Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

Baltimore Sun:

Where do criminals get guns? I’ll explore that question a lot this year because the supply of guns to people prohibited from having them remains a principal cause of Baltimore’s violent eruptions. When a convicted felon can allegedly walk out of his house with an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle and a 9 mm handgun and kill two men in a dispute over a parking space, we need to know: Who enabled him? Where’d he get the guns?

If he stole them, the case ends there.

But if he bought them, then those who supplied the weapons ought to be held accountable, too. The way I see it, they are accomplices to murder.

Oh goody.  That’s just what we need.  Another progressive “exploring” the issue of guns.  I can’t wait.

While Welch-Sutton is a federal case, the straw purchases they admitted to are exactly what the Maryland General Assembly had in mind when it toughened up the state’s firearms law in 2013. The law now requires people who want to buy a gun to submit to a background check, fingerprinting and four hours of gun-safety training.

Opponents of the measure called it an infringement on liberty.

But it’s no such thing. The intent is to discourage straw purchases, to keep old buddies from buying firearms for felons. It’s one piece of what should be a steady, comprehensive effort to reduce the size of the black market of guns that end up causing so much havoc and death. More to come.

Here’s what you won’t find Mr. Rodrick’s focus on: machetes.  Or Chicago gang violence with machetes and knives.  Like this.  Or hammer attacks and the need for a ban on assault hammers and background check before purchasing one.  Or finally, the need to disarm the police because attacking officers and perpetrating crime upon their person for the sole purpose of stealing their weapons has become a favorite tactic of criminals.

Because despite what Mr. Rodrick says about this not being infringements on your rights, it really is about that, and about the state having even more power than it does now.  All progressives want more state control, because it is in their nature.  It’s part of their DNA.  It’s their all encompassing world view.  The hippie movement was never about freedom, love and peace.  It was all about changing ideas and replacing those in power with their own people so they could control things.

CNBC:

The federal judge considering a proposed class-action settlement involving millions of allegedly defective Remington rifles is raising new questions about the accord, warning a plaintiff’s attorney in court that the agreement as it currently stands risks more people being injured by the guns.

Remington and the plaintiffs in two nationwide class-action cases have proposed replacing the triggers on nearly eight million guns, including the wildly popular Model 700 Series, which critics allege are prone to firing without the trigger being pulled.

Some two dozen deaths and hundreds of injuries have been linked to accidental firings of the guns. The 2010 documentary Remington Under Fire: A CNBC Investigation explored allegations that for more than 60 years, the company covered up the alleged defect.

Remington has steadfastly denied the allegations and still maintains the guns are safe.

“There’s nothing wrong with the Remington 700 rifle,” said Remington outside counsel John Sherk at a preliminary hearing in a federal court in Kansas City to consider the proposed settlement. But he said “Remington is committed to this settlement” in order for the company to move past litigation that has gone on for decades.

This is what happens with students go to law school and become convinced that it’s okay to tell lies.  There is indeed something very wrong with the Remington 700.  As I’ve said before, don’t believe what I’m saying.  Go study the evidence for yourself, including the testing performed at Remington.

The reason this is a big deal goes beyond mere responsibility for your work products as good and honest workers.  This goes to the honesty of engineering, the fidelity of weapons design and the ability to entrust your life and the lives of loved ones to a manufacturer.  Remington is showing itself to be a very bad example to the gun community.  Forget the issue of legal settlements.  What happened to being good professional engineers who take ownership of their designs?

David Codrea:

… those associations in and of themselves don’t relate how Carter would be able to use the position of Secretary of Defense to impact gun owners.

Here’s one area that it might: In following up on reports of military installations destroying expended ammunition brass rather than making it available to the commercial reload market, this column uncovered a copy of a June 23, 2011 memorandum from Carter on “Department of Defense (DoD) Implementing Guidance for the Commercial Sale of Expended Small Arms Cartridge Cases (ESACC).”

The memorandum includes an “Implementing Guidance” attachment stating “DoD will dispose of ESACC as quickly and effectively as practical, and in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and DoD guidance.” Of relevance, it also states “The DoD will not expend resources to determine whether ESACC are serviceable for non-military purposes.”

Ashton Carter is a progressive leader – not just shill – but leader.  Obama wouldn’t have appointed him if this were not the case.  You can lay bets on the notion that he will do everything in his power to ensure progressive policies are implemented.

Kurt Hofmann:

In other words, everyone who obediently registered their “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines, as per the new law, had provided the state with a map telling the gun confiscation raiding parties just where to go … let’s focus on one particular provision–registration of every gun. Actually, that’s annual registration, which is to be accompanied every time with a test of “firearms handling capacity” and knowledge of gun laws.

It never stops folks.  When they talk about “common sense” gun laws, what they really mean is that if you will let them get a foot in the door, they’ll force their way inside and take over.  It’s what control freaks do.  It’s what they believe.  They cannot not try to control every aspect of your life.  It’s like a dog returning to its vomit.  And it’s just as grotesque.

David Codrea:

“A Kermit [Texas] parent said his fourth-grade student was suspended Friday for allegedly making a terroristic threat,” the Odessa American reported Friday. After seeing “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,” nine-year-old Aiden Steward allegedly brought a ring to school and told a classmate it was magic and could make him disappear.

The boy’s father, Jason Steward, said Kermit Elementary School Principal Roxanne Greer informed him “threats to another child’s safety would not be tolerated — whether magical or not.” For her part, Greer declined to comment …

Yea, I’ll bet she declined to comment.  This woman is an imbecile.  Do you really need another reason to get your children dissociated from the communist indoctrination program?

Iraqi father guns down seven ISIS members.

kirotv.com:

Another company, Triggersmart, uses a radio ID tag that can be embedded in a ring.

But a poll done for the symposium reveals only 40 percent of current gun owners would switch to a smart gun — and 62 percent of gun owners reject any mandatory requirement to have them.

Dave Workman is a gun owner with the locally based 2nd Amendment Foundation.

“Let’s not even be talking about the technology until we are certain that it works,” Workman said.

King County Sheriff John Urquhart was on a panel, but wasn’t ready to commit to smart guns.

Urquhart says it will be years before the smart gun technology is ready. And then he’s not likely to mandate it for his officers.

Contrary to Dave’s edict, let’s talk yet again about smart gun technology.  I am a registered professional engineer, and I spend all day analyzing things and performing calculations.  Let’s not speak in broad generalities and murky platitudes (such as “good enough”).  That doesn’t work with me.  By education, training and experience, I reject such things out of hand.  Perform a fault tree analysis of smart guns.  Use highly respected guidance like the NRC fault tree handbook.

Assess the reliability of one of my semi-automatic handguns as the first state point, and then add smart gun technology to it, and assess it again.  Compare the state points.  Then do that again with a revolver.  Be honest.  Assign a failure probability of greater than zero (0) to the smart technology, because you know that each additional electronic and mechanical component has a failure probability of greater than zero.

Get a PE to seal the work to demonstrate thorough and independent review.  If you can prove that so-called “smart guns” are as reliable as my guns, I’ll pour ketchup on my hard hat, eat it, and post video for everyone to see.  If you lose, you buy me the gun of my choice.  No one will take the challenge because you will lose that challenge.  I’ll win.  Case closed.  End of discussion.

Now to the real issue.  I won’t have a weapon that can be manipulated by anyone, or for which outside interference of any kind is possible.  As I said about Gottlieb’s position, “I’m not opposed to people spending their money the way they want.  If Gottlieb wants one, let him buy one.  Leave me out of it.  And don’t ever … ever … EVER … tell me what kind of gun I can have or must buy.”

Prior: Smart Guns tag

Ammoland:

The National Firearms act regulation of short barreled rifles and shotguns from 1934 should be eliminated.   It made little sense when the primary purpose for the regulation was thwarted when it passed, it has become increasingly irrelevant, and it makes no sense at all after the Heller and McDonald decisions.

The reason for the ban on short barrelled rifles and shotguns had very little to do with the criminal use of such items.   After all, criminals use handguns many, many, times more often.    Short barreled rifles and shotguns are, in fact, as modified and used by criminals, expediently manufactured pistols.

The National firearms act of 1934 originally lumped in handguns with full auto firearms.  It is clear that the Roosevelt administration wanted to subject pistols and revolvers to the same draconian regulations and taxes that machine guns were finally subjected to.   Congress simply would not go along.  It was a step too far for even the heavily Democrat Congress of 1934.

Once you understand that licensing of handguns to the point of prohibition was the major target of the legislation, the reason for including short barreled rifles and shotguns becomes clear.    What is the point of banning handguns if any person can buy a rifle or shotgun, a hacksaw, and make a functional pistol in fifteen minutes from that rifle or shotgun?

That’s the first explanation I’ve ever heard that makes any sense at all as to why the law exists.  If seen in a vacuum, it is completely irrational and unworkable.  If seen in context, it is part of a larger scheme to deprive us of God-given rights across the spectrum, not just with SBRs.  It’s just that they failed with the rest of the control.  Thus, this piece of legislation sits alone, in need of more heinous and draconian controls to make any sense.

If you’re like me, you admire the fine, beautiful machinery in a revolver.  They beat plastic guns without mercy.  I love me a nice wheel gun.  But if you aren’t a revolver aficionado, there are things you need to know.  This is the very first one.  Watch.  Learn.

David Codrea:

Further reading confirms copies of the judgment were served to Attorney General Eric Holder, as well as to the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of Inspector General. Leaving the door open for further action, the opinion noted pending a final response from DOJ, “the court will reserve the question whether one or more of defendant’s attorneys acted in violation of the court’s rules and should be disciplined thereunder.”

Like I said, “this is criminal activity, and if it can be proven to the standards of the American Bar Association, they could be disbarred.  Finally, if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, they could face criminal penalties.”  People need to be disbarred and in prison over this.

Kurt Hofmann:

This bill is an exact copy of one he introduced last July, H.R. 5344. At that time, he actually came out and said that he wants private citizens to be more vulnerable to gunfire … How one would “protect the safety” of “the general public” by outlawing safety equipment is left unexplained. Even many of the armored backpacks, sold for use by school children, would be banned.

PPEs are awesome, unless of course it makes you more protected from totalitarians trying to rule over you.

What Baghdad movie-goers think about American Sniper.  It’s instructive.

So let me get this straight.  Being an actual terrorist has to do with geographical interests and not methods or intent?  Okay.  Got it.

Mike Vanderboegh on Gottlieb on smart guns.  Very well.  I’m not opposed to people spending their money the way they want.  If Gottlieb wants one, let him buy one.  Leave me out of it.  And don’t ever … ever … EVER … tell me what kind of gun I can have or must buy.

We just discussed how at least one of the proposed pieces of legislation in Texas is licensed open carry.  A deal may very well have been struck well before the session concerning what the Governor expected to come to his desk.  This isn’t the only open carry bill in Texas, and so the show isn’t over yet.  But there is a cold wind blowing concerning the promises made to the voters.

Texas never met a gun-rights bill it didn’t like.

But if one actually fails to pass the Legislature this session, the author of the state’s 1995 handgun permit law knows why.

A bill to allow Texans to pack pistols without a permit won’t pass “because of the Tarrant County open-carry group’s obnoxious behavior,” former Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson warned by email Tuesday.

Earlier Tuesday, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said a different bill allowing open carry with a permit “does not reach to the level of prioritizing” before adjournment June 1.

Basically, Patterson said, that bill might have a chance if Open Carry Tarrant County stays home.

Patrick’s comment will “stir up a lot of folks,” Patterson wrote, adding: “I hope these folks don’t make another scene.”

Patterson called that “foolish.” Watkins’ comment: “Shame on you.”

Patterson wants the Legislature to pass bills allowing open carry and carrying at public colleges, both with a permit.

Since he worked hard for permits, he likes them.

Consider me shocked – a member of the ruling class likes it when the government gets to approve or disapprove of rights.  The promise strategically didn’t include constitutional carry, and the so-called “obnoxious” behavior of open carry advocates has given him a convenient excuse for something he never wanted to do in the first place.

Another report (thanks to MackH) tells us more about the political machinations.

Speaking the day after pro-gun advocates again flocked to the state Capitol, Patrick said he thought “Second Amendment rights are important” but he didn’t think “there’s support in the Legislature to pass” a bill to legalize the open carry of handguns. In Texas, you can openly tote long arms like rifles and AR-15s, but the same has been illegal for handguns for more than 125 years.

“On open carry I’ve been very consistent, that if the votes are there, the bill will pass out of the Senate,” said Patrick. “But I’m not an open carry person myself. I wouldn’t open carry but I respect people’s right who want to.”

[ … ]

While Patrick’s comments on open carry Tuesday morning were nothing new – he ‘s made similar statements on news programs and at town hall meetings in the recent past – they seem to contradict campaign material that promised the then state senator and radio show host would more actively support the effort. On his campaign website, one of the five “Second Amendment” issues Patrick lists as priorities is to “fight for open carry.” A campaign ad also includes a promise to “support” the effort.

In a retweet of a San Antonio Express-News story from November 2013, Patrick campaign consultant Allen Blakemore also stated, “@DanPatrick supports open carry.”

If this all sounds like politicians making promises in order to get elected and then reverting collectivist after being elected, it’s because that’s exactly what happened.  And as to the propaganda that this all has to do with those “obnoxious” open carriers, Sebastian fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Remember, before their little stunt, this was supposedly a done deal … So far all all the OC Tarrant County folks have accomplished this session is getting the legislature to install panic buttons, and scuttling a bill that looked like it had the legs to pass. What else will they manage to accomplish in this legislative session?

Right.  They’re all a-skeered of the open carriers, enough to install “panic buttons.”  It sounds to me like they aren’t a-skeerd enough.  The legislators are supposed to be in our employ, and maybe what they need to see is more voters carrying guns.

As for the open carry bill they floated, I’d sooner have nothing.  As I’ve said, 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.

Gun rights advocates are better off to hold out for constitutional carry rather than begging for scraps that fall from the master’s table.  As for Texas politicians, color me unimpressed.  They seem like a lot of hot air and no action or honesty.  I guess the underhanded, conniving, bullying days of Bob Bullock are still going strong even as Bob lays in the grave.

David Codrea:

“The bill is taken almost word for word from The Kelly Report, a multi-authored, gun control perpetual wish list released last year from Kelly’s office,” Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership reported Tuesday. “Authors of the Kelly Report include such veteran gun control advocates as Harvard’s David Hemenway, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc.), and National Urban League President and former New Orleans mayor Marc Morial.

Read all of David’s article.  If you want me to respect you, show me children raised to adulthood, or gray hair, a life well-lived, or something that shows you are a man.  This person is an unserious little boy.  As for the promised gun control, bring it. We’ll see who wins that fight.

Also, read about David’s insurance policy.  Hmm …

Kurt Hofmann:

Actually, that wouldn’t be a new development, with the Violence Policy Center having espoused such bans on what they call “intermediate sniper rifles” (to distinguish them from “heavy sniper rifles”–mostly firing the .50 BMG cartridge) since 2001. If that effort ever comes to fruition, does anyone seriously believe they’ll not eventually find their way to warning us of the dangers of private citizens’ access to “light sniper rifles”?

More recently, we’ve seen an especially hysterical anti-gun group (and an anti-gun group has to really work to distinguish itself from the crowd in its level of hysteria) calling for a ban of rifles “too accurate” for private citizens–and stunningly, wants private citizens limited to rifles that miss 70% of the time …

Read all of Kurt’s article.  Everything is proceeding just as I had foreseen.

I had previously asked the question of a purchase at Walmart, “If someone had purchased a really nice bolt action .308 with expensive glass, what would the press have done if this had gotten into criminal hands?  Perhaps call it a “sniper rifle?”

And in this same spirit, Mike Vanderboegh weighs in.

Personally, I can think of no more wonderful outcome than if the movie prompts the firearm prohibitionists to go after deer rifles. They mess with Elmer Fudd at their peril and frankly the Fudds could stand being reminded that we are all guests at this disarmament party.

Yea.  It isn’t just that AR-15 with the high capacity magazine they don’t want you to have.  That nice .308 bolt action rifle you’ve been thinking about – you know, the one you want to put the nice Nightforce or Vortex scope on?  Yea, that rifle.  That’s the one.  They don’t want you to have that either.  Just because.  You can’t be trusted.

The secret was out about a week ago.

Another hot topic this session is open carry and Senator Perry already has an idea of what may come of that.

“I think you will see open carry on multiple levels. I think at the end of the day, Governor Abbott was very clear and Lt. Patrick has said the same thing. So, if an open carry bill meets the desk of the governor, it’s going to get signed. I would say if there is a bill that comes out of the house or senate chambers regarding second amendment it will be a license to carry” Senator Perry said.

As if on cue, the bill that has been filed follows what is likely a “behind closed doors” or “gentleman’s agreement.”

AUSTIN – State Sen. Craig Estes filed a bill on Friday that would authorize open carry of modern handguns in Texas by anyone with a license, so long as the handguns are carried in shoulder or belt holsters.

Texas is currently one of the few states that does not permit citizens to openly carry modern handguns under any circumstances. The other states that deny their citizens the right to carry handguns openly are: California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and South Carolina.

“Texas is one of only six states, including California, New York, and Illinois, that still completely ban open carry,” said Estes, R-Wichita Falls, who represents Palo Pinto County. “As Governor Abbott recently said, ‘If open carry is good enough for Massachusetts, it’s good enough for the state of Texas.’”

[ … ]

If passed, the new license to carry created by this bill would replace the existing concealed handgun license. Applicants would have to meet the same requirements that they currently do to get a concealed handgun license.

That’s really too bad for Texans.  The government shouldn’t be in the business of licensing anyone to engage in a constitutional right.  Voters might want to let their elected officials feel their disapprobation.

Now, how is this law to be enforced?  Texas has no “stop and identify” statute.  Either massive confusion is on the way, or more onerous laws like a new stop and identify statute will be part of this bill (or some future bill).  Terrible.  Just terrible.