Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

RRA responds:

Larson took after the good folks at The Truth About Guns, which she referred to as an ‘activist website’. “This boils down to a small, so-called gun-rights activist website that took the majority of things out of context, to make it sound like Rock River Arms and Springfield Armory were IFMA,” she said. “We did not have control over all actions. IFMA acted autonomously on our behalf.”

[ … ]

Larson then decried Illinois politics, which have almost become a blood sport.“I can’t get into all the details of the politics, as this is still a very real threat,” she told Mark. “Now, we are left with partial truth and fake news driving wedges between the different parts of our firearms community.”

Listen to me.  This is the wrong response.  The only wedge that has been driven is between RRA and your customer base.  The gun community – at least as far as I can tell – is pretty much in full agreement on this issue.

I don’t particularly care for TTAG either.  Their writers resolutely refuse to link anyone or exchange traffic, or frankly even debate issues within the gun community by their completely ignoring other gun web sites.  I once sent Robert a link and he responded that he would be happy to publish me as a writer if he gets the first 24 hours before I post the article to my own site.

Um … no.  That isn’t how this works.  But in spite of the disagreements between me and TTAG, they followed this issue fairly well and published the full truth as far as I can tell.  If not, then challenge the facts.  Don’t call them “fake news,” or “activist website,” or a “so-called gun rights web site.”

That’s insulting.  I wouldn’t even do that.

Guns.com:

The pro-gun bill, H. 3429 sponsored by Republican Rep. Alan Clemmons, was passed last week by the South Carolina Senate on a 35-3 vote. The House unanimously concurred, sending the measure to Gov. Henry McMaster for consideration.

If signed by the governor, the bill will allow those filing for bankruptcy to retain up to three firearms, so long as the total value of those firearms does not exceed $3,000.

Hannah Hill, a policy analyst for the South Carolina Policy Council, a conservative think tank, argued in The Nerve that guns should not be exempted from bankruptcy.

“There is no reason to exempt guns from bankruptcy except for the fact that they’re, you know, guns,” Hill said. “And here’s where Second Amendment rights activists often go off the rails: government may not stand in the way of the free exercise of a right, but it is under no obligation to ensure that you DO exercise that right or that you have the wherewithal to do so. If chronic laryngitis kept you from exercising your First Amendment rights, the government wouldn’t be obligated to pay for your treatment.”

The National Rifle Association has supported the bill all the way, with its Institute for Legislative Action describing the legislation as a measure meant to “recognize the fundamental right to personal protection by ensuring citizens who have fallen on hard times, financially, will not be required to sell all of their firearms maintained for personal protection in order to satisfy their debts.”

And here’s where Hill goes off the rails.  Let’s suppose that a woman goes off the deep end, starts running around with another man and then files for divorce, essentially taking the man for just about all he’s worth and forcing him to start over in life in middle age.

Think it can’t happen?  I know two men whom I love very deeply to whom that has happened.  Bankruptcy was in store for one of them, and he had to liquidate his entire gun collection for her.  This bill prevents that from happening.

But here is my disappointment.  The South Carolina senate has proven that it can actually pass a pro-gun bill and send it to the governor’s desk.  They can also do that with open carry and constitutional carry, but chose to lock it down in committee until it died for this session.

For this reason the S.C. state senators have a bulls eye painted on their backs.  I won’t forget.  Gun owners won’t forget.  This bill is a weak installment for gun rights, and doesn’t even come close to making up for not passing constitutional carry.  Weak tea won’t suffice, gentlemen.

At reddit/r/firearms there is an interesting discussion thread about the single worst firearm you’ve ever owned, and why?

Remington, Hi Point and Taurus play big in this thread.  What firearm would you put in that category?  What is the single worst firearm you’ve ever owned, and why?

Guy Relford writing at WIBC.com:

On Monday, the Indiana Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Thomas Pinner v. State, which addresses the issue of whether police officers may detain and question a person based only on a report that the individual has a gun.  In agreeing with the Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision handed down last August, the Supreme Court ruled that officers violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures when they detained and questioned Thomas Pinner after a taxi driver called 911 to report that Pinner had dropped a handgun when exiting a cab at a movie theater.

Under rules announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1968 case of Terry v. Ohio, a police officer may briefly detain and question a person if the officer has a “reasonable articulable suspicion” that the person is engaged in criminal activity (or in the words of SCOTUS, “that criminal activity is afoot”).  If the officer also has a reasonable suspicion that the person “may be armed and dangerous,” the officer may conduct a brief pat-down of the person’s outer clothing to check for weapons.  Together, this process is called “stop and frisk” or a “Terry stop.”

Before the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday, there has been a long-standing debate in Indiana.  On one side, many police officers and prosecutors have argued that a Terry stop is justified based on a report that a person is carrying a gun – or an officer’s own observation that the person has a handgun – because the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is carrying a handgun illegally until the officer confirms that the person has a handgun license.  On the other hand, defense attorneys and Second Amendment advocates have countered that the mere possession of a handgun, without some additional indication that such possession is illegal, does not justify the detention of the individual to investigate – much like police are not allowed to randomly stop vehicles to confirm that a motorist has a driver’s license.

In the opinion handed down last August by the Indiana Court of Appeals (and written by highly-regarded Judge Melissa May), Indiana resolved that issue for the time being by holding that “the mere possession of a handgun, which is legal, cannot produce reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry Stop.”  The court went on to state that “the State has not directed us to a reason why the police believed when they stopped Pinner that his possession of the gun was illegal, nor has the State asserted any other criminal activity was ‘afoot.’  Accordingly, we are constrained to hold the stop of Pinner was not supported by reasonable suspicion.”  Thus, without a basis to believe that Pinner was carrying a handgun without a license – or engaged in some other illegal activity – detaining Pinner to investigate his possession of a gun violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment.

In Monday’s opinion, the Supreme Court wholly agreed with Judge May’s analysis.  Specifically, the court ruled that a police officer, based only on a tip that a person possesses a handgun, may not detain that person to confirm that he has a license to carry …

[ … ]

Said the ruling:

“The United States Supreme Court has previously declared that law enforcement may not arbitrarily detain an individual to ensure compliance with licensing and registration laws without particularized facts supporting an inference of illegal conduct. See Prouse, 440 U.S. at 663 (‘hold[ing] that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment’). In like fashion, we decline to endorse such behavior to ensure compliance with Indiana’s gun licensing laws.” 

This case is actually similar to the case of Nathanial Black decided by the Fourth Circuit.

Nathaniel Black was part of a group of men in Charlotte, North Carolina who local police officers suspected might be engaged in criminal activity. In particular, Officers suspected that after seeing one of the men openly carrying a firearm – which was legal in North Carolina – that there was most likely another firearm present. When police began frisking the men one by one, Mr. Black wished to leave, but was told he was not free to leave. Officers chased Mr. Black and discovered that he possessed a firearm; it was later discovered that he was a previously convicted felon. Mr. Black was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Before the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Mr. Black moved to suppress the evidence against him. His suppression motion was denied, he entered a guilty plea preserving a right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion, and he was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, determined that the officers had improperly seized Mr. Black, suppressed the evidence against him, and vacated his sentence.

Like Indiana, North Carolina is an open carry state.  Simply openly carrying a gun isn’t grounds for detention.  It must be a so-called “Terry Stop,” and openly carrying a weapon, since it is entirely within the law, isn’t justifiable reason to detain an individual.

The Indiana Supreme Court got this right.  I’ve argued similarly against the new open carry law in Texas, pointing out that “… licensed open carry in a state with no stop and identify statute for enforcement is a shooting-by-cop waiting to happen.  And I certainly don’t support empowering the police state any more by giving them a stop and identify statute.  That would be making something bad even worse.”  As stops must be Terry Stops, and since Texas has no stop and identify statute, and shouldn’t because they are unconstitutional (despite what the courts have said), LEOs in Texas are left with no direction concerning open carriers.

I don’t want LEOs in Texas to be given more direction, any more than I want that for LEOs in Indiana.  I advocate simple observation of God-given rights, and living by the covenant to which we are all obliged, i.e., the constitution.

I knew if I waited long enough, the nice precision chassis rifles would become affordable.  Companies won’t decide to forego making products if they can turn a profit, they’ll just let the market seek its own equilibrium.

Bergara has done a nice job with their B-14 Hunting and Match Rifle (HMR).

Bergara Rifles, a division of BPI Outdoors, is pleased to announce its Bergara B-14 Hunting and Match Rifle (HMR) has won the Outdoor Life Editor’s Choice Award for 2017.

Over several days of shooting, Outdoor Life tested all of the new rifles for 2017. Drills were done to mimic practical shooting positions. The rifles were shot for accuracy off the bench and tested for reliability by being shot in a way to try and induce malfunctions. Each firearm was taken apart and inspected to ascertain the quality of manufacturing and the amount of innovation put into each firearm. The rifles were tested by a group of five independent judges and were evaluated on 10 different categories. In each of these 10 categories, each rifle was scored using a scale from 1-10. After the shooting stopped and the dust settled, the B-14 HMR came out on top.

But I have to say, I own a Tikka T-3, and they have also entered this market with their new T3x TAC A1.  The Tikka is a bit more pricey at around $1600 – $1700, while the Bergara is around $1100.

Outdoor Life:

In today’s world of high-capacity, polymer-frame, semi-auto pistols, we often forget about the original repeating handgun. While the roots of the revolver go back to the revolving arquebus, produced by Hans Stopler of Nuremberg in 1597, it wasn’t until 1836 that Sam Colt figured out how to make it work reliably. Once Colt started making revolvers, the world of repeating handguns changed forever.

Whether you’re in the field hunting, hiking, or exploring, or in any wilderness setting, the revolver is the top choice in a handgun. For personal defense, the double-action revolver may be a bit less popular nowadays, but it’s every bit as good a choice as it ever was.

I agree.  I have one concealed carry revolver, and two that are too big to conceal, requiring open carry.  I carry my small wheel gun regularly.  And while we’re on the subject of revolvers again, Lucky Gunner has a nice article on testing the Ruger GP100.  I love mine.  But that’s not what caught my eye.  While reading the Outdoor Life piece on carry revolvers, I noticed one I missed from two years ago that has some remarkable anecdotal data.

Even here in Alaska, where you’d think we would have the “bear sidearm” thing figured out, all you have to do is mention bear protection in a crowded place or online forum, and you will no doubt hear from numerous people who swear on their mother’s grave that their .44 mag, .454, .500, or other monster caliber is the ideal bear protection. I have however, only heard one claim myself of someone stopping a grizzly with one shot from a .460. The bigger-is-better idea is rapidly going the way of the buffalo, and here’s why.

I’ll say this very clearly. No handgun has the energy to drop a bear in its tracks (barring a perfect, or extremely lucky shot). Even the .500 S&W has little more energy than a .30-30. If you read John Snow’s blog last week, you saw a scientific comparison of several autoloading cartridges and the conclusions that the FBI drew from it. Yes, the bigger cartridges do slightly more damage than a .45 ACP, but we are talking about animals that can sometimes soak up .375 H&H rounds like they are BB’s. I’ve personally witnessed a brown bear take 13 solid shots from less than 20 yards with a .375 Ackley before it expired. I have seen black bears shot at under 15 yards with .338’s and 7mm Mag’s and not even lose their footing. The handgun is a last resort, slightly better than nothing. Never, EVER rely on a handgun as your primary defense if you know you are going to be in a risky situation. Take a large rifle you are comfortable with, or a shotgun.

[ … ]

I think that with a heavy wheelgun, you will get one shot off if you are lucky. If you’re wondering how you would do, next time you are at the range, see how many hits you can get on a 15” x 20” target at 15 feet in 3 seconds (including drawing from your carry holster). You probably won’t have much more time than that in the field, and possibly less.

Select your backcountry sidearm wisely, and be safe out there!

Okay, I hear you loud and clear.  But it’s still the case that soon after firearms were declared legal in national parks a man defended his life from a grizzly in Denali National Par using a .45 ACP handgun.  I always want more rather than less, but I’ll take what I’ve got and try to aim well if this situation ever presents itself.  I’m not sure that anyone can ever be truly prepared for an attack like this save doing it all of the time.

Ned Weatherby:

Wouldn’t surprise me if the “didn’t know” was true – but averting one’s eyes to avoid learning the truth in this political climate is BS.

However, I truly wonder how many of the people now bitching at various gun friendly websites about RRA & SA don’t do crap for gun rights, other than maybe being an NRA member – if that.

Here in AZ, the Arizona Citizens Defense League has only around 2000 members, and yet, AZCDL and its handful of members are responsible for most of the pro-rights laws passed the last few years in AZ. http://www.azcdl.org/html/accomplishments.html

So few do the heavy lifting. Sorry folks, but “activism” like not buying a RRA product is just keyboard commando posing horsecrap.

I see posts often on various websites from state-run gun rights organizations asking for help. How many of the “activists” who now won’t buy that new SA gun can’t even be bothered to follow a link and send the pre-prepared letters for their own state – much less join?

How many Illinois gun owners didn’t do squat about this issue, and are now bitching because some scumbag lobbyist also took “no position?”

I spend an awful lot of time perusing articles, watching the forum posts, sending letters my readers never see, and writing for you to take the information and act on it.  I hope you do that rather than just read my posts.  Sending these links around pushes traffic and empowers the whole community.  But this takes a powerful lot of time.  I’m not complaining, it’s a labor of love.  But everyone has to do their part.

I’ll would certainly buy again from Rock River Arms.  There’s a sweet 6.5 Creedmoor rifle they have up on their web site I’d like to have.  It’s a bit too pricey for me right now, but after a couple of years of bonuses from work, perhaps it will be my next purchase.

I encourage you to make your feelings known to Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms.  They’ve given you the avenue to do that.  If they didn’t want to hear from you they wouldn’t have given you the chance to tell them what’s on your mind.

As to perfection in the gun rights community, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.  Consider Ned’s questions.

The State:

A Senate bill that would clear the way for carrying firearms in South Carolina without a permit advanced from a panel on Tuesday with fewer than five days remaining in the legislative calendar.

It’s the beginning step for the bill that was first discussed in mid April. The bill – whose author is Sen. Shane Martin, R-Spartanburg – is different than one the House bill has already passed.

[ … ]

Like the House version, the Senate bill allows those who are legally permitted to own, carry or purchase a firearm to do so without having to obtain a permit. “Open carry,” which allows for a person to carry a firearm exposed on their person, also would be permitted …

As of Tuesday, however, there were no plans to schedule another hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee during the last week of session, which is the panel where the bill is headed to next.

The bill, however, does not die; 2017 is the first half of a two-year session. When legislators return in January, they will be able to continue discussing the bill with the progress that has already been made.

I consider it a minor to moderate failure for this bill to sit stagnated while the legislators go home.  We lose momentum, and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they couldn’t have come to terms with the House and passed a bill to send to the governor’s desk this week.

The upshot, however, is that I was worried about whether the rapidity of this would prevent us from addressing the South Carolina state senators one by one in order to do what we can to ensure success.  Now we don’t have that problem.  We have time to single out the senators with directed and focused communications.  Sitting stagnated but in process is better than having completely died or being rejected by the senate.

I hate that the legislators are going home, but we can pick this up again and make it clear to the senators that they have to do this first thing.  They need to move apace on this.  So says we, the free citizens and men of good will everywhere.

David Reeder at Breach-Bang-Clear:

“I’d rather just come on out and get it out there. There’s nothing more to say about it. I came into the Marines as an intel guy, started working at the NSA, and got some deployments out of it. The deployments were national intelligence teams [three letter agencies, ed]. That’s all true. But I was never Recon. Someone called me out on it, and I copped to it. It’s nothing I didn’t bring to my own doorstep. I could easily have shut it down, and I didn’t. It’s a lie I’ve been living for twenty years.

This is a soul cleanse for me after looking over my shoulder all this time.

I apologize to the community, to everyone for misrepresenting myself. I don’t ask or expect forgiveness. I can’t make up for what I did, but I can try to atone for it.”

So let me get this straight.  Someone called you out on it, or otherwise you would have kept living with that false impression from your students and followers?

Okay, perhaps I’m being to harsh here.  Nathan had to point at David too, and say “Thou art the one.”  David engaged in true repentance at that point.  I don’t regularly follow Mr. Lamb so I have no dog in this fight.  I hope he benefits from this experience.  But I have this to say to him.  You do not atone for your own sins.  Only the sacrifice of Jesus does that, and if you have no savior, you aren’t saved.  It’s that simple.

Here is the thing, though.  It just isn’t necessary to embellish CVs like that.  I learn from people when I can, and when I can’t, I don’t.  I really couldn’t care less about their CV.  The question is always for me, “Is what they’re teaching valuable and meaningful for me, and am I physically capable of implementing and practicing it?”  If yes, then I try to learn from it.  If not, then I ignore it without any malice at all.

There is no shame in not being a recon Marine.  My son Daniel wasn’t a recon Marine.  He was an infantry Marine who saw heavy combat in Fallujah in 2007, earning the CAR.  He was a SAW gunner, and a designated marksman for his platoon.  He went through all of the shooting and sighting training that the Scout Snipers go through, but he told me he had no desire whatsoever to take the rest of the training and testing, i.e., stalking, egress, etc.

He also had no desire whatsoever to run everywhere, which is what the recon Marines had to do to be able to achieve a perfect score on their PT.  Mr. Lamb didn’t have to embellish his CV (or perhaps he did if Magpul would not have hired him, possibly leading to more difficulty in building his brand).  I don’t know what the future would have held for him had he killed this perception at the outset rather than live with it.

In the end, when you get enough years under your belt in your own line of work, you know you are the craftsman, expert and mentor when the kids come to you for mentoring, being able to choose anyone they want.  It is that choice that is confirmation of your life’s work, not your CV.

The initial reactions by Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms had convinced me that they didn’t grasp the gravity of the situation for their business.  This is similar, and even more troubling because of the power of these manufacturers, to the situation with Jerry Tsai and Recoil magazine.  Jerry lost his job over that.

Rock River Arms has an updated statement, released May 2, 2017, and it is shown below in full.  I think this begins to show wisdom from RRA over the “abandonment” to which they refer.

For immediate release:

May 2, 2017

After further review, Rock River Arms, Inc.® (RRA) is immediately severing all ties with the Illinois Firearms Manufacturers Association (IFMA).

We feel that IFMA’s integrity is compromised and we will not be a part of the organization. We trusted that contributions and resources provided to IFMA by RRA were being used to promote and uphold our 2nd Amendment values. IFMA’s actions have destroyed that trust.

For more than twenty years, RRA has actively opposed gun control legislation at the local, state, and federal levels. We have supported and provided monetary and product donations to multiple pro-gun organizations including NRA, NSSF, ISRA and countless others. We have attended rallies and spoken at educational events on be half of gun owners’ rights. Our employees have collect ed signatures, written letters and e-mails, called legislators’ offices, as well as attended events, meetings and hearings in Springfield, Illinois.

What we learned, however, was that we are better at manufacturing firearms and accessories than playing political games at the state capitol. So, we began to utilize the services of lobbyists, first through other organizations and then in 2009, we partnered with several other manufacturers to form IFMA.

Prior to our further review, we believed that the organization had accurately represented us. We feel that IFMA’s actions have compromised its integrity. While their actions may be standard practices at the capitol, backdoor politics and convoluted deal-making are counter to the way we do business and lead our lives.

I sincerely apologize for my lack of direct engagement in IFMA’s governance and subsequent actions, as well as the abandonment gun owners are feeling.

If you have any questions regarding, or need more information about, this statement or RRA’s position, please contact:

Sarah Larson, RRA General Manager at 309-792-5780.

Thank you,

Chuck Larson

President/Owner

Rock River Arms