Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

Charles C. W. Cooke writing at NRO’s Corner weighs in on the recent U.S. District Court ruling that found Connecticut’s obscene gun law constitutional.  He cites Kurt Hofmann this way.

Indeed, as Kurt Hoffman observed on Examiner.com:

Covello is evidently asking us to believe that a ban on firearms used in less than two percent of “gun crimes,” according to the Congressional Research Service will do what ten years of federal “assault weapons ” banning singularly failed to do.

But he misspelled Kurt’s last name, and then pasted the wrong URL into his software.  Here is Kurt’s article.  As usual, Kurt has a good and insightful analysis.  Go visit his article.  Charles should revise his article to give Kurt the proper URL.

Ctpost.com:

When Stag Arms of New Britain wanted to produce a scaled-down version of a popular AR-15 rifle that was banned last April by Connecticut — part of a broader crackdown that was upheld Thursday by a U.S. District Court judge in Hartford — it ran the specifications by law enforcement.

“Right off the bat, they were helpful,” said Mark Malkowski, the company’s president and owner. “They did look at prototypes. They did this about three times. After that, they said it really wasn’t their responsibility to determine what was legal or not.”

The reluctance of the State Police to put its seal of approval on the Stag 22, a semi-automatic rifle that accepts lower-caliber bullets and fewer rounds of ammunition than its predecessor, is emblematic of an ongoing tension between the firearms industry and law enforcement over weapons development.

State police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance said his agency would hate to sign off on a gun, only to have one of its components render it illegal on a technicality.

“Are we going to be responsible for that?” said Vance, who became a household name for his many news conferences following the Dec. 14, 2012, massacre. “It’s their responsibility to make sure it conforms to the letter of the law.”

[ … ]

A majority of gun manufacturers are said by industry observers to be far along in the process of converting their traditional AR-15 rifles into .22-caliber models for sale in Connecticut, including Colt’s Manufacturing, the granddaddy of the state’s firearms industry. Multiple requests for comment were left with Colt, which was founded in 1836 in Hartford and employs about 600 people in the state.

In most modification cases, what is known as a center-fire mechanism is swapped out for a rim-fire mechanism. This inhibits the rifle’s ability to accept higher-caliber bullets like those used at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

[ … ]

Shooting purists are not as keen about .22-caliber rifles and the rimfire mechanism …

First of all, what an absurd, stolid article, e.g., low-caliber bullets, high caliber bullets, and so on.  Second, I’ll bet “shooting purists are not keen about .22-caliber rifles” in the AR-15 platform (if by that they mean .22LR).

There is a time and place for a .22LR long gun, for teaching youngsters to shoot, plinking, killing small game, etc.  I learned to shoot as a youngster with a .22LR long gun.  Those were good days.

But with Stag Arms trying to construct a long gun with these specifications in the AR platform, and with the future about this weapon known to everyone who understands these things (it won’t sell and it’s a waste of time and money to develop it), the question necessarily arises “Why is Stag Arms still in Connecticut?”  And “Why is Colt still in Connecticut?”  And as for that matter, “Why are Connecticut shooters still citizens of Connecticut?”

Come South, men.  Come South.

ABC News:

In 1996 the NRA successfully lobbied Congress to pull millions of dollars out of government-funded firearms research. This has resulted in essentially a 17 year moratorium on major studies about gun injuries, which claim the lives of more than 1,000 children a year in the United States.

This is a candidate for the dumbest paragraph I’ve ever seen written in the Main Stream Media.  Note it’s obviously progressive position.

The fact that the government isn’t funding silly studies with liberal university professors or the CDC isn’t simply the market deciding what it will sustain and what it won’t.  It isn’t simply letting people and their dollars and cents sort out what is worth something and what isn’t.

No, lobbying Congress to stop funding ridiculous studies amounts to a “moratorium” on major studies.  That’s right.  It’s now somehow prohibited, illegal, or banned.

I don’t know of any particular subject that is banned, and certainly not guns or gun statistics.  But to the progressive, pulling funding dollars from our tax money is justification enough to throw around a word that means something is banned, or in other words, it’s justification enough to lie.

Caitlin Dickson at The Daily Beast:

“Gun control has never been about guns. It’s about control,” declared Jan Morgan, gun rights activist and head of a group called Armed American Women. At a South Carolina Tea Party convention earlier this month, Morgan promoted the thoroughly debunked theory that gun control allowed Hitler’s rise to power. “In the twentieth century folks, 170 million people have been annihilated by their own governments after being disarmed,” she claimed. “So, don’t let anybody tell you that disarming America is going to make us a safer place.”

We’ve discussed this before, and no one to my knowledge has ever alleged that gun control generally had anything to do with Hitler’s rise to power or the Nazi machine within Germany.  It had to do with gun control specifically.  Or in other words, it wasn’t gun control that was the problem.  It was gun control as applied to so-called enemies of the state, while the Nazis had all the guns they wanted.

But read Caitlin again.  This idea hasn’t just been debunked.  It has been “thoroughly debunked.”  And her source?  Why, Salon, to be sure.  That’s what happens when ditzy girls who write for The New Republic and The Daily Beast become … ahem … researchers.  Fringe factor indeed.

David Codrea:

A federal judge has upheld the State of Connecticut’s sweeping gun control laws enacted last year in response to the Sandy Hook “gun-free zone” shootings …  leaving the Constitutional mandate “shall not be infringed” unacknowledged.

That’s not all the judge did or said.  But the Hartford-based judge said Connecticut’s law does not “amount to a complete prohibition on firearms for self-defense in the home.”  Of course as readers know, the Second Amendment has to do with more than self defense.  It has to do with ameliorating tyranny.  I think clarity is needed on this issue.  I’ve said before than the Second Amendment frames in the federal government in its latitude to enact gun control laws, and I still support that view.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that the doctrine codified in the Second Amendment doesn’t give us a road to follow at the state and local level.  It certainly does.

All federal laws concerning firearms are unconstitutional because of the Second Amendment.  This is special case because it is a federal case concerning a state law.  These are becoming more frequent.  Purely as a matter of practicality and workability, I do not see the federal court system as a legitimate protection of our God-given right to bear arms for both personal protection and amelioration of tyranny.  They just won’t oblige this role or duty, and neither will the executive or legislature branches of the federal government.  What this means is varied and far reaching, but one obvious result of all of this is that the real fight is at the local and state level.  If this makes its way to the Supreme Court (and I doubt that it will), don’t expect them to overturn this abomination.  Patriots will have to decide when it is time to move to freer states, and states will have to decide when it is time to remove the shackles of burden welded on by the federal government.

David is also covering the threat of immigration to gun rights.  David and I have both covered this as well, where the bonanza of voters for the democratic party would be overwhelming and determinative.  In a related issue, David is pointing out yet another good reason to guard the Southern border.  Gun control, having largely failed in the U.S., is being prepared as an invasion from the South.

Here are some of Saldias’ examples of increasing restrictions Latin American gun owners have recently experienced:

-Peru has limited gun ownership to only four firearms, 2 handguns and two long guns—period.

-Bolivia passed a “temporary” ban on importing firearms and ammunition, and Ecuador then followed suit. Bolivia’s ban is in its third year, but Ecuador dropped the ban.

-In Argentina the government publishes gun owners’ names and addresses on a public access website.

-In Chile, citizens can buy and possess firearms, but all firearms are legally the property of the government, which can recall them at any time by Presidential decree.

-According to the Venezuelan Hunting Federation, before Chavez came to power they used to sell over 20,000 hunting licenses per year; now, that number is less than 1,000.

-Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic have totally banned all hunting.

-Paraguay narrowly missed passing legislation to ban lead hunting ammo and now the same proposal is in front of Argentine legislators. Such a ban would be disastrous. “There are no alternatives to lead ammunition in Latin America,” Saldias said. “A ban would effectively end all hunting.”

Folks, this is easy.  We close the borders, inspect every vehicle that comes across from the South, reduce the number of checkpoints through which traffic can flow, shoot invaders, implement E-Verify on a national basis, and prohibit the hiring of any illegal immigrant.  The corporate interests won’t allow it.

Kurt Hofmann is covering microstamping and the silliness behind the new California law.  He also points out, once again, the dual standard with which law enforcement and citizens are treated.  I’ve covered this, but on the other side of the equation (i.e., by Smith & Wesson, from whom I haven’t heard back on my questions to them).  The new California law strips rights from the citizens, but exempts LE.

Kurt Hofmann: ““These pro-gun guys say they have rights that can’t be interfered with, but I think we should get rid of the Second Amendment …”  Has Kurt gone anti-gun, or is he quoting someone else?  You’ll have to drop by and see.  Besides, although late to the game, the Illinois constitution also recognizes the right to bear arms.  Did we forget about that little document?  States matter, folks.

John Jay discusses what it means to have milspec parts.  I think John may not have included enough of the idea of rapid target reacquisition during maneuvers in which fighters have engaged selective fire in his discussion of intermediate cartridge.  But this post is about as good as it gets in understanding what it means to get parts that are “milspec,” what it does not mean, and what it might mean.  As for my Rock River Arms AR-15, with its Wylde chamber, can shoot 5.56 mm and 0.223 with equal (very good) accuracy, and I love the way it shoots.  But the Wylde chamber isn’t milspec.  It’s something RRA does for their rifles that isn’t included in the Stoner design, per se.  John’s post is long but well worth the time to study it.

Uncle wants to know why the anti-gunners are so violent?  I have wondered the same thing before.

Fox17 Nashville:

NASHVILLE, Tenn.– Gallatin Industrial Park will be the new site for Beretta USA’s firearms manufacturing and R&D facility.

The move is expected to bring 300 new jobs in Sumner County according to Governor Bill Haslam. The facility itself will see an investment of $45 million dollars.

Executive vice-president Franco Gussalli Beretta says Governor Haslam and his economic team played a large role in “demonstrating the benefits of doing business in the state.”

Construction is expected to be completed this year.

Beretta had announced their plans to move from Maryland after the recent gun control measures passed, and we were waiting for it to happen.  I have several thoughts, but I’m tempted to say that Beretta is the loser because they didn’t choose South Carolina.

Honestly though, Maryland is the real loser in all of this, as is Connecticut, Colorado, and any other state that pursues these idiotic gun control measures.  And let’s be clear about one thing before the objection even gets raised like it was for Smith & Wesson when they announced that they were pulling out of the California market.  These companies are doing what they must to survive.  We gun owners are faithful rewarders of our friends and allies, and relentless and unforgiving punishers of compromisers.

Smith & Wesson, Remington, Kimber, Colt, Rock River Arms, Springfield Armory, are you listening?

Harvard Business Review has a hypothetical case they have posed to readers.  It begins this way.

As the founder and president of a new ethical bank focused on environmental sustainability, Jay McGuane realized that he and his board needed to set guidelines about which loans to approve and which to reject on “values” grounds. In his eagerness to start running the business, he’d put the issue off, but the bank was already confronting two problematic requests, one involving fracking and another concerning guns.

Without clear ethics rules, Jay worried that his already divided directors would fall into bitter squabbling, which could lead to resignations, negative media attention, and a flight of investors.

Take not of the silly way in which this supposed business case has been framed.  Investors are scrambling.  There is a veritable “flight” of investors, an analogue to the way investors are fleeing Cerberus-Freedom Group over the poor performance of gun investments over the past couple of years, I suppose.

It ends much the same way it began.

“Sure, they sell to the military,” Neitha said. “But you can buy the FF286 at gun shows. That’s what makes it one of Field Force’s most profitable products. Our bank’s mission is sustainability. How can we have a sustainable society where military-grade guns are being used to kill children? How can we, in good conscience, do business with that company?”

“It’s a no-brainer,” Clyde said. “Jay was talking about establishing guidelines for decisions. I’m all in favor of weighing the pros and cons—let’s do that when we discuss the shale gas loan. But when it comes to guns, there’s only one guideline we should follow.” He turned to Fred Keeler. “It’s like the Hippocratic Oath, right? First, do no harm. Or how about this: Do no evil.”

It was Fred who had advocated saying no to a loan if there was mere indication of harm, but now he looked confused. He loved his gun collection, from the flintlocks to the Uzis, as Jay well knew. Fred asked, of no one and everyone, “But what is ‘harm’? What is ‘evil’?”

I once worked for a manager whom I liked very much, and he worked extremely hard until his retirement, upon which he had planned to do what he had trained himself to do for years – sail.  He and his wife, together, enjoying their golden years on the sea.  Then a drunk teenage driver killed his wife just after his retirement.  I was heartbroken for him, but of course not as heartbroken as he was.

Notice that the Harvard Business Review didn’t pose the “problem” of loans to purchase automobiles as the dilemma.  Because apparently Harvard School of Business no longer teaches business.  They teach goofy, worthless courses in political correctness and effete, urbanized progressivism.

By now it has become common knowledge that Smith & Wesson has rejected microstamping and will revise they way they distribute in California.  The author of the bill has called their position baloney.

Feuer is the one whose position is baloney.  It would be a profoundly bad idea for any gun maker to engage in such a practice.  First of all, if a manufacturer ever crafts guns that are microstamped, the entire gun community would know within a day what firearm it is, and would never expend the effort necessary to ascertain whether the specific gun they want to purchase has been microstamped.  Sales of used firearms of that make would plummet and the value of the gun would go to about zero.  Second, the gun community would within short order let that manufacturer know exactly where we stand.  Smith & Wesson has been there and done that.  They won’t be going back.

But it isn’t that simple.  Read some of Smith & Wesson’s statement.

Smith & Wesson Corp. announced today that although it continually seeks ways to refine and improve its firearms so that consumers have access to the best possible products, the State of California is making that impossible when it comes to California residents.

Under California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” any new semi-automatic pistol introduced into that state must comply with microstamping laws. In addition, California asserts that anything other than a cosmetic change to a handgun already on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, including performance enhancements and other improvements, requires it to be removed from the roster and retested. For semi-automatic pistols, this means it must comply with the microstamping requirements, as well.

Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamping in its firearms. A number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes. The microstamping mandate and the company’s unwillingness to adopt this so-called technology will result in a diminishing number of Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistols available for purchase by California residents.

This is not a problem unique to Smith & Wesson. The microstamping legislation and California’s position regarding performance enhancements and other improvements creates the same challenge for all firearm manufacturers, since presumably all of them refine and improve their products over time.

Smith & Wesson currently produces a California-compliant version of its M&P® Shield and SDVE™ pistols. Both of these new products were launched last week at SHOT Show® in Las Vegas and are expected to begin shipping within 90 days. They are expected to more than offset the impact of those M&P pistol models that will not remain on the Roster. Both the M&P Shield and the SDVE pistols are expected to remain on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale as long as no changes are made to those models and the company does not plan to make changes to them for this reason. All other Smith & Wesson handguns are at risk of eventually falling off the roster over time. The company expects that any current production revolvers that fall off will be re-tested and returned to the roster, since microstamping does not apply to revolvers. Without some change in position by California, however, any semi-automatic pistols (other than the California-compliant models referenced above) that are removed from the roster will not be returned and law-abiding citizens will not be permitted to buy them from a licensed dealer in California.

Absent in this statement is what Smith & Wesson will do about sales to law enforcement of M&P models and any other model that interests LEOs.  Law enforcement is specifically exempted from any microstamping requirements.  It would be an abominble and obscene position to sell to law enforcement what the common citizens cannot legally have.

I have sent a note to Matt Rice for clarification.  I’ll keep readers informed on what Smith & Wesson says about this issue.

David Codrea:

As is typical with such publications, it only looks at (less than) half of the equation, disregarding the substantial number of defensive gun uses that occur each year …

David is on the case of that presumed “study” that concluded you are at risk for suicide if you own weapons, with no increase in personal security.  I’m glad David had the patience to undo the silliness in the report, since I usually skip past reports like this in a few seconds.  Listen folks.  I work engineering and science for a living.  When someone tells you that “science proves …,” or “science demonstratrates …,” take it with a grain of salt (and usually ignore it).  Like I have said before.  If you want me to give a report on science or engineering the time of day, get a registered professional engineer to prepare the calculations, seal the work with his PE seal, and send it to me for review.  Otherwise you’re just wasting my time.

David:

There’s another consideration, a speculation really, as information is sketchy: While ATF is prohibited by law from creating a database of gun owners, it appears federal power can trump state safeguards on medical marijuana records …

Well, you know what I have to say about that!  Federal regulation should NEVER be able to trump state laws on anything.  And oh, by the way, get cancer, and you may lose your guns.  Kurt Hofmann is also covering this issue.

Kurt Hofmann:

That last sentence is where the entire counterargument falls apart. No one seriously asserts a right to “murder, rape, and thieve out of self-defense.” Murder, rape and theft are all intrinsically evil acts, which violate the rights of others, and there is therefore no “right” to commit them–for anyone.

Kurt is dealing with one of the classical objections to our objections to more gun laws.  Kurt’s thinking is my thinking exactly.  But there are already laws against murder rape and kidnapping.  Making more doesn’t change things.

Daniel Greenfield (via WRSA):

Mayor Bloomberg flubbed the snow challenge badly. Instead of preparing road salt, he banned salt in restaurants. Instead of having a snow strategy for the winter, he had a Global Warming strategy for the next fifty years. Instead of doing his job, he kept trying to transform the people.

And his successor is no better.

Bill de Blasio’s focus after his petty and mean-spirited inauguration was a ban on carriage horses in Central Park at the behest of a real estate developer who backed his campaign and has his eye on their stables, a tussle over who will get the credit for Pre-K with Governor Cuomo and the beating of Kang Wong, an 84-year-old man, over a jaywalking ticket.

I think it’s awesome.  New Yorkers elected him.  Now.  Live with the consequences.

Daily Caller reports on Castle Rock repealing their ban on open carry.  Good for them.

Coloradoan.com:

The embattled Berthoud police department bought fully automatic military-grade machine guns, hired officers who showed “glaring” signs of illegal and inappropriate behavior, and then gave them “woefully inadequate” training, Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith says.

In a letter sent to town officials and made public Tuesday night, Smith offers a scathing critique of the department, which has come under fire for child-abuse allegations leveled against one of its officers. That officer was arrested, and Police Chief Glenn Johnson resigned amidst allegations he knew about the accusations against his officer but did nothing.

Since October, Smith’s deputies have been serving as the town’s police force at officials’ request.

In his letter, Smith said the department was rife with mismanagement, from poorly handled evidence, paperwork and personnel files to broken Tasers and in-car laptops. He said problems within the department risked breaking the trust between the public and law enforcement, and risked letting criminals go unprosecuted because court documents weren’t being filed on time.“Most shockingly, fully automatic machine guns (not appropriate for standard police operations) were acquired from the military and were stored in open room with minimal security,” Smith wrote. “At the Berthoud Police Department, we found that the chief has overlooked and neglected many of the things that are absolutely necessary to leading an effective and accountable police operation.”

[ … ]

“The application and hiring process for town officers allowed unqualified individuals to be hired and to maintain employment, despite glaring warning signs of inappropriate and sometimes illegal behavior,” Smith wrote to the town. “Paperwork filing appeared to be haphazard at best. The chief did not maintain appropriate personnel files on his officers, yet he had documents in town filing cabinets from his previous employment. Those files should have never left those agencies.”

[ … ]

Police officer Jeremy Yachik was fired by the town in October after he was arrested on child-abuse charges after video surfaced of Yachick allegedly beating his daughter.

Good grief.  And they say that we’re unqualified to own fully automatic firearms.  Perhaps rather than repealing the Hughes amendment (itself an obscene abomination) as I have advocated, we ought to insist that it be repealed for us and applied exclusively to law enforcement.

These guys were just a dangerous hazard top to bottom.