Articles by Herschel Smith

See this depressing video in full.  This idiot gets annoyed with people walking through the airport, yanks the dog around on its collar, and teaches the dog nothing in the process.

Let’s go over that again.  The collar is around the dog’s neck.  You can do neck damage by slinging the dog around by the collar.  It’s a stupid and doltish thing to do.  This agent is completely untrained and inexperienced in how to handle animals.

Next, there is no instruction going on with the dog.  The dog doesn’t know what the handler wants him to do.  He (or she) has no idea how to make the handler happy with his performance because there is no teaching going on.  This is frustrating for the dog because dogs are bred to make us happy.  That’s all he wants in life, in addition to basic sustenance.

There is no instruction going on because the handler doesn’t know how to instruct the dog.  He is a dolt.  Not only is he untrained, he hasn’t self trained either.  He has read no books (perhaps he doesn’t know how to read), he has spent no time in obedience training with his own dog (if he has one), or else he abuses his own dog, and he has never spent time around farm animals.

Punitive punishment for dogs must be very quick, very short, and basically used only once so the dog knows what’s not acceptable.  Everything after that must be positive reinforcement.  Everything.  That’s why I congratulate my dog every time he let’s me know he needs to go outside to defecate.  Every …single … time.  And I will do this until he passes away.

If you do not know how to give positive reinforcement to a dog, find a good, loving home for the dog and go back to washing cars, bagging groceries and being alone in the world.  You’re no good for man nor beast.

And by the way, here is a recapitulation of my counsel to cops who reflexively shoot dogs.  Go work on a farm.  Although it must be observed that this guy is a TSA agent, and therefore is probably more of an idiot that most cops.

Few things piss me off more than seeing cops abuse dogs.

Via WiscoDave.

This TSA agent is unfit to handle a dog. pic.twitter.com/WaQ6mt6FR9

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) May 8, 2023

David Codrea.

The complaint, embedded below is a treasure trove of examples from even before the Second Amendment was written, presenting photographic examples including:

• 1720 Flintlock Pistol with Stock
• 1750 Flintlock Pistols with Stocks
• 1760 Flintlock Grenade Launcher
• 1780 Flintlock Pistol w Stock
• 1760-1820 Flintlock Pistol Carbine with detachable stock
• 1790 Flintlock Blunderbuss Pistols – w detachable stocks (and bayonets)
• 1795 Flintlock Blunderbuss – 15” barrel

“Such weapons continued after the ratification era, through the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the complaint continues, presenting further examples from 1820 through to the 1940s …

He uses the complaint brought by GOA attorney Stephen Stamboulieh, which we’ve linked before.

So if the Heller test is the law of the land, according to the Supreme Court, then “in common use” should completely disqualify SBRs from the NFA list, and the Bruen test for laws in place at the founding would certainly exclude SBRs (and pistol braces) from the NFA.

Source.  To secure the Southern border from invasion?  No such thing.

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. (WNCN) — Two North Carolina battalion-sized units are deploying to the U.S. southwest border in the coming days, the U.S. Northern Command said.

On Friday, the command announced that 1,500 active duty military service members under their command and control will deploy to the border at the request of the Department of Homeland Security with approval from the Secretary of Defense.

The mission includes the following battalion-sized units:

• 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
• Combat Logistics Battalion 2, 2nd Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
• 93rd Military Police Battalion, 89th Military Police Brigade, Fort Bliss, Texas

The U.S. Northern Command said the majority of active duty personnel will come from the U.S. Army and U.S. Marines, along with a small number from U.S. Air Force.

While there, the command said the units will provide support to the DHS with duties including data entry, warehousing support and additional detection and monitoring support efforts.

“This military support increases the availability of Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) law enforcement personnel to conduct law enforcement specific duties,” the U.S. Northern Command explained in a news release.

U.S. troops are heading to the border — again.  So they can be clerks, maids, janitors, and in-processing specialists filling out paperwork.

That’s how much your betters care about you, your food and medical bills, and the invasion of the Southern border.

And they wonder why they can’t meet recruiting goals!

Source.

North Carolina lawmakers pulled back Wednesday from a bill that would let people carry concealed guns without a permit.

The measure faces an uphill battle now, with the top Senate Republican saying Wednesday that he doesn’t think it’s time to take up the issue. In the House of Representatives, lawmakers punted on a scheduled vote, indicating the bill didn’t have enough support to pass the chamber.

House Bill 189 would let any legal gun owner conceal that gun. Right now gun owners need a concealed carry permit to do that, which is typically issued by their local sheriff. That process requires a background check, proficiency test and a test on the rules for self defense and where guns are allowed.

Those tests, and the permits themselves, would be optional under the bill.

The bill moved through a pair of committees Tuesday and seemed primed to pass the House. But enough Republican lawmakers had misgivings to at least delay the measure, and leadership dropped it from Wednesday’s House floor calendar. Tomorrow brings a legislative deadline that there are ways around but which generally requires bills to pass at least one chamber to stay alive.

Also Wednesday, Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger indicated the bill would not move through his chamber this session. Berger, R-Rockingham, said Senate Republicans hadn’t discussed the bill, but that the General Assembly already passed a substantial gun bill this year, ending the state’s pistol permit system.

That system required people to get a permit from their sheriff to purchase a handgun, and Republicans lawmakers scrapped (editorial comment – passed?) it over Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto.

This is the good part – listen to his excuse.

“We’ve done away with the pistol purchase permit, which was the No. 1 goal of many of the gun rights groups for a long period of time,” Berger said Wednesday. “I just don’t know if there’s a need for us to delve into additional issues dealing with guns and people’s 2nd Amendment rights.”

“People have a right to protect themselves utilizing weapons, and law abiding citizens can be trusted to handle those rights responsibly,” Berger said. “I just don’t know that the timing is right for us, at this time, to move forward with additional gun legislation.”

We’ve let rights dribble out to the people this year, so what’s the problem with ignoring the rest of it?

The N.C. Sheriffs Association opposed the bill which I’m certain didn’t help.  But here is the rest of the story you weren’t told above.

Isn’t that sweet.  “The NRA will never apologize for refusing to compromise on an issue as critical as constitutional carry.”

Okay, how about the NFA, the GCA, the Hughes Amendment, the Bump Stock Ban, Red Flag Laws, the initial AWB, and I could go on.  Do you apologize for those abominations?

Honestly, I see the virtue of waiting to get this right, but I would have preferred that we go ahead and get some of this done now and correct it later after lawmakers saw that blood doesn’t really run in the streets.

But the most telling thing here are the two responses, first Berger’s, and then the NRA’s.  And Paul is right that the NRA will then swoop in to take credit for it all if it does finally pass after having ignored it the whole time.

What a despicable organization.

Tenth Amendment Center.

On Wednesday, the Montana Senate gave final approval to a bill that would place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to remove a clause restricting concealed carry. The amendment would limit the state’s power to regulate the concealed carrying of firearms and also foster an environment hostile to federal gun control.

Rep. Casey Knudsen (R) introduced House Bill 551 (HB551) on Feb. 14. The bill concerns Article II, Section 12 of the state constitution, which reads:

Right to bear arms. The right of any person to keep and bear arms in defense of 19 his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be 20 called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.”

HB551 would place an amendment on the ballot to remove “but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons” from that section. It would also change the phrase “keep or bear arms” to “keep and bear arms.”

Passage of HB551 now places the proposed amendment on the ballot in the November 2024 general election.

On April 4, the House passed HB551 by a 65-33 vote. It then cleared the Senate 33-17, narrowly reaching the two-thirds majority necessary.

Montana legalized permitless carry in 2021. This constitutional amendment would make it more difficult for the state to repeal that law. More generally, it would set the stage to end any state regulation on concealed carry.

[ … ]

Because it is a constitutional amendment, it will bypass the governor and now be sent to voters for approval in 2024.

Readers in Montana can weigh in with details, but I expect this to pass a voter referendum.

Montana – showing the rest of the states how to do it right.  Make it a constitutional amendment.

I didn’t respond to this comment at the time because I wanted it to “soak” a while first.  Here is Steve Kellmeyer’s comment on a previous post.

Shooting individual hogs is a VERY bad idea. The only way to eradicate feral hogs is to capture an entire SOUNDER, the whole thing, at one time. If you just kill individual hogs, they break into multiple sounders which all go their separate ways. You turn them into quicksilver and they spatter everywhere.

There are ways to catch whole sounders at once. Do that. You get more meat for the poor, you actually eradicate the population.

Steve isn’t a thinking man.  No one is going to “eradicate” the feral hog population.  Hear me now and hear me good.  Feral hogs are around for good.  They will not be eradicated.  Period.  Full stop.  But this comment goes further by asserting that “If you just kill individual hogs, they break into multiple sounders which all go their separate ways.”

Steve has never hunted hogs before.  That isn’t how any of this works.  Hogs sometimes travel in sounders, sometimes not.  Sometimes if there is a sounder, it might consist of a few hogs, mostly sows, but even sows run alone sometimes.  I’ve seen it.  Boars mostly run alone.  They may come back to a sounder from time to time for copious mating, but they don’t necessarily stick around other hogs all the time.  When you see hogs, you may see one, or you may see two, or you may see twenty at a time.  The boars that are alone aren’t in some sort of panic to get around a sounder because he loves his pigs.  Wildlife biologists are anthropomorphizing hog behavior.

They travel in the day, they travel in the night time hours.  They adapt and adjust rapidly, and no one tactic will be successful all the time and in all circumstances.  They feed in the day, they are nocturnal feeders.  They defy strict categorization, regardless of what “Steve” says.  Ask me how I know.  I know partly because I’m not a pointy head wildlife biologist who thinks he can write a journal article or be interviewed for the newspaper, or contract a hired hand, and make things okay.

That seems to be the way of things at the moment while time is ebbing away to cap their population.  Witness this article concerning Canada’s exploding feral hog population.

What Manitoba does have are provincial rules that allow wild pig hunting any time of year with no bag limit, or restriction on number of animals they take. In B.C., “hunting is the only control measure,” the Invasive Species Council wrote in 2019.  In Saskatchewan, although “wild boar may be shot by Saskatchewan residents without a licence to protect their property, hunting is not a recommended control measure,” Sharks explained in an email.

Alberta’s strategy incentivizes hunting directly, offering to pay hunters $75 per set of ears. The CBC reported last fall that zero kills had been made in the bounty program, but Brook is not a fan of the idea.

“I have been vocally saying that a bounty is a great option if you want more wild pigs. That is a fantastic strategy — if you want to double your pigs,” Brook said sarcastically.

He explains that research shows hunting actually accelerates the spread of wild pigs, as they flee to new areas to evade hunters.

Instead, the wildlife biologist recommends hiring a professional trapper.  Next up, this stupid article.

An open hunt intended to eradicate Alberta’s wild boar population may instead make the feral swine more elusive to bounty hunters, a researcher warns.

The province has placed a price on the heads of wild pigs — re-establishing a bounty program designed to root out stubborn populations of the invasive species.

The hunt must be carefully managed, said Ryan Brook, an associate professor in the agriculture department of the University of Saskatchewan and director of the Canada Wild Pig Research Project.

Sporadic hunting will make the animals harder to track, Brook said. Wild boar quickly learn to disperse and evade threats — and will pass these tricks onto their young.

They already know those lessons, Ryan, and if they don’t, they’ll learn them in a single day when your local trapper puts out corn feeders and drops cages on them.  I could go on and on with these articles, but you get the picture.  Some of them want to hire professional “sharpshooters,” as if he can do something that a hunter can’t or his shot won’t scatter a sounder while a hunter’s shot will (by the way, neither will happen).  They want to use tactics that will be equally found out and learned by the hogs.  Additionally, those methods are affecting the known, visible hog population, not the ones we know are there but not cataloged by the pointy head wildlife biologists.

I repeat, feral hogs won’t be eradicated.  It’s not going to happen.  It’s far too late for that.  These hog cages dropping on corn feeders require expensive material and construction, cameras, people watching and patterning them, and they’re good for about as long as one or two catches, and then it’s over.  The hogs won’t come back after investing weeks of patterning the hogs and ensuring that they are healthy with good food.  And the trappers charge a lot of money.  Besides, this video shows what happens fairly well – the catch of this massive operation is about 50 hogs with two cages.

There are more than 1.5 million feral hogs in Texas alone.  That estimate is probably very low.  At 1.5 million hogs, 50 per massive nighttime operation, and assuming 10 such catches per night over the state (consider the cost of an operation like that), it would take 3000 days or 8.22 years to make your way through the population assuming no reproduction at all.

Do you see the scope of the problem?

So follow the pointy head wildlife biologist’s advice and trap if that’s what you want to do.  Also, hunt them, individually and collectively, alone and in sounders.  Don’t poison them as I’ve seen some idiots suggest because that poison will make its way into the ecosystem.  That may be the dumbest solution I’ve seen floated.

But to assert that killing a hog will make the problem worse is the most asinine advice I’ve witnessed.  Feral hogs don’t fit neatly into your Aristotelian categories.  Your error is in trying to categorize them at all.  Don’t categorize them – kill them.

They don’t do what you would predict, and they won’t do what you want.  If you want to cap the feral hog population, do everything possible to kill as many as you can by any means you can wherever and whenever you can.  Hunters are not the problem and the solution isn’t another tax and public works project.

Got it?

In another very interesting and insightful video, Mark makes a very good case for the reason and justification for the supreme court having accepted this case with one justice recusing herself in the case.

He predicts the end of the Chevron doctrine within a year.  I hope so.  The deep state needs to take a very large blow to their authority.  I don’t even believe the three-letter agencies have a constitutional right to exist.

His show-and-tell on hammer fall between single action and double action is interesting.

I know that Colt reduced the spring coefficient on the design, leading to some degree of concern over light primer strikes.

But I haven’t seen this with any ammunition except poorer quality (or in his case, exotic hand loads).

Comments on this are always welcome if you have experience with the new Colt Python.

Eugene Volokh.

The case arose before Bruen, when New York required a showing of special need to get a license to carry a gun for self-defense. The petitioner had argued that she needed a gun because she and her husband would often carry substantial sums of cash for business, but the New York licensing authorities responded that she “failed to explain why her stated self-defense needs were not already adequately and independently addressed by her husband’s recent acquisition of an unrestricted concealed carry license.”

The New York intermediate appellate court rejected that logic (Matter of DiPerna-Gillen v. Ryba, decided Thursday in an opinion by Justice Stan Prizker, joined by Presiding Justice Elizabeth Garry and Justices Michael Lynch, Molly Reynolds Fitzgerald and Eddie McShan). The court’s main point was that, given the decision in Bruen, which came down while the appeal was pending, petitioner had a constitutionally protected right to carry, even without a showing of special need.

What a bunch of jerks.  They would force the husband to accompany the wife everywhere she went in order to obtain means of self defense, which might be a good idea at times, but comports more with Islamic culture than it does with Christianity.

Reddit/Firearms has an interesting discussion thread on shooting stances.  I think the prevailing wisdom is that you use what’s best for you, and I concur with that.  This string of comments was particularly interesting.

Quick breakdown that most don’t know… (isocoles ISN’T the only way to shoot… and currently it’s mostly done wrong)

This is going to be long and I apologize.There are 3 basic shooting stances -Weaver Chapman and isosceles. Most people think that the stance is based on foot placement,. It isn’t. It is actually based on upper body, and arm position.

Weaver was a big strong muscular guy, who bent his elbows pulled the gun in close and shot almost perpendicular to his target. Weaver IS categorized by bent elbows and pure muscle control. It requires a push/pull between the firing and support hand to create stability.

Chapman came along and modified the weaver stance by introducing a locked-out firing-hand elbow. Chapman is also called the “modified weaver” – typically standing about forty five degrees off of target. If the solid firing arm increases structural support and management, While the bent support arm adds stability. While there is still a push/ pull, the pull creates structure by locking the firing arm.

Traditional isosceles is just that – an isoscoles triangle. Both elbows locked out, your shoulder width acts as the base of the Triangle. As soon as you bend your elbows, you have taken the structure out of the isosceles stance, and you are essentially in a weaver stance (this is the current “isoscoles”- because traditional isoscoles is REALLY rough on the elbows). Isosceles came to prominence in the heyday of early shooting competitions, and more importantly with the advent of body armor. If you stand sideways in a traditional weaver or chapman stance the hole in your body armor is now facing toward your potential threat.

Sorry, long answer to a short question..There are benefits to all three stances, but no one is perfect. Each do certain things better than the others. Each have their positives and drawbacks. They all hold a place.

If i were to take a long pistol shot… it would be in a Chapman stance…

If i was clearing a house/ doorway/etc it would most likely be in weaver …

Wearing body armor… lean toward isoscoles.

[ … ]

I was recently informed that weaver is the way it is because he had an issue with his left shoulder and was doing his best with what he had. Otherwise he’d have shot isosceles.

[ … ]

factual. he had to change so he slapped his name on it to create branding and keep making money as an instructor.

Some call it Chapman, some call it Modified Weaver.  I prefer Modified Weaver.  It’s still the Weaver stance, just slightly altered.  Pew Pew Tactical has pictures of the stances.  I prefer the Isosceles stances, except for hard hitting cartridges like the .44 magnum, which are too much for the hands when the elbows aren’t helping to absorb recoil as a shock absorber.

I think the method taught throughout the military now is Isosceles due to the presentation of unprotected body (lacking armor) that any other stance causes.  Aggressive plates-forward, it’s called.