Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

AL.com:

The Alabama Senate, divided sharply along party lines, has passed a bill eliminating the requirement for a permit from a county sheriff to carry a concealed handgun.

The Senate passed the bill by Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa, after voting to cut off debate.

Democrats in the Senate opposed the bill and sought to amend it.

The bill passed by a vote of 25-8, with all eight Democrats in the Senate voting against it. It moves to the House of Representatives.

Allen said people should not have to buy a pistol permit to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

“It’s unthinkable that you have to pay a fee for a constitutional right. That’s really the heart of the whole issue,” Allen said.

Some law enforcement officials had argued against the bill in committee, saying it would take away an important enforcement tool.

People would still have the option of buying pistol permits, Allen noted, which he said would be important for those who want to carry in other states that recognize Alabama’s concealed carry law.

Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham, said the bill would not promote public safety but would turn the state into the “wild, wild West.”

The bill was one of a set of controversial bills on the Senate calendar today that Democrats generally opposed.

Sen. Quinton Ross, D-Montgomery, said Republicans were trying to polish their public image after the resignation of Gov. Robert Bentley, suspension of Chief Justice Roy Moore and ethics conviction of House Speaker Mike Hubbard.

“This is called rebuilding a brand day,” Ross said.

No, this is called a change to state law, and what Sen. Rodger Smitherman said is called a lie.  That’s when something is untrue, in case you needed help understanding what I just said.  “The Wild, Wild West” is make-believe.  Smitherman apparently watched too much television when he was a kid.

I like how they did this.  There was no protracted and useless debate over a bill about which nobody’s mind was going to change.  Take note, South Carolina state senate.  The S.C. House cut off debate and did constitutional carry, the Alabama senate cut off debate and did constitutional carry.  Apparently they didn’t want to see Alabama Sheriffs Association Executive Director Bobby Timmons get away with his lies to the public.

As for the S.C. senate, don’t be such weaklings and pussies, boys.  Get it done.  They showed you how, they showed you it can be done, and no one really believes this thing has to die in committee.  We all know better than that.

It has been a subject of much misunderstanding, one that I have tried to clear up before.  Hitler never attempted to disarm his allies or Germans whom he believed he could trust.  Hitler wasn’t anti-gun.  Hitler was anti-gun concerning those upon whom he intended to perpetrate genocide.

… the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was consolidated by massive searches and seizures of firearms from political opponents, who were invariably described as “communists.” After five years of repression and eradication of dissidents, Hitler signed a new gun control law in 1938, which benefitted Nazi party members and entities, but denied firearm ownership to enemies of the state.

The same thing happened to the Christians in Turkey in the Armenian genocide.  True to form in South Africa, where there is the beginnings of genocide against anyone who has lighter skin color, the next step is gun confiscations, and the warnings have been issued.

South African Gunowners Association ( SAGA ) has been advised that South African Police Service ( SAPS ) in the Western Cape will be conducting an operation aimed at gunowners who have failed, for whatever reason, to timeously renew their licences in respect of specific guns.

It appears that SAPS teams will be conducting ‘raids’ on targeted individuals mostly at their residences with a view to confiscating guns and ammunition.

SAGA cannot at this stage speculate as to what SAPS intends to achieve by this action, nor what other steps may be taken by SAPS at the time of such visit.

1. If you are in possession of the old green licence, that licence is still valid in terms of an Order of the High Court – a copy of this order is available from SAGA.

2. If SAPS personnel or anyone under their command, after correctly identifying themselves, and providing some form of warrant or authorization insists on taking possession of your gun, you are advised to cooperate with them while pointing out that a green licence is valid at this date. Moreover, with respect to the validity of expired White Licences you may point out that within weeks of this date various high profile court actions are due to be heard.

SAGA legal counsel believes the so-called raids and any confiscation of guns as a result thereof is possibly breaching the Firearms Control Act and other laws.

SAGA doesn’t need to speculate as to the reason for these actions.  They intend to confiscate guns, and they intend to target peaceable and law abiding men with these confiscations.

There are a couple of very important points to be made concerning this dreadful news.  First of all, LEOs will always reflexively enforce the wishes of the ruling class.  You cannot entrust your future to the state, and even now the LEOs in South Africa are ensuring the future deaths of their own culture and people.  Second, gun registries are in fact the pretext for gun confiscation, regardless of what the Fascists claim.  As I’ve explained, we’ve even seen that from American Fascists who have explained to each other the true intent of such data and information.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it.  The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.

This happened for those who are “subjects of the Queen” a long time ago, which is why they are ripe for takeover by the Islamists and utterly powerless to stop it, even if they did have the will.  The future for the poor people of South Africa looks bleak.

So too does the future for the poor people of Venezuela, where the communists are arming their allies.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said he will expand the number of civilians involved in armed militias, providing guns to as many as 400,000 loyalists.

The announcement came as Maduro’s opponents are gearing up for what they pledge will be the largest rally yet to press for elections and a host of other demands Wednesday.

The Bolivarian militias, currently at approximately 100,000, were created by the late Hugo Chavez to assist the armed forces in the defense of his revolution from external and domestic attacks.

Speaking to thousands of militia members dressed in beige uniforms gathered in front of the presidential palace, Maduro said that vision remains relevant as Venezuela continues to face “imperialist aggression.”

“A gun for every militiaman!” he cried.

Except not the militiamen who would overthrow him.  Collectivists know the power of armaments, and the control over them – taxation, licensing fees, data and information, approval authority over types and kinds, and ultimately authority to decide who gets to keep them – means everything to their station in life.

It goes without saying that you should husband your own possession of weapons and ammunition.  There will be no life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness without them.  There may not be happiness even with them, because men who are armed are not [yet] enslaved and must make hard decisions.  But you may be able to ensure that future generations of your family enjoy the liberty they need to flourish and thrive.

Greenville News:

Law enforcement officials and anti-violence activists are blasting a state proposal that would allow South Carolinians to carry guns — concealed or openly — without a permit or any training, saying it would endanger police and the general public.

“It would create opportunities for additional violence to occur,” said Greenville Police Chief Ken Miller.

Greenville County Sheriff Will Lewis said in an email that he supports a resolution by the South Carolina Sheriff’s Association endorsing training for anyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon and opposing changes in current law.

Supporters of the bill, meanwhile, are returning fire, claiming that so-called constitutional carry, or open carry, would cut down on crime.

“States that have put open carry into place have seen a reduction in crime,” said state Rep. Phyllis Henderson, R-Greenville. “They’ve not seen an escalation in gun violence.”

[ … ]

Miller, the Greenville police chief, noted that the measure is opposed by both the S.C. Police Chiefs Association and the S.C. Sheriff’s Association.

He said the proposal could lead to more police confrontations with people carrying guns.

“So now everybody is authorized to carry a gun, and guns tend to draw out other guns,” Miller said. “It will create opportunities for police shootings or for police officers or deputies to get hurt more.”

When guns are right at hand, simple arguments can easily escalate, resulting in tragedy, Miller said.

As for Miller’s argument, he’s lying.  He doesn’t really believe that or he would take weapons away from his own officers because their interactions escalate and guns draw more guns.

No, here is why Miller and the other LEOs don’t want this.  As we’ve seen before, it’s all about the money.  They’ve even said so for us all to see.  Follow the money.  It’s money and control, but this is redundant.

It’s about brand new Dodge Chargers, fancy comms gear, new AR-15s, body armor, and jobs for people who would otherwise have to go find gainful employment in the real workplace.

Fortunately, the current Governor, Henry McMaster, supports constitutional carry.

S.C. Gov. Henry McMaster Friday endorsed a bill that would allow South Carolinians to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.

“Governor McMaster appreciates the House’s hard work on this bill, believes it is constitutional and will sign it if it reaches his desk,” said McMaster spokesman Brian Symmes.

Signing the pro-gun bill would appeal to gun advocates who vote in the 2018 Republican primary for the governor, when McMaster will be seeking a four-year term.

The proposal, sponsored by state Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, calls for what often is referred to as “constitutional carry.” The bill would allow those who legally can own a firearm to carry it concealed without a government-issued permit.

It also allows for open carry, which means weapons holders could carry their firearms on their person for everyone to see. The law still would bar carrying a firearm to prohibited locations and while committing a crime.

The S.C. House passed the plan last week, despite objections from some representatives that that House Republicans pushed the proposal through without debate or public input.

With four weeks left in the regular legislative session, the bill still has to make its way through the S.C. Senate before it can go to McMaster’s desk.

However, Democrats in the Senate — where individual members have more power — still could block the bill.

It’s difficult to know if his support is temporary, knowing that he will get elected and then be able to jettison the very gun rights advocates who helped him get elected, or genuine and legitimate heartfelt support.  But at the moment these are his words.  Of course democrats can try to block this legislation, and republicans might use that as a stalling tactic.

Either way, if republicans and the governor really want this bill, they can get it, and we all know that.  We’re privy to their games.  The governor can refuse to sign anything else until this bill is brought to his desk, and the republicans can shut down debate just like the House did.

But be careful.  If this turns out to be yet another false flag event to appease gun owners like in the past, we will know.  And we never forget.  Just ask Larry Martin about that.  Remember that while the debate about whether this increases or reduces crime might be an interesting sidebar – I can tell you since I live in a “gold star” open carry state that LEOs will be embarrassed and humiliated by their opposition to this just like they were in Texas when they see the statistics – this isn’t about statistics.

This is about God-given rights.  Choose wisely, gentlemen.

Some evil thug shot a poor old man named Robert Godwin in Cleveland who was innocently walking along the sidewalk.  I won’t link or embed the video.  It’s a shame this happened, and I’m very sorry for him and his family.

I watched the video so you don’t have to.  I consider the thug who did this to have been a threat long before he pulled a gun and shot the elderly man.  He was a threat when be first got out of the automobile because of his irrational behavior.

In another world, elderly men have guns, they are trained to use them, there are no-retreat laws, and men can act to ameliorate threats like this.  We need to press for that world.  It’s a shame that Mr. Godwin didn’t have a weapon on him, unholster it when the thug got out of the car, and shoot the thug before he raised his weapon.

In The Army Wants A New Rifle, we discussed my view of the Army’s searching for a larger caliber rifle to replace the M4.  Experience in Afghanistan is the pretext for this need, and while as I show below I support a copious choice of weapons, selection of a different caliber won’t make marksmen out of Soldiers.  In fact, perhaps just the opposite.  You can go read the discussion for yourself.  I hope I’ve adequately dispelled the ridiculous notion that The Battle of Wanat is justification for anything at all except being smarter in the future in your COIN strategy.

Soon after this commentary, a active duty friend who has been with me for nearly ten years (basically ever since I was doing military blogging and commentary) and who can tell you more about these things in an hour than I will ever know in a lifetime, wrote to continue the conversation with me.  I am always richer when he does so, and honestly, this is one big reason for writing.  I always learn more from my readers than they learn from me.

I will not supply his name, but as you can see below, we build on our notes to each other like Lego blocks, and always have.  Each subsequent note presupposes that I recall what he told me before, which is usually a lot.  There are notes that preceded this one, on shooting uphill, mountain training of soldiers (which he knows a lot about), and various and sundry things.  But even in the absence of those notes, you may be able to benefit from his knowledge.

One “Lego block” that I didn’t add yet was that while he heaps praises on the Marine Corps shooting program, I think the MC could take a page from the army on a few things.  The MC still has in its stable of DM and sniper rifles the 5.56mm, 7.62mm, and Sasser .50.  When Carlos Hathcock did his work in Vietnam, he used the Winchester 30-06 (not the .308), which has a slightly higher muzzle velocity, and when that wasn’t sufficient he used the .50.  He was the first to do so.

When something works, it’s difficult to get the MC to change.  But their shooting program might benefit from inclusion of the .300 Win Mag and the .338 into their stable of weapons.  I know one Marine Corps Scout Sniper, in impeccable condition, his physique a literal specimen, who told me that in not too many rounds shooting the .50, he had headaches.  Why do this if it isn’t necessary?

Again as you can see, I support the inclusion of many weapons and weapons systems in the stable of tools for both the Army and Marine Corps, but I will never jettison my trusty AR-15 for CQB and medium range shooting.  With that said, here is our exchange of notes.

As ever, my congratulations to you for your tireless efforts on your Blog. You are still slamming them!

I read your “Army wants a new rifle” post with interest. I have a little different perspective. Nothing you say is wrong or incorrect. How could it be? You are more emphatic of late in general and no less here. I’ll explain myself, but I do need to admit that I think that the Army is full of shit on this issue, in general and will do something or nothing in this case, for all the wrong reasons.

I’ve tested a lot of gear for the U.S. Army over the years. The Army has a civilian in charge of boots and boot development. He’s a huge, overweight man who wears worn loafers on his own feet. But he has a Doctorate in “footoligy” or some such thing and a very keen understanding of the politic’s of procurement.  Our relationship with this idiot got so shady that he would bring bullet headed body guards with him to attempt to shut I and my peers up. So the Army has garbage boots because that is what they want.

I’ve tested and trained and conducted training on lots of weapons too; long arms, sniper rifles and the full suite of Warsaw Pact weaponry.  My favorite is the SVD with the wacky Soviet scope; it’s quick, easy to shoot, accurate and people are scared of it. The RPD is an LMG that is greatly underrated. That is because the “PiKa”, Pkm, PK, is so dominant. I cannot say enough good things about getting hosed down by this bad boy. It is  a real attention getter!  Even beyond it’s 600m sweet spot, its plunging fire is stunning. The 240B is a honey but the Pkm has it beat for down and dirty warfighting.

5.56 v/s 7.62; ask a man who has taken 7.62 rounds into the chest or back plates, who also has the experience of dumping 5 or 6 rounds of issue 5.56 into an enemy to stop him. He will tell you that one 7.62 round in the plates will knock you down now and that the 5.56 will not return the favor. A few of the high-speed-low-drag elements get special 5.56 rounds that are one-shot-one kill specials. Our General Purpose forces don’t get this round though.

The Marines have established in their 24-72 hour protracted, static, fire fights in Southern Afghanistan, that three 30 round magazines will do the job, if you have NCO directed, well aimed and properly spoted fire. Shoot from cover, control your security and do not allow an element to maneuver unobserved on your position. Maintain indirect fire back-up for surprises and to exploit enemy error’s. It sounds basic but we do not routinely practice this doctrine. So we kill and maim our troops because of and regardless of, the grain count of our issue rounds. As you point out.

I’ve trained lots of guys to shoot both 5.56 and 7.62 in all sorts of long arms out to 1000m and lots of it on a high angle range; aim low, practice shooter spotter and get your point of aim and point of impact details worked out ahead of time. I can teach an experienced and confident soldier to shoot an Acog equipped M4 out to 600m with an hour of class room time and with 30 rounds on the range.  He will of course have to practice these new shooting skills to develop their value.

I cannot train an inexperienced and unconfident shooter in this ridiculously brief time span and round count. In fact I’ll make him a worse shooter because he will do so poorly and understand zero of what I’m telling him. Even shooter/spotter will blow his mind. The exception here is with young Marine’s. They can often hang enough to get in their heads what is going on.

If you give me a 7.62 round weapon, even the M14 variants kicking around, and a little more time; I can get the confident guy consistently out to 850m. He’ll be able to read bullet trace, call his shots and walk a less experienced shooter quickly on to a target.

Good for me, so what. Hopefully the details are instructive. Again, as you point out, unless there is a solid grounding in the fundamentals of marksmanship, and or well trained NCO leadership in all our maneuver units; we may be better equipped to kill if we carry spears. We can conduct the training. But our Army does not currently know how to train, so maybe new magic rifles with new magic rounds are the answer.

Thank you,

[Name Redacted]

I respond.

Very good to hear from you.  I like the MC idea of a number of DMs who have something a little different.  My own son was trained as a DM even though he was a SAW gunner. [But] The notion the new 7.62 guns will make all soldiers marksmen is overreach versus what big army management wants.  Too many poorly educated kids from homes with no fathers who look to the *.gov for a meal and education.

He responds.

You are correct; the DM is the way to go. The Army took this seriously from about 2005 to 2010. The POI was really the 1st week of Sniper school; grouping, range E, calling your own shots and wind, point of aim/point of impact. And they issued a lot of “black rifle rigged ” EBR’s. A good shooter, but without a LaRue tactical mounting system for the optic, it would not hold a zero.  The iron sights are fine but that is another training challenge.

So if we could get a Marine or a Ranger Regiment soldier, he got the EBR and a chance to step up!

Lets face facts though; the Marine Corps base of marksmanship training is superior in every way and the U.S. Army’s base of rifle training is a hand wave. This disparity puts a lot of pressure on Army units gaining Basic Trainee’s. If the US Army has a trained DM in every Infantry Squad, then we have an opportunity to make up for this ridiculous institutional disparity.

In fact, as a First Sergeant, I’d get soldiers back from their Basic Training and Infantry AIT who had never qualified with the M4!  One young man was so bereft of basic skills that I issued him a black plastic, “rubber duck” rifle, until his platoon was able to prove he could safely carry the real thing. We did turn him into an Infantryman. But as you point, we were fighting 17 years of neglect.

Nothing gave me as much confidence, in a platoon, as a shit-hot SAW gunner.  Imagine one man who can fill in for a two man machine gun team. Would not believe it unless I was a witness! The enemy does not like the SAW either!  It takes a huge amount of skill and dedication though. Its worth the effort but it puts a lot on one mans shoulders.

You are most welcome to print what you choose Mr Smith! All I can say is; don’t quit! We need what you are doing.

As you can guess, I am actually much more concerned about how we incorporate these lessons in our work than with whether Big Army incorporates anything I have to say.  Let’s make it more personal.  I’m much more concerned about whether I incorporate these lessons than anything else.

Popular Mechanics:

On the heels of the Marine Corps’ desire for a new rifle for its infantrymen, the U.S. Army now says it is contemplating a dramatic switch in rifles. The service is considering going back to battle rifles—heavier rifles that can hit targets at longer ranges. The last time the Army fielded such a rifle was in the 1960s.

The story, broke by Soldier Systems Daily, says that U.S. Army troops feel they’re “in a street fight with a guy with longer arms.” That longer arm is the 7.62x54R cartridge, the cartridge used by the PK machine gun and Dragunov SVD sniper rifle. The PK squad machine gun is extremely common; it’s in use by the Taliban, the Islamic State, and most insurgent and terrorist groups worldwide. Longer and heavier than the 7.62×39-millimeter round used in the AK series of assault rifles, a PK with the 7.62x54R round has an effective range of 800 to 1,000 yards, versus only about 350 yards for an AK-47.

On the Army side, the maximum effective range of an M4 carbine against man-sized targets is about 500 yards, depending on the skill of the rifleman, and 700 yards for the M249 squad automatic weapon. Both fire the same cartridge. That leaves a dead zone of roughly 500 to 1,000 yards where the bulk of a nine person infantry squad can’t engage individual enemies. In a platoon of 40 soldiers, on average only about six soldiers armed with M249s, marksman rifles, and M240 machine guns have the range to engage an enemy in the dead zone.

U.S. Army troops may have an edge on paper, but guerrilla groups don’t adhere to a bureaucratic equipment roster that says each unit can have a certain number of weapons. Taliban and IS groups routinely have a large number of heavier machine guns, and what they lack in skill they often try to make up in firepower.

While there are a number of readers who would applaud this move in favor of a 30-06 (the old Garand) or .308 (7.62mm), a “real battle rifle,” I think it will go nowhere and lacks traction.  It certainly lack traction with me for reasons I’ll explain.

The excuse that the Taliban shoot machine guns and longer range weapons is disingenuous.  As I documented in my coverage of the battle of Wanat, the issue with fighting the Taliban had nothing to do with the M4, and everything to do with deployment of Soldiers in bad locations, slowly enough that the Taliban had time to mass troops on a roughly ten to one ratio.  They had a near Battalion size group fighting a platoon size group of Soldiers on low terrain.

There were other problems with Soldiers in the Hindu Kush such as the lack of training in shooting uphill (as well as not owning the high ground).  One problem that could be corrected is that the M4s the Army fields have been shot so many times and the parts so worn that they malfunction easily.  Many Soldiers don’t know enough to modify their own weapons, wouldn’t be allowed to if they could, and lack the funds to do it.  But there are ways to assist your rifle in its accuracy, reliability and longevity.

But take a closer look at what they’re asking for.  They want to field the 7.62mm, with its weight additional weight and the weight of the ammunition, and they expect their men (and women, unfortunately) to be able to shoot accurately beyond 500 yards and up to 1000 yards.  This will require the use of good optics, not an ACOG or the Army equivalent, but scoped shooting.

Consider The Firearm Blog and one writer’s position that the Marine Corp Scout Sniper training is the best combined precision and marksmanship observation packages in the United States.  It has a high failure rate, and takes months to complete.  No unit can go without Marines for long enough to send hundreds or thousands of Marines to this training.  And there aren’t enough classes or instructors to go around even if they could.

My son, Daniel, has been through all of the shooting instruction in these classes, albeit not the observation and tracking.  It does indeed take months of training to understand and use high power scopes for precision shooting.  For the Army to pretend that they’re are going to send thousands of brand new Soldiers at Fort Jackson into classes to learn parallax, windage adjustments, elevation and humidity effects on shooting, and so on, is a pipe dream.

I’m not suggesting, by the way, that you or your family not have your own higher caliber and bolt action precision chassis weapons as well as your CQB and shorter range weapons, or that you forego the time and accoutrements to use them properly.  Every gun has its purpose, and you need all the right tools for the job ahead.  I’m suggesting that America isn’t going to make snipers out of their Soldiers by switching from 5.56mm to 7.62mm.

The State:

Impassioned pleas by legislators from both sides of the aisle failed to stop a majority of House members Wednesday from advancing a bill that allows for the carrying of firearms without a permit.

On a 64-46 vote, the S.C. House of Representatives passed the bill, which had been clouded in controversy over how it progressed through committee and allegations that Republicans stymied debate. It’ll head for the Senate after a perfunctory vote on Thursday.

“The legislative history of this bill is an embarrassment,” said Rep. James Smith, D-Richland, who repeatedly attempted to thwart a vote on the bill after Republicans invoked a procedural move that limited debate.

The bill calls for what proponents refer to as “constitutional carry,” or allowing those who can legally buy a firearm to carry a concealed weapon without having to obtain a permit.

It also allows for open carry, which grants weapons holders the ability to carry their firearms on their person for everyone to see. The law still would bar carrying a firearm while committing a crime.

Smith was not alone in trying to delay a vote. Several Republicans joined in, because they were against how the bill was advanced or didn’t like parts of the proposed law.

Rep. Gary Clary, R-Pickens, said he was against the bill because during his time as a judge and as a legislator, he has advocated for allowing all sides to have their say. Invoking a procedural vote to limit debate prevented that. He also said he just thinks “it’s a bad bill.”

[ … ]

Like Clary, Rep. Bill Crosby, R-Charleston, called the proposal a “bad bill.” He was against the portion that allows for open carry.

While dangling his concealed-weapons permit from his wallet, Crosby stressed he is “for guns” and the Second Amendment. He said he just didn’t think this change is needed.

“This bill doesn’t help the Second Amendment,” Crosby said. “All it does is it makes these good ol’ boys who like to have guns strapped to their hips not conceal them.”

Crosby said he is thankful for the Senate, which will probably kill the bill by having it languish in committee. Previous permit-less carry bills have suffered that fate in past years.

First of all, invoking a procedural stipulation that limits debate is a tried and true, well recognized procedure allowed by parliamentary rules.  Anyone who has worked under “Robert’s Rules of Order” knows that, and those complaining about closing debate also know that.  They’re making up their objection to closing debate.  It’s just a red herring.  Debate has to be closed at some point, and they just did it sooner rather than later.  It’s entirely possible under parliamentary procedure to have absolutely no debate at all.  The vote is what matters.

As for Crosby’s complaint that “All it does is it makes these good ol’ boys who like to have guns strapped to their hips not conceal them,” we may reply that all the current law does is make those boys have to conceal the guns they have on their hips for no good reason at all except that you want them to.  You like to conceal, others may not.  And your way doesn’t do anything at all for the second amendment.  Your way forces a rule on people who neither want it nor need it.  Our way undoes an unnecessary rule.  You’re the bad guy here, not us.  See how that works, Crosby?

If this does indeed die in the Senate like so many times in the past, then we’ll know who to go after for the next primary and election cycle.  You guys aren’t going to get away with the things you once did.  We’re watching very closely.  Ask former state senator Larry Martin if you don’t believe me.  Go ahead.  Ignore gun owners one more time.  Let’s make sure your name is written down in the memory of patriots everywhere across South Carolina.  We don’t forget.

As for the “journalist” who wrote all of this, Cynthia Roldán, take note that the only ones around her who can make “impassioned pleas” are those who oppose constitutional carry.  It’s as if there is weeping in the halls of power in Columbia over the awful things taking place, not just among Democrats, mind you, but from “both sides of the isle,” with the emotionless gun advocates impervious to the weeping.  And she managed to locate those Republicans who voted against this bill and turn it into quite a dramatic presentation, yes?

Actually, she did us a service.  Otherwise, how would you have know what a putz Crosby was?

Great Falls Tribune:

The House of Representatives gave preliminary approval Tuesday to a bill meant to preserve Montanans’ right to bear arms by prohibiting the enforcement of any federal ban on firearms.

Senate Bill 99 would establish the “Montana Federal Firearm, Magazine, and Ammunition Ban Enforcement Prohibition Act.” The bill passed out of the Senate in February on a 30-20 vote.

Republican Rep. Seth Berglee is carrying the bill in the House for Republican Sen. Cary Smith.

“We did add a couple of amendments to it to allow for federal assistance, as long as it is not for the primary purpose of prohibiting, restricting or requiring any of the federal bans,” Berglee said.

At the bill’s first hearing in the House, lobbyist for School Administrators of Montana Patrick Audet opposed the bill. He says the bill would allow firearms on school campuses.

“If an officer couldn’t enforce that law, that would be a problem. We would be opposed to that,” Audet said.

Kansas had a similar law called the Second Amendment Protection Act.  Two gentlemen then got caught up in the web of cowardice when one of them fabricated and sold a suppressor, and the other one bought it.  Both men were found guilty of violation of the NFA.  And what did the brave patriots in Kansas do about it?  They did nothing.

I warned future “patriots” about this sort of thing.

I’ve said before, don’t even consider something like nullification unless you’re willing to go the mattresses for your people.  The lawmakers could have handed the governor the tools to deal with the federal intrusion, and the governor could have had the balls to do it.

But none of this obtained, and the citizens suffered as a result.  Unless you’re willing to arrest federal agents who attempt to enforce these laws and throw them in the state penitentiary with the other prisoners, don’t even consider nullification.

Nullification laws made for show are immoral.  Nullification laws made for real are admirable, but states have to be willing to back it all up with force.

I see no difference between suppressors and any other kind of firearm or associated equipment.  If Montana actually intends to enforce this law against federal agents who attempt to arrest people when they run afoul of federal laws, current or future, then I applaud this law.

On the other hand, if it’s another gimmick for votes or show-law for the purpose of making a statement, or in other words, if this law will have no teeth because Montana has the same kind of cowards in government and law enforcement as Kansas, then stop right here.

Don’t do it.  It’s time for a gut check for Montanans.  What will it be?

Lucky Gunner recently had a great article on Revolver Velocity Versus Barrel Length that I missed, and I recommend that you spend a couple of minutes studying their results.

Their results might surprise you.  First of all, barrel length doesn’t matter as much as you might have thought, perhaps as much as 100 FPS for barrel lengths in the range we normally carry or shoot.  You have to get really long barrels (such as for hunting) for the length to make any substantial difference.

Second, the +P loads do actually give you noticeably better performance (as much as 100 FPS or more) compared to the regular loads.

Third, as good as the +P loads do compared to .39 Special, they don’t compare to the difference you get with the .357 Magnum, which is as much as several hundred FPS depending upon bullet weight.

Lucky Gunner recommend that you test your own loads, guns and bullet weights if you want an accurate assessment.  They also link this article where a table is included that has good data for your consideration.

Bad day for the home invader.  Good day for liberty.