The Fourth Circuit made a very good decision in the case of Nathaniel Black. They didn’t seem to care about that decision and specifically violated their own precedents and showed they couldn’t care less about consistency in the case of U.S. Versus Robinson. Now they have gone off the deep end.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland’s ban on semiautomatic guns with certain military-style features that the state passed after the 2012 mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.
The 10-to-4 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacates an earlier panel decision that cast doubt on the constitutionality of the ban that is similar to laws in seven states, including California, Connecticut and New Jersey.
The ruling from the Richmond-based court goes further than other appellate courts that have reviewed similar laws in stating clearly that “assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment.” The majority opinion, written by Judge Robert B. King, refers to the banned firearms as “weapons of war” that the court says are most useful in the military.
In a strongly worded dissent, Judge William B. Traxler Jr. said his colleagues have “gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.”
That they have, and they have also added language to both the second amendment and Heller that isn’t there.
“It’s unthinkable that people could say that those weapons of war are protected by the Second Amendment,” Frosh said Tuesday. “Especially when you look at the carnage at Newtown and elsewhere around the country.”
[ … ]
Like Maryland, Connecticut’s ban was expanded after a gunman used a military-style semiautomatic weapon to kill 20 students and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
The 81-page opinion issued Tuesday opens with a detailed description of that day, including the number of rounds of ammunition fired, and goes on to describe mass shootings involving similar military-style firearms in a long list of other U.S. cities.
“We have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage,” King wrote in the 4th Circuit opinion, referring to the Supreme Court case known as District of Columbia v. Heller.
The court also found that Maryland lawmakers were justified in passing the ban in the interest of public safety because magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition “enable shooters to inflict mass casualties while depriving victims and law enforcement officers of opportunities to escape or overwhelm the shooters while they reload their weapons.”
Forget the fact that Charles Whitman used a bolt action long gun (Remington 700), that storied Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock used a Winchester Model 70 .30-06, that Marines initially in Iraq during the push to Baghdad used the same rifle for long distance shooting, and that Marines in Now Zad, Afghanistan, used 12 gauge shotguns for room clearing operations. Left unsaid is why the laws don’t regulate assault hammers. This is what happens when idiots try to make legal decisions who have no knowledge of the facts.
It’s also what happens when men and women who have no moral compunction about violating their oath of office get to make judgments that affect the rest of the country. Recognizing the right of every citizen to have the weapon that best allows him to defend his own family isn’t an expansion of the second amendment. And Heller said nothing about forbidding semi-automatic firearms from its scope, semi-automatic firearms having been around for more than a century when Heller was decided, in use by both civilians and the military.
This neat, clean bifurcation between civilian and military weapons is non-existent, an imaginary phantom concocted by judges to make themselves feel better for depriving citizens of their rights, pretend sociology wrapped up in legal language. These are God-given rights, not subject to the whims or vicissitudes of judicial political leanings.
Here is the ruling. Frosh said “It’s unthinkable that people could say that those weapons of war are protected by the Second Amendment … Especially when you look at the carnage at Newtown and elsewhere around the country.” Well think it, collectivist hack. I’m telling you flat out that weapons of war are protected by God, and included within the scope of the second amendment.
Whether citizens of Maryland choose to stay and fight or move to a free state, remember Matt Bracken’s advice. “If you have eighteen guns and twelve of them are declared illegal, how many do you have? Eighteen. Your move.”
STOP USING YOUR RIFLE. Any unintended discharge has the potential for causing injury or death. Immediately stop using your rifle until Remington can inspect it to determine if the XMP trigger has excess bonding agent used in the assembly process, which could cause an unintentional discharge and, if so, replace the trigger mechanism. If you own a rifle subject to this recall, Remington will provide shipping, inspection, replacement of the trigger mechanism if necessary, and return at no cost to you. DO NOT attempt to diagnose or repair your rifle yourself.
Contact Remington
For the safety of you and those around you, Remington strongly encourages you to STOP USING YOUR RIFLE immediately and contact Remington for inspection and repair. To participate in this recall, visit the Remington Recall Center at xmprecall.remington.com. Or call Remington on its toll-free XMP-Recall Hotline at 1-800-243-9700 (Prompt #3 then Prompt #1) Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT. You will be asked to provide your name, address, telephone number, and the serial number of your rifle.
E-mail: ucamdn28@prodigy.net.mx
We apologize for this inconvenience. We want our customers to enjoy the shooting sports safely. It is imperative that owners of Model 700™ and Model Seven™ rifles subject to this recall do not use their rifles until they have been inspected as part of this recall program.”
So this is the right way to do a recall, unlike what they did with the Walker Fire Control System. Remington should be commended for accepting responsibility right up front and getting out ahead of this problem, whatever it is.
Speaking of which, what is it? What can’t Remington get right about their trigger systems? I just don’t understand why this is a recurring theme with Remington. Their engineering department needs to do a serious gut check on what they’re doing and why they’re doing it.
I’m not likely to buy a Remington anyway, since they’re owned by Freedom Group, which is owned by Cerberus, which is owned by Steve Feinberg, who owns DynCorp, which – along with the CIA – is involved in nation toppling in North Africa for the purpose of trafficking in money, oil, weapons and children.
David Codrea gives us the background, and then embeds a video. I won’t bother to embed the same video since you can go to Oath Keepers or WRSA to get it.
For the record, I don’t know if the voice you hear is the legitimate author of this discussion or not. It might be someone reading the entry at Reddit.
If you want to see the full transcript, here it is. I have a lot of thoughts on this, but for this time, I think it’s better to leave this open for commenters to hash out what this means and fill in the blanks.
There are a lot of articles and discussion forum threads on barrel twist rate for AR-15s. So why am I writing one? Well, some of the information on the web is very wrong. Additionally, this closes out comment threads we’ve had here touching on this topic, EMail exchanges I’ve had with readers, and personal conversations I’ve had with shooters and friends about this subject. It’s natural to put this down in case anyone else can benefit from the information. Or you may not benefit at all. That’s up to you.
This is a discussion about 5.56mm ammunition and barrel twist rates (and later, about the shooter and ammunition quality). If you wish to debate the effectiveness of the 5.56mm round generally, or wish to disparage the choice of the Eugene Stoner system, I’m sure there are forums for you. This is not it.
In the real world, ammunition isn’t concentric, and even if it is almost precisely concentric, pour density can be slightly different throughout the ball, and voids can develop. This causes gyroscopic stability problems with bullets, even in the best manufactured ammunition. But much ammunition would not be considered the “best manufactured ammunition.” Ammunition will only be as good as the QA under which it was made.
When center of gravity is off-axis it can cause bullet lateral throwoff, yaw and a host of other problems with bullet trajectory. In order to overcome these problems, rifling twist achieves this gyroscopic stability for the bullet, thus negating the effects of the manufacturing process (at least in part).
Conventional wisdom taught us that slower twist rates wouldn’t properly-stabilize a bullet, causing it to yaw. On the other hand, faster rates could over-stabilize lighter bullets, causing similar problems. This is correct in theory—however, modern ballisticians have pretty much de-bunked the over-stabilization theory as a practical matter. All things being equal, it is better to have too much twist than not enough.
While his statement is a bit imprecise, there is something very precise about it. It is precisely wrong. Yet there are much cleaner and simpler explanations of why high twist rate is not always good. One commenter at this discussion thread summed it up well.
You can certainly overstablilze (sic) a bullet if you spin it so fast it doesn’t nose over at the top of its trajectory … Best thing to do is not spin bullets any faster than what’s needed for best accuracy.
Correct. If a bullet is overstabilized, it tends to stay pointed along its axis of rotation, even on the final (downward) part of its trajectory. This can cause keyholing, odd aerodynamic effects (flying sideways through the air) and even bullets to wildly spin off trajectory.
Bullets from rifled barrels eventually achieve stability by yawing back and forth, while undergoing a larger revolution about the major axis of the trajectory. So quite obviously, it’s necessary to spin the bullet, and to spin it enough to give it stability, while protecting the need to nose over on the final part of its trajectory. Getting this twist rate and spin right has been a matter of much testing, internet fights, and lot of engineering study and heavy spending by the taxpayers. I know that my guns perform well, and so I decided to contact my manufacturer for his opinion on the matter.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have two Rock River Arms rifles, one Elite CAR A4 with a 16″ Barrel, twist 1:9, Quad Rail, and another competition gun with a muzzle brake and 18″ SS barrel with a twist rate = 1:8. I have recommended RRA rifles to my readers before, but there are many good guns on the market. Your probably have one. I sent a list of three questions to RRA, and Steve gave me these responses (the question isn’t included because it wasn’t forwarded back to me, but it’s apparent what I asked except for the first question, which was basically does RRA warranty their 1 MOA for both M193 and M855. This is Steve’s response.
Herschel,
Thanks for your questions. I’m going to take them in reverse order.
3. 1:9 is adequate for many, but not all rounds typically used in an AR platform. Between .223 Remington and 5.56mm NATO, there are rounds from 45 to 90 grains (that I am familiar with) and I know of, but have never shot, lighter and heavier rounds. No single twist is going to handle all of them. 1:9 is adequate for a sizable number of them, however…including the two most commonly available, in bulk and at reasonable prices…55gr FMJ (M193)and 62/63gr FMJ (M855). It is not ideal for rounds lighter than 50gr nor those over 68 or 69 grains, which is why there are other twist rates commonly available…including from RRA. We offer a 1:12 24” bull barrel for our Varmint hunters who prefer to use the lighter bullets for prairie dogs and other targets, and both 1:7 and 1:8 barrels in a variety of configurations for those who want to shoot heavier bullets…up to and including the newer 77gr loads and 80gr VLDs. We’ve also run custom twists for a limited number of contracted purchases.
2. Yes. 1:9 does well with both M193 and M855. Different barrels perform differently, but 1:9 generally stabilizes both weight/length bullets fairly well, It neither over nor under spins either and does not produce key holing.
1. The hardest question to answer. Neither M193 nor M855 are notoriously accurate rounds. They meet military, not match, requirements. Our accuracy claims are the rifle’s capability…but the shooter and ammo have to do their parts. There are loads that are commercially available and claimed to be “M193” and “M855” equivalents that clearly aren’t, and they aren’t capable of ”minute of bad guy” at 100 yards, let alone the .75 to 1.5 MOA claims that we make for our different rifles. That is no reflection on our rifles or barrels, or the shooters…unfortunately there is some real crappy ammo on the market today, which will not perform well out of any barrel, of any twist rate.
Thanks.
Steve/RRA
This is a good response, but let’s not stop here. While perhaps not recalled by some, American Rifleman has given us a fairly comprehensive look at 5.56mm ammunition and barrel twist rates in an article entitled Testing The Army’s M855A1 Standard Ball Cartridge. It is rich with history on how the Army fielded the M855A1. Ignore the issue of the M855 versus the M855A1 for a moment and consider the background.
Accuracy cannot be assessed without addressing the rifle barrels’ twist-rates. In the early 1980s the M855’s 62-grain bullet was developed for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). For purposes of interoperability, the same load was adopted as the M16A2 rifle’s standard ball as well. A February 1986 U.S. Army study noted that the M855’s bullet required a “1:9 twist [which] would be more appropriate for the M16A2 rifle, improving accuracy and reliability.” Multiple studies confirmed the 1:9-inch twist requirement.
But then a problem arose. The U.S. military’s standard M856 5.56 mm tracer round was longer, heavier (63.7 grains) and slower than the M855 ball, and simply would not stabilize with a 1:9-inch twist barrel. Thus, despite it doubling M855 group sizes, the M16A2 (and later, the M4) specified a 1:7-inch rate-of-twist barrel to stabilize the tracer round. It remains so to this day. Therefore, M855A1 was test-fired with both 1:7- and 1:9-inch twist barrels, and it was verified that this new cartridge is consistently more accurate in the latter barrels-as was its predecessor.
Don’t slip past these paragraphs, because they explain why “Milspec” is 1:7. It isn’t because 1:7 shoots M193 or M855 more accurately. It’s because of the weight of tracer rounds. As we’ve discussed before, the term Milspec doesn’t mean better, or worse, or anything at all except that it precisely meets the specifications outlined in the purchase order(s), excepting whatever variance notifications they might make on a given batch of guns.
The M855A1’s developers have described it as yielding “match-like” accuracy, which most rifle shooters would define as one minute-of-angle (m.o.a.), or groups measuring no more than 1 inch at 100 yards. While the new ammunition has proved more accurate than the green-tipped load it replaced, testing did not yield match-like accuracy, especially in the standard 1:7-inch twist-rate found in today’s M4s and M16s. At 100 yards, the best group with a 1:7-inch barrel was 1.62 inches (1.6 m.o.a.). At 300 yards. it similarly fired 1.6 m.o.a. (4.9 inches) and widened to 1.8 m.o.a. (7.5 inches) at 400 yards. At these same distances, firing the M855A1 through a 1:9-inch twist barrel reduced group sizes by approximately half.
The tests demonstrated that 1:9 twist produced better accuracy, approximately twice as accurate. Now take note what the testers found with the newer M855A1 regarding repeatability.
On average, the new ammunition produced one flyer in roughly each five rounds, which, it can be argued, exaggerated the group sizes. Since the Army announced that, “On average, 95 percent of the [M855A1] rounds will hit an 8×8-inch target at 600 meters,” each group’s most errant bullet impact was discarded and group sizes recalculated. Statistically they improved, but not enough to place 95 percent of rounds so close at 600 meters, at least when using the standard 1:7-inch barrel-which may explain why accuracy was less than expected.
There is one “flyer” in every five rounds. This seems to me to be a significant problem with this ammunition combined with the barrel twist, and the commenters don’t seem to like it very much either. Finally, this.
When U.S. Army shooters twice fired public demonstrations of the new round, they did not employ standard 1:7-inch twist M16A2s or M4s, but accurized, match-grade, stainless-barreled rifles from the Army Marksmanship Unit (AMU). I contacted the AMU and learned that these rifles did not have standard-issue 1:7-inch barrels, but most likely 1:8-inch twist, which probably accounts for their “match-like” accuracy.
Isn’t that rich? The Army made claims of “match-like accuracy,” and proved the rounds shooting out of different barrels than are deployed with Soldiers, using 1:8 twist, not 1:7 twist.
The American Rifleman article goes on to discuss in some detail the performance of the M855A1 with slim-profiled targets like malnourished tribal fighters in Afghanistan (so-called “ice picking” the target without fragmentation), performance at barrier penetration (concluding that it is better than its predecessor), and its lethality once it does penetrate barriers. I recommend this reading to you. It’s well worth the time.
So to summarize what we know, remember some basic things. First, the bullet has to be spun to give it gyroscopic stability. This spin needs to match the bullet (including mass and length), and care must be taken not to over-stabilize the bullet. If you shoot typical .223 ammunition (55 gr.), or M193 or M855, a twist rate of 1:9 is probably just about ideal. You’ll probably lose some accuracy with a higher twist rate.
This loss of accuracy is likely not significant for a lot of shooters. If you shoot much heavier ammunition (and there is a lot on the market), you probably need to consider a twist rate of 1:8. Finally, none of this matches the value of good ammunition or good shooting.
That’s the good news. Most guns can outperform the shooter, and I know that’s the case with me. I’m a decent shooter. Not great, but decent. I’ve taken my Tikka T3 .270 bolt action rifle and literally put rounds through the same hole at 100 yards (with slightly more tearing of the same hole in the paper). On the other hand, this is with a good scope, no wind, a cool and comfortable day, all day to work my craft and thus no time pressure, no one else to be concerned about, lots of coffee to wake up, and a full belly.
But if I had kept records, it wouldn’t have happened again exactly like that since, theoretically, even with perfect ammunition, considering barrel harmonics and that physical processes like this are a heuristic phenomenon, if I had continued to log my shots this way, it would have doubtless shown a standard distribution (distance between each shot and mean).
But regardless of the details, you’ve done it before. Control breathing … get good sight picture … back out of the shot if you’re not mentally right … know where your trigger breaks … and so on. You know the drill, since you’ve done it many times. It’s perhaps the purest pleasure a shooter can have.
Now throw in simple annoyances like a whining partner at the range, losing daylight and time pressures, hunger, and any of the other 100 possible nuisances that can sap your accuracy. Then your accuracy goes to hell, doesn’t it? Now, combine that with wearing heavy gear and being shot at, and I’m sure it diminishes your control over your weapon. Thankfully, I only have the experiences of my former Marine son conveyed to me.
The good part of this is that regardless of your barrel twist rate, if your AR-15 is reliable, even if it’s not top of the line, it can probably outperform you. That means getting better isn’t a matter of getting a new rifle or barrel with a different twist. It means practicing with your rifle, sometimes under duress. It also means buying good ammunition. Steve at RRA is right. The shooter and ammo have to do their part. I object to cheap ammunition just like I object to cheap engine oil. I’m trying to develop the discipline at the store or online to buy better ammunition.
Right, I’ve got it. I feel your objection. Good ammunition (e.g., Hornady $2 per round .270 for my Tikka) hurts. This is my wealth, and it’s hard to part ways with it since it’s hard to earn it. But using bad ammunition at the range makes it hard to impossible to assess your practice. Use of my value pack Federal .223 at the range means that my accuracy is irrelevant if I’m using the same reticle holdovers I would for 5.56mm since the muzzle velocity is different (and very slightly lower than the 5.56mm). You’ve got the picture.
The best way to get better accuracy is probably not to get a better gun. It’s to practice with the one you’ve got.
Here is a related video I found interesting on gyroscopic stability. He’s wrong about the math being incomprehensible, but it is rather difficult if you’re involved with partial differentials or worse, the Navier-Stokes equations in CFD. You need some specialized training in mathematics in order to tackle that. You don’t have to know any of that in order to understand the basics of shooting.
This discussion probably won’t end the debate on barrel twist rate, and it certainly won’t end the fight between the Army and Marine Corps (who doesn’t want to deploy the M855A1). But I hope it was helpful to you.
We’ve discussed the firing of General Michael Flynn earlier, and followed it up with an informative video. There are two more videos coming your way in this post, since it’s the best way I know to communicate things in a short and easy manner. But before we get there, I need to convey a few thoughts.
This writer has some things to say along those lines, pointing to the deep state coup against Michael Flynn and advocating the idea that this wasn’t about Flynn. It’s about who’s in charge, Donald Trump or the deep state. But he gets sidetracked by adding these things.
Please don’t come and tell me that Flynn was wrong on Iran, on Islam or on China. I agree … For better or for worse, it is absolutely evident that Flynn was the brain behind Trump’s entire foreign policy. On some stuff Flynn was great (Russia), on some stuff he was okay (Takfiri terrorism), on some stuff he was ridiculous (China) and on some stuff he was terrible (Iran).
The writer is correct that the deep state had to bring him down. He’s wrong on his assessment of Flynn and foreign policy generally. As for Iran, many writers aren’t able to divorce themselves from loathing of Jews or Israel or the Mossad. Listen to me, folks. Our Iran policy should not be based on whatever the Mossad wants us to think.
The problem with Iran is that the Imams believe in the “twelver” view. They want to see the final Imam come, they want to see a worldwide conflagration, they want Iran to burn in order to start it all, and above all else – yes, above the destruction of Israel – they want to see America burn. Don’t see Iran in the idiotic Ron Paul way, where if we just stop meddling in foreign affairs we can be friends with these people and trade with them.
Horse shit. We should stop meddling in foreign affairs, and we should close our borders. But that won’t change one iota what the Quds or the radical Mullahs think of us or want for us in the end. We will eventually have to confront Iran, and it’s best to do it with less military force than with greater. Obama refused even to verbally support the “Green” movement in Iran when they needed it most. We allowed them to humiliate our sailors, we made pussy deals with them, and thus we empowered Iran. Sanctions were working to impoverish the country, and then they were removed. We haven’t even tried yet with Iran, and we seem to want to give up because we have no stomach anymore for anything at all beyond sitting on the couch and watching idiot shows on the TV.
Flynn is also spot on about Islam. I’m not sure where the writer is getting his view of Islam, but Muslims, many of them, would sooner cut his head off than to look at him, and if they outnumbered him would force conversion to the evils of Mohammedism. Flynn knew all of these things, and more. This, along with the fact that he knows where the bodies are buried, so to speak, is why he had to go. He knows where the assassinated folks are. He knows who killed the reporters looking into the oil rat lines in Libya. He knows who killed Monica Petersen. The writer only got it partially right. Former CIA director John Brennan is a Muslim, Obama is at least a Muslim-sympathizer, and the country has been infiltrated with Muslim Brotherhood operatives at the highest levels.
Flynn knows all of this, information from the deep state to the Islamic threat, and he knows that there is a pedo ring operating within the highest circles of government. And he knows that DynCorp and the CIA is taking down Libya and Syria for oil, money, human organs and children. Flynn wasn’t just some target to show off for the deep state, he wasn’t just an example to everyone else. Flynn represented a threat to them of the greatest caliber. This wasn’t random. Michael Flynn has character and knows as much as they do. This made him their number one threat. Got it?
Now, on to the updates and perspectives by those who know more than I do. Listen to as much of this video by Robert David Steele as you can (it’s a long one). If you cannot devote the time to this video in its entirety, then watch the first ten minutes. It would have been better if Alex Jones would shut up.
Then listen to the counterargument, which is that Flynn’s firing is exactly what Donald Trump wanted to happen, the plan being hatched by Flynn himself. I find this hypothesis very unlikely, and the evidence isn’t hard. This is all highly speculative with only open source information, whereas I believe that Steele still has good contacts within the intelligence community.
Either way, there is civil war within the highest circles of power in America. Those circles had better hope the right side wins. There might be a bigger war after this if it doesn’t go well.
One way to look at a 60-year-old, battle-worn M1 U.S. service rifle is as a cherished historical relic unfit for any duty more rigorous than color guard. Another way is as a military-grade firearm likely to be snatched up by street toughs and used for common crime. Over the past six years, the Obama administration has seen the gun both ways, leading to a saga that has incensed legislators and gun collectors alike.
Helpfully for the executive branch, Republican Rep. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming filed the “Collectible Firearms Protection Act.” While Lummis’s bill sounds wide-ranging, it actually targets a strange and singular quandary that’s given the State Department fits since 2009: What to do with almost a million vintage, American-made M1 Garand and Carbine rifles now moldering in the arsenals of their custodian, South Korea.
“Legislation shouldn’t even be needed for U.S. citizens to purchase perfectly legal and regulated firearms, especially in this case, with storied, American-made rifles that are pieces of U.S. military history,” Rep. Lummis said in a statement. In fact, legislation wouldn’t be necessary if President Obama were okay with the purchase, which in this case, his administration was in favor of. Until it wasn’t.
There was never any quandry for the State Department, and the Obama administration has never been in favor of this.
I was unaware of this proposed legislation. It’s about time. This is something else President Trump can do for liberty in America. To call the M1 obsolete is ridiculous. Depending upon price, every one will get bought in the states.
I can see the market supporting $400 – $1000, depending upon condition, and even higher for collectibles in very good condition. But if the typical price is several thousand dollars even for well-worn rifles, you’re entering the range where you can buy a precision chassis rifle for that kind of money.
The South Koreans will have to be smart about this, or if not, the market will tell them how to be smart about it. Let them know your support for this bill.
Maricopa County jails will no longer detain people flagged by federal authorities as a courtesy for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Sheriff Paul Penzone said Friday evening.
Penzone told reporters that earlier Friday his office had been advised by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office that he faced a “threat of litigation” because of the procedure, which forced the Sheriff’s Office to change its policy.
Individuals no longer will be detained beyond the time that they otherwise should be released for an offense.
“There’s no further authority to detain an individual …” Penzone said. “We are following our legal obligation, to process that individual for release.”
Penzone said he alerted ICE officials to the change Friday, and the new policy would be effective immediately.
So for all you Sheriff Joe haters out there, it looks like you got your way. Hey, no worries. I’m sure it won’t affect the wealth you had set aside to buy that next home, or send your children to college. Or your gun rights. I’m sure they’ll vote conservative on those issues.
Welcome to immigrant-land. I hope you like it. It’s what you voted for if you’re in his county. Unfortunately, the rest of us may end up paying your bills. I’m getting damn tired of paying everyone’s bills.
My message today is to inform you of an impending Senate Bill in the Alabama Legislature directly threatening the safety for our Law Enforcement Officers and Deputy Sheriffs. It is a threat to law abiding citizens like you and me and a threat to this great state and country.
I am talking about Alabama Senate Bill 24 (SB24) introduced by Senator Gerald Allen. This bill has proposed the repeal of the current Alabama statute that requires a permit, issued by the Sheriff of the county you reside, to allow for the full concealment of a handgun on your person or in a vehicle.
The pistol permit is a tool used by law enforcement to quickly screen an occupant of a vehicle or a person stopped in investigative detention to determine if they are lawfully allowed to possess a concealed handgun. Lacking a permit, the driver or person is in violation of state statute that prohibits concealed weapons. The permit is issued based upon a background investigation conducted by your local Sheriff and verifies the holder has not been convicted of a crime of violence to include domestic violence. The repeal of the current statute will allow everyone who was previously denied a lawful permit to now be able to conceal a handgun in their vehicle to drive or walk freely to attend church services, enter a movie theatre, football stadium, business or other gatherings in our communities.
Oh it does no such thing. If you’re as felon convicted of a violent crime, which is about the only legitimate excuse a CLEO can use in Alabama, you can’t legally purchase a gun anyway. Besides, violent felons won’t care about the law, and can carry as it is right now since you’re not there to watch them get dressed in the morning.
But this is about more, isn’t it? Yes, it always is.
“As a Sheriff, I firmly back the Second Amendment,” says Abston … “This money generated from the pistol permit goes to buy our uniforms, equipment, our firearms, our training, our ammunition to train and send people to the police academy. Once you take away that funding where’s the money going to come from?”
It’s the revenue. Don’t worry about slimming down and perhaps NOT buying those brand new Dodge Chargers and fancy comms gear. Or perhaps laying off those unnecessary workers. No, the pistol permit fee is a good way to raise money.
But opponents said it would have serious financial consequences for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, which administers firearms licenses issued under the Oklahoma Self Defense Act.
A fiscal analysis performed for the House indicates the measure would reduce OSBI’s revenue by at least $6 million and would lead to the loss of jobs and reduced operating expenses at the agency.
The reduction in revenue would be because firearms owners would no longer seek concealed carry licenses – which cost $100 for initial 5-year license and $200 for 10 years – if they could carry a gun openly without a license. There are now more than 238,300 Oklahomans with active licenses to carry handguns, according to state figures.
And regarding the proposed constitutional carry bill in North Carolina, I’ve said that “I suspect that a little truth-telling by North Carolina CLEOs would yield similar results.”
Perhaps it would be a good thing if the tax monies people allocated to your office were tied to the degree to which they see your services as good and needful, delivered in the right way.
What a novel approach. I wish someone had thought of that before.
8 years, 11 months ago
