdom of God, though we participate in the worldly governments because they have direct bearing upon our lives. When there is a conflict between the two, we choose the heavenly kingdom without hesitation.

Romans 13

That being said, Romans 13 is probably one of the most misquoted scriptures that I know of. We must always look at the context of scripture because pulling it out of context is an easy way to get bad theology. Romans 12 is about the congregation and how they are to deal with each other. It is about the Body of Christ, and as individuals we all have our separate parts to play. Romans 14 is also about how believers interact with each other within the congregation, including the concept to not judge each other’s salvation over trivial things.

Why, in the middle of that conversation, would Paul suddenly start talking about obedience to a secular government? No, Romans 13 is about being submissive to church government and church discipline. The whole thing is about how Christians interrelate to each other, not how we relate to a secular government.

Ordained

While God can and does use secular governments to bring about judgment upon a disobedient people, He does not ordain sinful men to positions of authority. God does not ordain a secular government. He does, however, ordain church government and those who have been ordained speak with God’s authority. (Note that I’m talking about those who have been ordained by God, not those who have been through a seminary’s ordination process. You’ll know the difference because those ordained by God speak with wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. Those ordained by man speak only with knowledge, and usually not too much of that.)

Consequences

As to your question, SurvivalBlog cannot make any recommendation. Only you can make the determination. If you choose to carry when it is against the law, there will be consequences if you are caught. God does not often relieve us of consequences to our decisions. There are two risks that I can see:

1. If an incident occurs and your concealed carry saves lives, you will still probably face charges and your career as a teacher will be over, at a minimum. You might even go to jail for a long time. (But at least you are alive, as is anyone you saved.)
2. You may get caught and face those same consequences without the reward of having saved lives. Speaking as a teacher of high school students for eight years, I can tell you that there is very little that escapes the attention of students, and all it takes is one child to notice your illegal behavior and end your career.

Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience has long been a part of U.S. history, but just because you stand for what you believe is no guarantee that you will be released from the consequences of breaking the law. Only you can make the determination of what your convictions are and whether you are willing to face the consequences of such a decision.

Okay, I’m not trying to steal Hugh’s thunder by citing at length, and you really need to read the entire post, including the letter for context, in addition to the very astute comments at SurvivalBlog.

That said, I quoted at length because you needed to have it above for reference because I intend to make some comments myself.

I highly respect SurvivalBlog’s work, including all of the authors.  They are a regular visit for me and I recommend that they be one of your daily stops as well.  I have to agree and disagree with Hugh.

First of all, I have engaged in nonpermissive carry before and I will do it again.  Most places in which I have done so have been places where the maximum punishment would have been being ejected (or asked to leave), although in a few places I might have been cuffed and carted off to jail for the night.  I’ve been very careful in nonpermissive environments, I might add.

What I don’t do is risk my livelihood, and so I am at maximum risk to my life when I am at work.  Everybody must make these kinds of decisions.  I would actually prefer that we home school our children rather than educate them in public schools, and that includes solidly, thoroughgoing Christian education in all subjects.  Or in other words, I prefer a Christian world and life view to be the guiding light for all subjects, all material and all context.

But I do understand that we have Christians (and other gun owners who may not be Christians) in public schools who might need sage advice.  Like Hugh, I cannot give legal advice.  But I do want to say a word about ordained authority and civil disobedience.

I am an unapologetic Calvinist.  With Calvin (who followed Pauline theology), I believe that God ordains “whatsoever comes to pass” (WCF), e.g., see Isaiah 46:9-10, Ephesians 1:11, and far too many other passages to outline here (I would have to pen an entire treatise on this subject to fully deal with it).  That means God has ordained wicked men to positions of authority at times and epochs in history.

It’s also no accident that the concept of covenant is the ruling concept for how God deals with men, and how He expects men to deal with men in life.  All men and all institutions are under covenant with God, including governments.  When governments of men have broken covenant with God, it is within the purview of the authority God has given men to overthrow said governments.

We’ve dealt with this many times, and as we’ve seen, the American war of independence was just such a war.  Civil disobedience under such circumstances is no mere social justice warrioring.  It is a holy endeavor which has God’s blessing.

However, whether nonpermissive carry in a school is just such a situation must be the call of the individual in the situation.  Rarely in history does an individual example rise to the level of needing revolution as an amelioration.  It’s usually a collection of situations, the weight of the evidence brought against a government.  Like Hugh, you must consider the consequences of getting caught in nonpermissive carry.  I’ve done it before, I’ll do it again, and there are circumstances where I won’t even consider it.

Thanks to Fred Tippens for the tip.

Good Lord!

How many of you think you could handle .450 Bushmaster in an AR pistol and regain sight picture after the first shot in – oh, I don’t know – under four or five seconds?