Articles by Herschel Smith

NJ1015.com:

Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg heads to Washington for the day Thursday, waiting to kick-start a 15-year quest to require personalized “smart guns” on the shelves of New Jersey gun retailers.

Such guns would have technology keeping them from being fired by anyone other than the registered owner or, as envisioned in the case of police officers, the officers and their partners. Current New Jersey law requires them to be exclusively sold in New Jersey once they’re viable – which may be unintentionally undercutting their path to the marketplace.

Weinberg was invited by the head of CeaseFire Washington state to attend Thursday’s event in the nation’s capital, featuring a former United States drug czar and the results of a survey on the safety concerns of 400 law enforcement professionals.

“They’re wanting to move toward the child-proof handgun technology, so we’ll hear the results of that survey. We have a panel. Some people who are involved in the research and development will also be there,” Weinberg said.

Yea, I’m sure that’s what they’re wanting – to move to smart guns for the sake of the children.  Just not for them, but for everyone else.

I hope they are successful fielding a “smart gun” for the cops to try out first.  And once all of that money has been spent, I think the cops in New Jersey should keep them.  Forever.

In light of this, I renew my challenge for any designer to use the NRC fault tree handbook and demonstrate that a “smart gun” is as reliable as any other.  If he can do that, I’ll pour ketchup on my hard hat and eat it.

Tag: Smart Guns

The Firearm Blog:

The US Army has released a solicitation for a new 7.62mm infantry rifle to replace the M4. The Interim Combat Service Rifle program, known to be in the works since April of this year, would replace M4 Carbines in use with combat units with a new weapon in the 7.62x51mm caliber. The new solicitation requires companies to submit 7 weapons plus ancillaries for testing, and includes the promise of up to 8 Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs, non-contract transactions), leading to the eventual selection of 1 weapon for a contract of 50,000 units.

The primary justification for the ICSR program are improved ceramic body armors that are resistant to existing forms of small arms ammunition. The logic goes that the Army’s new 5.56mm M855A1 roundcannot penetrate these new armors, and therefore the service must switch to a new round. However, this is misleading, as current 7.62mm M80A1 is incapable of penetrating these body armors either – and specialty tungsten cored ammunition in both 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibers are capable of penetrating armor of this type. The US Army seems to be banking on its yet-undescribed XM1158 ADVAP round to bridge this gap – however Chief Milley himself admitted in testimony to Congress that the ADVAP’s design could be applied to either 7.62mm or 5.56mm ammunition.

So the bolt action sniper rifles aren’t good enough.  They want a semi-automatic in 7.62mm (presumably the NATO round).  And also presumably so that the standard soldier can be as incompetent shooting 7.62mm as she is shooting 5.56mm, while she also has to carry more weight.  Sounds like a plan to me.

Or the Army could actually teach their soldiers to shoot 5.56mm with proper fire control and using fire and maneuver small unit combat tactics, techniques and procedures, sort of like they’re supposed to.  That way, they could let the designated marksmen shoot the long range shots while they conserve their ammunition for a protracted engagement.  Oh, that’s right.  I forgot.  The Army doesn’t have designated marksmen – the Corps does.

A new cartridge and/or a new gun can’t do what poor doctrine doesn’t do.

The Southside Trail Loop in Croft State Park runs up the side of a mountain in one direction, and along a river in the other, and which part you do first depends on whether you go clockwise or counterclockwise.  The uphill is strenuous to the point of being grueling, and the downhill part is very fast and technical.  The total loop is about nine miles, but it feels like fifteen.

Along the river there is some relatively flat terrain in an old growth forest that is absolutely enchanting.

As I posted, I recently made a hiking trip to Mount Mitchell State Park with my son Joseph.  Along the way (during a visit to a store to pick up some souvenirs for my son’s friend), I saw this sign.

“Firearms and lethal weapons are prohibited except by permit.”  Now, this causes a whole host of problems, and so let’s begin our discussion.

First of all, North Carolina is a traditional open carry state, and there is nothing in any statute that excepts the state parks as being areas where one cannot open carry or stipulates the manner of carry, whether a handgun or long gun (rifle or shotgun).  Furthermore, hunters carry firearms into the park all the time, hunting mostly for black bear during the summer and fall.

This all caused me to research the regulations, or at least, the publicly available statements by the park service, concerning firearms in North Carolina state parks.  I landed on this web site, where we read the following concerning firearms.

Firearms and other weapons are prohibited except that those with a proper permit may possess a concealed handgun in permitted areas and under the requirements of North Carolina G.S. 14-415.11. All firearms and weapons are prohibited in state park visitor centers and park offices.

This makes it sound as if firearms are prohibited unless they are concealed, since it is only under those conditions that a permit is legally required.  In other words, it appears that this statement on the park web site is a spurious prohibition of open carry in contravention of state law (which does not speak to the issue of open carry, and simple carry of a handgun in a holster has never been considered carrying a weapon “to the terror of the public” or brandishing a weapon).

The statute to which this statement refers (North Carolina G.S. 14-415.11) simply makes it clear that “Any person who has a concealed handgun permit may carry a concealed handgun on the grounds or waters of a park within the State Parks System as defined in G.S. 143B-135.44.”  It says nothing about prohibition of open carry, in parks or anywhere else.  Nor does any other North Carolina statute speak to the issue of open carry.

So this leaves us with only two apparent options for interpretation of the signage and the statement on the park web site.  The first option is that it is intended to be an end run around the legislature who has not spoken to the issue of open carry in state parks, or anywhere else for that matter.  The state park service is making up their own laws.

The second option is that this signage is a mistake, but even more than that, contains material false information and is therefore unlawful due to its false and misleading information.  Frankly, either option means that the park service is behaving in an unlawful manner, where they are making up their own laws, or simply communicating material false information to park visitors.

Which is it, and is the park service aware of their unlawful behavior on this issue?

KTVU.com:

A video showing the interaction between a Campbell police officer and two citizens during a traffic stop on Highway 101 is circulating on Facebook.

The video, filmed by the driver, is a little over nine minutes long and shows an officer pointing his gun at the passenger.

The passenger repeatedly asks the officer to stop pointing his gun, saying his hands are clearly visibly and he is complying with the officers orders.

The officer continues to point his gun into the car as he calls for backup.

According to Campbell Police, the vehicle was pulled over for speeding. The officer asked the driver for her license and additional paperwork. Police say the driver and passenger spent several minutes looking for the paperwork, when the passenger began reaching under his seat. That’s when the officer perceived a threat and withdrew his gun.

“We understand that it is never a comfortable position to have a gun pointed at you, regardless of whether it is a police officer. Unfortunately, the length of time that the officer’s gun was drawn lasted much longer than normal based on his location. If this same situation would have occurred closer to back-up officers, it would most likely have been resolved much sooner,” Campbell Police Public Information officer Gary Berg said in a statement.

Both the driver and the passenger were issued citations and were allowed to leave.

Watch the video.  Hahahahaha … that’s funny.  I hate it when that happens to me.

I remember the last time I pointed one of my guns at someone because I didn’t know what they were doing.  It was in a grocery store parking lot and two guys were standing around talking.  I didn’t really know what was going on.  For all I knew, they were making plans to go into the store and shoot up the place.

So I called my neighbor for backup, and he also pointed a gun at the two men until we found out they were talking about grilling out that weekend.  No harm, no foul.  They called the cops on me, but I told the cops that I just didn’t know what was going on and it was better to be safe than sorry.

He understood.  He told me I had as many rights as he did, and he would have done the same thing.

Andrew Doran:

For their part, those fighting for ISIS — Saudis, Chechens, Afghans, French, Turks, Pakistanis, Germans, and Americans, among others — are under no illusions that they are in the last days of the geographical caliphate. The coalition hope was to kill every member of ISIS in Mosul and Raqqa, to prevent them from returning to their countries to carry out attacks. It is certain, however, that many have already escaped. One sees many bearded young men among the caravans of refugees of fleeing Mosul and Raqqa.

The ISIS fighters who don’t blow themselves up in suicide bombings may fight to the death. Or they may try to return to their countries of origin to carry out lone-wolf — or perhaps coordinated — attacks. The latter would be in keeping with the spirit of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the true founder and visionary of ISIS. Zarqawi carried out such attacks with lethal efficiency in Iraq — against defenseless civilians in public places, including houses of worship and even elementary schools. These forms of terrorism have already become somewhat commonplace in the Western world and are certain to increase in the months and years ahead.

[ … ]

The next morning, ISIS breaks through and attacks an Arab position to the northeast, killing four. A suicide blast rocks a Syriac unit atop a roof overlooking a vast urban no-man’s-land. From their rooftop position, Christian and “Paul,” another American volunteer, swing into action with two soldiers, one Arab and the other Syriac. The exchanges last perhaps 30 minutes. Christian and Paul lay down machine-gun and small-arms fire, bringing the morning’s fight to a conclusion with Christian firing a rocket-propelled grenade into an ISIS position. “In the Marine Corps, we call that fire superiority,” says Christian. “It works.”

“We make progress during the day, but there are snipers,” says “Kino,”one of the Syriac commanders and its spokesman. “We have to be careful also of IEDs and snipers. They also use drones.” ISIS drones are a daily occurrence. “I think each drone carries four bombs. It’s a very effective weapon for them. Once they’re overhead, no one can move.” The drone improvisation is unexpected and probably has been effective in slowing the SDF advance. ISIS appears to have no shortage of drones. One of them, a reconnaissance drone, was made in Simi Valley, Calif. “I’m guessing they got this from the Iraqi army,” says Paul, who serves as both soldier and medic.

“Christian” and “Paul.”  I like their choice of Nom de Guerre.  And I respect what they are doing.  These are brave men, and the article is deadly accurate.  Islamic violence is going to increase, not decrease, and it’s going to do so not only in Eurasia, the U.K. and across the Middle and Far East, but in CONUS as well.  Count on it.

Are you ready?  Have you “gunned up” yet?  Do you avoid crowds?  Do you stay in good physical shape?  Have you stocked your gun safe with ammunition yet?  If you are a sleepy, lazy Christian who expects to be pulled out of the festivities with the ridiculous “rapture,” what are you going to do when young Muslims rape your daughter because she isn’t wearing a hijab?  You realize that by believing in the rapture you believe that God is only going to save American Christians, don’t you?

How arrogant is that?  God allowed His people to suffer and become slaughtered in Mesopotamia at the hands of ISIS, in Egypt at the hands of Islamists (i.e., the Coptic Christians), in Turkey at the hands of the Islamists (i.e., the Armenians) and on and on we could go.  But God is going to spare you because American Christians are special.  Or something.

I have a right to say these things to you, if you are a Christian, since I am one of you, except that I don’t believe in your rapture.  And you have a responsibility to act when you can, and that “when you can” is right now, not later.  As for ISIS getting their drones from the Iraqi Army, perhaps, but remember that “patriot” John McCain demanded that we fund them with weapons, and so we did.  And remember that McCain and Lindsey Graham have oil plays in North Africa.

The “them” I’m talking about is addressed in the article at NRO.

“The U.S. was going to arm us [the Syriac Military Council] in 2015, but they went with the FSA instead,” says one of the Syriac commanders. That the Free Syrian Army turned out to be little more than Islamist militias, and that the U.S.-government program was nothing short of disastrous, is now well documented. The Syrian Democratic Forces, especially units like the Syriac Military Council, are much closer to what the FSA duped gullible Westerners into thinking that it was.

The Westerners weren’t gullible, and no one was duped.  George Soros, DynCorp, the Obama administration and McCain always intended to arm ISIS.  The U.S. created ISIS by intent, not by accident.

Similarly, population replacement is the order of the day in the U.K., and the LEOs have all been brainwashed and coopted into the project.  If you don’t believe this is headed to America, you are asleep at the wheel careening for the cliff.

Via Dave Hardy, this analysis comes from Joseph Blocher.

Second Amendment battles after Heller have generally been fought along two dimensions: the scope of the Amendment’s coverage, and the degree of protection it accords to the people, arms, and activities that it covers. In important respects, the panel decision in Wrenn departs from most other circuits on both of those dimensions.

Courts have overwhelmingly held or, or at least assumed, that the Second Amendment has some application outside the home. The panel decision follows that trend. Even Judge Karen Henderson’s dissenting opinion assumes that the right to keep and bear arms extends outside the home.

From there, however, the panel opinion breaks new ground, concluding that Second Amendment must have the same application outside the home as it does inside it. The majority reaches this conclusion based largely on its belief that the rights to “keep” and “bear” are “Constitutional twin[s],” and exist “on par.” Because they are both fundamental, the court treats the right to bear arms outside the home nearly identically to the right to keep arms inside it, despite the fact that Heller said the right to armed self defense is “most acute” in the home and weapons have always been regulated more strictly in public, especially in urban areas.

This doctrinal conclusion will surely be contested.  But even if the two rights are separate and fundamental, it does not follow as a matter of law that they must be subject to the same doctrinal tests. The constitution protects lots of fundamental rights, but uses a wide range of legal tests: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, undue burdens, and the like.

What’s most striking about the panel opinion, however, is the short shrift it gives to the governmental interest in regulation. The motion at issue sought a preliminary injunction, but the panel remanded with instructions to enter permanent injunctions against the proper reason restriction “regardless of its precise benefits.” To find a law—which, again, was nota complete ban—categorically unconstitutional without even considering the government’s asserted interest, is a remarkable step.

The panel’s refusal to permit evidence on the constitutionality of the law makes it impossible to actually answer the questions that the panel opinion itself raises: Whether DC residents retain adequate alternative methods of self-defense, for example. An affirmative answer to that question would support the law’s constitutionality, but would require some consideration of evidence.

More fundamentally, the panel’s approach threatens to inexorably expand Second Amendment rights, erasing at each step the qualifications built into the step before. Heller itself was deeply conflicted about how to incorporate the history of gun regulation, and the historical evidence about the extent of that regulation has only grown since then—a fact that should be particularly important to those who care about original public meaning. Likewise, courts before Heller upheld a wide variety of gun regulations, on a wide range of theories. The panel opinion, however, disregards a great many such cases on the basis that they were decided at a time (i.e., prior to 2008) when the overwhelming constitutional consensus was that the Second Amendment did not protect a right to keep and bear arms for private purposes.

Read the rest of his insightful analysis.

I’ve always said that Heller was a weak decision in that it didn’t fully recognize the right of self defense outside the home, and have said so many times.  Perhaps it’s all Scalia could get out of the majority in his Heller decision.

Either way, the appeals court is doing the heavy lifting for the now-deceased Scalia.  It’s almost like they read the part about “shall not be infringed,” yes?

The Washington Times:

Two armed home invaders entered a Harris County, Texas, home on Monday, but only one lived to talk about it.

Thomas Gilliland of Harris County Sheriff’s Office told reporters this week that a 60-year-old woman exercised her Second Amendment rights to fend off two men. One of the suspects collapsed and died in her front yard shortly after 11:30 a.m. local time.

“It’s the state of Texas — if you’re going to go into someone’s home, you’re going to get shot,” neighbor Cathy Hanks told a local CBS affiliate. “That’s really how we are. That’s just Texas.”

The unidentified suspect who got away was wearing dark clothing and visible red underwear, the station reported. The victim, whose name was not publicized, said he appeared to be around 20-years-old.

“Both were armed with pistols. She confronted both suspects,” said Mr. Gilliland added.

One firearm was found next to the dead suspect’s body.

There must be some mistake.  This is impossible.  It’s impossible to own a gun and actually be safer because of it.  Er … it’s impossible to defend your life without all of that Ninja warrior stress control training.  Er … it’s impossible for old people to defend their lives with a gun.  Er … a gun makes you statistically less safe.

I just can’t believe this.  You mean she was able to do this without going to classes taught by former SpecOps on CQB and room clearing TTPs?

As for the progs among us, they would rather the woman have been raped and killed than to use a gun to defend herself.

New York Upstate:

TABERG, NY – Don Hall was sitting in his living room watching TV with his girlfriend about 9:30 p.m. earlier this year when he was startled by flashing police car lights in his driveway.

Hall met the Oneida County sheriff’s deputies in the driveway, worried that they were bringing bad news about a family member.

Instead, the deputies produced an official document demanding that Hall, a 70-year-old Vietnam veteran who is a retired pipefitter, turn over his guns to them on the spot. On the document Hall said he was described as “mentally defective.”

When Hall told police he’d never had any mental issues, Hall said, deputies told him he must have done something that triggered the order under the New York state’s SAFE Act.

The deputies left that night with six guns – two handguns and four long guns.

Hall, who lives in the Oneida County hamlet of Taberg, hired a lawyer and secured affidavits from local hospitals to prove he hadn’t been recently treated. At one point, he was told he’d have to get some of his guns back from a gun shop.

Eventually, his lawyer convinced a judge that authorities had him confused with someone else who had sought care and that his weapons should never have been seized.

To this day, no one at a hospital or the state and local agencies involved in taking Hall’s guns has admitted to Hall that a mistake was made, explained what happened or apologized. A county judge did acknowledge the mistake and helped him get his guns back.

Hall said the ordeal was frustrating.

“I was guilty until I could prove myself innocent,” Hall said. “They don’t tell you why or what you supposedly did. It was just a bad screw-up.”

Under what legal authority Hall’s guns were confiscated is in disagreement.

Hall and his lawyer said they are convinced his guns were taken as a result of a report under the NY SAFE Act. The New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act was adopted in 2013 after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newton, Conn.

The law includes, among other things, a provision for health providers to report patients that they believe are a risk to harm others or themselves.

The state Office of Mental Health, however, found Hall’s case was reported through a system set up by the federal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, said James Plastiras, a spokesman for the state mental health office. That law, adopted in 1993, is named after James Brady, who was shot by John Hinckley Jr. during an attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

The federal law includes a provision that requires a hospital or medical facility to report anyone who is involuntarily committed or has been ruled mentally defective by a court or similar legal body.

A hospital reported to the state Office of Mental Health that a person had been involuntarily admitted to a mental facility, Plastiras said. That information was passed onto the FBI for inclusion on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, he said.

[ … ]

Once the state Office of Mental Health is alerted through either law, the staff checks records held by the state Department of Criminal Justice Services to see if the person has any guns.

Any matches go to the state police to verify that the identity of the person matches the identity of the gun owner. Once confirmed, the state police takes the case to a local judge who issues an order to confiscate the person’s weapons. Local police usually are dispatched to confiscate the weapons.

One thing the state and Hall and his lawyer agree on is the misidentification that lead to Hall’s guns being seized appears to have started when Hall was confused with some other patient at risk.

The day after Hall’s guns were seized in February, he called the gun licensing office in Oneida County. When he told them his guns were wrongly taken, he was told he could attend a hearing in a few weeks.

Instead, Hall called lawyer John Panzone, who advised him to get depositions from every local hospital stating he had not recently been treated. Panzone hoped the affidavits would prove Hall couldn’t be the person initially reported to be at risk.

Hall said he and his girlfriend, Connie Heidenreich, spent the next day visiting three Utica-area hospitals to get the statements.

Hall said the only time he had been a patient at any of the hospitals was four years ago when he had a sleep apnea test at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital.

At St. Elizabeth’s, Hall said a clerk looked up his name and read him a Social Security number. He said it was slightly different than his. “She turned white as a ghost,” Hall recalled.

Panzone believes another patient from Oneida County with Hall’s name was treated at the hospital and flagged for a mental health issue. Somehow that man’s Social Security number got mixed up with Hall’s, thus creating the error, the lawyer said.

The YouTube video of this report can be found here.

First of all, I don’t want to hear another word about how oath-taking LEOs will respect the constitution and refuse to obey unconstitutional orders.  The confiscation order was clearly unconstitutional and immoral and yet the LEOs enforced it upon command.

Second, I don’t care that the person who made the screw-up was a hospital employee.  She was an organ of the state when she made the reporting, and if I had that job I would resign.  When you do things like this you are in effect a government employee.

Third, consider what has happened in this report.  A man who is a war veteran had his weapons confiscated because someone submitted his name as having an admission to a local hospital for a mental malady.  Now listen closely.  Even if this was correct (and we know from the facts of the case that it wasn’t), we’ve already demonstrated conclusively from the reports of mental health professionals that mental illness has no relationship to propensity for violence, and that violent behavior cannot be predicted by mental health professionals because of this.

The case is closed.  There is no longer any debate on this issue.  Moreover, we know from scientific studies that limiting access to firearms of the mentally ill does not reduce suicide deaths.  For some progressives who simply want to worship the totem pole of mental health and behavioristic psychology, and who are well intentioned, they refuse to listen to the science behind their incorrect perceptions of the world.  They want to bow down and worship at the altar of the local witch doctor, or the psychiatrist, as if he knows how to make everything better.

But for most people, they know better than to believe that violence is related to illness rather than moral maladies and evil, and yet they throw out the red herring of mental illness anyway in order to cover over their real intentions, which is yet another gun control and confiscatory scheme.

That’s what happened here.  The SAFE act is anything but safe, because it protects no one and places peaceable, law abiding men in harm’s way.  But there are hundreds like it around the country, where guns cannot be purchased unless LEOs sign off on forms that include mental health information, or send out confiscation orders upon command from their superiors over anything from family problems to alleged abuse by some pissed off spouse.

Those LEOs will confiscate guns just like the LEOs in this report.  Don’t doubt it for one minute.  Be prepared.  And if you believe in God, family and the second amendment, and especially that the second amendment is about amelioration of tyranny, you are in danger of being judged mentally incompetent.  There are thousands of Soldiers and Marines who served faithfully who are in the NICS today because someone said they have PTSD.

Finally, note that every time the government – local, state or federal – involves themselves in a program, they are a fuck-up.  They cannot get anything right, except for running a military, and most of the time they don’t even do that well.  A lot of bad men make it to staff and flag officer level, and if you think we have thinking men running the show at the Pentagon, take a look at the two campaigns of “armed social science” we had in Iraq and Afghanistan, believing that we could force Muslims to accept liberty and freedom with COIN tactics, men who love tyranny and the yoke of oppression more than life itself.

And the progressives want to put the government more fully in charge of your health care.  Think about that for a moment.  Let that wash over you.  Incompetent fools and clowns like the ones described above want to make decisions on health care for your families.

My son Joseph was home from Austin, Texas, for the week.  It was an active week, including hiking Mount Mitchell.  We were socked in during the hike in.

On the way out it was a hard driving storm, with the trail turned into a treacherous river.

The weather was beautiful today, and I biked Lake James State Park mountain trails.  These two trees give about two inches of clearance on each side for handlebars.

Of course, that’s just about true of the entire Wimba trail with its undulations, turns and switchbacks.  You’d better aim true and hit your marks, or you’re liable to get hurt.