Archive for the 'Guns' Category

In Judge Barbara Bellis Says Sandy Hook Families’ Lawsuit Of Remington Goes Forward, we discussed the traitorous actions of Judge Barbara Bellis by blatant, intentional flouting of a federal law that forbids lawsuits against gun manufacturers based on potential criminal actions by users of those guns.  Barbara knows better than the U.S. House and Senate.  CNN has an update of this case.

WSJ:

But the global market was unreliable, too. In 1879, Winchester told his board of directors that business had slumped. The firm’s foreign contracts were completed, leaving it wholly dependent on the expanding but still modest domestic market. Winchester’s international business fell to just 10% of its total sales by the end of the 19th century, and purchases by the U.S. military were minimal during peacetime.

American consumers would have to make up the shortfall, but more modern guns, such as repeaters and revolvers, didn’t just sell themselves. From 1868 to 1880, according to the sales records of Schuyler, Hartley & Graham, the country’s largest gun merchant, settlers in the American West tended to choose less expensive, more durable muskets over the new weapons that could fire multiple shots.

Though some Americans always loved their Winchesters and Colts, many others saw guns as dowdy, practical tools. They would shop for them by perusing advertisements in farm-focused periodicals like the American Agriculturalist or the Rural New Yorker.

As the frontier was settled and U.S. cities grew, fewer Americans even needed guns as tools. By the turn of the 20th century, the industry had embraced the emerging science of marketing. Gun companies began thinking about how to create new demand for their products. In this respect, their business was no different from the stove or soap business.

Having started with customers who needed guns but didn’t especially love them, the industry now focused on those who loved guns but didn’t especially need them. In the late 1800s, gun companies were innovators in advertising, among the first merchandisers to make extensive use of chromolithography, an early technique for producing multicolored print. Their calendars and other promotional materials were works of art, depicting exciting scenes in which gunmen faced off with bandits or beasts.

So the marketing, advertising and exotic guns at high prices are to blame for the American gun culture.  I see.  So the solution to this “problem,” it would seem, it to charge almost nothing for guns, or maybe give them away for free.  Then I would be the only person who wanted them.  I’m good with that.  I could pretend to be Hickok45 touring Bud’s gun shop.

Forget the numerous accounts from media reports you read every month in American Rifleman about people who use gun for self defense.  They just make all of that up.  No, guns are rarely used for self defense.

Personal safety is one of the most-cited reasons to buy a gun. But a new study challenges the assumption that firearms are often used for self defense.

The Violence Policy Center found that a very small proportion of firearm homicides can be attributed to so-called justifiable situations. Just one gun death per every 32 criminal gun killings happened in self-defense scenarios in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available. And, while gun advocates argue that they want a firearm handy in their house in case of an intruder, just 0.1 percent of the justified attacks involved property crimes.

“The [National Rifle Association] has staked its entire agenda on the claim that guns are necessary for self-defense, but this gun industry propaganda has no basis in fact,” Josh Sugarmann, the executive director of VPC, which conducted the review, said in a statement. “Guns are far more likely to be used in a homicide than in a justifiable homicide by a private citizen. In fact, a gun is far more likely to be stolen than used in self-defense.”

In other news, between the years 1992 and 2002, 26 women students were sexually assaulted and were able to end the assault when she deployed her gun.

But concerning Josh Sugarmann’s position that guns aren’t necessary for self defense, he doesn’t really believe that.  He has never argued for disarming the police.

The Rebel:

When it comes to legislation, terminology is everything. Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette introduced Bill S-223 on April 12. This bill proposes to change the categorization of “non-restricted firearm” to “hunting firearm” and “restricted firearm” to “circumscribed firearm.”

A “hunting firearm” will now be defined as:

a firearm — other than a prohibited firearm or a circumscribed firearm — that is prescribed to be a hunting firearm and that

(a) has a smoothbore barrel that is more than 470 mm long,

(b)  has a striated barrel that is more than 470 mm long and that can discharge 22-calibre rimfire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner, or

(c) is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise;

What this seems to imply, is that you will be able to hunt with ONLY shotguns, smoothbore black powder, and .22 rimfire rifles.

You will not be able hunt or possess any center fire rifles for hunting purposes.

All center fire rifles might then be re-categorized as a “circumscribed firearm.”

A “circumscribed firearm” will now be defined as:

(a) a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm,

(b) a firearm — other than a prohibited firearm — that has a barrel equal to or less than 470 mm,

(c) a firearm — other than a prohibited firearm — that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner, or

(d) a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise;

This will effectively ban all semi-automatics, as there are also new storage provisions:

17  (1) Subject to subsection (2) and to sections 19 and 20, a prohibited firearm or circumscribed firearm, the holder of the inscription certificate for which is an individual, may be possessed only at a shooting club or a storage facility recorded in the Canadian Firearms Registry.

This means that all firearms, except for “hunting firearms” and 12(6) for a gun collection, will be stored at a central storage facility.

It looks like boy beautiful and his girly followers are feeling their oats.  Okay, so let me explain for my friends up North how this should work.

You don’t face down teams of police on your doorstep.  Ever.  When they arrive, your guns will be gone.  You warmly invite them into your house, and say, “Come on in, I’m honored to have heroes of the community in my humble house.  God bless you for your sacrifice.”

You take them to your gun safe, and there they find the sacrificial gun, that cheap $400 revolver you don’t want, and not much more (a few scattered cartridges, some papers, some scattered odds and ends).  They walk out of the house thinking, “Hey, I’m glad that went so easy and that it’s over with.”

But it’s not over with.  Know who your local police are.  Make sure to let them know in no uncertain terms, without them knowing who you are, that it is all just beginning.  Make your points in the shadows, not in the light of day.  Make it clear to them that you will not tolerate infringements on your God-given rights.

If you don’t know the cops who did it because they are cowards and wore masks, note that their police colleagues supported them and let them do it.  They are all culpable now.  Make your points to all your known community police.  In the shadows.

Make your points until the police no longer want to wage war on otherwise peaceable citizens.  Make your points in the shadows.

That’s how this should go down.  Do you understand?

It’s always nice to get linked at Survival Blog.

When demons and pit vipers hiss at each other and evil shows its face.  Burn the house down, I say.

This is what happens when you try to get a concealed handgun permit in California.

This is what happens when you try to get a concealed handgun permit in New York.

This is what happens when you live in some parts of Chicago.

Marco Rubio: I’ll endorse whomever wins.  What a weasel.  Pick a side, dude.  We all have.

The unlikable Ted Cruz.  Or not.

VDH on the moral virtue of bombing Japan.  Nuclear weapons = the greatest contribution to world peace of anything in history.

Hillary: “We have too many guns in our homes.”  Uh huh.  Then why don’t you try to come and get them?

80 year old homeowner shoots two intruders.  Wait, I thought that wasn’t supposed to happen?

Greg Ellifritz:

I seriously doubt that the writer can name instances where it is legal but against policy and posting to carry weapons, whether an off duty LEO or a CHP holder.  And if it was legal for him to be there with a weapon, why did he have to hide it?  Oh, because they would have thrown him out.  Okay, why?  Because they posted and had corporate policy simply because they can, because it’s their property and not his.

The cop carried concealed, off duty, onto private property where it was against policy [and likely posted] for him to have a weapon.  And until proven to be legal, I assume that this is illegal.  I know of no exceptions that stipulate that it’s legal if you can get away with it.

Hey, I wonder whether this same cop, on duty, would turn his head and let someone go because they carried onto property where it was against policy and posted that no weapons were allowed?  Would this same cop turn a blind eye to the guy who just wanted to be able to protect himself like the cop wanted means of self defense at these concerts?  Or is he willing to risk this only because he is a LEO and gets special consideration?

And so even though he doesn’t specifically say so, he recommends breaking the law, but it’s all okay because he says he isn’t recommending that you break the law.  As for me, I am not weighing in on whether you should carry against policy and posting.  I’m saying that this dual standard turns me off.  It left a very bitter taste with me.  Comments are closed at his article.

WUSA9:

WASHINGTON – An officer in the Metropolitan Police Department’s first district “dry-fired” an unloaded weapon at the head of another officer during a roll-call meeting on Saturday afternoon, possibly under orders from a sergeant as part of a training exercise, four MPD sources tell WUSA9.

Those sources say a Sergeant later told officers in the room that they had secretly ordered the officer to unload his weapon and then pretend to fire on his colleague as part of a “training exercise” on situational awareness. The officer then pulled the trigger of the unloaded weapon while pointing it at the head of an officer until it audibly clicked, the sources say.

Both the officer who allegedly fired the weapon and the sergeant who allegedly ordered him are assigned to regular duties, pending an internal affairs investigation, MPD spokesman Sean Hickman tells WUSA9.

“I can tell you there are about seven different versions of the incident that are out there,” MPD Chief Cathy Lanier told reporters on Monday. “I’m not sure which or how many of those that you’ve heard, but I prefer to wait until I see some facts and some direct statements of what happened before I make a judgment.”

Several MPD personnel who have heard of the incident, which has been widely discussed in police circles online and elsewhere since the weekend, say they are furious that such a training exercise might have been ordered.

Another officer could easily have drawn their weapon and killed the officer who dry-fired at their colleague. Some sources say at least one officer did pull his weapon on the officer during the confusing moments surrounding the incident.

“You shouldn’t be doing that kind of training. This is police academy 101. You do not pull your weapon out of your holster and display it, especially in a roomful of cops,” said Michael Tabman, a former Fairfax County police officer and FBI special agent.

Tabman ticked off multiple ways the scenario could have turned deadly, such as a round accidentally left chambered in the officer’s weapon, or another officer in the room opening fire to preemptively protect a colleague with a gun pointed at him.

“You just don’t put people in that fear and sort of invite tragedy, and that’s what this was—it was inviting tragedy. Thank goodness nothing happened,” Tabman said.

The rules of gun safety, one of which is observation of muzzle discipline, are based on a safety philosophy called “defense in depth.”  Hundreds of articles can be found monthly where officers routinely point their firearms at citizens, many of whom are guilty of nothing at all.  They have the mistaken notion that only their safety matters, and thus it’s acceptable to muzzle flag another person as long as that person is not another law enforcement officer.  The same holds true for the idea of putting your finger on the trigger of the firearm.  This is routinely done by law enforcement while pointing weapons at other people, one problem that has developed from this being negligent discharges when they are armed with handguns with a lighter trigger pull than previous service arms, or when armed with a handgun that doesn’t shoot DA/SA (like their previous service weapon) where the initial cycling of the trigger is harder and chambers the round as well as shoots it.  See also here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and many other instances.

The point isn’t to get into mechanical and tactical issues so much as it is to explain why police shoot their handguns when they shouldn’t.  They have been poorly trained, and their concern isn’t for citizens – it is only for themselves.  There is a problem with both training and intent.  But in this instance we see stupidity on display for all to witness.  Whoever ordered to this occur shouldn’t ever be allowed to own another weapon in his life, much less still be under the employ of a police department.

But the police are indignant in this case, their ox being the one that was gored.  We also saw this in the article entitled The second deputy pointed the weapon at the first deputy and – apparently unaware the weapon was loaded – pulled the trigger.

Examiner:

A rural Maryland sheriff on Tuesday blamed President Obama’s open-door immigration policy for a surge in gangland crime that included a retaliation murder and assault on an officer doing paperwork in his cruiser.

“Case by case amnesty, backdoor amnesty, DACA programs, and the Dream Act were pushed through by executive order,” said Frederick County Sheriff Charles Jenkins.

“Policy shifts by President Obama weakened and ruined Secure Communities, and did not allow action by ICE when Sheriffs and police departments ignored detainers, allowing criminal to be released back on the streets. In effect, criminal aliens that should have been deported have been allowed to remain and commit more serious crimes becoming violent offenders,” he told the House Judiciary Committee probing the criminal impact of illegals in the United States.

He was joined by family members of victims of illegal immigrant crime, a surging issue around the nation as Obama’s policies allow more unauthorized aliens to leave jail and remain in the country.

A rural Maryland sheriff on Tuesday blamed President Obama’s open-door immigration policy for a surge in gangland crime that included a retaliation murder and assault on an officer doing paperwork in his cruiser.

Frederick is north of Washington, D.C., but has become a haven for criminal “transnational” gangs, especially in high schools. Members of MS-13 and 18th Street gangs have become influential in the schools and county.

“Transnational alien gangs are structured criminal enterprises involved in drug and human trafficking, crimes of violence over turf, retaliation, money laundering, and other serious crime. As these gangs are recruiting locally and increasing in number, so does the associated crime within communities,” said Jenkins.

He gave some details on the crimes by immigrant gangs in his county:

— There are over 75 active known validated transnational criminal gang members in Frederick County, many more suspected of gang affiliation. We also believe that MS-13 and 18th Street alien gangs are recruiting, locally, in our schools, in the region, and out of country.

[ … ]

— 7 of 11 (64%) of the criminal alien gang members encountered in 2015 were unaccompanied juveniles when they entered the U.S and eventually located to Frederick County, Maryland. Now they are adults committing serious felonies.

— Crimes committed include; 5 occurrences Attempted 1st and 2nd Degree Murder, Armed Robbery, 1st Degree Assault, Home Invasion, Armed Carjacking, Kidnapping, Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Violent Felony, Carrying Concealed Deadly Weapons.

If you think this is going away – if you think they will be deported by anyone – if you think you and your family won’t be affected by this – if you think you are immune to this problem – if you think they aren’t coming to your neighborhood – you are badly mistaken.

Prepare to defend yourself and your family.  Have weapons inside and outside the home, prepare for anything to happen at any time.  Always carry a gun.  All is not lost.  Don’t despair, and remember Herschel’s Dictum.

Via Townhall, this sad tale:

A San Francisco sheriff’s deputy accidentally discharged a non-duty weapon, a “baby Glock,” inside the Hall of Justice on Wednesday morning, apparently while trying to demonstrate the proper use of the weapon to a colleague.

The round narrowly missed the fellow deputy, but no one was injured.

San Francisco Sheriff’s Department spokeswoman Eileen Hirst said the discharge occurred before court started and was under investigation. She was not able to provide details, pending the outcome of the probe.

“An accidental discharge of a firearm is a very serious matter,” she said. “We are all very grateful that no one was injured.”

Sources say that Rhonda Gaines, a 20-plus year veteran, brought the gun to work and that Sotero Santos accidentally fired it. Hirst would not confirm either identities but said that the person who fired the weapon is receiving a one-on-one refresher on firearm training, as is the deputy who brought the weapon to the courthouse.

[…]

Sources told NBC Bay Area that Gaines brought the handgun, a 22-caliber “baby” Glock, to work and was apparently not familiar with how it operated. She handed it to Santos and asked him about its use, sources said. The second deputy pointed the weapon at the first deputy and – apparently unaware the weapon was loaded – pulled the trigger. The round missed her, piercing an equipment storage cabinet, before lodging in the office wall.

I don’t do Glocks, but even so, I know that unless it’s had the conversion kit applied to it, there is no .22 Glock.  The department may have been referring to a Glock 22, which is a .40.  Either way, it’s a good thing this happened among people so well trained in the science of firearms use and tactical applications (unlike us ignorant civilians).  Otherwise, someone might have been hurt and the other sent to prison.

Nate with Haley Strategic gives us his version of unique carry options.