Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

News from Pittsburgh:

Pittsburgh police are reviewing an incident in which they say an officer accidentally fired a gun while chasing a suspect in Crafton Heights, an official said on Tuesday.

Public safety spokeswoman Sonya Toler said Detective Martin Kail accidentally fired his gun when he fell while pursuing a suspect on foot about 9:40 p.m. May 21 in the 1400 block of Crucible Street.

No one was hurt.

“No one was shot, no one was injured,” Toler said.

She did not know what prompted Kail, a member of the narcotics and vice squad, to chase after the suspect.

Toler said the suspect was not apprehended.

Supervisors were notified of the incident and arrived at the scene, she said.

Kail was hired in 2007, records show.

Officer Howard McQuillan, president of Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, the labor union that represents city police officers, declined to comment.

Yea, I’ll bet he “declined to comment.”  Notice the term accidental.  I suspect another example of negligent discharge because someone stumbled with their finger on the trigger, squeezing due to sympathetic muscle reflex, which I discussed here again.

Can’t they at least train these guys at the same level as we civilians?

Anastasia Basil:

Yes, I am a Godless American and a devoted mother of two who believes that the highest form of love doesn’t come from a supernatural being but from human beings. I make ethical decisions based on empathy and a deep appeal for fairness. So if you’ve ever wondered what a Godless American might be like, here’s an opportunity to know one. I like to bake birthday cakes from scratch and take in stray dogs. I am a Girl Scout leader.

As citizens, you openly prize two things: Jesus and the Second Amendment. Your cries for more God and more guns ring from sea to shining sea. We hear you. Believe me. But here’s the thing: As an American citizen of equal value, I can’t let you claim this country as a gun-loving Christian nation. I live a life of moral decency, as I’m sure you do too. But I do it gunless. This makes me indisputably more Christ-like than you.

In response, you will say I’m stifling your right to religion. Quite the opposite: I’m encouraging you to pick up your Bibles and live more in accordance with your religion. I’m asking you to choose between the right to bear arms and the right to quote Jesus. If you won’t give up your guns, then give up your identity as a Christian. Be disciples of Wayne LaPierre. Make your mantra “From My Cold, Dead Hands,” not “Turn the Other Cheek.”

Personally, I would love to stifle your right to the Second Amendment … I’m going to pray to Christian pro-gun senators like Tim Scott — a man with real power to intervene.

Dear Anastasia,

None of this works like you think it does.  I know what you’re thinking.  You think that Jesus was some long haired hippie peacenik who traveled Israel waving peace signs and singing Kumbaya.  The reality is much more complex and difficult for people like you to deal with.  Passages like this one:

Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law” Matthew 10:34-35

Make no more sense to you than the notion that Jesus told his disciples to get swords for their self defense.  You say that “As an American citizen of equal value, I can’t let you claim this country as a gun-loving Christian nation.”  But see, you cannot stop me.  I can claim what I wish, and the real test of endurance is whether I am telling the truth.

God doesn’t regard your prayer since you don’t believe in Him (Proverbs 28:9, Psalm 66:18, Isaiah 59:2, and so many other passages).  And as for your prayer to Mr. Scott, he doesn’t hear you either.  And Mr. Scott isn’t omniscient.  But God says:

Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’ (Isaiah 46:10).

But since you don’t believe in God, you have no means to effect anything.  God doesn’t hear you, and Mr. Scott doesn’t control anything.  It wouldn’t matter.  You wouldn’t change God’s law with your prayers anyway, you would only be asking God to change your own heart.  It seems to me that you don’t want your views to be changed, so your heart is hardened.  You’re at a dead end, Anastasia.

As for me, you cannot possibly do anything to my views of the Bible and guns.  I see things through the eyes of the holy Scriptures.  I’ve pointed out that God’s law requires me 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.

So while you claim to be a lover of the children, you actually advocate abuse of children because you would disarm the very people with the sworn duty to protect, nurture and provide for them.

I know, Anastasia, this is difficult to hear.  It’s a world view to which you aren’t accustomed because, as we’ve discussed, you think Jesus was a hippie peacenik rather than the Son of the living God.  But the truth scatters the darkness, and if I must be the one to purvey the truth so that it can trouble your soul, then so be it.

Oh, there is one final thing for you to ponder.  As for Christians and their guns, you were never taught this in your schools because public schools are incubators of communism who specialize in telling lies.  But the war for American independence would never have been fought had it not been for the sermons preached by preachers in pulpits who taught the folk about covenant theology in the best tradition of continental and Scottish Calvinism.

America would never have been America had it not been for Christians and their guns.  Now, it may be that you would rather be a subject of the Queen.  I hear that gun laws are stringent in her country.  But be careful.  If you move there, you might have to convert to Islam and wear a burqa, and your husband might beat you for the slightest thing.  If anyone ever tries to do that to my women or children, I’ll shoot them.  Because as a Christian, I care about women and children.

Eugene Volokh:

I don’t support laws that mandate smart guns, chiefly because there’s no reason to think that such guns will be reliable enough any time soon. But I certainly see the advantage of such guns, as a means of preventing the 100 or so fatal gun accidents and the greater number of nonfatal gun accidents involving kids that happen each year in the U.S.

If I had a child, and smart guns were reliable enough, I might well be willing to spend some extra money to get a smart gun instead of my current gun. And if (as I asked you to assume) such smart guns became generally about as reliable and about as costly as ordinary guns, I think smart gun mandates might be constitutional under the theory that they do not materially interfere with the right to keep and bear arms in self-defense.

Only a lawyer could make a set of statements like this.  I take the view that all federal laws concerning firearms are unconstitutional because of the second amendment.  But even if you don’t take my view, the case of so-called “smart guns” should be easy to dispose.

First of all, Eugene has posed a false hypothetical.  “Reliable enough” is a matter of judgment, and it seems manifestly unconstitutional and even immoral for a government to make the decision to sacrifice any reliability at all in matters of self defense because of a felt social need (that the courts have not been asked and have no authority to address and the Congress has no business addressing).  Furthermore, electronic gadgetry as a means to prevent a firearm from functioning will never be as reliable as ordinary weapons today.

Don’t take my word for it.  Ask any engineer who has experience in the airline, space or commercial nuclear power industry and knows anything about fault trees and failure mode and effects analysis.  Use the NRC fault tree handbook for starters.  Construct a fault tree with all of the right logic gates, and if you end up assigning a failure probability of anything other than zero (0) to any electronic component and that component can prevent the proper function of the weapon, then you have just proven to yourself that smart guns won’t be as reliable as ordinary guns of today.  Case closed.

Second, smart guns will cost more.  Glenn Reynolds makes the point that “punitive controls on ammunition, designed to make gun ownership or shooting prohibitively expensive or difficult, would be unlikely to pass constitutional muster” (Second Amendment Penumbras).  It isn’t clear why Glenn restricted this to controls “designed” to make gun ownership prohibitively expensive.  Intentionality would appear to be immaterial.  With a result that certain classes of people could not afford to own firearms because of the cost, laws mandating smart guns are discriminatory.

Third, smart guns will be more complex, necessitating more in maintenance costs, inability to do basic gunsmithing yourself, and large down time with your weapon should it ever need maintenance (due to a smaller subset of technicians who are capable of working on the guns).  In part one can ascribe the popularity of AR-15s to the modularity, simplicity of operation and ease of maintenance and basic gunsmithing.

Finally, electronic gadgetry will be vulnerable to interference, including governmental interference.  This interference could take the form of violation of due process, and more to the point, Eugene truncates the intent and scope of the second amendment by limiting it to self defense (which is nowhere to be found in the constitution or contextual documents).

For these (and other) reasons, smart guns will never be a vital, meaningful, or trusted part of American life and heritage.  No man will pass down a “smart gun” to his children or grandchildren.  They will forever be good for nothing more than a gun controller’s wet dream.  But for obvious reasons, I’ve recommended that billions of dollars be invested in development of the “technology” by gun controllers, just don’t ever think you can force them on me or take away the ones I’ve got.

Prior: Smart Guns tag

Kurt Hofmann:

The ongoing, and evidently accelerating, militarization of law enforcement has for a while now been of real concern to those of us who realize that the Posse Comitatus Act is of little value when state, and even local, police departments are allowed to arm themselves as if going to war (war with whom?). That’s fine with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, who caution us to “not pile too much on the militarization of law enforcement,” but more than a little alarming to those of us who have vowed not to permit a “government monopoly on force.”

Stop by and read Kurt’s transcription of comments by Josh Horwitz (follow the links).  How rich.  Gun control for thee, but not for me and my army.

It just goes to show, gun control isn’t about guns.  It’s about collectivist visions of state control.  It always has been from the time of Adolf Hitler and even well before (e.g., in ancient times, Philistine control over the manufacture of metal and other instances).

Star Tribune:

The families of four New York state firefighters are suing St. Paul-based Gander Mountain, alleging that the retailer could have prevented a “straw buyer” from purchasing a rifle used in a deadly Christmas Eve 2012 ambush.

The suit, which has the support of prominent gun control advocates, said the rifle used in the bloody predawn incident should never have been sold to a woman who came to a Rochester, N.Y., store in June 2010 with the eventual shooter at her side.

The families said in a joint statement that they originally believed the four had been shot in “yet another random act of violence. … But as time went by, new and very troubling facts emerged. These facts suggest that the loss we have endured could have been avoided. If only the store had acted responsibly.”

A spokesman for Gander Mountain, the nation’s largest outdoors outfitter, said the company had been forthcoming in the investigation and is committed to safety.

“We will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter,” spokesman Jess Myers added.

Shelley Leeson, who heads the Twin Cities Gun Owners & Carry Forum, said trying to hold Gander responsible for the incident was “bogus.” She accused the advocates behind the suit of “playing the emotions of the victims’ families to further their gun control agenda to punish manufacturers and retailers.”

She added that it appears Gander Mountain followed the legally required procedures for the sale and “cannot be held responsible for second-guessing the intentions or future actions of every purchaser.”

To be fair I don’t know the facts of the case, but no gun seller can reasonably be held responsible for lying on form 4473.

Is it any wonder that this lawsuit is ensconced firmly in New York?  And is it any wonder that Remington is moving much of their operations to Huntsville, Alabama?

As for Remington, I’ll purchase a Remington shotgun when they move their operations out of New York for good and never return to that communist state.

UPDATE: Quite obviously, I had a bad misspelling in the subject line.  That’s rare for me, but it does happen when posts are made late at night.  I’ve corrected the title, but for those who use URL names sent via e-mail to read these links, I apologize for the correction, which will change the URL.

Lake News Online:

Shades of the Wild West on the Strip in Lake Ozark have prompted the Lake Ozark Police Chief and other city officials to tighten the rules on openly carrying firearms.

Chief Mark Maples told the board of aldermen Tuesday night he has received complaints that individuals are openly carrying firearms as they move from business to business. Maples said he recognizes that people who have conceal and carry permits have the right to carry weapons, but the open display of guns is causing some alarm.

“I don’t see why someone would want to carry a firearm in the open,” Maples said. “If a weapon is concealed it doesn’t cause any issues.”

The LOPD has had to send an officer more than once to investigate the complaint.

“It’s a real safety concern,” he explained.

As a result, the board gave first reading to an ordinance that prohibits people from openly carrying a firearm “readily capable of lethal use in a public place.” A public place is defined as any indoor or outdoor area ― whether publicly or privately owned ― to which the public has access. Exempt is a location used exclusively for a private gathering or personal use.

City Attorney Roger Gibbons said a city can regulate the use of firearms.

“We don’t want people to carry open firearms in the city,” he said.

Missouri is generally an open carry state, but the only allowable preemption is open carry.

Of course, Mark Maples is lying.  He certainly does understand why someone would want to carry a gun openly.  If he claims otherwise, tell him to order his officers to carry concealed.  And when he tries to explain that they are law enforcement officers, remind him that the Supreme Court decided in Tennessee Versus Garner that law enforcement officers carry their weapons for exactly the same reason that we do, i.e., self defense, which is the only legitimate use of a weapon by LEOs.

As for open carry being a “safety issue,” he’s just making things up.  Open carry is no more a safety issue than concealed carry, and if he has a problem with open carry because of “safety,” then he is lying about his alleged support for concealed carry.

As for the city attorney, his job is to represent the city in legal problems without prejudice.  Whether the city allows open carry is none of his damn business.

Folks, I know that there are those who prefer to carry concealed, and honestly I would prefer not to carry at all.  I don’t wear rings, necklaces, or jewelry of any kind, and it highly annoys me even to carry a wallet or my car keys.  I don’t like things on me, around me or weighing me down.  It’s a wonder I am able to go backpacking without throwing all of my gear down somewhere on the trail.  Staying alive is the only reason I don’t get rid of all of my gear.

And speaking of staying alive, I carry despite my desires, not because of them.  Tucking a gun into my waistband is about the most hideous thing I’ve ever tried to do.  It digs into my hip and I sweat the weapon.  It’s bad for me, and bad for my gun.  I much prefer concealed carry some other way (than IWB) if I must conceal.  But I don’t like to conceal, and find open carry somewhat less irritating than concealed carry.  Note that I didn’t say I like it.  I find it less annoying.

Since my desires in this matter are in line with our wise founders (who expected men to carry weapons to church with them and practice on Sunday), I feel that it’s my detractors who bear the weight of burden, not me.  My practices are in line with our history.

One writer from Michigan weighs in this way.

When a man was seen carrying a rifle down Cork Street recently, people called the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety.

There is a national movement among some gun-rights advocates to carry their guns openly in public, arguing they are exercising their Second Amendment rights.

But at what point do those rights supersede the average citizen’s right to feel safe while also walking down the street?

Where is that “right to feel safe” written in the constitution?  Tell me, chapter and verse.  I’ve told you about the historical and constitutional basis for what I do.  Now tell me about your “right to feel safe.”  And stop complaining about seeing a gun on my hip.

As a perfect followup to Concerning The Nigerian Christian Girls (albeit coincidental), a Nigerian named Emmanuel Onwubiko weighs in on the issue of gun control in Nigeria.

Section 33[1] of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria of 1999 [as amended]clearly says that every Nigerian has the inalienable right to life. How then do you safeguard this sacred constitutional right to life in a situation of near-anarchy which has exacerbated with the arrival, over four years now, of armed Islamic terrorists  known as Boko Haram? These terrorists invade towns and villages killing, maiming and destroying innocent lives and property of Nigerians and the security forces seem clearly unable to provide security for all people.

The Minister of Information, Mr. Labaran Maku, told the British Broadcasting Corpo­ration (BBC) television in an interview con­ducted on May 9, 2014 that North-East Nigeria was such a large expanse of land. This is interpreted to mean that the soldiers should not be expected to be everywhere in the three states under emergency rule in the terrorism-prone Adamawa, Yobe and Borno States. If the states that are under partial emergency are not sufficiently protected, do you expect that other states would be protected?

Little wonder then that in the North-West and North-Central, armed hoodlums suspected to be Fulani herdsmen have been on the rampage, killing people and destroying many villages.

May 8, 2014, the online version of The Guardian newspaper of the United Kingdom reported that of as many as 300 people were killed close to Nigeria’s border with Cameroon, while the Islamist group continued to hold more than 200 kidnapped schoolgirls.

The writer continues with an analysis of other countries which allow the ownership of guns, concluding that the crime rate is much lower than in Nigeria.  He concludes with this.

In these jurisdictions, there are evidence that crime rates are minimal but in Nigeria where government disallows people from bearing firearms except the useless hunting Dane guns for the village hunters, armed hoodlums have wasted hundreds of thou­sands of innocent lives and these lives would have been saved if Nigerians of sound men­tal state with clean criminal records were li­censed to carry firearms.

Will the Nigerian Government stand idly and watch as armed hoodlums decimate Ni­gerians in their thousands before it can do the needful to legalize individual firearms own­ership under certain regulations? My take is that the Nigerian Government must liberal­ize firearms ownership in Nigeria as one way of safeguarding right to life since the armed forces and police have proved seriously chal­lenged and unable to be everywhere to pro­tect the lives of Nigerians and the constitu­tion makes it imperative that the security and welfare of every citizen is the primary duty of government. A stitch in time saves nine.

What do Nigerian genocide and gun control have in common?  One enabled the other as a catalyst or at least a contributing cause, if not the root cause.  And thus the solution is simple.

Hillary “What difference at this point does it make” Clinton, has spoken on guns.

Hillary Clinton told an audience of mental health professionals on Tuesday that the United States needs to rein in its gun culture or risk a world where insignificant disagreements could lead to shootings.

Asked about the mental health aspects of guns, Clinton said “I think we’ve got to rein in what has become a almost article faith that anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime. I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.”

“We really have got to get our arms around it because at the rate we are going, we are going to have so many people with guns everywhere fully licensed, fully validated,” Clinton said, painting a picture of a country where small annoyances could lead to shootings.

Clinton, whose comments came during the question and answer portion at the end of her appearance, said because “we are living at a time when there is so much external stimulation and some much internal confusion in certain people,” it would be a bad idea to let people “go to bars with guns, let them go to schools with guns, let them go to church with guns.”

But Clinton also gave an olive branch to gun owners, adding “I think you can say that and still support the right of people to own guns.”

The witch knows this isn’t true.  She knows that many people carry guns to church.  I have, others have, and do all of the time.  She knows that we don’t let disagreements with the sermon devolve into shooting sprees.

And the witch knows that you can’t say the things she said and believe what she believes and “still support the right of people to own guns.”  A gun at home in a safe is the equivalent of a paperweight.

So there you have it.  Collectivist, liar, witch.  But you knew that all along.

Mike Vanderboegh:

As an aside, weapons handling in Jerry’s camp was terrible and I observed numerous unsafe practices about muzzle discipline with loaded rifles. It was a wonder that no one was killed or injured by a negligent discharge during my stay. As they say, if I may paraphrase, God takes care of drunks, little children and the American militia. I counseled some of these safety scofflaws personally and privately. Eventually I gave it up as wasted effort and just tried to stay out of the line of potential fire. The sight of a newbie clerk sitting at the check-in table in the CP wearing a loaded FAL on a sling in front of his body muzzle-up while he filled out new arrival cards was as comical as it was appalling. That this was apparently with the tacit approval of Jerry, whose life was also endangered thereby, can only be excused by extreme sleep deprivation, which as I have mentioned is itself a command failure.

This is a very serious issue.  Negligent discharges happen, and if trigger discipline doesn’t do the job to keep people safe, muzzle discipline is supposed to fill the gap.  The concept is “defense in depth.”  This is why we learn, practice, correct each other, discipline ourselves at the range and at home, and in general think of the rules of gun safety in nearly religious dimensions and proportions.  People can be maimed and die as a result of our lack of discipline.

For those who haven’t been trained in the discipline of firearms ownership and use, they should not put themselves in a position to harm other people.  Untrained people should have been sent home, and this should have been done without remorse and without prejudice.  There is no room for emotion or hurt feelings.  For those who have been trained in the discipline of firearms use and still refuse to practice safe handling practices, this is a moral issue.  The weapon owner is in effect saying, “I don’t care about you or even your life.  I am willing to disobey worldwide respected firearms safety practices for the sake of my own convenience, or just because I am an ass – or who knows why.  Maybe I’m just too lazy to to care.  For whatever reason, I’ve decided that my life matters, and yours does not.”

Those people are even more dangerous than the first kind.  The Marine Corps makes it clear that it won’t be tolerated.  They go to what my friend Tim Lynch calls the “room of pain.”  And extended stay in such a place changes things, and if not, discharge is the next step.  Since no one at the Bundy ranch could be taken to the room of pain, sending them home was the best option.  I don’t know who should have taken the responsibility to do that.  Perhaps Bundy’s sons should have taken a larger role in the control of people on their property.

But perhaps they weren’t in a position to do that.  In either case, for the folks at the ranch to be called “militia” and behave this way is a sad commentary on the state of militia.  Apparently, folks need to go back to the basics before they are assigned to larger jobs.

And for us, the mission is clear.  Practice, read, stay at the range, train, and imbibe the rules of gun safety and proper behavior protocol for gun owners until they are so second-nature that it comes before everything else.  The kind of behavior Mike observed at the Bundy ranch is totally unacceptable.  Muzzle flagging individuals and muzzle sweeping crowds is for losers.  If this offends your sensibilities, and even if you were there at the Bundy ranch, that’s just too bad.  I don’t care.  We’ve got to do better than this.

Last 3-shot group of the day.

Shooting at the range in Pickens, S.C., with the Tikka T3 Hunter, 0.270, Walnut stock, Weaver scope.  Yes, that’s a double-punch at 100 yards.  Between the three shots, 1 MOA.