Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

I run a break-in procedure on my rifles.  This involves (1) a round, (2) brush/solvent/patch full stroke down the barrel, (3) dry patch or mop, next round, and so on. This process continues for several dozen rounds, then you skip to three rounds before the same procedure, and so on until the process is completed at 50 or more rounds.  You’ll wear out at least two bore brushes this way.  I’ve done it.  A bore guide is handy, and a day at the range is necessary.  You can’t complete the process in under a day.

This is a question I have wondered about myself, and I’m glad that the video author found several high powered barrel manufacturers to discuss it.  The first two representatives essentially reiterated what I thought and what I’ve been told, except that they focus on the machining marks in the throat and chamber, while I always thought it had to do with machining marks on the throat, chamber and barrel (inconsistencies in the throat, chamber and barrel such as microscopic burs, ridges and chatter marks left by the machining process).

The third barrel manufacturer was slightly more nonchalant about the process.  You be the judge.  I think I’ll continue to run the break-in procedure when I buy a new rifle.  Any gunsmiths or tool and die / jig engineers are welcome to weigh in on this issue.

Military.com:

Red-dot optics mounted on pistols are becoming so popular that some professional shooters see them replacing iron sights in the tactical environment.

Non-magnifying optics have long been the primary rifle sight for troops on the battlefield. Besides being accurate and durable, they are also faster than iron sights and perform better in low-light conditions.

Now the popularity of ultra-light red-dots — such as Trijicon’s Ruggedized Miniature Reflex, or RMR, sight — has compelled pistol makers to introduce special lines of their handguns specifically designed for accepting red-dots.

Glock just unveiled its Modular Optic System at SHOT Show 2016. It’s designed so shooters can install the red-dot of their choice with just a few tools. Smith & Wesson did the same at SHOT 2015 with the introduction of its M&P Competition Optics Ready Equipment, or C.O.R.E., pistols.

“Red dots on pistols are the future of handguns,” said firearms instructor Matt Jacques.

At SHOT 2016, Jacques was showing off Raven Concealment’s new Balor mount designed for an Aimpoint Micro T1 or H1 red-dot sight on a Glock with just a few simple tools.

Red-dots offer a single-sight plane, so the shooter doesn’t have to worry about sight alignment as with traditional front and rear iron sights, Jacques said.

I don’t have any red dot optics for pistols, but I find this concept to be very appealing.  I wonder though, if existing pistols can be retrofitted for these optics without significant rework and gunsmithing, and I am not talking about the dozen or more gunsmiths who work at Hyatt Gun Shop, who can do just about anything with anything.  Will shooters have to buy new guns in order to make this a reality for them?

I’m still not convinced about the necessity of the PDW (I carry handguns for PDW), but as I’ve said before, I’m still interested (I haven’t taken the plunge and bought one yet) in a pistol caliber carbine.  But I am not a fan of the 9mm.  I shoot .45 ACP, .38 Special and .357 magnum (I also have a new FN Five-seveN which shoots 5.7x28mm).  But thus far I’m unhappy with the PDWs and pistol caliber carbines I see.  There are few in .45 ACP that I’ve been able to find.

This SHOT show has been big in these weapons.  SIG Sauer announced their new MPX 9, which looks very cool and very sleek.  It isn’t an SBR, it’s a carbine.

If the Kalashnikov is more your style, they have a new 9mm.

Not to be outdone, TNW Firearms has a new 10mm rifle in the AR style.

I’m not too big on 10mm either, but what do you know, they have a .45 ACP version that looks nice (it sells as a pistol rather than a carbine, with no stock).

Cara McDonough:

I ended my story by saying that I felt the only way to move forward in this debate was to talk to people who did get the gun thing. That I wanted to understand the other side because, truthfully, I’d never tried to before.

A handful of gun owners — individuals with political views very different from my own — apparently read all the way through. They got the sentiment and took me up on my request and wrote to me. Because I’d prompted the discussion, I realized I needed to follow through, so I wrote back. And we’ve been talking.

I’m not claiming that I’ve begun some sort of revolution. The back-and-forth is slow going, but we’re communicating. In some instances, the conversation has remained focused on gun policy, while other email threads have morphed into discussing personal life beyond the issue at hand.

Writing to gun owners humanized the issue for me. After feeling so hopeless, the emails made me feel better. They were the only thing that did. Talking to people who owned guns and were willing to discuss that with me in a reasonable and respectful way had some immediate, and surprising, results.

I began to get “the gun thing,” as I’d dismissively termed it. A few who wrote to me pointed out that when you live in a rural community and calling law enforcement does not necessarily result in a prompt response, owning a gun for personal safety seems prudent. I’m a product of East Coast city life and — naively, shortsightedly — had never considered this.

But here’s the thing, Cara.  You never really advocated or even intended to advocate disarming everyone.  You never really believed in gun control for everyone, because you didn’t advocate disarming cops.  That’s a problem.  That means that you believe in guns, just in what you consider “the right hands.”  You want the government to have a monopoly of force, and for others to be left defenseless against criminals and, yes, against their own government as well.

The example you cited about people in the countryside is shameful, and not only should you never have brought that up, your detractors should have kept their mouths shut because they don’t believe in gun rights either.  Gun rights are just that – rights.  They are no respecter of persons or location.  Urbanites need self defense just as much as rural folk.

As for the cops you assume would be there is you call them, you do understand that they are under no legal obligation to protect you, don’t you?  Not according to Warren v. D.C., Castle Rock v. Gonzales, and other decisions.  Legally, the police can wait until your neighbors smell your rotting corpse before sending in the medical examiner, while they go eat doughnuts.  Besides, given typical response times, the crimes are over by the time police respond.

On a larger scale, guns protect men and women from awful people like ISIS, who get off on beheading defenseless women and children, or the Taliban, who want to perpetrate female circumcision and destroy school books so that children can’t learn to read.  Guns enabled our own revolution against a tyrant in England, and guns ended Hitler’s reign of terror in Europe.

You see, you know that guns are a tool with magnificent utility, an equalizer of the evil and the innocent, of the  criminal and the righteous.  But you still want the innocent and the righteous to be defenseless, and that says something deeply troubling about your values.  I suggest a deep, quiet period of soul-searching before writing about this again.

And before you do write again, you should get up with someone like me, who can sit for several hours and show you how our side safely handles firearms, and how they can be safely deployed at the gun range.  It simply isn’t enough to write emails back and forth.  You aren’t really fully engaged in this issue yet.  You’re just nibbling around the edges.

Texas Observer:

Christians, arm yourselves.

That, in a nutshell, is what Liberty University students heard from Jerry Falwell Jr., in the wake of the shootings in San Bernardino in December. Falwell — president of the evangelical Christian college and son of the late Moral Majority founder — told students, “If more good people had concealed-carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in and killed them.” Adding that he was carrying a weapon in his pocket, he encouraged students to take Liberty’s concealed-carry training course.

[ … ]

Yet when it comes to linking lethal weapons to the “gospel of peace,” Falwell and Ramsey have nothing on Texas.

One pastor’s message to attendees of a 2012 Keller church conference went well beyond the suggestion that Christians consider gun ownership. “You can’t be a Christian if you don’t own a gun,” pastor Dr. Gary Cass told attendees at the Deliver Us From Evil Conference. “How can you protect yourself, your family, or your neighbor if you don’t have a gun? If I’m supposed to love my neighbor, and I can’t protect him, what good am I?” While Cass told me recently that there is some hyperbole in these statements — in that gun ownership alone is not sufficient to guarantee salvation — he does believe that self-defense “is a God-given right and duty.”

Cass’ DefendChristians.org is based in California, but several Christian ministers here in the Lone Star State are singing from the same hymnal. Huntsville-area preacher Terry Holcomb Sr. is known for carrying his AR-15 Bushmaster rifle into local businesses as part of his campaign for open carry. Likewise, the Rev. James McAbee, pastor at Beaumont’s Lighthouse Worship Center, has earned the moniker “the pistol-packin’ preacher” for carrying his Glock in church and for offering teachers free handgun training. Last summer, McAbee told KLST-TV that “it’s very important that every church, pastor and all, have a gun.” And yet, as he explained to the Los Angeles Times: “I don’t want to hurt anybody. I believe the Bible teaches peace. But that doesn’t mean I should let them hurt me.”

The notion of pastors packing heat and encouraging their flocks to do likewise strikes many Texas Christians, myself included, as peculiar — even, well, un-Christian. After all, the core teachings of Jesus himself suggest a very different message.

Although his country was under oppressive Roman occupation, Jesus taught nonviolence — “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” — which is not exactly a forceful call to arms. Jesus also instructed his followers to love their enemies.

But, of course, the Bible is a big and complicated book. Some Christian gun advocates cite a puzzling passage in which Jesus tells his disciples that if they don’t have a sword, they should sell their cloak and buy one. In an email to me, Cass even cited this passage as evidence of a biblical right to self-defense. However, many biblical commentators, including the evangelical InterVarsity Press, interpret Jesus as referring to spiritual “swords,” not physical ones. Even when Jesus was arrested, and the disciples asked him if they should defend him with their (physical) swords, he told them no. Based on my studies as both a scholar and a Christian, I believe that if Jesus taught us anything, he taught us that the godly life is one of peace, nonviolence, and love.

[ … ]

… the Second Amendment enshrines what Aledo Christian conservative David Barton has called “the biblical right of self-defense.” The Second Amendment’s “ultimate goal,” Barton contends, “is to make sure you can defend yourself against any kind of illegal force that comes against you,” whether from a neighbor, an outsider, or “your own government.” However doubtful it is that the Founders wanted to allow rebellion against the very government they were creating, this “insurrectionist idea” is very popular in Christian Americanist circles.

Oh good.  Yet another derogatory phrase for Christians who believe in living according to the Bible: “Christian Americanist.”  So this makes twice I’ve heard the author, David Brockman, claim that he is a scholar.  But if you’re going to make that claim, you have to live up to the hype.  Frankly, Brockman fails miserably.

Why is the passage about Jesus telling his disciples to get swords puzzling?  I thought Brockman was a scholar.  In fact, first of all Jesus told his disciples to find swords for self defense (the command is placed in context of having a purse and bag which they didn’t previously have, and being self sufficient in the absence of Jesus who was soon to give His life for His people).  Second, the command sets up the disciples to rely on God’s mercy and grace.  It was against Roman law for anyone but Roman soldiers to have weapons, and Jesus was commanding that they break Roman law.  Finally, this command sets up Peter for good instruction when he slices the ear off one of the Roman soldiers (referred to later by Brockman).  Jesus explained to Peter that His kingdom wouldn’t grow by the power of the sword (contra false religions like Islam).  Jesus had to die and be raised again for His people, and Peter was getting in the way.

Brockman – if he is the scholar he claims he is – should know all of this.  He should also know that the founders set up a system that was intended to be curtailed by the power of weapons, for that is exactly what they did.  They curtailed the power of tyrants in England, and were it not for weapons, there would have been no victory.

But the biggest failure is Brockman’s ignorance concerning the case for biblical self defense.  I’ve explained it before.

I am afraid there have been too many centuries of bad teaching endured by the church, but it makes sense to keep trying.  As I’ve explained before, the simplest and most compelling case for self defense lies in the decalogue.  Thou shall not murder means thou shall protect life.

God’s law requires [us] to be able to defend the children and helpless.  “Relying on Matthew Henry, John Calvin and the Westminster standards, we’ve observed that all Biblical law forbids the contrary of what it enjoins, and enjoins the contrary of what it forbids.”  I’ve tried to put this in the most visceral terms I can find.

God has laid the expectations at the feet of heads of families that they protect, provide for and defend their families and protect and defend their countries.  Little ones cannot do so, and rely solely on those who bore them.  God no more loves the willing neglect of their safety than He loves child abuse.  He no more appreciates the willingness to ignore the sanctity of our own lives than He approves of the abuse of our own bodies and souls.  God hasn’t called us to save the society by sacrificing our children or ourselves to robbers, home invaders, rapists or murderers. Self defense – and defense of the little ones – goes well beyond a right.  It is a duty based on the idea that man is made in God’s image.  It is His expectation that we do the utmost to preserve and defend ourselves when in danger, for it is He who is sovereign and who gives life, and He doesn’t expect us to be dismissive or cavalier about its loss.

And concerning John Calvin’s comments on this subject:

We do not need to prove that when a good thing is commanded, the evil thing that conflicts with it is forbidden.  There is no one who doesn’t concede this.  That the opposite duties are enjoined when evil things are forbidden will also be willingly admitted in common judgment.  Indeed, it is commonplace that when virtues are commended, their opposing vices are condemned.  But we demand something more than what these phrases commonly signify.  For by the virtue of contrary to the vice, men usually mean abstinence from that vice.  We say that the virtue goes beyond this to contrary duties and deeds.  Therefore in this commandment, “You shall not kill,” men’s common sense will see only that we must abstain from wronging anyone or desiring to do so.  Besides this, it contains, I say, the requirement that we give our neighbor’s life all the help we can … the purpose of the commandment always discloses to us whatever it there enjoins or forbids us to do” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, Book 2, Chapter viii, Part 9).

Far from a mere right, it is a duty.  Forsaking this duty is equivalent to turning over Brockman’s own children to criminals, rapists, thieves and abusers.  God isn’t impressed with Brockman’s fake morality, a morality that pretends Jesus is a bohemian hippie flower child.  And I don’t think Brockman is the scholar he thinks he is.

Mother Jones:

The cartels’ weapons of choice are high-caliber rifles, including AR-15 and AK-47-type semiautomatic rifles, which can be easily converted into fully automatic machine guns. The cartel’s gunrunners often buy firearms legally in the United States, either at gun shops, gun shows, or in private sales. The firearms are then illegally shipped across the border.

But it gets better.  Commenter Aquarian Dreamer said:

usually ‘High-Caliber’ is used to reference impact power, which until the late 19th usually meant larger ammunition. that changed as aerodynamics became better defined, and rifle power became less about bigger ammo with more gunpowder packed behind.

“Impact Power.”  “Aerodynamics became better defined.”  It’s sort of like that little puppy who is just learning to walk but still bumps into things, vomits and shits on the rug.  Maddening, but in some weird, freakish way, adorable nonetheless.

Prior:

High Magazine Clips And The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up

High Ammo Clips

Automatic Bullets In Rapid-Fire Magazine Clips

Duck Hunting With Bullets

Fully Loaded Ammunition Cartridge

High Magazine Round

Jackson Hole News & Guide:

In an effort to bring the town of Jackson in line with Wyoming law, the Town Council is on track to repeal a decades-old ordinance that bans concealed weapons.

The law dates back to the 1970s and outlaws people from having any kind of hidden weapon, including pistols and knives, but also dirks, daggers and “swords-in-canes.”

The potential change is part of an effort by the town to update older parts of the municipal code, but some town officials have paused on the concealed carry ordinance.

Councilor Jim Stanford pointed out that this is a rare instance in which the state has moved to take away local control.

“I disagree vigorously with the Wyoming Legislature usurping local authority to regulate guns within our municipal boundaries,” Stanford said. “And I believe that if this faced a court test it wouldn’t stand up.”

Generally, state statute allows local laws to be more restrictive but not less so than state law. As an example, law enforcement officials said that means that a town can reduce the speed limit on a state road, but can’t raise it.

Stanford said the state’s moves, which are contrary to that concept and came in the form of the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act, are attempting to force “extremist ideology” on localities. Through the act, instituted several years ago, the state is essentially taking over regulation of concealed weapons, he said.

Other town officials didn’t totally disagree with his thinking.

“I do find it interesting how we’re for local authority until we’re not,” said Mayor Sara Flitner.

But, practically speaking, she and other town officials said they had to update the municipal code to keep it in line with Wyoming’s laws.

Last winter my wife and I took an extended trip to Jackson, Wyoming, in part to ski, in part to visit the surrounding area.  We visited your wonderful restaurants, from the exquisite cuisine at The Gun Barrel, to Bubba’s Barbecue.  I have eaten barbecue from North Carolina to Texas, and I have said to others that I have never had it so good as Bubba’s in Jackson.  In fact, I have recommended that others go to Jackson Hole as well, the visit being so good and relaxing.  It was indeed a memorable time for us.

But there is a problem.  I noticed bus drivers open carrying, and as an open carrier myself and my home state being a traditional open carry state, I fully support that.  But being new to the area, I didn’t want to do that, and concealed while we were in Jackson.  That’s right.  I am proud to announce that I violated your stupid ordinance.  I didn’t know about it, to be sure.  But violate it I did.  It would have been easy to fix.  I could have just switched to open carry if I had only know.  And therein lies the problem, don’t you think?  The mere act of switching where I was carrying my weapon would have made the difference between being approved and not in Jackson.  But I’m glad I carried concealed if for no other reason than to prove a point, because you are the ones who are in violation of the law.  God’s providence is good and sometimes humorous and amusing, don’t you think?

Your ordinance is underhanded, illegal and immoral all at the same time.  It is underhanded in that unsuspecting, peaceable men like me could get caught up in your idiotic, pompous belligerence towards your own state.  It is immoral in that you could cause peaceable men like me to run afoul of your ordinances.  It is illegal because it violates Wyoming Code 6-8-401(c), which reads “no city, town, county, political subdivision or any other entity shall authorize, regulate or prohibit the sale, transfer, purchase, delivery, taxation, manufacture, ownership, transportation, storage, use, carrying or possession of firearms, weapons, accessories, components or ammunition.”

It’s called state preemption, and you know all about it.  You hate it.  I’ve observed about your kind before that “It’s an odious thing when local yokels (who are usually elected in elections that aren’t well attended and who are usually unknown until they act out their Napoleon fantasies upon others) presume to tell their townships what to do about everything under the sun.  Totalitarianism doesn’t just happen inside the beltway.”

And again, “I am a long standing and diehard advocate of State’s rights, even to the extent that I don’t think the federal court system should be invoked when local gun control is concerned.  All gun politics is local, I have said.  The corollary is that in order to prevent local hicks, ne’er-do-wells and criminals from acting out their Napoleon fantasies upon other men, association with the state means that – assuming robust gun rights laws already exist – local municipalities and townships shouldn’t be able to preempt state laws.  The state is the right size for law-making and control.  Our founding fathers were wise.”

The councilman who said “if this faced a court test it wouldn’t stand up” – Mr. Stanford – is an idiot.  State preemption is tried, tested, proven, and legal.  Towns and cities cannot override state law unless explicitly stated so in state law.

The only “extremist ideology” here is being expressed by Mr. Stanford.  Shame on you, and a thousand times shame on you.  The carry of weapons is a God-given right, and protection of human life is a God-given duty.  As for the city council, you are in violation of state law, placing at risk peaceable men who don’t know about your stupid ordinance, and wasting valuable time and resources sticking your nose up in the air and being offended that you can’t override state law.

The whole episode is unseemly, obscene and [should be] embarrassing to you.  You’re acting out in a tantrum as if you were little children.  This needs to end, and you need to bring Jackson into full compliance with State law in a timely manner.  And then you need to move on about the business of the city without so much smugness, condescension, pomp and arrogance.  You aren’t a board of kings, and you don’t get to fabricate just any law you wish.  If my readers want to send you notes saying the same thing, I’ll list your web site.

Comment:

I’m a legal handgun permit owner in Australia. Owning a firearm in Australia is no longer a right, but is a privilege. I am a member of a local firearms range where I compete in pistol shooting (the only permissible reason to own a handgun). My handgun permit only lasts one year, is a privilege, dependent on my competing in at least 6 competitions a year and being a member of a gun club. The police firearms branch review my license every year and have the right to terminate it if they feel I am not a “fit and reasonable person”. I cannot discharge my firearm outside of a designated firing range. I cannot store ammunition or the handgun in the same part of my gun safe. I cannot transport or store my gun with rounds loaded in the magazine, or a loaded magazine within the firearm. I cannot own a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity. I cannot use my handgun for personal protection, even when within my own home- as this is illegal and would result in a firearms act violation and the termination of my license as well as legal proceedings against me. My firearm is registered by law. The possession of a firearm means that the police have the right to search my entire house and inspect my safe and firearm on any day- so long as they have a “reasonable” cause to do so and arrive at a reasonable hour. So there……..

Never trust wicked men to honor your liberties.  It will be like this in America unless you are willing to shoot back to ensure that it’s not.

By now you’ve seen at least some of the details of Obama’s executive orders on gun control.  You know what I think about all of this, so I won’t repeat what we all know.  But I do want to make some specific observations.

The little boys and girls at Daily Kos are just giddy that they saw Obama cry.  They’re in full celebratory mode.  Crocodile tears on tap for just such an occasion.  That none of this accomplishes what he said he wanted to do doesn’t even move the needle on the bullshit-o-meter for the Kos kids.  That he’s a liar and this was all staged to occur at this point in his tenure escapes them.  He wanted to do all of this by executive order rather than by law-making.  It has been his design all along.

Regarding the details of things, first of all concerning mental health.  Via Uncle, your doctor can report you for what he or she perceives as mental illness.  I suppose that means that your name makes its way into the NICS as prohibited.  Next, the Social Security Administration can also put you on the prohibited list.  Seriously.

Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs.  The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS.  The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent

As for the mental health issue, that may mean, for example, that anyone who has ever taken a neuromodulator is now prohibited from ever owning a weapon.  And once these regulations get published in the federal register and codified in the federal code, it becomes very difficult to remove them.  One thing working against their removal is that the progressives blame guns for violence, while the so-called conservatives blame mental health.  Neither is responsible, and they know it.

As for the elderly, this might mean that if a child has power of attorney because a couple cannot run TurboTax, they are considered to be incompetent to manage their own affairs.  The Holy Scriptures say, “Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of the old man” (Leviticus 19:32).  The very ones who are the weakest and least able to defend themselves, who may need the protection afforded by a weapon more than anyone else, are the ones attacked by Obama.

What a worm.  What … a … worm.  He is a hateful, sorry, miserable, awful, terrible servant of the evil one.  But the most interesting reaction to Obama’s actions comes from Mike Vanderboegh, who observes that Obama has instantly nationalized the armed civil disobedience movement.  That’s the takeaway.  He has done what we could never do.

Fusion.net:

Texas is starting off the new year with a bang: A statewide gun law that doesn’t make much sense.

“Unfortunately, this law was not written very well. It’s not very clear…I can read it one way, I can read it another way,” said Donna Edmundson, the city attorney for Houston, at a town hall meeting two months ago. The law—which will make Texas the 45th and largest state to allow citizens with permits to openly carry handguns—goes into effect on January 1.

But by the end of that hour-and-a-half session, which was also attended by the police chief and district attorney, very little had been resolved.

Now, as they anticipate anticipate an uptick in 911 calls reporting people walking the streets with guns, police departments across the state are still trying to figure out how—and if—they can enforce the law, which legal experts say is marked with gaping loopholes and ambiguities.

For one thing, legal experts say, it’s not clear if the law allows police to detain someone who they suspect is open carrying without a license. Some districts are training police to ask to see a license only if an individual is engaging in otherwise suspicious activity. Others say they are free to ask because there is reasonable suspicion that the person may be committing a crime—unlawfully carrying a gun without a license.

Even trickier for police officers is what happens when a citizen is asked and refuses to show proof of an open-carry license. According to the Dallas Morning News, there is no penalty in the law for license holders who refuse to do so:

[C]ase law in Texas could prohibit police from arresting that person, since the action has no penalty.

But if the person isn’t a license holder, the officer can arrest him for unlawfully carrying a gun. So at what point does an officer know enough — like the person’s identity and whether he’s a license holder — to determine whether to make an arrest?

In other words, as it is written, the new open carry law is nearly impossible to enforce, said Geoffrey Corn, a professor of law at the South Texas College of Law in Houston. “It’s kind of like a Catch-22,” he told Fusion. Carrying without a license is illegal, but there’s no clear way for police to investigate if the person does indeed have a license to open carry or not.

“The way it’s gonna end up is that police are gonna have encounters with people who are open carrying that are going to escalate, and that are going to lead to an arrest,” Corn said. “And then that’s going to lead to defense attorneys saying the whole thing was tainted, and that the seizure was illegal because he had right to carry.”

Originally, the bill had a “no stop” provision, which barred police from asking anyone for their open carry license. Law enforcement groups fought it, saying it would prevent police from doing their jobs, while endangering the public. In response to that pressure, the bill was rewritten in its current form.

“Traditionally, the way legislatures tackle hard problems is to leave it to the courts,” George Dix, a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law, told Fusion. “In this case, I suspect there was no politically acceptable language they could agree on, so they left it up to others to decide.”

The officials who pushed the bill through saw it as mostly a symbolic measure, he speculated. They weren’t necessarily concerned with how it would be enforced.

For all its problems, there is one thing abundantly clear with the new law: seeing someone on the street with a gun is not enough of a reason to detain them and ask for their license. Seeing someone with a firearm no longer makes them suspicious in the eyes of the law, even as regular citizens might be alarmed at the sight.

“What a lot of police are worried about is not that there’s gonna be open carry, but that there’s going to be a deliberate effort to exercise that right in what I might characterize as an ‘unusually zealous’ way,” said Corn. “And there can be a lot of chaos in those circumstances.”

Deliberate, mind you.  Not accidental, but someone exercising a right deliberately.  Deliberately!  And not only that, but in an “unusually zealous” way!

So tell us Mr. Corn.  What does it mean to deliberately exercise a right in an “unusually zealous” way?  Be precise, please.  Legally precise.  And explain how that can be chaotic.

Or perhaps this is just some bullshit term made up for some bullshit article over something that won’t end up mattering a hill of beans to most people?  Which is it, Mr. Corn?