A legal response filed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives claims a Freedom of Information Act-related complaint improperly targets them. “The ATF is not an ‘agency’ within the meaning of the F.O.I.A., 5 U.S.C. § 552 (f) (1), and is, therefore, not a proper party defendant,” the response claims . . .
The complaint, filed June 23 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks an order to compel the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request filed in March and ignored in violation of federal law. The FOIA sought copies of policies and rulings relied on in enforcement and determination actions.
The complaint was filed by Tucson attorney David T. Hardy. Plaintiffs include this correspondent, firearms designer and president of Historic Arms, LLC, Len Savage, and the FFL Defense Research Center. The information, as noted in the announcement of the lawsuit, is being sought to ensure consistency in rulings, policies and compliance enforcement.
This is what happens when Congress enables unaccountable totalitarians to enforce their laws. Congress turns out to be pathetic little pussies, and the totalitarians shove everyone around, including Congress. Do you need any more to convince you that the ATF needs to go? No, not to give their functions to the FBI. Just go away and never come back in any manifestation or form at all. Pink slips for everyone – or option two – pack you bags for the border boys. You’re going to be walking a beat at the line to see if any of those guns you sold to the cartels gets used against you.
Mike Vanderboegh needs to talk to some good reloaders. That list would not include me, but I have looked for a .45 carbine before. Didn’t find anything that interested me. The advantage, of course, is that I shoot a lot of .45 and it’s nice to minimize calibers in your gun safe.
Sanders’ idea of the “middle” would also ban semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifles–popularly, if inaccurately, referred to as “assault weapons”–and the “high capacity” (gun ban zealot-speak for “standard capacity”) magazines that feed them. This is the “middle”? Sending people to prison for buying the most popular class of centerfire rifles in America is his idea of respecting the rights of gun owners? Prison time for buying an 11-round magazine is the “compromise” he wants to sell us? Outlawing the most useful arms for defense of one’s home, one’s life, one’s family, and one’s liberty is part of the give-and-take he proposes?
Here’s the key. He is “proposing” it. When hundreds of thousands perished attempting to enforce such a ban, he would have to reverse course. The mistake they make is assuming that we will go quietly into the night and give up our rights. There isn’t the slightest chance of that happening.
It would help if we knew what protections equivalent to those provided in a jury trial that will provide. Specifically, will decisions rely on those who may have biases of their own, as can currently be the case, with ATF’s “clarifying the term ‘adjudicated as a mental defective’ to mean a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority,” and with some states applying even broader “standards”?
Yea, but it would help even more if Cornyn were to fall off the face of the earth.
The U.S. Marine Corps is sticking with its Vietnam-era, M40 sniper rifle series, despite complaints from scout snipers who say they need the modern, longer-range weapons used by special-ops snipers.
Marine scout snipers are considered to be among the best snipers in the world, but many are frustrated at the limitations of the current M40A5 sniper rifle. The A5 is based on the Remington M700 short-action design that’s chambered for 7.62x51mm NATO, like the original M40 Marines used in Vietnam.
Seasoned scout snipers are deadly accurate with the A5 out to 1,000 meters.
Elite special operations units use sniper rifles chambered in more potent calibers such as .338 Lapua Magnum, a round that allows snipers to reach out to 1,600 meters.
U.S. Special Operations Command is currently in the final stage of selecting its new Precision Sniper Rifle for all of its sniper teams. USSOCOM awarded contracts to Remington Defense and another company in 2013 to make two different versions of the PSR – a multi-caliber sniper rifle that allows operators to choose .338 Lapua Magnum, .300 Winchester Magnum and 7.62mm NATO by simply changing barrels assemblies.
The U.S. Army has watched the PSR program, but for now, it is sticking with its Remington M2010 sniper rifle chambered for .300 Win. Mag., a round that allows snipers to engage enemy targets out to 1,200 meters.
Currently, only the most elite Army and Navy special operations units use the MK21 Precision Sniper Rifle chambered for .338 Lapua Magnum.
The Corps will be upgrading the fifty-year-old M40 to the A6 version, which appears to be little more than a stock upgrade. Don’t get me wrong; the M40A6 will be a fine platform for inside 1,000 meters, against unarmored targets.
But we simply don’t live in a world where that is is “enough gun” for either anti-material or anti-personnel use, now that so many of our opponents are issuing body armor that can stop the 7.62 NATO round at point-blank range, much less at preferred sniping distances.
Why are the Marines being stuck with using the same short-action cartridge in a military sniping landscape now dominated by magnum-class cartridges?
Factory match-grade ammunition for the 7.62 NATO/.308 Winchester family is cheap to manufacture, and the military already has tons of it contracted. Upgrading the M40A6 to even another short-action cartridge with better range and down performance such as the 6.5 Creedmoor would cost more than the meager Corps budget allows. Upgrading to a .338 Lapua Magnum, where both the gun and the ammunition cost more?
[ … ]
But snipers only destroy enemy soldiers and equipment, wreck their morale, cripple their battlefield leadership, and take out key infrastructure while providing a protective overwatch for our Marines on the ground and vital real-time intelligence for our commanders. They don’t create post-retirement jobs for generals, nor line the pocket of defense contractors, or contribute to the reelections of politicians.
The Marines on the ground will be forced make do, as they always have, with outdated equipment.
And of course, that’s just how the Marine Corps wants you to think about the issue. Thanks Congress! The problem is that this isn’t the whole story. When the U.S. Marine Corps deployed the 25th MEU to the Persian Gulf in 2008, they deployed several Scout Snipers, one of whom I know. He deployed with a .50 “Sasser.” The Marine Corps armory is full of a broad array of weapons, including not only the .308 rifle for DMs, but the .50 Barrett as well. If a Scout Sniper is qualified to the .50 and chooses to, he can carry it on deployments. Be warned. It has to be taken apart and carried on your back, but you can carry it.
As for the venerable .308, Carlos Hathcock made many of his kills with a .30-06 Winchester Model 70 (albeit not a .308). and only used a .50 (modified M2 for his longest kills). Considering the traditional tactics of stalking, shooting and egress, Hathcock is still the most prolific sniper in U.S. history. The ballistics data shows that there isn’t much difference between the .308 and .30-06, and if I was going to chose a new round to shoot as a Scout Sniper (and it wasn’t going to be the .50), I would probably choose the .300 Win Mag. Of course, none of these compare to the effect of the .50 in range, power or capability against armor. Suffice it to say that if the Marine Scout snipers cannot accomplish kills with their .308 rifles, they can with the .50, and they certainly have access to the large caliber rifle if they want it and are qualified to it. They aren’t left wanting when it comes to firepower.
As for the Marine Corps’s decision to train exclusively with the M4 rather than the M16A2 or M16A4 (via Mike Vanderboegh), it must be remembered that the difference between them in muzzle velocity is negligible. In fact, I cannot imagine having deployed my son to Fallujah, Iraq, in 2007, with anything but his SAW or M4 (he was a SAW gunner who sometimes used an M4 if the specific mission called for it). Again, I cannot imagine him having to swing an M1A or M14 through a doorway clearing rooms. It would have been a reprehensible thing to issue something like M1As or AR-10s for CQB (the .308 being much slower to recover sight picture).
The Marine Corps always makes the decisions they need to make to support the mission. When I deployed my son in 2007, his entire Battalion went with M4s, SAWs, M4s with M203 mounted, or Scout Sniper rifles of some sort. The M16s were nowhere to be found. So what’s all this stuff about the Marine Corps leaving the M16 for M4s?
It’s propaganda. The Marine Corps want everyone to think that they are the poorest of the poor, when in reality they threw billions away on the ridiculous EFV (Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle), pretending that we are actually going to perform a land invasion from the sea with full armor capabilities like we did in the South Pacific. They Marine Corps has wasted enough money (every MEU is a waste of money) that you shouldn’t feel too sorry for them when it comes to sniper rifles, Owens and his views notwithstanding.
When it comes to the M1A, you should spend some time watching these M1A torture tests.
Backed by the National Rifle Association, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican leader is introducing legislation that would reward states for sending more information about residents with serious mental problems to the federal background check system for firearms purchasers.
[ … ]
Jennifer Baker, spokeswoman for NRA legislative affairs, said the bill took “meaningful steps toward fixing the system and making our communities safer.”
By law, federally licensed gun dealers must conduct background checks on firearms purchasers.
Among those barred from buying guns are people legally determined to be “mentally defective” and those who have been committed to mental institutions. But states are not required to send those records to the background check system, which is run by the FBI, and its database is spotty.
Cornyn’s bill would increase grants under the government’s main law enforcement program by up to 5 percent for states that send the federal system at least 90 percent of their records on people with serious mental problems. States providing less data could see their grants from a broad range of justice programs penalized by the same amounts, at the attorney general’s discretion.
This asshole has tried this before. But I don’t believe for one moment – I am not even tempted for a nanosecond to believe that maybe, maybe, just perhaps there is some way – that this will have any effect on crime whatsoever. And when is the last time you witnessed empowerment of the federal government with anything have good consequences or result in greater recognition of rights?
We’ve discussed how mental health (however that happens to be defined at the moment) has no correlation at all to violent behavior, and how mental health professionals simply cannot use their pseudoscience to be a predictor of violent behavior. We’ve shown this again, and again, and again, and again.
Furthermore, I’ve warned former military never to engage the services of so-called mental health professionals. You’ll never get your gun ownership rights recognized again. As for those who believe in the so-called mental health “sciences,” you may as well believe in voodoo and bow down and worship totem poles or cut your wrists like the prophets of Baal for a god who isn’t there. The mental health “sciences” is the refuge of collectivists and scoundrels.
Control freaks love psychiatry, a means of social control with no Due Process protections. It is a system of personal opinion masquerading as science. See, e.g., Boston University Psychology Professor Margaret Hagan’s book, Whores of the Court, to see how arbitrary psychiatric illnesses are. Peter Breggin, Fred Baughman and Thomas Szasz wrote extensively about abuses of psychiatry. Liberals blame guns for violence. Conservatives blame mental illness. Neither have any causal connection to violence. The issue is criminal conduct, crime. Suggesting that persons with legal disabilities are criminals shows the nonsensical argument of this politician and his fellow control freaks. Shame on them.
Crime happens because of evil, not “mental health” issues. As for Cornyn, you see what voting GOP has done for you, just in case you had any last thoughts about voting your way out of this mess. As for the NRA, does it surprise anyone that they support this bastard of a bill?
Following the recent fatal shooting of four Marines and a sailor in Tennessee, Defense Secretary Ash Carter is ordering the military services to consider new policies that would enhance security for troops at home, including potentially arming more personnel.
In a memo released Thursday, Carter urged top military officials to “develop action plans to improve the security and force protection of DoD personnel.”
His memo noted that current Defense Department policy authorizes the arming of additional “qualified DoD personnel (not regularly engaged in law enforcement activities) based on the threat and the immediate need to protect DoD assets and lives.”
Carter also urged military officials to “consider any additional protection measures including changes to policy and procedures that protect our force against the evolving threat,” according to the memo.
Another key aspect of the “action plans” should be identifying ways to “improve off-installation site security, including practical physical security upgrades and procedural improvements.”
Carter’s memo also calls for a new assessment of “mass warning notification systems and regional alert systems” to identify any problems or gaps.
Well, perhaps. It isn’t clear that the DoD will authorize weapons in recruitment centers. They still work for the current administration, after all, and the administration is as anti-gun and anti-personal defense as any we’ve had in our history.
This whole debate reminds me of the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. It split the conservative community. Fight terrorists wherever they are, said some. Others, like me, said don’t ever allow the President or anyone else the authority to kill citizens. This power can be turned on gun owners and patriots of all stripes (or anyone else who happens to be out of vogue). The debate would be muted if we actually trusted the government.
For the record, I advocated allowing Marines to arm themselves with personal weapons, although not issuing arming orders for them on U.S. soil. This simple solution would, if adopted, solve all of the issues. But I also pointed out the current Marine Corps Commandant orders via a MARADMIN that prohibits even personal weapons in personal homes of Marines except under very strict conditions (which would prevent their actual use in an emergency).
This question of arming Marines is a fake problem created by the gun controllers (some of who live in the military), which has real world consequences. Solution: let the Marines arm themselves. They’ll do a fine job. They don’t need your help.
I was going to comment on the fact that when folks carry weapons – whether they are defending a recruiting center or simply carrying to defend themselves – and they have a negligent discharge, they are helping no one but the forces of anti-gun politics. I’ve harped on trigger and muzzle discipline so much that I’m sure readers tire of it, but it always pays to rehearse the rules one more time. But David Codrea beat me to the punch.
Basic safety rules are things Oath Keepers with real-world experience can share with all gun owners. So are command, discipline and training, all vital elements whether performing guard duty or participating in an armed event. Leaders organizing such operations must make certain those joining them understand all safety and conduct rules, which should be assured beforehand and then monitored for continued compliance.
Serious business is at hand that requires alertness and attention along with seriousness and maturity. If someone shows up and is resistant to that, you don’t need him.
Good intentions on the part of volunteers are not enough, because we all know where the road paved with them leads.
To me the most interesting perspectives are found in the comments:
flinter: Perhaps it is time to tell civilians who show up at recruiting centers to leave their guns at home. Lets leave the ARMED stuff to the veterans and oathkeeping LEO’S………….I will cook for them and give them any support I can.
GIJEFF69: I NEVER keep one CHAMBERED! Wtf?
Now, these two commenters could always be trolls. God knows there are enough of them to go around. But I find it interesting that these comments were made at Oath Keepers. We all know LEOs and we all know the statistics. LEOs have their fair share of NDs. But differentiating between LEOs and ordinary civilians is a throwback to collectivist thinking, and saying that you will make dinner for boys who come out and show moral support has the obvious intention of insulting the reader.
As for the notion of carrying without a round chambered, you can make the decision you want to, and there are times I have a round chambered and times I don’t (depending upon the circumstances that would be too involved for this specific conversation). But for a supposed LEO to say something like that is astounding. If you join reddit/guns and tell those boys that you carry a gun without a round chambered, you will be savaged in the comments. And honestly, if you cannot trust yourself to carry a weapon with a round chambered because you want to handle it or touch it or are afraid you’re going to stick your finger inside the trigger guard, you probably shouldn’t have the gun to begin with. Something is wrong with you.
All in all, the entire exchange of comments at this Oath Keepers discussion thread is technically and tactically juvenile, and the tone is highly disappointing. I expected better.
ANKENY, Iowa — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) got into a heated exchange with a skeptical voter who accused the presidential candidate of being “anti-gun” during a town hall on Saturday, citing New Jersey’s tough gun control laws.
Responding to the man, who did not identify himself but mentioned he was part of the Iowa Gun Owners organization, Christie defended his record, refuting every claim the voter mentioned, and, at times, even raising his voice.
“Come up with one fact that shows one thing I’ve done as governor in New Jersey that’s done anything, anything not to support the rights of legal gun owners,” Christie said as the crowd gathered inside a local community college auto body shop erupted in applause. “Don’t come in front of this group of people and lie about my record, which is what you did.”
The voter accused Christie of proposing to ban .50-caliber rifles, requiring a government-issued ID for every firearms purchase and setting up a statewide firearms registry of guns and gun owners. Christie responded harshly, holding true to the theme of his campaign, “Telling it like it is.”
“I don’t know where you’re getting your information from, but your information is wrong,” Christie told the man.
Christie noted that he vetoed the .50-caliber ban, the statewide ID system and the law that was passed to reduce magazine sizes from 15 to 10.
The man in the crowd then asked if Christie is planning on pardoning Brian Fletcher, a North Carolina man who is facing prison time after telling a police officer in New Jersey that he had a gun in his vehicle, which is the customary and legal thing to do in his home state. Christie said he hasn’t made a decision yet, but is reviewing the situation.
“I’m not going to make that decision in 15 minutes nor should I. Nor should you want me to,” Christie said. “I see you shrugging your shoulders, why are you shrugging your shoulders about? You have your point of view, but have some facts about it.”
Good Lord! Are we really going to have to listen to this loud mouth for the next year? Chris, you are gun control collectivist from way back, and you made your fame in New Jersey pushing an “assault weapons” ban. As for Mr. Fletcher, I do indeed want you to make your decision quickly rather than be cowardly about it. And it should be to destroy all of the paperwork you ever had on him and tell your LEOs to stop arresting people who come across state lines with weapons, right after you pass a reciprocity law recognizing the permitting system of every other state in the country.
The fact that you won’t do that tells us everything we need to know about you. The fact that you think we don’t want you to make your mind up about it should tell you something about yourself. You have lived in collectivist-land for so long you don’t have even the slightest understanding of what the rest of us believe.
“There’s a natural inclination to want to defend yourself, but if you can get through a situation like this and not do anything, and simply give these people what they want, and get the police out there as quickly as possible, that the way to handle it,” the Mesquite Police spokesman advises. “Let us handle it.”
Highly irresponsible counsel. Never follow it because you don’t know what they really want. All you know is what they say they want, and they are criminals who can’t be trusted. Hmm …I seem to recall the Bible saying something about people who cannot be trusted (Titus 1:12).
Visualizing the future battlefield. For reasons I’ve explained elsewhere, I think this is pure fantasy. The generals have been watching too many movies. The so-called Big Dog sounds like a millions angry Africanized bees, won’t stand up to water, moisture or dust, and needs too much power to operate. The so-called exoskeleton is fantasized because they want to see genderless battlefields. Because they’re idiots.
“Early on, when I entered the political arena and I was asked the question about guns, I didn’t know at that time that you always start that off by saying how important the Second Amendment is and that you will never compromise that,” Carson said.
No, what you really have to do is tell the truth. I think you did that the first time you ever opened your mouth on the subject. And at that point we learned all we ever needed to know.
Over the years, Barber has amassed a mountain of documents, including internal memos from Remington and thousands of consumer complaints, that he said show that the company knew about the flaw with the trigger mechanism, known as the Walker Fire Control, and did nothing about it.
“I believe that I am quite capable of defending myself with Remington’s own documents, which speak for themselves and clearly speak volumes about what the company knew, when they knew it and what they did or did not do with that body of knowledge,” said Barber.
Remington has adamantly denied that the Walker Fire Control is defective. But the company has agreed to replace millions of trigger mechanisms in its top-selling bolt action rifles as part of a class-action lawsuit settlement
The details of the settlement are still being worked out in federal court and aren’t expected to be released until December of 2015. But we do know that Remington does not want the trigger replacement program to be labeled a recall. Also, part of the deal is that Remington does not have to admit that its products are defective or concede to wrongdoing.
That does not sit well with Barber.
“Until Remington at least quits denying a problem and wrongdoing, the cycle of death and injury will just continue,” said Barber.
Barber said he wants Remington to come clean about the history of problems with the model 700 rifle.
He showed MTN an internal memo from 1990 that says, “the number of model 700 rifles being returned to the factory because of alleged accidental firing malfunctions is constantly increasing.”
The memo was dated January 25 and already 29 rifles had been returned that month.
Barber also released to MTN a confidential document on testing done within Remington’s own facility. It advised the tester to wear a glove for protection and “be prepared for the rifle to inadvertently follow down or fire.”
“Remington goes as far as telling their own employees, as shown in that document, they warn them,” said Barber. “They tell them to be prepared for the gun to fire during testing, but yet they deny this fact to the public?”
They prepared their own gunsmiths to expect the rifle to “inadvertently fire” during testing. I had not heard this before, even though I have linked a good bit of evidence (likely obtained initially by Barber) in previous posts. It might actually have been interesting and enlightening for the case to go forward to court to see how Remington reacted.
I had also intended to mention that Jack Belk sent me his book (personally signed) entitled Unsafe by Design: Forensic Gunsmithing and Firearms Accident Investigations. It’s written in a breezy, conversational style with lots of pictures and technical explanation. The section on the Walker fire control system beckons me again, since it’s involved enough to read through a second time. I highly recommend Jack’s book.