Articles by Herschel Smith

Bearing Arms:

Uniformed security guards are hired by stores to provide peace of mind and serve as a deterrent to casual criminals, such as petty shoplifters and aggressive panhandlers. They are not law enforcement officers, do not generally have good training, and the physical and mental screening for security guards isn’t that high (which is perhaps why we’ve had two security guards go on terrorist killing sprees this year alone).

Aggressive predators are not deterred by either unarmed or armed security guards, but it is relatively rare to seen a criminal so callous that he would murder a guard just to acquire an additional handgun.

A man who would murder someone for a handgun would presumably have no problem doing the same with an open carrier who typically has even less training and general awareness than armed security guards.

We’ve noticed that there are generally only four kinds of open carry stories.

1. a group of people open carry as a form of political protest (generally without law enforcement involvement)
2. an individual open carries as a form of political protest (often with law enforcement involvement, including occasional arrests)
3. an individual open carrier who is oblivious to his surroundings has his/her picture posted to gun forums pointing out his/her utter lack of awareness and generally poor choice of gun and holster.
4. an open carrier is attacked for his weapon, with the criminal generally being successful.

We would love to report that open carry deters crime, but there is simply no data suggesting that this is a true statement. Folks, criminals laugh at open carriers. They view them as targets, no different than someone with a cash-filled wallet hanging out of their back pocket as they stand in the checkout line, nose buried in a smart phone and oblivious to the world.

I’ve seen Bob hate on open carriers before, but this is ridiculous.  This commentary is completely out of control (I hesitate to call it an “analysis” because nothing is being analyzed).

Bob doesn’t really know that all uniformed security is poorly trained.  He doesn’t know that open carriers are even more poorly trained than uniformed security.  He also doesn’t know that open carriers have poor situational awareness.

He doesn’t know that open carriers fall into only the four categories he lists.  He’s just referring (anecdotally, not analytically) to news accounts he believes he has read.

He especially doesn’t know that criminals laugh at open carriers.  In fact, I challenge Bob to supply me with one verifiable instance in public where a known criminal laughed at an open carrier.  I’ve open carried many times, and I’ve also been around people I knew to be gang members when doing so.  No one – no one – has ever laughed at me.  In one particular instance when multiple gang members were heading my direction on the sidewalk (it was four or five of them), they saw me open carrying and decided to cross the road, walk past me, and cross back over when they were clear of me.  They kept their heads down and studiously avoided making eye contact with me while walking on the other side of the road.

As I said, this commentary is completely out of control, and I simply have no earthly idea what Bob’s problem is with open carry.  There is no law requiring him to do it, so why the negative attention?  It’s legal, so what business is it of his to bash the practice?  How does a crime against uniformed security turn into open carry bashing?  I’m beginning to think this is a psychological issue that Bob has.

What is your malfunction, Bob?

Reason:

A Hennepin County (Minn.) drug squad — known as the Emergency Services Unit (ESU) — conducted a pre-dawn no-knock raid on a house in North Minneapolis one morning in November 2015. They were looking for Walter Power, who they suspected of being a marijuana dealer. To search the home they believed Power to be sleeping in, they brought a force of between 28-32 officers, most clad in riot gear and carrying rifles, accompanied by a sniper seated atop a Ballistic Engineered Armored Response (BEAR) vehicle.

Why did law enforcement officials feel they needed to display a show of overwhelming force that would be intense even in a foreign occupied city? Because the primary resident of the house, Michael Delgado, was a registered gun-owner with a license to carry.

Convinced of the potential danger posed to officers when raiding a house with an armed occupant, Hennepin County District Judge Tanya Bransford signed off on the no-knock raid, but later told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that she did not know a platoon of up to 32 officers would be deployed to search the house, or that they’d throw flash bang grenades through the windows in addition to knocking down doors.

The raid resulted in the arrest of Power — the suspected marijuana dealer — for “fifth-degree drug possession,” the lowest possible drug charges on the books. Even this modest charge would be dropped after Judge Bransford declared the raid unconstitutional in a ruling last summer, arguing that Delgado and Power had been subject to unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Bransford wrote in her ruling “that the types of militarized actions used in this case seem to be a matter of customary business practice,” which she found troubling.

Like most of the U.S., Hennepin County has increasingly relied on SWAT teams to serve warrants. According to the Star-Tribune, its ESU deployed 71 times last year, which is more than double its annual usage from a decade prior. A 2014 study by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) found that on a national basis, SWAT teams were only used “for hostage, barricade, or active shooter scenarios” in seven percent of all deployments, while 62 percent of SWAT raids were to search for drugs.

The executive director of the Minnesota Sheriff’s Association, Jim Franklin, was quoted by the Star-Tribune as saying of Bransford’s ruling, “My question to her is: Are you going to attend the dead cop’s funeral?” Franklin’s argument is essentially that without the use of such violent and destructive tactics, officers’ lives would be at risk.

Why didn’t uniformed officers go up to the door in the day time and knock?  Oh yea.  They wanted that “evidence.”  Okay, so why didn’t they stake out the home and wait until he left, go into the home to get their evidence, and then arrest him in the driveway?

Because they wanted to be all tacticool and bad ass.  They wanted to play soldier-boy without the commitment.  As for the judge, she knew.  She knew everything.  She’s throwing a red herring in your face now because it looks bad.  She could have asked the same questions I’m asking.  It makes no difference whether they used 30 officers or three.  They conducted an armed invasion of another man’s home and are at a minimum guilty of breaking and entering, as well as reckless endangerment.

Jim Franklin is also lying.  If he was concerned about officer safety, he wouldn’t be advocating these kinds of ridiculous raids to begin with.  He would be advocating exactly what I did, i.e., stake the home out and arrest him in the driveway.

Both judge Bransford and Jim Franklin are liars.

OUDaily:

I am a retired police officer. I’m also a gun owner, but I am weary of the “guns-solve-everything” mentality. I’m tired of the proliferation of open carry proposals that increase the visibility of firearms in public places — particularly in schools, colleges and universities. I am not convinced more firearms on campus will deter or stop active shooters.

Frankly, people who openly carry sometimes make me nervous. Some of them seem smug, over confident, even demonstrative — wanting people to notice they are indeed carrying a loaded weapon. It is a political statement, a warning and a boast. I watch them strutting into stores, sitting in restaurants and walking down the street fairly oblivious to the burden of carrying a firearm in full view.

Except for him.  You see, he isn’t tired of LEOs carrying guns, just you.  And by God, make sure that no one sees that you’re carrying.  He is a LEO, just like you, only better.  Only he can be seen carrying a gun.

As for the part about making a political statement, I’ve never done any such thing (not that it would necessarily be a bad thing to make a statement), and only open carry when it’s hot and I sweat my weapon when I carry IWB.  Here in North Carolina – a traditional open carry state – I’ve never had a problem with LEOs giving me a hassle about open carry.  And blood doesn’t run in the streets around here, and women and children don’t run down the road screaming.

But apparently it’s even worse in Connecticut.

In an effort to cover up their unconstitutional actions, Connecticut State Police made up charges against a young open carry activist last year.

The state eventually dismissed all charges when they heard Michael Picard’s recording of cops plotting to trump up charges against him to “cover our ass.”

Now Picard is suing Connecticut State Police with the help of the ACLU for trumping up fabricated charges against him as well as violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.

The September 2015 incident was all caught on video after State Troopers John Barone, Patrick Torneo, and John Jacobi illegally seized Picard’s camera and inadvertently left it on, all while their illegal actions were plotted. The video can be seen at the bottom of the page.

“Let’s give him something. We can hit him with creating a public disturbance. We gotta cover our ass,” Barone was recorded as saying.

Picard was in West Hartford protesting a DUI checkpoint by holding a big sign that alerted drivers. After an hour of protesting, police approached Picard and knocked the camera out of his hand, noting that Picard didn’t have a First Amendment right to record the trooper.

It was then that the troopers illegally search Picard and discovered he was open carrying a gun, which is legal in Connecticut. The troopers confiscated the camera along with the gun to run a permit check, only to find out that Picard’s gun permit is valid, all while violating the young man’s Fourth Amendment right to protection against illegal search and seizure.

“Oh crap we gotta punch a number on this guy,” a trooper can be heard saying.

“What we say is that multiple motorists stopped to complain about a guy waving a gun around, but none of them wanted to stop and make a statement.”

But then one of the troopers noticed that Picard’s camera was still on.

“Oh shit!! I think the camera is on, it says it is still recording.”

There you go.  It’s that pesky constitution thing again.  If LEOs just didn’t have to mess around with things like law and rights everyone would be safer.

Connecticut.  Oh yea, that’s the home of communist and traitor Barbara Bellis.  I’m kind of getting bad vibes about that place.

News Miner:

“At least it’s sunny out,” Dybdahl recalled telling his hunting partner while the pair were waiting for a U.S. Coast Guard helicopter to find them.

Dybdahl, 30, knew he was losing a lot of blood, he knew that there was a chance the helicopter might not find him and he also knew there were more bears in the brush circling them. But none of that mattered. He had already made up his mind that he was going to live.

Sitting up in his hospital bed Tuesday, Hoonah resident Dybdahl went over the surreal mauling he had suffered just three days prior while on a hunting trip near Port Frederick bay with his friend Anthony Lindoff, 36. The two had taken a boat out to an area just 10 miles southwest of Hoonah to look for deer. As they were getting ready to make deer calls, Lindoff said, he heard something. He hoped it was a deer, but then he turned and locked eyes with a sow brown bear running straight toward him.

“It didn’t get the memo that it was supposed to bluff charge, this was serious,” Lindoff said. “It chased me first, and as I was running, backing away, I was trying to swing at it with my trekking poll because my rifle was in my sling on my backpack. I immediately thought that was the biggest mistake I could have made. . I felt like the worst hunting partner.”

Dybdahl threw off his pack and headed farther down the hill, trying to get his rifle in position to help out his friend. Unfortunately, Dybdahl didn’t know that the same direction he was moving in was where the sow bear had left two of her cubs behind. In what Dybdahl said seemed like a single moment, the bear changed direction and Dybdahl was on the ground. His rifle no longer in his hands, he screamed for his friend to shoot the bear as it pinned him down, and had its teeth in his flesh.

Dybdahl said he had never been more “in the moment,” able to see, hear, and smell everything so intensely. Everything he knew about bears went racing through his head. He realized quickly he was angering the bear more by moving and screaming. His body went limp and he was silent. But even though he made himself appear harmless, the sow didn’t stop. For the next 10 seconds, he said, his whole body could feel the bear’s ferocity and rage.

“When she bit down on my leg, my thigh, she ripped so hard. . I could hear everything,” Dybdahl said. “It sounded like paper ripping and she pulled my thigh. I felt my whole thigh muscle move away from my leg bone.”

[ … ]

Although he flinched when Dybdahl recreated the sound of flesh tearing, Lindoff was not as unsettled on Saturday. When he saw the bear on Dybdahl, he went through six motions in approximately 10 seconds, never skipping a beat. He slung his rifle in front of him, took the gun sleeve off, took off the scope cover, chambered a round, aimed and fired.

“I’ve never de-slinged my rifle that quickly,” Lindoff said.

Josh was very blessed.  If you’re going to be in the bush, carry your rifle in hand, regardless of whether it’s comfortable or not.  Or if you don’t want to do that, carry a sidearm for self defense.  I think most Alaskan’s will tell you to carry a wheel gun, .44 Magnum or .454 Casull.  That’s probably good counsel for the entire Northwest.  Down South here, carrying .45 ACP is just fine.

Greenwich Time:

NEWTOWN – The judge in the lawsuit brought by 10 families against the maker of the gun used in the Sandy Hook massacre has denied Remington’s latest request to forego the exchange of pre-trial evidence.

The order by Judge Barbara Bellis is another in a series of incremental victories for the Sandy Hook families, who argue that Remington is liable for negligently entrusting an AR-15-type rifle to a civilian, resulting in the deaths of 20 first-graders and six educators.

Bellis’ ruling on Friday is the second time in as many months that the judge has denied a request by Remington to forego the exchange of evidence. In mid-September, the judge said she would hear Remington’s argument about why the case should be dismissed in December 2017, and not before.

The judge’s Friday order follows an objection filed by the families earlier in the week, which called gunmaker’s request to rearrange the pre-trial schedule and avoid the exchange of evidence ‘impractical,’ ‘unfair’ and ‘self-serving.’

In other words, Remington went back to the same judge that illegally asserted her authority before, and begged again to keep from having to open their books to the communists.  But since judge Barbara Bellis is a communist and traitor herself, she once again denied Remington’s request.

Another way of saying it is that she is willing to postpone the date of hearing the question of whether the case should even be in court to begin with until December, but unwilling to delay “discovery,” or in other words, she will happily help along harm of Remington before it’s even decided whether there should be a case.  And clearly when she decides that question, it won’t go in Remington’s favor.

We used to do things with traitors that judge Barbara Bellis deserves herself.  But we’re too civil for that these days, so we let traitors live among us and even adjudicate illegal cases.  Let’s be clear.  Even something like impeaching her could have stopped this abortion, but the state senate and house don’t have the balls to do something like that.

Our country is in one hell of a fix.

Prior:

Discovery In The Sandy Hook Families Versus Remington Case

Judge Barbara Bellis: Update On The Sandy Hook Families’ Lawsuit Of Remington

Judge Barbara Bellis Says Sandy Hook Families’ Lawsuit Against Remington Goes Forward

Daily Herald:

The Chicago Police Department for the first time will ask the public to comment on proposed changes in how officers may use force against people suspected of crimes — proposals that already are worrying some officers, such as restrictions on when to draw a weapon.

Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson has sent a memo to officers giving them highlights of the changes.

Among the most controversial proposals among the rank-and-file is for officers to keep their guns in their holsters “unless there is a reasonable belief that such action is necessary for the officer’s safety or the safety of others,” several officers told the Chicago Sun-Times on Friday.

One sergeant said he was worried the restriction could prompt officers to second-guess themselves in potentially dangerous situations in which they might have drawn their guns in the past.

I would have thought that this would have been fairly uncontroversial, but then again I guess I just have an exaggerated sense of equity and fairness.  If I can’t do it, and I expect that others can’t unholster their weapons towards me, then cops shouldn’t be able to do it either.  And there is that whole Tennessee versus Garner thing.

Kyle does a nice job with this.  I saw that Count Dracula concealed carry draw and thought it was rather goofy.

From Matt Bracken.

Popular Mechanics:

Defense contractor Textron just unveiled a new rifle at the Modern Day Marine conference. Designed to use so-called “telescoped” ammunition, the new rifle promises a harder-hitting, lighter bullet for America’s ground troops to fire. Whether the U.S. military is ready to embrace all the change a new rifle and ammunition would bring remains to be seen.

Traditional bullet cartridges have a bullet seated roughly halfway inside a brass shell casing, with gunpowder inside the casing. By contrast, the new rifle uses a 6.5-millimeter polymer-cased telescoped bullet. Telescoped rounds feature a bullet completely encased in a polymer shell, like a shotgun, with gunpowder surrounding the bullet in the shell.

The result is a cartridge that doesn’t use brass, a considerable savings in weight. According the Kit Up! blog, telescoped ammunition is about 40 percent lighter than traditional ammunition. Textron could have channeled this weight savings into making lighter ammunition, but instead it chose to make new ammunition that packs a bigger punch. The rifle—and 20 rounds of ammunition—weighs a total of 9.7 pounds. By contrast, the standard M4A1 (pictured above) and 30 rounds of ammunition weigh 8.74 pounds.

Textron claims the new 6.5-millimeter round has 300 percent more energy than the standard U.S. Army bullet, the M855A1. That translates into greater knockdown power against human targets, more armor penetration, and longer range. A heavier bullet and more energy would solve a persistent complaint about the U.S. Army’s M4A1 carbine—that the smaller 5.56-millimeter bullet often requires multiple hits to incapacitate a target and it lacks the range to make accurate long-range shots. The latter has been a particular complaint in Afghanistan, where long-range engagements are common.

Textron’s rifle is a gas-operated, piston-driven rifle that has many familiar features drawn from the M4A1, including a charging handle and gas block. It features military-standard rails for the attachment of devices such as flashlights and lasers, and what appears to be Advanced Armament Corporation flash hider. The front and rear sights, pistol grip, and buttstock are all from firearm accessory manufacturer Magpul.

Well, whatever.  It isn’t clear why the round has more energy.  That could be due to greater bullet mass or bullet velocity or a combination of both.  The mass of the bullet, grains of powder, muzzle velocity and other information are left unsaid.

If it has a higher muzzle velocity, then that will come with side effects such as shooting the barrel rifling out sooner than with the M4.  I could be wrong and commenters may correct me, but my understanding is that the guys who shoot .243 in competition have to be sponsored due to having to change barrels out so frequently (at 4000 FPS the barrels are good for only several hundred rounds and then they have to be replaced to maintain accuracy).

If the bullet has more mass along with more powder to propel it the same velocity as the 5.56 mm (~ 3150 FPS), then it has more recoil which will cause a change in the ability of the shooter to retain sight picture (a huge advantage of the low recoil 5.56 mm).  You don’t get something for nothing.

The 5.56 mm round has ended the lives of many enemy fighters in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.  It has a long history of being a highly proficient round, and most complaints about its effectiveness are due to the inability to properly utilize it.

I’ll stick with the Stoner design, thank you.  If the new cartridge is worth anything, it’ll have to prove its mettle in battle.

Jeremy Streich:

Nonetheless, the conversation must be had: the conversation to amend the Second Amendment. To collapse private gun ownership in a way that is Just and true. So that our lives can have a little less worry, a little less pain.

[ … ]

So what is the answer?

Evolution. Gun’s may never again be the same domestically entwined concept which they have occupied for the last century, but they need not not be invisible. To those who simply enjoy firing the weapon – for sport, hobby, practice – I propose the proliferation of recreational shooting courses. Now what does this mean? If marketed and executed correctly, there can be highly vetted (and highly disciplined) establishments which provide a social scene for people who enjoy the sport. Think of a gym, but instead of exercising your body, you are entering into an exercise of exhilaration, precision, and above all things, marksmanship. At the same time, these courses must be very structured (both physically and abstractly,) adhering to a stringent set of bylaws stamped into each establishment’s foundation.

[ … ]

To conclude, there is no steadfast answer to the pertinent and delicate second Amendment issue before us. Nonetheless, I think there are several partial resolutions that can dam up the leaking reservoir and ultimately propel our country back into a haven of security and social-progress. We cannot be certain how the balloons will inflate, but we do know what color they will be. Maybe it’s the establishment of indoor shooting recreation. The introduction of controlled-environment outdoor hunting. Or even artificially intelligent auto-locking weaponry. Regardless, we can be certain that the world – our world – will soon become a better place for more reasons than one: No more school shootings. No more unnecessary Chicago murders. And the birth of a new industry. The world is constantly changing around us; it’s time to get back to the forgotten Darwinian train of growth and to change with it. It’s time to evolve.

Jeremy Streich is a young author from Georgetown University.

Oh how cute!  A legitimate, full-orbed social Darwinist!  Say it ain’t so?  Are they still teaching that crap in college these days?  I would have thought it would have met its demise along with belief in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny.  Jeremy doesn’t really have much to worry about in his life except learning from his Marxist professors, no matter what he tells you.  Not when he has time to write drivel like this.

But there are problems.  He proposes to “collapse” private gun ownership, but you know he is lying because he doesn’t propose disarming the police.  This evolution he sees on the horizon apparently doesn’t include enough good will that law enforcement isn’t needed.  He just believes in a monopoly of force, what all social Hegelians believe (which is why cultural Marxists are always statists).  Once the evolved elitists have taken power, they must manage the world for the rest of the un-evolved peasants.

He doesn’t consider that I don’t get my right to self defense from the second amendment, so that nullification of said article doesn’t in the least affect my right to bear arms.  He also doesn’t understand that the second amendment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with personal self defense.  Good Lord.  Do these kids take history courses from anyone other than communists these days?

He also waxes highly emotional over the horrible state of affairs these days, while violent crime is at its lowest in decades.  He sees the world through youthful, uneducated eyes, aware of nothing much but what is going on immediately around him and over the last couple of years, thinking nothing much but what he’s been taught by the Marxists in college.

It would be amusing except for the danger inherent in his views.  He may one day be in a position of power and authority.  After all, such men always seem to rule others.  There is no need to wonder why America is so divided, with wicked men acting upon such a voracious appetite for controlling others.  It begins right here.

Jeremy wants to “collapse” private gun ownership.  Jeremy doesn’t think for a moment about the bloodshed that would cause.  The Jewish Holocaust and Armenian genocide were both predicated on gun confiscations, leading to millions of deaths.  This is one road.  The other is a people who won’t suffer such nonsense, leading to bloody civil war.  Jeremy is okay with at least one of these options, or otherwise hasn’t thought that deeply yet.  Perhaps his history courses haven’t covered any of this.

So here’s a quick note to Jeremy to assist your studies.  You want to collapse private gun ownership?  Any time you’re feeling froggy, Jeremy.  Roll the dice and take your chances.  You don’t make me the least bit nervous.  Get busy, boy.  Any time you’re feeling froggy.

Postscript to Jeremy.  You ought to demand a refund for the courses they’ve taught you at Georgetown.  Postscript to The Hill.  Can’t you do better than this?  What editor made the decision to go with something so random and disconnected, and so philosophically and historically bankrupt as this?