Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

Concord Monitor:

… an individual’s right to bear arms was not clearly stated in the Constitution. It was the Supreme Court in a 2008 decision that decided that the right goes beyond “a well regulated militia” and that it also belongs to an individual (District of Columbia v. Heller). But the Supreme Court also made it very clear in that same decision that this right was not so “absolute” that the federal, state or local government could not make and enforce restrictions. Those like Baldasaro who say their right cannot be “infringed” need to read the Supreme Court’s decision.

The majority decision was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote: “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions or qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms.”

The language is a little awkward for a non-lawyer like myself and Justice Scalia obviously cannot be asked for any clarification, but I believe Scalia is saying that a law to prevent firearms in schools is “constitutionally permitted.” In other words, there is no constitutional guarantee of your right to go into a school with a gun. You definitely could lose this “right” simply by walking into a school, if a restriction on this exists. And I would add, this would also apply to guns at polling places, which would be considered sensitive places in our communities.

One clever commenter cites John Cockrum v. State, but he has the quote slightly wrong and misses a few words, important words.

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defence of himself or the state, is absolute.  He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government.  It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is “excepted out of the general powers of the government.”  A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power.

This is strong tea, but not strong enough for my tastes.  First of all, we do not derive our authority to bear arms from the sovereign convention of the people, but rather, from God Himself because man is made in God’s image and it is his duty to protect that image.

Moreover, while this statement does pertain to the state of Texas, it doesn’t go to the federal government because it got the very genesis of our rights and duties wrong.  Regular reader Frank Clarke does better when he turns the conversation to what the constitution does.  Our rights are not based in the constitution, but rather it enumerates them in order to prevent the federal government from trespassing those rights.  It delineates what the federal government cannot do, not what we can do.

Finally, I’m uncomfortable with the notion that the constitution or any judicial action or decision “secures” our rights.  It simply isn’t true.  Our rights are secured in heaven, and on earth two things obtain.  First of all, if the covenant(s) within which we live do not reflect God’s laws, they are an abomination and dishonor God.  They are null and void.  Second, to the extent that they do, when we fail to live within the framework of that covenant, man’s covenant itself broken and therefore null and void.

Our rights are secured by the fact that we are armed.  Only armed men can protect themselves from wicked governments intent on doing harm to those men by making them unable to defend themselves or their loved ones.  That’s why men can never wait on judicial action to arm themselves, and can never disarm.  Disarmament is wicked, whether personally or nationally.

National Review:

Ammoland does a nice job of writing up five new precision chassis rifles debuted at the SHOT show.  Except for one thing.  I’m not even interested in looking at the models unless you have a price affixed to them.  Fortunately, a commenter does this for us.

Ill save others the hassle of looking for MSRP’s. IWI doesnt even show the rifle above, Tikka doesnt show an MSRP on their site, the other three list for about $1500-to $1600, which come with a number of features standard, plus options. Ill say the obvious, put an MSRP in your press releases/ads and make sure your web site has the product you are talking about.

I don’t know if he’s got the prices right.  Some of the Bergara precision rifles start at > $2600 and go up from there – way up.  For the folks who debut these things at the SHOT show, you need to have them on the web site, true enough, and you need to stick a price tag with them.  If you’re not ready to price it, then you’re not ready to debut it.

But more to the point, if you’re getting ready to ask for > $2000 for a precision chassis rifle, you’re asking too much.  Bring the prices down or there won’t be sufficient interest to make the gun except as a special order item for professional precision rifle shooters, of which there are about 150 in the country.

Fox News:

The U.S. Army on Thursday awarded Sig Sauer a contract worth $580 million to make the next service pistol based on the company’s P320 handgun.

Sig Sauer beat out Glock Inc., FN America and Beretta USA, the maker of the current M9 9mm service pistol, in the competition for the Modular Handgun System, or MHS, program.

“We are both humbled and proud that the P320 was selected by the U.S. Army as its weapon of choice,” Ron Cohen, chief executive officer of Sig Sauer, said in a statement to Military.com here at SHOT Show, the world’s largest gun show, taking place this week in the city.

“Securing this contract is a testimony to Sig Sauer employees, their commitment to innovation, quality and manufacturing the most reliable firearms in the world,” Cohen added.

Whatever.  Color me unimpressed.  Go look at the model.  I’m not a Sig fanboi (nor a Glock fanboi), so I hadn’t really noticed the Sig pistols all that much.

This is God’s honest truth.  The first thing I thought when I saw that thing was “The slide profile is very tall and it has a high bore axis and so it will have worse muzzle flip” (well, I say God’s honest truth, but to be completely honest, this thought coincided with the thought “boy that thing is ugly”).

Now to be sure, you can look at the Sig fanboi forums (yes, here are such things), and they swear up and down that Sigs don’t have a high bore axis, and even if they do it doesn’t mean there’s more muzzle flip.  That’s a myth.  It isn’t real.  Seriously, you can’t make this up.  Go look at the forums yourself.

Well, here it goes, so listen up.  The bore axis is higher in this pistol than any I’ve ever seen (distance between bore and web of your hand in Cartesian space, here think the “y” axis, straight up and down).  The greater the moment arm, the greater the force.  That’s engineering mechanics to those who have taken courses in statics and dynamics.

Or to little boys who first learn to work a jack when they change a tire.  Amusingly, Uncle says “I also don’t disagree with picking the Sig. Or if they’d have picked the M&P. So long as they went with a striker-fired, polymer-framed gun that holds a lot of bullets. And isn’t an XD or Taurus.”

Well, that puts me about 180 degrees out with Uncle, since it eliminates 1911 and XDm, the only two guns I would want to take into combat.  I thought about that the other day (“If I had to go to combat, what sidearm would I want to take?”), and while my heart says 1911 because I shoot it better than any gun I have, my head says XDm for its durability, reliability, simplicity and 11 degree 1911-style grip angle.

I could beat on it with a sledge hammer and it would still work, I’m convinced.  All of you Glock owners out there, you realize that your grip isn’t the perfect 11 degrees, right?  And all of you M&P owners, take your pistol (make sure it has no rounds in the chamber first), look at it from the side, and observe the gap between the front of the slide and the frame compared to lack of gap at the rear of the gun.  You can even take your fingers and squeeze the slide together with the frame at the front of the gun.  It rattles.  This is true of all M&Ps.  The slide sits a full 1/8″ off the frame at the front sight.

You see, right?  Did you M&P owners do it like I suggested?  I don’t like that gap for reasons too numerous to outline here.  I don’t shoot 9mm (chamber pressure of around 35,000 psi compared to around 25,000 psi for the .45 ACP), and I don’t have Sigs.

As for other reviews, there is this one from Shooting Illustrated, and in it there are these nuggets.

One of the pistol’s features I really like is the cutouts on either side of the frame, which allow the magazine to be stripped forcefully from the frame when necessary, such as when correcting a double-feed.

Funny, that.  I’ve shot thousands of rounds through my XDm, and I’ve never had a double-feed.  Not a single FTF or FTE.  Not even once.  And then there is this.

My overall complaint about the P320 is a net that I’ll cast over nearly every SIG pistol: a bore axis that results in more muzzle flip than necessary.

Well, like I said.  So to reiterate my take on the Army decision … whatever.  I won’t be getting one.

New Hampshire Union Leader:

The state Senate, as expected, voted along party lines, 13-10, on Thursday to approve a bill that would make it easier to legally carry a concealed weapon in New Hampshire.

Senate Bill 12 to eliminate the state’s permit requirement for concealed carry was endorsed in a 3-2 vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 10.

State Sen. Bette Lasky, D-Nashua, said the change will make New Hampshire residents less safe by removing the authority of police chiefs to pick and choose which residents will be allowed to carry a concealed handgun. Current law allows police chiefs to determine if someone is “suitable” for a concealed carry permit.”

SB 12 will revoke a process that has worked well in our state for more than a century,” said Lasky. “It’s a process that balances the Second Amendment rights of our citizens with local control of law enforcement to ensure that potentially dangerous people are not allowed to carry concealed weapons.”

New Hampshire is one of 31 states that give law enforcement the power to deny a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

[ … ]

D’Allesandro said the state’s police chiefs oppose the change …

I’m sure they do oppose constitutional carry.  It destroys a revenue stream from which they can buy brand new Dodge Chargers, Comms gear and top of the line AR-15s.

“Pick and choose.”  Remember that folks.  That’s what the progressives want to do.  They want to pick and choose the special people.  You may not be on that list.  As for the criminal, he’s not worried one way or the other.

WBIR.com:

A Tennessee lawmaker is hoping to loosen Tennessee’s gun carry laws.

State Rep. Micah Van Huss, a Republican from Jonesborough, has introduced a bill to eliminate the need for a permit to open carry a handgun.

Under the law, you would still need a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but if you wear the gun openly, you would not need a permit.

House Bill 40 would amend the state’s weapon laws for open carry to bring Tennessee in line with several other states.

Several lawmakers who spoke with Tri-Cities NBC-affiliate WCYB said they support the proposal.

“Tennessee has eight bordering states, I think seven of them allow what’s called open carry,” said state Senator Jon Lundberg, for Tennessee’s 1st District. “Has it changed the dynamics in Virginia and North Carolina, not really.”

The bill has been introduced twice and was rejected both times. If approved, Tennessee would join the other 29 states that don’t require these permits.

“This is one that people are passionate about, they’re either for it very strongly or against it very strongly,” said Lundberg. “So you will see those kind of passions come out this time around.”

Right now, the bill is still in the early stages and doesn’t have a senate sponsor yet.

Well, it needs a sponsor, and it needs to be passed this time around.  Frankly, I thought that Tennessee was already a gold star open carry state like my own state of North Carolina.

Tennessee needs to join the ranks of states that recognize God-given rights like this one.  Anyway, Tennessee can show the way to Texans, who have permitted open carry, and who are flirting with constitutional carry if only the awful Lieutenant Governor will get out of the way.

David Codrea:

“The submachine gun was a Heckler & Koch MP5 10mm,” the report elaborates. “An ammunition magazine for the weapon was also taken. Officials did not say how the weapon was secured.”

I want to know that information.  I was shopping at Lowes several months ago and happened upon a smaller town chief LEO who was looking for a case for a patrol rifle.  I suggested several brands (which wouldn’t have been able to be located at Lowes), or shopping on Amazon.

Either way, it goes to show that putting your patrol rifle – or in this case an NFA weapon – inside a secure case, bolted to the floor of the vehicle, is the least a LEO can do to secure his weapons.

But we can’t be trusted with machineguns, because laws are for little people, not LEOs.

Des Moines Register:

Iowa would eliminate a prohibition on possession of machine guns, as well as short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns, under a bill introduced by state Sen. Jason Schultz.

Schultz, a Republican from Schleswig in northwest Iowa, told The Des Moines Register Thursday he simply wants to make Iowa law no stricter on firearms possession than federal law. Senate File 108 would permit Iowans to obtain machine guns and the other specified firearms after undergoing an extensive federal background check, filling out paperwork and obtaining a tax stamp.

“I haven’t heard anything but support” from firearms groups and individual law enforcement officers, Schultz said. Under current Iowa law, a person who possesses a machine gun, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun can be charged with a Class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.

The legislation would be consistent, Schultz said, with a bill signed by Gov. Terry Branstad last year that allows Iowans to legally obtain a firearms suppressor, which reduces the amount of noise and visible muzzle flash generated by firing a weapon.

It’s ridiculous to have a law against something like an SBR anyway.  Readers in Iowa need to go to the mattresses on this one.  The governor is apparently lukewarm, and he needs to be persuaded to get on board.

Of course this doesn’t remove these items from the NFA list, which will take federal action and therefore all of us together.  But it takes Iowa one step closer to removing the laws that infringe on their rights.

AlabamaNews.net:

Wednesday, January 18, Senator Gerald Allen (R-Tuscaloosa) pre-filed legislation in the Alabama State Senate to allow Alabamians to lawfully carry guns without a permit. Allen’s permit less carry proposal would remove a needless restriction on Alabamians’ Second Amendment rights and make it easier for citizens to protect and defend their families and property.

“Alabama should be leading the way on constitutional gun rights. More than ten states across the country already allow their citizens to carry guns without a permit. It’s time we give our citizens the right to bear arms without first seeking the government’s permission,” Allen said. “We already allow open carry without a permit, and there is no logical reason for continuing to require a permit for concealed carry.”

Under Allen’s proposal, the requirement for a permit would be repealed, but Alabamians could still apply for a pistol permit in order to carry a gun in states that have reciprocity laws with Alabama. Currently, Alabama conceal-carry permit holders can carry guns in Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida, among other states, due to state reciprocity laws. A pistol permit holder would also retain the benefit of foregoing a background check when purchasing firearms.

“You will still need a permit if you’re going to legally carry a gun in other states, so I anticipate that a large majority of gun owners in Alabama will continue to purchase a permit from their local sheriff,” Allen remarked. “My goal is to remove unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens who own and carry guns, since most criminals and thugs don’t bother applying for a permit anyways.”

It’s good to see Alabama joining the ranks of states where legislators are sponsoring constitutional carry bills.  Be aware that the “Boss Hogg” sheriffs and sheriff’s association in Alabama will fight this since it potentially infringes on a constant stream of dollars to the coffers of law enforcement to buy their nice Dodge Chargers, comms gear and machine guns.

But if there is to be infringement, it’s better that it be with the state sheriffs rather than with the people who have constitutionally guaranteed rights.

We know it’s working out just fine.  That’s not what we learn from this most recent report.  The cited article is from “Everything Lubbock,” and what we learn from their LEOs is important and interesting.

Assistant Chief Jon Caspell with Lubbock Police recalls similar “buzz” about the law and questions for the police department.

“There really was a lot of talk about it and the potential it might have, but really we haven’t seen hardly impact at all,” Caspell said.

Both Caspell and Palmer said they really haven’t seen people around Lubbock excercising their right to open carry.

“Even walking around in public and teaching in classes  I really don’t see anyone really carrying that way,” Palmer said.

[ … ]

Palmer explained some insight he shares with his students:

“I also explain how disadvantageous it can be if you give away the fact that you’re carrying a gun to a potential bad guy, they already see you as a threat first rather than being able to be reactionary and maybe stopping something from happening,” Palmer said.

Another facet of the Open Carry law is that law enforcement can ask people they see openly carrying to show their license.

Assistant Chief Caspell said to his knowledge, everyone LPD has checked  with willingly hands over their paperwork .

“We don’t have any reports that we’ve had any difficulty for the most part, the type of person–generally speaking– that wants to open carry is someone that wants to enforce the law. They understand what the law is therefor the reasons behind it,” Caspell said.

Caspell said he can’t speak for other Texas cities, but he believes in Lubbock, the law has been implemented smoothly.

“Lubbock seems to be more of a gun-friendly community and because of that culture here we just haven’t seen a whole lot of problems. Maybe that phrase, “in like a lion, out like a whisper,” might be a good phrase here,” Caspell said.

He added that just because someone is openly carrying in a holster doesn’t mean they are licensed. Caspell encourages anyone who is suspicious of another person they see carrying a weapon to give police a call.

There are three aspects of this report that deserve comment.  First of all, I don’t advocate open carry any more than concealed carry.  I advocate carrying the way you feel the most comfortable and tactically suited to the situation.  But if there are never any open carriers, then this right will be seen as a permission that is rarely used.  That’s not a good outcome.

Second, I’ve stated before that you get to hide the fact that you’re carrying a gun to a perpetrator is the most hideously awful argument against open carry I can conceive.  It’s tactically absurd, inasmuch as if the perpetrator intends to perpetrate a crime, he’s going to regardless of whether you have a gun.  You will still have an opportunity to prevent it, and it’s more likely that you’ll be the first to engage the perpetrator.

That’s not a bad outcome unless you wish to see women and children perish before you do.  “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).  I’m not knocking concealed carriers as cowards.  Much of the time I’m a concealed carrier.  I’m knocking those who knock open carry for the reason that a concealed carrier gets to wait to engage.  I don’t carry a weapon in order to wait to engage.  You don’t hear LEOs making the argument that openly carrying their weapon is a tactical disadvantage.  Let’s don’t look stupid by making that argument for ourselves.

Finally, this attitude by the chief LEO is disturbing and possibly illegal.  He has actually gone on record advocating that people call the police for a response when no law is being broken, or at least, when no one can demonstrate prima facie that a law is being broken.  I must remind LEOs reading this article once again that the Fourth Circuit had to slap down the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department over stopping someone for openly carrying a weapon and actually arresting him for something else.

“… where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention.  Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.”

It simply could not be clearer.  Moreover, every stop must be a so-called Terry Stop, regardless of what Texas state law says.  In this way I see the Texas law as unconstitutional.  LEOs should not, and do not, have the right to stop merely to ask for identification unless they have good reason to believe that a law is being violated.  So says the Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States.  I said all of this before the Texas state legislature passed this bill, and they didn’t listen to me.  I would like to see this challenged in federal court, but before we ever get to that, I’d like to see constitutional carry in Texas in order to make this moot.  If Texas delays, as I suspect they will, then someone should challenge this in federal court.