Articles by Herschel Smith

Reno Gazette-Journal:

The expansion of gun background checks approved by Nevada voters last month will not happen as expected, based on an opinion released Wednesday by the Nevada Attorney General’s Office.

Ballot Question 1 requires that private party gun transfers – with a few exceptions – be subject to a federal background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System administered by the FBI.

The FBI sent a letter Dec. 14 to the state of Nevada’s Department of Public Safety saying it would not conduct these checks. The department asked for a legal opinion on the letter’s ramifications.

Because the text of the new Background Check Act says private-party transfers and sales must be done through the FBI background check system, the Nevada Attorney General’s Office opinion states, “citizens may not be prosecuted for their inability to comply with the Act unless and until the FBI changes its public position and agrees to conduct the background checks consistent with the Act.”

In a statement, the attorney general’s office said, “without this central feature (the FBI background check), the Background Check Act cannot commence.”

The main reason given by the FBI for why it would not conduct the check is that “the recent passage of the Nevada legislation regarding background checks for private sales cannot dictate how federal resources are applied.”

In other words, it would require additional staffing or resources at the FBI to handle the work arising from Nevada’s expansion of background checks.

This is a surprising response from the FBI.  I would have bet good money against this answer, but I suppose we should be thankful for small victories.

The whole thing was absurd anyway.  Laws are not made at the ballot box by referendum.  They are made in Congress and Senate, signed by the chief executive.  George Soros and Gabby Giffords just didn’t want to try to do it that way.  It’s way too complex, and stands a good chance of failing.  It’s much easier to flood the state with dollars stolen from the smaller governments of the world as Soros and The Clinton Foundation topple them for oil.

Note to Soros and Clinton.  Suck it.  You’ll have to wait and try again another way.

LA Times:

The snow was at least 3 feet deep and still falling when Tracy Glover and two other men came upon the fee booth at the North Rim entrance of the Grand Canyon.

The door to the booth was always unlocked, according to Glover, the Kane County, Utah, sheriff. Inside were sleeping bags, food, water, matches — items that Karen Klein could have used on this particular Christmas Eve as she and her family found themselves stranded in a remote region of the National Park near the Arizona-Utah border. It was an oasis of warmth within a freezing forest.

I don’t care is she was superwoman.  She was unprepared for this, at this time, in these conditions.  We have discussed the bare minimum for being out in the bush: (1) heavy rubberized poncho, (2) 550 cord, (3) gun, (4) tactical light, (5) fire starter, (6) knife [serrated edge], and (7) water and fast food energy.

In these conditions, you can add the right kind of boots (very expensive and not routinely taken on car trips), wool clothing, Gore-Tex, insulated cover (e.g., wool hat), heavy insulated gloves, and eye protection (Goggles and perhaps sun glasses during the daylight hours to prevent snow blindness).

I’m not a big fan of staying where you are, and I’m a much bigger fan of taking what you need or may need.  But in this case, the woman should have stayed where she was.  She’s no good to her family dead.

I have to say that I had never considered the relationship George brings up between oil in Mexico, The Clinton Foundation, and Fast & Furious.

Denver Post:

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — The U.S. Marine Corps has selected Magpul Industries as the exclusive maker of ammunition magazines that Marines will use in combat.

Magpul is a private company that makes accessories for firearms, including magazines, grips, sights and slings. The company also recently started selling soft goods like hats, belts, shirts and gloves.

The operations, shipping and manufacturing portion of Magpul is based in Cheyenne, while its headquarters is located in Austin, Texas.

A press release from Magpul says the Marine Corps selected Magpul’s GEN M3 PMAG series of magazines after several years of testing.

The Wyoming Tribune Eagle reports that the company had added a second shift to handle demand for its products. Magpul started with 102 employees in Cheyenne but now employs 380.

Magpul, which used to be based in Erie, pulled out of Colorado last year in protest of a gun-control bill that Gov. John Hickenlooper signed into law in 2013 prohibiting the sale of gun magazines that hold more than 15 rounds in the aftermath of the Aurora theater shooting.

I’ve seen comments to the effect that the Marine Corps has been using these for a while.  Yea, well, not so much.

Perhaps individual Marines have had these magazines shipped to them by their families while deployed, and their commanders allowed their use rather than throwing them away, but I suspect most Lt. Colonels wouldn’t want to see pictures of their men using these things, only to have the promotion board asked if there were other instances of use of unauthorized equipment.

These guys can be rather puckered when it comes to authorized equipment, especially if some Marines have it and some don’t.  This way, everyone will have the best, and they will have the same thing.

Congratulations to Magpul.

David Codrea:

They evidently want the taxpayers to foot the bill for Democrat apparatchiks “to advocate or promote gun control” after Congress took funding away from their unmasked propaganda designed to render guns “dirty, deadly and banned.” They’ll “also seek ways to challenge state lawmakers who have invited millions of citizens to pack guns in public buildings and businesses,” go after “a crazy quilt of state and national gun laws … drawing upon public safety, antitrust and property laws,” and seek ways around the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Read the rest here.  Well, this points to a number of things we’ve discussed here.  First of all, we gun owners have no right to complain if we’re not involved at the local and state level.  Liberty, just like it’s infringement, begins at home.

But if the cases ever get to the federal level, remember that Donald Trump will fill some 100 court vacancies, all of them very important, and at least one Supreme Court vacancy (and hopefully several more), which for certain things are even more important.

You have to be involved not only at the state level, but remember to conduct your activism at the federal level.  It beat George Soros once, and it can do it again.  And who knows?  Perhaps Soros will be in hell soon.  Perhaps it’s time for group imprecatory prayers against the old wicked man.

Who would like to lead off?

George tickles the issue of human trafficking as he explains that he was involved in researching the Franklin scandal, but doesn’t go too far into the details because, as he put it, many people died as a result of researching that scandal.

Very well, but given the horrible things George is managing to bring to light and explain in a manner that makes some sense, as well as connecting the dots for people who haven’t followed all of the nefarious dealings of The Clinton Foundation, I’m not sure why George feels any safer covering TCF than he would covering Pizzagate.

But here are his four installments for today.

H.R. 3799 is in the top ten most viewed bills the week of December 23, 2016.  Simply put, this bill would do as follows.

… amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) eliminate the $200 transfer tax on firearm silencers, and (2) treat any person who acquires or possesses a firearm silencer as meeting any registration or licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act with respect to such silencer. Any person who pays a tax on a silencer after October 22, 2015 may receive a refund of such tax.

The bill amends the federal criminal code to preempt state or local laws that tax or regulate firearm silencers.

The equivalent bill in the Senate is S 2236.  I assume that once voted on, a committee would be assigned to work out any details if there end up being differences.

By the way, Pat Toomey was asked about his support, and he wrote an entire letter without answering the question.  Don’t wait on that wet noodle to support any bill recognizing your just liberties.  Would someone in Pennsylvania please run for his office?  No, wait.  No offense to the ladies reading this, but if he has male plumbing, I want a man in the office rather than Pat Toomey.  Ladies who support my liberties are just fine.  I don’t want any more eunuchs.

It is encouraging, though, that the interest seems to be there, and people are asking.  Note to Senate and Congress.  We’re watching and taking names.

Tech Times:

However, Lee still didn’t pay attention to what the officers were telling him and briskly walked away. This was when Thornton took out his Taser gun and used it on the old man.

Lee fell to the floor screaming in pain as staff from the nursing home watched in shock at what was going on.

Oh, they shouldn’t have been too much in shock.  They are the ones who called the police to deal with what a nurse should have dealt with – or a qualified worker rather than the goobers who apparently work there.

The video is even worse to watch than reading the account.

Hey.  Be glad they didn’t use the SWAT team or queue up a designated marksman, who might have used .308, done “high fives” with his colleagues, and bragged about “going home safely at the end of his shift.”  Elderly folk can join the ranks of dogs now as immediately shot if they get Alzheimer’s disease and get the cops called on them.

I find that concealed appendix carry is acceptable for me while standing or even walking.  I simply cannot do it comfortably while sitting.  I must carry 3:00 or thereabout, and my carry in the small of the back advertises too much.

Of course, open carry is the most comfortable.

Charleston Gazette-Mail:

Rural law enforcement officials have complex, subtle views about gun control and frequently favor more limited access to guns, according to new research from West Virginia University.

Sociology professor Rachael Woldoff said, for her paper, published this month in the academic journal Rural Sociology, she asked more than 20 sheriff deputies in a rural county about their views on gun control.

“It goes against this narrative that people from West Virginia are just ignorant. The NRA wants you to believe that, but they don’t really have views like that,” Woldoff said. “They’re much more nuanced.”

Their lengthy responses and discussion emanating from the questions was the first type of qualitative research of its kind, according to Woldoff.

Because of the limited number of responses, she is unable to make broad claims about rural law enforcement in the report, but Woldoff said further research is needed in the area.

The paper proposes rural police officers’ views on gun control stem from two competing influences: the culture of rural places where hunting and guns are usually integral parts of community life, and an officer’s responsibility to protect people from gun violence.

Woldoff began the study expecting the law enforcement officials she interviewed would favor fewer restrictions on guns, but that wasn’t the case.

Nearly all of the officers said they were against gun control, only later to contradict themselves, Woldoff said. Several officers told Woldoff people who have been diagnosed with depression should be barred from owning a gun, even if that meant compelling doctors to release medical records to the government.

Other officers who had served in the armed forces thought people who own guns should have to be better trained on how to use them. Every officer said there should be more thorough background checks of a person before he or she is allowed to own a gun.

“Many things about place identity are symbolic,” Woldoff said. “For instance, in West Virginia, it is important, symbolically, that you say you believe in certain things and to identify with the whole state, which is unusual.”Meanwhile, officers maintained they were “pro-gun.”

“Saying you’re pro-gun is just an identity,” Woldoff said. “A lot of people who are pro-gun still think our controls are not appropriate right now. Clearly they would say they were pro-gun, then two seconds later they’re asking for insane gun control measures.”

The professor’s own narrative gives us a glimpse into her bias, which is that the NRA wants to control a narrative on guns and hopes for idiots, while people are more “nuanced” than we give them credit.  Perhaps we can believe her research, perhaps not.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that we can.  None of this is really surprising.  LEOs perpetuate the myth that they are there to “protect people from gun violence.”  Officers aren’t there to protect anyone from anything, regardless of that bit of hyped propaganda.  It would have been much more interesting if the professor had taken a deep dive into that psychology and ascertained whether the officers really believed that or if this is simply play-acting.

If the answers are truthful, it is certainly the case that these LEOs support draconian gun control measures, from universal background checks to forcible release of medical records (while it is a demonstrable fact that mental maladies have no connection to propensity to violence).

Being pro-gun is just an identity, says the researcher.  Very well.  Remember that the next time you hear it from a LEO.  You’re educated enough to know how to drill down on this issue and find out the truth from them.