Articles by Herschel Smith

Alan and Steve,

My relationship with Rock River Arms has been an interesting one.  I first purchased an Elite CAR A4 several years ago, and in the thousands of rounds I have put downrange with my rifle, I have yet to have a failure of any kind, FTF or FTE.  My former Marine son has shot it before and tells me it’s far better than the rifles he had to shoot in the Marines.  I am proud to have my rifle, and you should be proud to make them.

However, I sent a note to you several years ago (a month or so after I purchased my rifle) when I realized that I had lost my registration card for the warranty, and you informed me that you could not send a replacement registration card, meaning that my rifle wasn’t under warranty.

That mattered a lot to me then, but matters little to me now.  My rifle has had no problems and I expect none from it.  It is a fine, precision machine.  But I must say that this was less than stellar customer service, especially when I offered to send you my receipt of purchase from Hyatt Gun Shop.  Your refusal to help me puzzled me then and does so to this day.

Letting “bygones be bygones,” we should move on to more pressing matters.  There is the issue of the firearms manufacturers boycott that we need to discuss.  I understand that these are serious issues, not only because of the gravity of the subject, but because you have a fiduciary responsibility to your employees.

As you know, several states are enacting draconian gun laws that infringe on our second amendment rights.  A number of firearms manufacturers have decided to boycott these states, allowing law enforcement to purchase only those weapons allowed to non-law enforcement.

The response give to us by some manufacturers, i.e., that there is concern for the ability of law enforcement to do their jobs in the face of the boycott, rings hollow.  If this is true, it is true of non-law enforcement as well, and the only way to drive this point home is to allow everyone to reap the consequences of what they sow.

I would like to say that RRA had worked well with me in each and every interaction.  That would not be true, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t purchase a RRA firearm in the future.

But this decision is important to me and millions of other gun owners and defenders of the second amendment.  Please let me know the decision made by RRA concerning this matter so that I may pass it on to my readers.  Believe me when I tell you that I have been your local ambassador for RRA.  I wear a RRA hat on my walks and at the gym, discuss my rifle over my web site, and recommend your company to people asking me questions about AR-15s.  I would like to continue this advocacy.

Respectfully submitted,

Herschel Smith

In the mail from Rob Olive, Essential Liberty.

They thought it would never happen here… Seemingly ripped from today’s headlines, Essential Liberty is an action-filled, thought-provoking work of fiction about governmental overreach and the abuse of power. Through believable characters and words that could have come from our current political debate, Essential Liberty asks, “What if?”…and then provides the answer. The United States government has banned and begun confiscating firearms from its citizens. Insurance executive Don Williams has never owned a gun and is part of the majority of Americans who initially favored “Collection” (the official term for confiscation), yet he’s shocked to see his fellow countrymen being rounded up on the evening news. Don’s good friend, former Marine Mike Niculescu, owns many firearms and has refused to surrender them. The son of immigrants from Communist Romania reveres them as symbols of liberty. Bill Payne, of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, commands an ATF Hazardous Operations Team. These elite new teams are reserved for Collection operations with a high level of risk. Payne wants his unit to be the first to make headlines. As the story unfolds, Don is forced to make a choice: Will he turn a blind eye to the abuse of power, or will he choose—for the first time in his life—to make a stand on principle that will put everything he cares about at risk?

The first chapter reads very quickly, and Mike is taking actions that I have soberly discussed with my sons, only Mike is better prepared and more thoughtful that I am.  As I read through the chapter, I thought, “This isn’t a novel, this is prescient.” David Codrea also has a good review.  It’s worth the time and money, both David’s review and Rob’s book.

Montana Outdoor:

Jeramiah Mathis, of the Hamilton, Montana area, has been hunting his entire life, and before he was legally able to hunt, he was tagging along with his Dad while he was hunting and laying traps.  Jeramiah wasted no time having his first successful hunt and shot his first deer at the age of 12.  His passion for hunting increases with every hunt he does.

Now 29 years-old, Jeramiah went on ”his” first cat hunt up the West Fork on February 10th of this year.  He had been out before with his father-in-law, a local outfitter at Rocking W Outfitters in Darby, assisting out-of-state hunters with their mountain lion hunts, but Jeramiah hadn’t ever been the one trying to fill his own cat tag.

Jeramiah’s hunting buddy on this particular trip was his six year-old daughter.  “Hunting is in her blood”, Jeramiah responded with when I asked him if his daughter has any interest in hunting when she is old enough.  “She is always asking me to take her up in the snow to look for animals” he added.  This lucky youngin got to be right there with her parents when her Mom shot her first whitetail and her Dad shot his first mountain lion.

The cat was taken with Jeramiah’s AR-15 sporting rifle.  This particular gun is his gun-of-choice while hunting nowadays, and it certainly proved to be effective with this hunt!

You mean you can actually hunt with an AR-15 – or as some prefer, a modern sporting rifle?  Maybe it’s sort of like hunting feral hogs, the ones that run in such huge packs that you need a high capacity magazine for them, except that with hogs you take a lot of shots and with the big cat he apparently took one.

And Stephen Bayazes defended his life with one too.  I guess you can just do all sorts of things with them.

UPDATE: Rick Keyes comments over Facebook that “I have used mine to deer hunt for 8 years since my last shoulder surgery.”

THIS makes it sound like he does.

David Codrea:

… the US Rifle M1 caliber .30-06 a gas operated, clip fed, air-cooled semiautomatic shoulder weapon weighing 9.5 lbs. Yes that one, the primary infantry shoulder arm that won WW II.

“Our HIGH SCHOOL armory had 50 of these, two Browning Automatic Rifles, five M1 carbines, two .45 cal. semi auto M1911A1 pistols, and one M3 submachine gun,” he continued. “Similar armories were present at even INNER CITY High Schools like Lindbloom, Marshall, Farragutt and most every school that had a junior ROTC, and there was NEVER a school shooting or any one harmed by the presence of these lethal military weapons.

I want to go back in time and attend this High School.  It goes to show that the problem isn’t guns or even access to them.  The problem is and always has been evil in the heart of man, and no law, no government program, no social engineering scheme, and no amount of intelligentsia with law degrees and master’s degrees in social work and international studies making rules and regulations for us peasants, will ever change that.

That’s what frustrates the statists so much.  They see evil, but they don’t understand it.  They cannot control it – they do not understand its origin, or its solution.  So they participate in it themselves in an attempt to eradicate it.  They want to bring in utopia, but they fail and become what they seek to remedy – evil itself – evil in the onerous rule they force on others.  It’s all a problem of world view, and their’s is doomed to failure at the outset.

Read it all at Examiner.

In Gun Companies Holding The States Accountable we discussed a two pronged approach to addressing the anti-gun legislation that is brewing in certain states, New York, Illinois and Colorado being three key locations. The first of the two prongs involves a refusal to sell to law enforcement when the weapons being sought are prohibited to non-law enforcement.  At the time, LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, Templar Custom and Extreme Firepower had enacted policies against selling to law enforcement in New York. The second prong involved the courtship of firearms manufacturers to move to more gun friendly states.  I have mentioned that Remington Arms, Rock River Arms, Springfield Armory and Kimber were prime candidates for this courtship, and I had made a special plea for Remington to relocate to South Carolina along with other firearms industries to move to the South in general. Since publication of these articles there have been other firearms manufacturers who have joined the boycott of New York law enforcement.  Joining the expanding group are the following companies.

• Bullwater Enterprises
• Westfork Armory
• Smith Enterprise
• Alex Arms
• Spike’s Tactical
• Quality Arms
• Liberty Suppressors
• Doublestar Corp
• American Spirit Arms
• Trident Armory
• Head Down Products
• J&G Sales

Barrett Arms has also joined the group, issuing the following statement.

Barrett’s Position Regarding the Assault on Liberty February 20, 2013 Barrett opposes those who are illegally disarming the American public from their efficient arms and creating superior armed elitist government agencies. Elected state officials of New York, having been sworn to protect our Constitution, have instead committed an offense against it and their citizens by stripping inalienable rights duly protected and guaranteed under the Second Amendment. By their deliberate and sinister actions, these officials now cause their state and local policing agencies to enforce these unconstitutional and illegal so called “laws”. By current law, Barrett cannot be an accomplice with any lawbreaker, therefore, cannot and will not service or sell to New York government agencies. Barrett also applies this stance to the individual elected official who, as a matter of public record, has voted for or created regulation that violates the constitutional rights of their citizens. This is an expansion of our 2002 ban against the California government due to their second amendment infringements, and shall apply to any future violators.

Additionally, the states are lining up to court firearms manufacturers.  South Carolina wants Remington and is telling them so.  Magpul has threatened to leave Colorado if the law is passed prohibiting the very magazines (PMAGs) made in their factories.  Alabama is recruiting Magpul, along with Texas, and Oklahoma is in competition with South Carolina in its quest for Remington. New York Governor Cuomo has stated that “There is no shortage of responsible venders who would want to assist New York’s law enforcement agencies keep New Yorkers safe.”  Perhaps there are still those who will supply firearms and firearms parts and accessories to New York law enforcement.  Colt is still smarting from losing the M4 contract with the Army. But the list of non-participants is dwindling rapidly, and it is best for reputable firearms manufacturers to make their decision sooner rather than later.

I had previously mentioned that I had sent notes to Smith and Wesson, Rock River Arms, Remington, Glock, Sig Sauer, Springfield Armory and Kimber asking for their official position on selling to law enforcement in states that have anti-gun policies.  I have received no response from these companies. Making decisions of this kind are major events in the life of a company.  Relinquishing revenue is serious stuff, and decisions like that are usually made at the board of directors level.  On the other hand, gun companies who lead the pack are also usually rewarded in the American civilian market, and this market is far more valuable than law enforcement or even military. Pressure on these companies is appropriate, and they need to hear from you concerning the totalitarian measures being taken in anti-gun states.  Who will be the first really large firearms company to refuse to sell to these states?  Once this first domino falls, the rest will follow.

UPDATE #1: Michelle Malkin has an article up focusing mainly on manufacturing aspects of this issue, although also briefly discussing the boycott of anti-gun states.  She has good information that complements my own.

UPDATE #2: reddit/guns has the most comprehensive list of companies to date that are participating in the boycott.

Courtesy of NC Gun Blog and refusetosell.org.  It is still necessary for the large companies to participate.  Reddit/guns has a list of e-mail addresses to whom you can write.

UPDATE #3: David Codrea has some salient thoughts.  “I’m reminded of “Braveheart,” where the titled and propertied lairds cut their own deals with Longshanks and withdrew from the field, leaving the freedom fighters to take all the risks and suffer all the losses. It’s past time the entire industry was put on notice and then held accountable for any cowardice in this time of threat on all fronts.”

UPDATE #4: Thanks to Ron for the link at reddit/guns.

Soon to the report – but first a little story.

Once upon a time some teenagers were racing hot rods down Ocean Drive in Myrtle Beach, S.C.  Tourists were hit by one of these kids, and so the townsfolk came together and decided that something must be done to make things safer.  The decided on a plan, and even had a real time, in-situ display of their new ideas for the voters before the town voted on it.

They all got together that day and after speeches about “caring for the children,” and waded into the ocean, each participant having another participant (they called him their swimming buddy) within 20 feet of him, both to the right and left.  No one, according to the new ordinance, would be allowed to swim in the ocean, night or day, without buddies within 20 feet.  It would all be monitored by cameras and enforced by newly hired police officers.

Some of the townsfolk objected that no one could ever swim again because the line of buddies would never end since a person would have to be flanked on both sides, and thus the stipulations could not be logically met, but the participants told the objectors to “shut up, just because.”  Others objected that this all had nothing whatsoever to do with High School kids racing hot rods on Ocean Drive, but the partipants and local politicians all told them to “shut up, just because.”  And besides, “think about the children.”  And then, “shut up.”

I hope that this little parable has been a useful introduction to what seems to be coming down the road.

No surprise but newsworthy insofar as I think this is the first time a Republican as prominent as McCain has talked openly about some new form of gun control passing Congress. If you’re not sure what he means when he refers to the plan Coburn and Schumer are working on, read this. They’re going to close the “gun-show loophole” but carve out exceptions for family transfers and maybe for people who’ve already been vetted for concealed carry. How many votes will there be for that? Well, they’ll start at 58: Coburn and Mark Kirk are part of the group that’s working on a compromise bill and McCain’s already hinting that he’s a yes, so add those three to the Democrats’ 55 (no Dem would dare oppose a measure that might complicate Obama’s “Republican obstructionism” message on gun control). Collins and Murkowski are always gimmes on big bipartisan initiatives too, so there you go — 60 votes for cloture, although there’s bound to be many, many more than that. Follow the last link for your reminder that expanded background checks is the one gun-control measure that polls fantastically well across party lines. Even Lindsey Graham, who needs to protect his right flank in case of a primary challenge in South Carolina next year, is open to some form of new background checks albeit not the Democratic plan. You might see a majority of House Republicans vote no, partly as a symbolic rejection of further gun-control regulations and partly to distinguish themselves from the squishy RINOs in the Senate for the benefit of red-district voters, but it’s going to pass that chamber too with bipartisan support. When push comes to shove, I think Boehner would rather violate the “Hastert Rule” and push this thing through with mostly Democratic votes than risk handing Obama a potential weapon for 2014 by rejecting something that even many Senate Republicans support.

Regular readers know my view.  Universal background checks are a pretext for and necessary prerequisite to a national gun registry, and a national gun registry is a precondition for gun confiscations.  Furthermore, none of this has anything to do with the shootings that have been in the news lately.  And finally, we’ll see how that exception goes where they want to carve out provisions for transfer of firearms to children.  Give it some time – it will turn totalitarian because that’s the way totalitarian systems work.

But remember this fact about the entire conversation.  None of this is related to the antecedent events.  The only clear-cut and logical legislative action I support is abolishing gun-free zones.  Everything else is just a smoke screen.

The Washington Times:

Bob Beckel, co-host of “The Five” on Fox News, doubted the need for women to carry guns on college campus as protection because rape rarely takes place at institutions of higher learning anymore.

Mr. Beckel said, according to a report by The Blaze: “When was the last time you heard about a rape on campus?”

Another co-host, Eric Bolling, said rape on campus was “rampant,” The Blaze reported, and said denying women the right to carry at college was tantamount to an open invitation to criminals.

Co-host Dana Perino agreed with Mr. Bolling, that rape is a huge issue for women attending college. Mr Beckel wasn’t swayed.

“Date rape, yeah that’s one thing,” he said, according to The Blaze. “But you gonna take a gun out and shoot your date?”

Politico reports Mr. Beckel subsequently apologized for his remarks.

“It’s a horrible, horrendous issue. Simply put, rape is rape. Whether it’s date rape or it’s somebody coming in off the campus trying to rape somebody else,” he said, according to Politico. “I just want to straighten the record out on that. I simply was trying to make — there was not a distinction to make here. It simply was that date rape is rape, and that is, by any other definition, rape is rape.”

The great thing about extemporaneous speaking is its honesty, regardless of the subsequent triangulations.  The democrats really are the party that supports rape.

Good grief!  CCRKBA has turned to the dark side (h/t David Codrea).

One of Washington state’s largest gun-rights groups is negotiating with lawmakers on a deal that would simultaneously boost a controversial gun-control proposal and remove one of gun owners’ biggest fears.

Alan Gottlieb, of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said Tuesday night he has offered to support mandatory background checks for all firearm purchases if state lawmakers agree to end what some see as a de facto database of handgun owners.

“I need to see the final version, but we’re working with the sponsors of the bill to try to get one that’s workable,” said Gottlieb, who also runs the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation. “If we can accomplish that, it’s a win for all sides.”

No.  It is not a win for all sides.  It’s a win for the totalitarians and a loss for law abiding citizens.  I don’t want to hear another damn thing about how the NRA waffles and turns against our interests.  At least – so far – Wayne hasn’t turned to this kind of pandering.

Good grief!

Poor Bob Bettilyon tries but doesn’t get it quite right.

Since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, and many believe in the original-intent interpretation of the Constitution, perhaps only guns with the technology that existed in 1791 should be allowed, i.e., muskets.

I would be OK with a “concealed musket law” or a “stand your ground musket law.”

Carrying gun powder and 30 lead balls for a musket seems more reasonable than 30-round magazines. Drive-by musket shootouts, or lunatics going to a school armed with a musket and 30 lead balls, don’t seem quite as scary.

The National Rifle Association could say “only a good guy with a musket can stop a bad guy with a musket.”

So, I propose banning all guns not originally available in 1791, except for real militias such as a police department.

The first paragraph quoted sets the stage for the misadventure since it contains false assumptions.  The argument ends in disaster, when he says that police departments are the real militia.

Using the colonialists as a reference point, they couldn’t have been referring to police departments as the militia, because the constabulary existed in colonial times.

… the constabulary in North Carolina resembled the office of petty constable in the mother country, though in the colony it lacked the “almost infinite variations of methods [found] in [the] shires and hundreds and parishes” of England that emanated from centuries of “custom and practice.” Fundamentally distinguishing the English petty constable from his colonial counterpart was the former’s role as a spokesman for his village. In the hierarchical schema of English polity and society, the petty constable served as an intermediary between local inhabitants and politico-judicial authority. In North Carolina, however, local justices of the peace and sheriffs stayed more closely attuned to the people, obviating a mediatory role for the colonial constable.

And do you notice one of the differences pointed out between British and American constables?  We don’t need or want an intermediary.  In fact, we don’t want a “hierarchical schema” at all.

Don’t tread on me.