Articles by Herschel Smith

WLFI.com:

WOODBURN, Ind. (WANE) — The chief of the Woodburn Police Department pledged to never take away city residents’ guns in the improbable event martial law would be declared.

In a Facebook post late Monday, Chief Randall Duhamell posted on the Woodburn Police Department’s Facebook page that his department has fielded requests for information about martial law.

“LET ME BE CLEAR….We Will NEVER take your weapons…no matter who tells us too!” Duhamell wrote in the post.

“All of our officers swore an oath to protect our community against all enemies. We may use those citizens that legally carry as helpers in times of emergency.”

As of 10 a.m. Tuesday, the post was shared more than 2,200 times.

[ … ]

“We will never come and take your guns from your house or your vehicles,” the chief told News 18’s sister station, WANE, in an interview. “That’s not what we’re about, and I just wanted to share that with the community and let them know that we support the Second Amendment.”

I want to state up front that I appreciate the sentiment, and I also appreciate Chief Duhamell’s stated commitment to the second amendment.  I also appreciate the fact that he came out and said something to the community when he knew it was a salient issue and needed to be addressed.  I don’t want to be a jerk in the things I’m about to say.

The second amendment doesn’t justify my right to own weapons.  It is a covenant by which men agree to live together under certain stipulations.  They presence or absence of bearing arms in that covenant doesn’t affect in its essence the real basis for my bearing of arms.

That comes from God alone.  Furthermore, the intended use of carriers for times of emergency by the Chief is affirming, but irrelevant.  If gun owners are never any use to anyone but themselves and their families, that doesn’t affect one iota the real justification for the bearing of arms.

Finally, while I note that the Chief was probably speaking about intent rather than action, I would rather he had said that he and his officers would never attempt to confiscate weapons because that would be immoral.  Or more to the point, no sir, you never will take my weapons, and you don’t get the last say-so in the matter.

I would have been more affirmed and much more approving if the Chief had said not only would his officers never attempt to confiscate weapons, he would expect justified resistance if his officers attempted to do so.

The Boston Globe:

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said Wednesday she was cracking down on the sale of guns that, she said, were designed to skirt a state law banning assault weapons.

Healey said she had put gunmakers and sellers on notice that they were not allowed to sell the guns, which she said were intentionally designed to circumvent the ban by incorporating “small tweaks that do nothing to limit the deadliness of the weapon.”

The attorney general said at a morning news conference that the law remained the same, but her office would change the way it enforced it.

While manufacturers have deemed certain weapons in compliance with state law, she said, her office had looked at the issue and concluded that they weren’t.

“The gun industry does not get to decide what’s compliant,” she said during the event, where she was flanked by law enforcement officials, community leaders and anti-violence activists. “We do.”

[ … ]

Healey spoke after penning an opinion piece in Wednesday’s Boston Globe, in which she said the gun industry was taking advantage of a legal “loophole of potentially horrific proportions.”

She said her office had begun looking at the law in the wake of the deadly Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, where a gunman killed 49 people.

Healey said the recent killing of police in Baton Rouge and Dallas, along with the fatal shootings of black men at the hands of police, have only added to the urgency.

She described her action as “a step” toward reducing gun violence.

“It is not a total panacea, I recognize that, but it is a step,” Healey said.

She said her office had notified dealers in the state that they cannot sell guns whose “operating system is essentially the same as a banned weapon.”

Operating system.  Got that?  That means semi-automatic weapons of all kinds.  She doesn’t mean DI systems as designed by Eugene Stoner for the AR-15.  All semi-automatic weapons can discharge one round for every pull of the trigger.

Ms. Healey has declared herself the only sovereign potentate who gets to adjudicate on everything and anything she wishes.  She’s queen.  And gun owners should willingly bypass, smuggle, and disobey this edict however and whenever they can.

His name is Elliott Summey.

Charleston County Council Chairman Elliott Summey, a guns rights advocate who said he owns “a pile of guns,” now has said he mistakenly voted in favor of a resolution last week calling for state and federal authorities to outlaw the very type of firearms he owns.

Summey said there was some confusion at last Thursday’s vote because the resolution, as originally presented in writing, called for laws “banning all assault-style weapons” in South Carolina. Summey said he took that to mean fully automatic machine guns that fire hundreds of rounds, as were depicted in a video shown to council.

The council action had no force of law — a resolution is a statement of opinion — but it’s passage was noted by the National Rifle Association and websites such as Firearmslife. Summey, who switched political affiliations in 2012 and joined the Republican Party, issued a statement Monday disavowing his days-earlier support of the resolution.

“I’m not voting to take away guns that I already own,” Summey said Tuesday. “That’s insane.”

No, what would be insane is to believe you didn’t mean your vote.  A real gun owner and gun rights supporter wouldn’t have been hoodwinked by words, and would have voted against any new gun control law anyway.

What happens down in Charleston anyway?  Where do they get these people?  It was the Charleston lobby that persuaded the now defrocked Larry Martin to kill open carry because of all that tourism that would certainly have shut down if someone had seen a gun.

Good grief.

The author of this article at The Boston Globe, Akilah Johnson, is obviously trying to show the human side of gunsmiths and mechanics at Smith & Wesson as opposed to the ugly, boogeyman portrait the progressives paint.  But it reminds us (1) that Smith & Wesson has no business whatsoever still being ensconced in Springfield, and (2) this would never have to be done in most other locations in America (can you imagine a journalist having to show the human side of gunsmithing in, say, Charlotte, N.C., or Greenville, S.C.?).

Furthermore, this article isn’t really very friendly to Smith & Wesson or the place they live for the discerning gun owner.  Consider.

… to many, including US Representative Richard Neal of Springfield, who participated in that demonstration on the House floor, it is the hometown company.

“My own position has always been: Be helpful in that every police officer or patrolman in America ought to use a Smith & Wesson, and I think the American military ought to use a Smith & Wesson,” Neal said in an interview. “At the same time, there will be disagreements as it relates to guns.”

Their own member of the House participated in that juvenile sit-in, and would presume to mention firearms ownership within the context of LEO and the military, but noticeably didn’t mention anyone else.  What a horrible place for Smith & Wesson to do business.  Just horrible.

“It’s a good job,” co-worker Marc Holland called out from across the bar at the neighborhood watering hole early one morning last month.

Holland, 54, retired after 25 years at a paper mill and was looking for a way to stay busy. Six years ago, a friend at Smith & Wesson told him about an opening. Now, he works the machines that make triggers among other things.

“I can do like 3,600 triggers in a shift, over 10,000 in a week,” he said.

Excuse me, but I wouldn’t be bragging about how many triggers I could push out to the next mechanic if I were you.  Instead, I would be bragging about how I focused my time and effort on quality and craftsmanship.  Listen to me, Smith & Wesson gunsmiths and mechanics.  There are so many pistols, revolvers and rifles out there that competition will run you into the ground if you begin to work the line in order to maximize production instead of quality.  Gun owners will notice.  You’ll be shut down not because you can’t produce enough, but because we’ll be calling your stuff shit, and we’ll do it over forums, in blogs, and at the range.

Refocus on quality.  Tell me something about how you wake up in the morning and can’t wait to work that trigger to ensure its smooth action for that working-man buyer who is just like you, earning a living by the sweat of his brow.  Don’t tell me how fast you can do it.  I suppose that’s why I buy from the S&W performance shop if I buy S&W.  I know somebody has put some knowledge, skill, effort and craftsmanship into it.  I want to know that somebody left part of his soul in that machine when I pay that kind of money for it.  I leave my soul at work many a night when I leave.  It’s all I’ve got, and I’ve given it to a job I consider a blessing, with professionalism and excellence.  I want you to do the same thing, and if you can’t do it I want to know because I’ll never send another penny your way.

Neal said House Democrats were left with little recourse besides the sit-in to get the attention of US House Republicans, which after mass shootings in Orlando and San Bernardino, Calif., and Aurora, Colo., he figured would be easier to do.

“This highlights how difficult it is in America today to have a conversation about these sorts of things,” he said. “The majority in the House makes no effort to accommodate the concerns of the minority. That was true when we were in the majority, and it’s true now.”

Neal said he supports background mental health checks, closing gun show loopholes, and keeping those on the government’s no-fly list from being able to purchase firearms.

“I think those are reasonable positions by any standard,” he said.

The barber shop owners’ late father once worked for Smith & Wesson. Ralph Ricciardi, 45, said when his father first emigrated from Italy, he needed steady work before he could become a citizen. At the time, authorities did not consider being a barber secure employment.

“So my father actually made guns, from ’70 to ’74,” he said while cutting a client’s hair. “He opened up his shop in ‘74.”

“It’s just like a business. It’s just like a store or something,” said David Tancrati, 58, as he waited to sit in Ralph’s chair.

“We don’t even think about it. It employs a lot of people.” Ciro Ricciardi, 47, Ralph’s brother said.

Well, you should think about it, about the Puritan work ethic that brought you this kind of industry to begin with, and about the good weapons do for mankind.  If the only thing you can be proud of is a paycheck, and you have to ignore the product you’re making, you’re unworthy of the industry that calls Springfield home.

And to Congressman Neal, it’s easy to have conversations about guns.  We do it every day here.  And not one more law.  And I’ll converse with you about that until your eyes turn red and your heart stops, but conversing won’t change my mind.  Just as Springfield is unworthy of S&W, you are unworthy of the trust the people of your state have placed in you.  You should be ashamed, and I only hope that in the future, you get to look at the shuttered doors of the Springfield S&W plants as they have shut down and moved.  May your precinct turn into a ghost town.

News from Cleveland:

“We are sending a letter to Gov. Kasich requesting assistance from him. He could very easily do some kind of executive order or something — I don’t care if it’s constitutional or not at this point,” Stephen Loomis, president of Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, told CNN. “They can fight about it after the RNC or they can lift it after the RNC, but I want him to absolutely outlaw open-carry in Cuyahoga County until this RNC is over.”

So-called “open carry” gun laws in Ohio allow for licensed firearm owners to wear their weapons in public. With the exception of a small “secure zone” inside and around the Quicken Loans Arena, residents, delegates and protesters are legally permitted to walk around the city — including within its 1.7 square mile regulated “event zone” — with any firearm not explicitly banned by the state.

Kasich, responding to the request, said: “Ohio governors do not have the power to arbitrarily suspend federal and state constitutional rights or state laws as suggested.”

That’s interesting, yes?  It isn’t what you expect to hear from a cop.  Oh, they may think it about any number of issues, that is, not caring whether something is constitutional.  But you don’t expect to hear them say it.

This reference to the easy executive order Loomis is talking about might just be indicative of a changed perspective of having lived nearly eight years under a federal executive who couldn’t have cared less what the law said and issued dictatorial decrees as they saw fit to press their agenda.

It changes the expectations of people, huh?  Reeducation of the ignorant and valueless masses through lawlessness by the federal executive.  It’s a sorry-ass world isn’t it?

Outdoor Life:

There’s nothing new about the quest for a good bear-country sidearm, and what we’re carrying is evolving. Giant revolvers, though still popular, are somewhat antiquated. The Glock 20 is rapidly becoming the preferred arm of choice, and for good reason. It is more streamlined, more shootable, and it carries more ammo than a revolver, yet it is still dependable and powerful. My pal Andrew Brady of Lone Star Armory showed me a few tricks to improve a stock Glock.

Replace the Sights

Chances are an encounter with a bear that requires using a pistol will happen very fast. You may not even have time to aim, but any edge you can give yourself helps. XS Sight Systems makes by far the fastest-acquiring sights that I have used. In particular, I recommend its Big Dot express sights ($125).

Swap the Barrel and Recoil Assembly

A quality aftermarket barrel ($140) will increase accuracy. The new barrel, along with a guide rod and recoil spring ($40), can be easily swapped out while your pistol is field stripped.

Modify the Grip

The grip angle on Glocks is a big turnoff to some shooters. Their relatively “steep” angle gives a shooter the feeling of awkwardly having to point the pistol down, compared to a 1911, in order to level the sights. We outlined the steps to change the grip angle below. Grinding on a new pistol might feel counter­intuitive, but you end up with a better-shooting gun.

It just keeps going on in this article.  I am a fan of the 1911 with its eleven degree grip angle and narrow profile, and I don’t like the feel of the sharp edges of a Glock.  If you don’t want to shoot a 1911 but want a double stack higher capacity magazine, why not choose a Springfield Armory XD or XDm which is modeled in the same fashion of the eleven degree grip angle?

Or why not choose a .357 magnum or .44 magnum revolver?  Why would anyone spend the kind of effort and money necessary to pull this off when you can buy a new gun for the same amount?  I think the gunsmiths at Hyatt Gun Shop would look at you weird if you brought them these plans.

And for the record, a .45 ACP has proven enough to turn a bear away.

By now you’ve seen that a truck attack has strewn bodies for a mile along the Mediterranean coast in France.

At least 80 people have been killed and more than 50 injured after a 25-tonne lorry mowed down crowds for more than a mile before the driver got out and sprayed fleeing revellers with bullets as terror struck Bastille Day celebrations on the French Riviera.

One eyewitness described seeing ‘bodies flying like bowling pins’ and ‘hearing noises, cries that I will never forget’ as the horror unfolded on a busy promenade in the southern city of Nice at around 11pm last night.

Identity documents belonging to a 31-year-old French Tunisian were later found in the bullet-riddled truck after the gunman at the wheel was shot dead by police marksmen, security sources said.

The source added: ‘The identification of the truck driver is still underway.’ The recovered papers indicate the man is a resident of Nice.

The truck driver was said to have shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ – God is greatest – before being killed.

The driver is in hell now, so it would be redundant to tell him to go to hell.  As for the cause, we may all say with one voice, “we must ban trucks.”  For the children.  And when they learn to use fertilizer to make bombs, we must ban the planting of crops.

As for counsel that makes a difference in your life, you can fully expect this to come to America.  This is a guy with a truck, and anyone can do it. I actually heard the “security experts” on one channel (CNN) try to convince listeners that this man must have been a part of a large cell, that one CANNOT get guns in France (forget the Charlie Hebdo event and the Bataclan), and one CANNOT get bombs in France.  Period.  And that in order to learn to drive like this, you must have had military training, even through SpecOps level.

Seriously.  CNN tried to convince people that driving a truck through a crowded street required SpecOps level training.  What they were really doing is trying to convince people that the boogeyman was out there somewhere, rather than some radical Muslim who lives among us.  They even lamented that this event, like those before it, would push France even more to the right in its politics.  It was actually refreshing to listen to CNN (I hadn’t for perhaps twenty years).  This is how the other half lives.  It requires SpecOps training to drive a truck through a crowded street shouting Allahu Akbar.  Seriously.  You can’t make this up.

Carry a gun, avoid large crowds, and avoid confined spaces.  The counsel to avoid confined spaces might not make sense in this context, but seriously, think about a roadway with concrete and brick buildings on the sides and people in front and behind, and tell me how this is different than sitting in a worship service in any church in America waiting for a shooter to attack?  Think differently about your safety and security.  Begin now.

Remington filed a motion to withhold certain information concerning its Bushmaster brand of AR-15s, based mainly on the proprietary nature of said information.  For those of us who deal with technical information or trade secrets, this is routine and customary.  It is certainly not out of the ordinary, and the motion could have to do with information Remington wants to keep from being disclosed.  What if they have studied the rifling twist rate to  tweak it to produce a little more stable bullet flight, or studied barrel length to make it effective at longer distances, or whatever.  I don’t know, I’m just making this up as I go because I don’t know what they know after having invested their time and wealth in making a better rifle.  That’s the point, and that’s why Remington wants its information withheld from public disclosure.

Enter the Sandy Hook families again.

The families suing the maker of the AR-15 rifle used by gunman Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook massacre called a request by Remington Arms to keep company materials secret so that the company keeps its competitive advantage “repugnant,” according to a new filing in the case.

“Remington did not become the country’s leading seller of military weaponry to civilians by accident. It ascended to that position through its calculated marketing and pursuit of profit above all else,” lawyers for the Sandy Hook families wrote in a response objecting to a protective order filed by Remington.

As part of their lawsuit, families of victims have asked Remington to turn over its marketing materials in the belief that they will show that company intentionally marketed its high-powered rifles as “weapons of war” to civilians who had no business owning such guns.

“Plaintiffs lost family members, including children, in the service of that bottom line. Now Remington wants them to do more to protect its profitability,” the motion reads.

So let me translate.  We, the Sandy Hook families, don’t care about your God-given rights to defend yourself and your families the best way you see fit, nor do we care about the fact that in the court of public opinion, we lost and these weapons are entirely legal.

Furthermore, we don’t care that we don’t know what we’re talking about, and that virtually every gun in civilian use has a military application, from shotguns used for room clearing in Now Zad, Afghanistan by the Marines, to Remington 700 bolt action rifles used by Marine snipers in Iraq, nor that virtually every military weapon has a civilian application.

We don’t care about the fact that there isn’t the distinction between the two that we’re claiming, and we don’t care about the fact that weapons truly get tested by the civilian community, who has to spend their own money for the guns and reviews them on blogs and YouTube, rather than the military who has to use what the Pentagon buys for them, nor that vast improvements have been made to military weapon systems by applying civilian-based gun modifications or tactics developed in 3-gun competitions or the gaming community.

Hell, we don’t even care about the fact that there is a federal law against what we’re doing, called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and that we’re basically relying on a raving-bitch SJW judge named Barbara Bellis to help us through what would otherwise be dismissed with prejudice.  We don’t care that the weapon used in Sandy Hook was stolen.  No, we don’t care about anything but us.

The real morally reprehensible actions are being taken by the Sandy Hook families, not Remington.  How utterly despicable.

Prior:

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

Update On Sandy Hook Families’ Lawsuit Of Remington

Discovery In The Sandy Hook Families Versus Remington Case

WTOP.com:

Prince George’s County prosecutors have dropped 10 charges against a 25-year-old pizza delivery driver in Bladensburg, who says excessive force was used during a traffic stop.

Christopher Jeffries had used his cellphone’s camera to videotape the Jan. 17 traffic stop, in which a Bladensburg police officer approached his vehicle with gun drawn, after Jeffries made an abrupt turn and failed to immediately pull over when police followed him.

Jeffries repeatedly asked why he had been pulled over, while handing over his driver’s license.

In the video, which was posted on YouTube, Jeffries asked the officer to put away his weapon and said he was afraid having it pointed at him.

Eventually, after several warnings, Jeffries was pulled out of his car by more than one officer and brought to a police car, where he was assaulted, according to his lawyer J. Wyndal Gordon.

Jeffries was charged with 10 counts, including second degree assault, resisting arrest and attempting to elude a police officer.

Monday, Prince George’s County prosecutors dropped all charges against Jeffries, according to Gordon.

John Erzen, spokesman for Prince George’s County state’s attorney Angela Alsobrooks said “after we screened the case, we found there was insufficient evidence to sustain the charges against Mr. Jeffries. ”

Bladensburg police Lt. Tracy D. Stone said the police department was “disappointed” with the county’s decision not to proceed with the case.

When asked about the department’s policy on approaching a vehicle with a gun drawn, Stone said in an email that an officer may draw their firearm if they believe they “have to employ lethal force” or when the officer “believes that doing so will provide a tactical advantage.”

Well damn.  That about covers it, doesn’t it?  Whenever an officer believes that doing so will provide a tactical advantage?  By covers it, I mean all of the time, in any situation, any time, for any reason, you could have a LEO stick a gun in your face and argue that it was to his tactical advantage to do so.

And he would be right.  But he would also be in the wrong.  Moral wrong, that is.

I’ll let the lawyers weigh in on this one as to the legal ramifications of what this fellow did.  Readers can weight in too, but I wanted to focus on whether this was wise (h/t Uncle).

There is an interesting discussion here about this.  My take is that a mob, or any potential assailant for that matter, can close the gap very quickly.  I don’t fault the man for unholstering his weapon.  Neither do I fault him for walking backwards and very carefully while trying to pay attention to his surroundings.

What I would say though is that if he thought he was under threat, when he was out of range he should have retreated and gotten away.  I would have.  Remember, egress, evasion and escape.  That he came back will probably be a problem with a prosecutor.