Articles by Herschel Smith

Tim Lynch responds to my post on the overuse of special operations and special forces.  His post is entitled Special Forces are not the answer.  Here’s a taste.

What you are looking at is an SF A team commander who is wearing his body armor over a cut off tee shit. He is going into a village he doesn’t know searching for an alleged high value target (HVT) who is known to these soldiers as ‘Red Beard’. He is operating in Khost province where every village elder dies his beard with henna; which is red….are you getting the picture?

The only way you could offend Afghans more than showing up bare chested and forcing your way into their compounds is to walk around naked. The level of cultural tone deafness on display (from an SF guy who is supposed to understand the culture) in the linked video is beyond my ability to explain. If I had showed up in any Afghan village (especially a remote mountain village) without wearing a long sleeved shirt and long trousers I would have never returned. Failure to respect the local culture is the first step in mission failure and SOF guys like this one have a 16 year (and counting) run of mission failure.

[ … ]

Want to know something our ‘elite’ SF guys don’t seem to know? Afghans don’t cuss. To call an Afghan a motherfucker (a word used frequently in every conversation by the American military) is a grave insult that would, in the local context, need to be atoned by blood. I cannot stress this point enough and if, during my frequent forays into the tribal bad lands, I used that word even in jest I would have been killed long ago. One of the secrets that I and my fellow outside the wire expats use in the contested areas is respect for local culture coupled with big confident smiles;  that’s why we are able to do what every USG expert contends cannot be done.

When I said these things it was just me saying these things.  When Tim says these things it means that man who is the longest lasting English speaking man alive in Afghanistan (more than a decade) says these things.  It means it comes with authority – authority I simply cannot give this subject.

After sending this link to a military reader who deployed in Afghanistan, he responded this way.

So imagine an unarmored SUV with a 40mm grenade launder mounted on Pedestal and the gunners chair was a red velvet arm chair, crewed by a bearded buffoon who looked like a bad extra from a Spaghetti western. Furthermore, their fearless leader refused to sync ECMs, so our more advanced systems would negate their “SOF” equipment, so no one had coverage.

After these many years, the U.S. still doesn’t have a clue how to wage small wars or counterinsurgency.  Still.  How sad.  And after all of these years, SO and SF are still an entitled group who thinks that only they are capable of DA raids.  So all of that bluster by gun controller Stanley McChrystal was just bull shit.

As for Tim, he has tried to raise the money to embed back in Afghanistan.  He sent me a note and thought I didn’t know that, but I follow Tim religiously.  I knew it but had not said anything because I don’t want him to go.

Considering his time in the Marine Corps along with his decade in Afghanistan, Tim knows enough to be a five star military reporter, security analyst or consultant to the military or security contractors (please don’t ever work for DynCorps, Tim) without ever going back to Afghanistan.  I don’t want Tim to get killed because I care about him.

Guns.com:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via Codrea, Gottlieb outs himself again.

“Like it or not,” Gottlieb observed, “the Courts have the final say whether you have gun rights or not.”

You can also read a related discussion thread at reddit/r/firearms.  Here is the problem.  The courts don’t have the final say on whether we have gun rights.  I appreciate that we need good judges in position, but only because we want to be peaceable men if possible.

Even if my rights aren’t observed by society, they still exist.  This is Alan’s moral malfunction.  He reflexively turns to the state for disposition of God-given rights, which I’m sure is why he has shown himself so willing to compromise in the past.

It’s pagan and statist thinking that turns to the state for cradle to grave security and for a delineation and protection of our rights.  I’ve explained this before – our rights come from God Himself, the Almighty king of heaven and earth, the maker of the universe, the one who determines what He will do with the clay vessels he creates, the only potentate and sovereign.

The constitution is a covenant by which men have agreed to live together.  We derive our authority to bear arms from God, in whose image we are made, and who Himself made war when necessary, and thus we are to protect that image.  This is His immutable law.  If the covenant within which we live does not reflect God’s laws, it is an abomination and dishonors God.  It is null and void.  Second, to the extent that it does, when we fail to live within the framework of that covenant it is null and void.  Therefore, if the government breaks covenant with the people, the government has declared itself null and void before God.

A man-made document can never … never … establish rights.  It can only recognize what has already been established by the almighty.  God grants men the right to self defense, as well as the right to enter into covenant with a government, that covenant having blessings as well as curses, just like the covenant of marriage comes with blessings and curses (e.g., divorce in the case of infidelity, which recognizes that the covenant has been broken and is null and void, cursing the one who broke it).  Self defense properly interpreted means not only personal defense from evildoers who would cause him or his family harm, but self defense from a tyrannical government.

Gottlieb couldn’t have been more wrong.  Judges are important for the opposite reason he boasts.  They are important in that they have a duty before God almighty and His laws and to honor the covenant we have made.  They don’t get to make decisions concerning whether such rights exist.  Their purview comes with duties and responsibilities, not the freedom to be cavalier, insolent or capricious.  Theirs is a terrible responsibility and they should justly fear God.  When it comes to the rights of men to defend themselves, there is only one decision of which God approves.

Psalm 2 says “The kings of the earth shall take their stand, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed … He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them” (2-3).  Isaiah 6 describes what happens when men meet God face to face.

In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. ² Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. ³ And one called out to another and said,“Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.”  And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke. ⁵ Then I said “Woe is me, for I am ruined!

To be sure, there are wicked rulers and judges, and all gun control is wickedness conducted by men bent upon evil.  Resisting them is not only acceptable, but expected and even commanded.  I’ve even demonstrated that when Jesus commanded his disciples to sell their robe and buy a sword, he was quite literally commanding them to arm themselves in violation of the law.  He was commanding them to become law breakers in order to effect self defense.  That’s how seriously God takes this issue.

The position of judge and ruler is a terrible position because they will answer before God for what they do, and if they push it far enough, they may answer before men in time and space before they ever get to God.  But always remember, if you are a ruler or judge who happens to be reading this.  The King of Kings and Lord of Lords is watching you and will judge with a righteous judgment.  There is no escape from His laws or the day of judgment, and no fealty to a document, interpretation, or political bias will be allowed as excuse or justification for your high handed sin against God.

The Daily Caller:

Gun control activists who previously worked for Watts in various state organizations are said to be frustrated and feeling burned by her, according to one source.

“Staff who worked for Shannon quit or are fired faster than the organization can replace them. She’s a nightmare,” the source told TheDC.

Another source close to the organization said in a written statement, “Two beliefs unite nearly all gun control supporters: background checks save lives, and Shannon Watts is a self-promoting tyrant.”

Well congratulations!  That’s just how all sincere, thinking gun owners feel about you gun controllers.  You’re a bunch of self-promoting, tyrannical control freaks.  See how it feels?

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit says “Thanks, NSA,” for this.

My oldest son Josh, who is the web developer and programmer, says this.

We can all thank the NSA, again, for today.

The next time you hear horse shit about how the NSA is protecting you, remember today.

Congress needs to stop wasting our time doing NOTHING AT ALL, find their balls again, and summon the NSA head and whoever the hell reports to him and the guys who reports to that guy and make them answer for what they’ve done.

Their actions were already crippling our IT industry in foreign markets because no one wants to buy shit from us. Now their actions are literally crippling banks and hospitals.

The republicans are a joke. They have all three branches of government, a majority of state governors, and a favorable Supreme Court. They still aren’t doing anything. Nothing.

Oh, I think they’re doing what comes natural.  It’s full steam ahead for the spy state.  It doesn’t matter that it all violates the constitution, that covenant by which we are all supposed to be bound.  No, the only thing that matters is stability operations, and this is a big part of it.

The NSA is conducting warfare, and this is part of it.  That warfare is designed to be applied across the board, regardless of whether the target is a U.S. citizen.  The system is designed to conduct warfare on U.S. citizens.  You understand that, right?

David Codrea:

For instance, in Haynes v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled a felon could not be required to register a gun because that would violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Is requiring a person to submit to the background check and then prosecuting him if he fails equivalent? Especially if he doesn’t realize he’s “prohibited”? (Hey, it’s happened, and Neil Gorsuch said knowledge was necessary.)

And what about “false positives”?

[ … ]

Noting NRA’s penchant for the “law and order/enforce existing gun laws” mantra, what about this reporting bill did they craft and/or signal a green light for …

Good questions all around, but I’m not sure that the state cares, nor the NRA, frankly.  As for false positives, I work in an industry where I am randomly drug tested under the “fitness for duty” policy.  False positives happen.  I’ve seen them before among coworkers.  I feel certain that a plan like David describes is even much more susceptible than the one I’m under.

U.S. News:

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The sheriff in a rural southeastern Utah county was charged Friday with threatening an employee in 2015 with a rifle, failing to properly carry out an investigation of the incident and then firing the staffer in retaliation. Two of his deputies were also charged.

San Juan County Sheriff Richard Eldredge was charged with one count of felony witness retaliation and three misdemeanors: official misconduct, reckless endangerment and obstruction of justice, the Utah Attorney General’s Office said in a news release.

Chief Deputy Alan Freestone, who ran an internal investigation state prosecutors allege was fraught with missteps, is charged with one count of felony witness retaliation and two misdemeanors: obstruction of justice and official misconduct.

Gosh, I hate it when that happens to me.  I like to point rifles at people all the time and pull the trigger just to see the reaction on their faces.  Most of the time the rifle is unloaded and not cocked.

Hahahahaha … it’s really funny.  Just being boys, they were.  Too bad the dude had to take it so seriously, losing his job over something silly like this.  Hey, just be cool and let boys be boys.  Why do you have a problem with rifles being pointed at you, dude?

At reddit/r/firearms there is an interesting discussion thread about the single worst firearm you’ve ever owned, and why?

Remington, Hi Point and Taurus play big in this thread.  What firearm would you put in that category?  What is the single worst firearm you’ve ever owned, and why?

Rich Simpson:

While not a panacea, reloading can give you a temporary hedge on politically driven market shortages by allowing you to build up an adequate store of ammunition while the components are readily available and still reasonably priced. Second Point: On a more personal level, I absolutely love the fact that reloading gives me the ability to custom tailor ammunition for each of my firearms, thereby maximizing the performance and versatility of every firearm in my collection.

I’ve never been a reloader, but there are advantages to it if you know how, including a level of QA likely not brought to the task by factory loads.  Then again, Massad Ayoob has a warning for you concerning handgun ammunition.

For years, I’ve warned people that there are a couple of serious concerns with using handloaded ammunition for personal or home defense.  The big one is forensic replicability when the shooter is accused, and opposing theories of distance become a factor.

How often does this happen? One time some years ago, that question came up on an internet debate.  I looked through the ten cases I had pending at the time as an expert witness, and gunshot residue (GSR) testing to determine distance from gun muzzle to the person shot was an issue in four of them.  Forty percent is not what I’d call statistically insignificant.

[ … ]

… if you have any friends who use handloads for serious social purposes, please share. You might just save them from the sort of nightmare suffered by the defendant in New Jersey v. Daniel Bias, who was bankrupted by legal fees before the first of his three trials was over, and wound up serving hard time.  Both of his attorneys were convinced he was innocent, and told me they believed that if he had simply had factory ammo in his home defense gun, the case would probably never have even gone to trial.

Remember that if you ever have to shoot in self defense, the entirety of the legal system – witnesses, judges, juries, police and prosecutors – is stacked squarely against you.  Do you need anything else in that stack?

Guy Relford writing at WIBC.com:

On Monday, the Indiana Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Thomas Pinner v. State, which addresses the issue of whether police officers may detain and question a person based only on a report that the individual has a gun.  In agreeing with the Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision handed down last August, the Supreme Court ruled that officers violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures when they detained and questioned Thomas Pinner after a taxi driver called 911 to report that Pinner had dropped a handgun when exiting a cab at a movie theater.

Under rules announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1968 case of Terry v. Ohio, a police officer may briefly detain and question a person if the officer has a “reasonable articulable suspicion” that the person is engaged in criminal activity (or in the words of SCOTUS, “that criminal activity is afoot”).  If the officer also has a reasonable suspicion that the person “may be armed and dangerous,” the officer may conduct a brief pat-down of the person’s outer clothing to check for weapons.  Together, this process is called “stop and frisk” or a “Terry stop.”

Before the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday, there has been a long-standing debate in Indiana.  On one side, many police officers and prosecutors have argued that a Terry stop is justified based on a report that a person is carrying a gun – or an officer’s own observation that the person has a handgun – because the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is carrying a handgun illegally until the officer confirms that the person has a handgun license.  On the other hand, defense attorneys and Second Amendment advocates have countered that the mere possession of a handgun, without some additional indication that such possession is illegal, does not justify the detention of the individual to investigate – much like police are not allowed to randomly stop vehicles to confirm that a motorist has a driver’s license.

In the opinion handed down last August by the Indiana Court of Appeals (and written by highly-regarded Judge Melissa May), Indiana resolved that issue for the time being by holding that “the mere possession of a handgun, which is legal, cannot produce reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry Stop.”  The court went on to state that “the State has not directed us to a reason why the police believed when they stopped Pinner that his possession of the gun was illegal, nor has the State asserted any other criminal activity was ‘afoot.’  Accordingly, we are constrained to hold the stop of Pinner was not supported by reasonable suspicion.”  Thus, without a basis to believe that Pinner was carrying a handgun without a license – or engaged in some other illegal activity – detaining Pinner to investigate his possession of a gun violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment.

In Monday’s opinion, the Supreme Court wholly agreed with Judge May’s analysis.  Specifically, the court ruled that a police officer, based only on a tip that a person possesses a handgun, may not detain that person to confirm that he has a license to carry …

[ … ]

Said the ruling:

“The United States Supreme Court has previously declared that law enforcement may not arbitrarily detain an individual to ensure compliance with licensing and registration laws without particularized facts supporting an inference of illegal conduct. See Prouse, 440 U.S. at 663 (‘hold[ing] that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment’). In like fashion, we decline to endorse such behavior to ensure compliance with Indiana’s gun licensing laws.” 

This case is actually similar to the case of Nathanial Black decided by the Fourth Circuit.

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

Like Indiana, North Carolina is an open carry state.  Simply openly carrying a gun isn’t grounds for detention.  It must be a so-called “Terry Stop,” and openly carrying a weapon, since it is entirely within the law, isn’t justifiable reason to detain an individual.

The Indiana Supreme Court got this right.  I’ve argued similarly against the new open carry law in Texas, pointing out that “… licensed open carry in a state with no stop and identify statute for enforcement is a shooting-by-cop waiting to happen.  And I certainly don’t support empowering the police state any more by giving them a stop and identify statute.  That would be making something bad even worse.”  As stops must be Terry Stops, and since Texas has no stop and identify statute, and shouldn’t because they are unconstitutional (despite what the courts have said), LEOs in Texas are left with no direction concerning open carriers.

I don’t want LEOs in Texas to be given more direction, any more than I want that for LEOs in Indiana.  I advocate simple observation of God-given rights, and living by the covenant to which we are all obliged, i.e., the constitution.