Articles by Herschel Smith

Yes, just like Google (who owns YouTube), Twitter, Disqus, the MSM, college professors, corporate leadership and just about everybody else in power.  Next question.

David Codrea:

Then, one idea I haven’t seen explored (beyond me suggesting it) is to use “the enemy’s” own tactics against him. The small “l” libertarian in me says social media giants are private enterprises, and if we don’t like the way they operate, we should go our separate ways. That does not account for the tremendous influence these corporations have on government actions and policies, which introduces coercive potential into the voluntary associations.

I think this is the best approach.  It’s what I have attempted to do with Disqus comments.  If readers will notice, I’ve dumped Disqus and gone back to something simpler.  For a test period we had something like it with responses, but we’ve hopefully got something similar or better in the works.

Transitioning away from things like this isn’t easy.  We’ve also transferred web hosts from Media Temple to another, because Media Temple had started to gouge me on prices.  Why did they do that?  I don’t know.  I also know that my problems with Disqus left the theoretical and entered the practical when they moderated a commenter’s comment and I couldn’t approve it.  It didn’t show up in the comments, but I saw it as site owner, although in Disqus there was nothing to approve.  Disqus left it impossible for me to approve the comment.

I don’t use Facebook and have no account, and don’t do Twitter.  Perhaps that’s one of the reasons for low visits compared to similar blogs (“yea, blame it on social media rather than your own writing you putz” – the couch).  Either way, until we begin to divorce ourselves from the censoring censors, they will keep censoring us.

And before I forget it, I share David’s dislike of The Firearm Blog’s claim that it’s not politics, only guns.  Sure it is.  I’ve seen exceptions to that rule, and they make them when it’s convenient.  They ought to defenestrate the entire rule and blog on whatever they want.  This is only going to get worse with time.  Be prepared for more censorship with the ever increasing war on guns and traditional culture.

Regarding Cops Given Pass For Shooting Innocent Man In His Own Home, a reader wrote in an corrected me concerning a word in the post.  I faithfully reproduced the sections of Bob Unruh’s article, and correctly discussed the Lake County Police and their actions, right up until I confused the issue with Lake City Police, which is something entirely different.  I have corrected the original post.  I regret the error.

The State:

Impassioned pleas by legislators from both sides of the aisle failed to stop a majority of House members Wednesday from advancing a bill that allows for the carrying of firearms without a permit.

On a 64-46 vote, the S.C. House of Representatives passed the bill, which had been clouded in controversy over how it progressed through committee and allegations that Republicans stymied debate. It’ll head for the Senate after a perfunctory vote on Thursday.

“The legislative history of this bill is an embarrassment,” said Rep. James Smith, D-Richland, who repeatedly attempted to thwart a vote on the bill after Republicans invoked a procedural move that limited debate.

The bill calls for what proponents refer to as “constitutional carry,” or allowing those who can legally buy a firearm to carry a concealed weapon without having to obtain a permit.

It also allows for open carry, which grants weapons holders the ability to carry their firearms on their person for everyone to see. The law still would bar carrying a firearm while committing a crime.

Smith was not alone in trying to delay a vote. Several Republicans joined in, because they were against how the bill was advanced or didn’t like parts of the proposed law.

Rep. Gary Clary, R-Pickens, said he was against the bill because during his time as a judge and as a legislator, he has advocated for allowing all sides to have their say. Invoking a procedural vote to limit debate prevented that. He also said he just thinks “it’s a bad bill.”

[ … ]

Like Clary, Rep. Bill Crosby, R-Charleston, called the proposal a “bad bill.” He was against the portion that allows for open carry.

While dangling his concealed-weapons permit from his wallet, Crosby stressed he is “for guns” and the Second Amendment. He said he just didn’t think this change is needed.

“This bill doesn’t help the Second Amendment,” Crosby said. “All it does is it makes these good ol’ boys who like to have guns strapped to their hips not conceal them.”

Crosby said he is thankful for the Senate, which will probably kill the bill by having it languish in committee. Previous permit-less carry bills have suffered that fate in past years.

First of all, invoking a procedural stipulation that limits debate is a tried and true, well recognized procedure allowed by parliamentary rules.  Anyone who has worked under “Robert’s Rules of Order” knows that, and those complaining about closing debate also know that.  They’re making up their objection to closing debate.  It’s just a red herring.  Debate has to be closed at some point, and they just did it sooner rather than later.  It’s entirely possible under parliamentary procedure to have absolutely no debate at all.  The vote is what matters.

As for Crosby’s complaint that “All it does is it makes these good ol’ boys who like to have guns strapped to their hips not conceal them,” we may reply that all the current law does is make those boys have to conceal the guns they have on their hips for no good reason at all except that you want them to.  You like to conceal, others may not.  And your way doesn’t do anything at all for the second amendment.  Your way forces a rule on people who neither want it nor need it.  Our way undoes an unnecessary rule.  You’re the bad guy here, not us.  See how that works, Crosby?

If this does indeed die in the Senate like so many times in the past, then we’ll know who to go after for the next primary and election cycle.  You guys aren’t going to get away with the things you once did.  We’re watching very closely.  Ask former state senator Larry Martin if you don’t believe me.  Go ahead.  Ignore gun owners one more time.  Let’s make sure your name is written down in the memory of patriots everywhere across South Carolina.  We don’t forget.

As for the “journalist” who wrote all of this, Cynthia Roldán, take note that the only ones around her who can make “impassioned pleas” are those who oppose constitutional carry.  It’s as if there is weeping in the halls of power in Columbia over the awful things taking place, not just among Democrats, mind you, but from “both sides of the isle,” with the emotionless gun advocates impervious to the weeping.  And she managed to locate those Republicans who voted against this bill and turn it into quite a dramatic presentation, yes?

Actually, she did us a service.  Otherwise, how would you have know what a putz Crosby was?

Great Falls Tribune:

The House of Representatives gave preliminary approval Tuesday to a bill meant to preserve Montanans’ right to bear arms by prohibiting the enforcement of any federal ban on firearms.

Senate Bill 99 would establish the “Montana Federal Firearm, Magazine, and Ammunition Ban Enforcement Prohibition Act.” The bill passed out of the Senate in February on a 30-20 vote.

Republican Rep. Seth Berglee is carrying the bill in the House for Republican Sen. Cary Smith.

“We did add a couple of amendments to it to allow for federal assistance, as long as it is not for the primary purpose of prohibiting, restricting or requiring any of the federal bans,” Berglee said.

At the bill’s first hearing in the House, lobbyist for School Administrators of Montana Patrick Audet opposed the bill. He says the bill would allow firearms on school campuses.

“If an officer couldn’t enforce that law, that would be a problem. We would be opposed to that,” Audet said.

Kansas had a similar law called the Second Amendment Protection Act.  Two gentlemen then got caught up in the web of cowardice when one of them fabricated and sold a suppressor, and the other one bought it.  Both men were found guilty of violation of the NFA.  And what did the brave patriots in Kansas do about it?  They did nothing.

I warned future “patriots” about this sort of thing.

I’ve said before, don’t even consider something like nullification unless you’re willing to go the mattresses for your people.  The lawmakers could have handed the governor the tools to deal with the federal intrusion, and the governor could have had the balls to do it.

But none of this obtained, and the citizens suffered as a result.  Unless you’re willing to arrest federal agents who attempt to enforce these laws and throw them in the state penitentiary with the other prisoners, don’t even consider nullification.

Nullification laws made for show are immoral.  Nullification laws made for real are admirable, but states have to be willing to back it all up with force.

I see no difference between suppressors and any other kind of firearm or associated equipment.  If Montana actually intends to enforce this law against federal agents who attempt to arrest people when they run afoul of federal laws, current or future, then I applaud this law.

On the other hand, if it’s another gimmick for votes or show-law for the purpose of making a statement, or in other words, if this law will have no teeth because Montana has the same kind of cowards in government and law enforcement as Kansas, then stop right here.

Don’t do it.  It’s time for a gut check for Montanans.  What will it be?

Oh swell.

“[T]he system uses ‘Cognitive Microwave Radar’ to detect any unwanted items, and ‘related hardware can be installed in hallways and doorways to covertly identify weapons and to alert security of an active threat entering the premises,’” the report elaborates. “If this test proves to be successful in their eyes, it could open the flood gates for companies looking to use this technology in their own locations.”

And not just companies. If it actually works, this could be installed in public places to flag down any and everyone carrying a gun. And that should raise all kinds of civil liberties concerns …

The answer to this problem for the Casinos is that I don’t believe in gambling so I don’t go to Casinos or other such places.  Nor do I like being around huge crowds anywhere.

But that doesn’t address the issue of public places where I might have to be, nor the possibility that the *.gov might want to use this when it’s none of their business who has a gun and who doesn’t.

Of course, this just dovetails nicely with the lust for knowing everything and everybody in a police state, yes?

Bob Unruh:

Lucky Gunner recently had a great article on Revolver Velocity Versus Barrel Length that I missed, and I recommend that you spend a couple of minutes studying their results.

Their results might surprise you.  First of all, barrel length doesn’t matter as much as you might have thought, perhaps as much as 100 FPS for barrel lengths in the range we normally carry or shoot.  You have to get really long barrels (such as for hunting) for the length to make any substantial difference.

Second, the +P loads do actually give you noticeably better performance (as much as 100 FPS or more) compared to the regular loads.

Third, as good as the +P loads do compared to .39 Special, they don’t compare to the difference you get with the .357 Magnum, which is as much as several hundred FPS depending upon bullet weight.

Lucky Gunner recommend that you test your own loads, guns and bullet weights if you want an accurate assessment.  They also link this article where a table is included that has good data for your consideration.

Reason:

Exiting my apartment building yesterday, I noticed a pair of armed, SWAT-vest wearing law enforcement agents overseeing a crowd of people moving boxes and furniture. Coming closer, I could see that the agents were U.S. marshals. The people helping with the move were mostly in matching neon T-shirts and there were at least a dozen of them, despite relatively little in the way of things to be moved. It turns out both strange details can be accounted for by one thing: the U.S. Marshals Service’s involvement in Washington, D.C., tenant evictions.

It’s standard practice for U.S. marshals to preside over D.C. evictions, in the same way that sheriff’s deputies might do in other areas. That’s because it falls to U.S. marshals to serve and carry orders of the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, including “Writs of Restitution that are issued for the recovery by eviction of tenants.” The U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia also sets the rules for the process of physically evicting tentants.

This winds up weird for a number of reasons. First, let’s consider the impact on evicted tenants. Being evicted is tough enough without the public embarrassment and intimidation of having it made into a spectacle complete with rifle-wearing U.S. marshals in SWAT vests and a baseball team’s worth of mandated movers. And the potential for escalation of hostilities, violence, and (should anything get out of hand) criminal penalties are always greater when you throw armed federal agents into the mix. Sure, some sort of security during evictions might be necessary, but in most cases it could probably be handled better by building security staff or community police than people primarily trained for things like federal-prisoner transport and apprehending fugitives.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of D.C. recently filed an official complaint against the U.S. Marshals Service related to the 2015 eviction of Donya Williams and her 12-year-old daughter. Williams alleges she was naked when multiple marshals burst into her room and barely let her dress before shuffling her out. “And I’m sitting there just shaking, just trembling and I’m saying, ‘please just give me a minute to get dressed because I don’t have on anything,” Williams told local ABC affiliate WJLA.

“There is not even a plausible safety justification for that,” ACLU attorney Scott Michelman said. “It’s just humiliating and it’s wrong.”

But hey, the upshot is that the Federal Marshals get an easy day of it, get to wear body armor and be all tacticool, and get to tote rifles like they’re really somebody.  Normally you have to be on a SWAT team somewhere and shoot up people and homes for marijuana cigarettes for that kind of rush.  And for these guys, they get to see naked girls to boot.  From their perspective, what’s not to like?

But not all is well in Shangri La.

… the marshals will call off the whole thing the day before if weather forecasts call for a 50 percent or greater chance of precipitation within the next 24 hours or temperatures below 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

Requiring so many bodies to show up for moves that may be canceled last minute (and may or may not actually require that much manpower) has lead to some perverse business practices. Rather than being able to rely on regular movers (who may charge per worker provided and have strict penalties for last-minute cancellations) or volunteers from local nonprofits (who could actually benefit from or hold on to leftover possessions but may prefer to do the job with less workers in more time), landlords often contract with companies that specialize in evictions. In turn, these companies keep costs low by relying on a roving cast of day laborers, often recruited outside D.C. homeless shelters, and—according to a recent investigation from the Washington City Paper—often refusing to pay what they initially promise or failing to provide workers with basic amenities like water.

Well, giving the federal government an assignment is the most reliable way to ensure that it gets fucked up.  But remember boys and girls, law enforcement is there for our protection and well-being.

Bad day for the home invader.  Good day for liberty.

So says an Army “vet.”  Her name is Lindsey Donovan.

I am a proud veteran of the Army. The seven Army Values are a part of my moral DNA. Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage are at the heart of who I am today.

These values serve as the backbone to every servicemember who has served or is still serving in our armed forces, and they deserve better than what our federal lawmakers have given them. Instead of protecting our most vulnerable veterans — men and women with severe mental illness — the House recently passed a bill that made it easier for them to get guns.

Our veteran population is facing a devastating suicide crisis. Every day, 20 veterans take their lives — not surprisingly, two-thirds of them use a gun. And the veteran suicide rate is more than 20% higher than for civilian Americans. Yet in the midst of this crisis, our elected officials voted to remove from the background check system nearly 170,000 records of veterans with severe mental illnesses. These veterans will now be able to purchase and possess firearms, even if they have been determined to be incapable of managing their own affairs.

[ … ]

Though I am a proud veteran, I am also the proud wife of a U.S. soldier. My husband has completed three combat tours in Iraq and a fourth in Afghanistan. Anyone who has been a witness to what multiple wars and deployments can do to soldiers and their families knows that war is hell. We send them over to do a mission and welcome them back expecting them to go on as usual. But it never works that way. Transitioning back to “normal” is sometimes too much to endure and for some, in the blink of an eye, it can seem like the only way out is through the barrel of a gun.

My own experience is what fuels me to speak out and urge our lawmakers to take a stand against this very dangerous bill. Shortly after my husband’s last deployment, a soldier who served in his unit died by suicide with a gun. It happened a few days after we saw that soldier. The shock I felt was indescribable. And the pain and sorrow I felt for those left behind, I hope to never feel again. To this day I still think about that individual. I don’t so much concentrate on the why, but the how. It was the gun, a deadly means to a tragic end.

The Army was literally able to change her DNA according to her.  Sorry, but show me your combat action ribbon sweetie and then I may listen.  You set this up as if you have been personally affected, and then we learn that your husband is alive and well, apparently the only one who has the combat experience (or so we may assume).

But then we learn about the real reason you’re writing this piece of claptrap.

As a gun owner, a veteran and a volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, I know this is not a Second Amendment issue. This is an issue about common sense. This is an issue about moral courage and fortitude to stand up and fight to keep our most vulnerable veterans safe from gun violence. The House bill on veterans is the second attempt to roll back gun laws in Congress. Just last month, President Trump signed a law reversing a requirement that the Social Security Administration submit records of mentally impaired recipients to the gun background-check system.

Oh goodie.  Another organized mom demanding something.  Everytown.  Just great.  She’s a collectivist and that’s the origin of her commentary, not what she did or didn’t do in the Army.  She naturally assumes that prohibiting a veteran from truthfully completing a form 4473 means they don’t have access to guns if that’s what they want.  Or maybe she knows better and is lying.

Either way, she avoids the real help we can give to veterans, which is ensuring that the Veteran’s administration is funded and that we meet our contractual obligations to them for their medical care.  Because that costs money and effort, and commitment.  No, the easier thing for her is to prohibit gun ownership among men who want someone else to fill our their tax forms for them.

She’s disgusting.  Have nothing to do with such people.  And another note to veterans.  Say nothing to anyone, or you just might find yourself on some kind of list because of people like this.  See what you did there, Lindsey?  You inserted yourself in between a man and his medical care, just like all of the other collectivists.

Are you proud?