Archive for the 'Guns' Category

From Wikimedia Commons:

Standing sideways, saucer and cup style.  What on earth are they teaching Navy recruits?

KVOA.com:

The News 4 Tucson Investigators have uncovered that some U.S. Border Patrol agents have lost a key part of their arsenal. And that has agents who patrol along the border here, extremely worried.

We learned that U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Offices of Border Patrol and Training and Development are inspecting the quality of agents’ M4 carbines throughout Border Patrol sectors nationwide. But agents tell us, some of those M4s have not been replaced. And, we’ve learned, agents are required to share rifles amongst each other.

“There’s a lot of agents that are pretty upset over it,” said Art del Cueto, president of the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector union. “We know it’s a dangerous job. We know what we signed on for but we want to have as much of the equipment as we need to perform the job.”

The M4 carbine is used by the U.S. military and by Border Patrol agents. It’s even used by the Border Patrol’s tactical unit, BORTAC. Agent Brian Terry was carrying the M4 when he was shot and killed in December 2010.

Del Cueto tells us that because some of those M4s have not been replaced, agents are pooling their weapons, which makes it difficult to personalize the settings on a rifle, such as the sights.

“The problem is they are now pool guns so what happens is instead of having their individual ones they have sighted in they’re having to use a pool weapon that you don’t know who used it before you,” del Cueto said.

Customs and Border Protection released a statement to the News 4 Tucson Investigators last week, stating: “CBP’s Offices of Border Patrol and Training and Development are jointly inspecting the serviceability of M4 carbines throughout Border Patrol Sectors nationwide. Some of (the) inspected M4 carbines were deemed unserviceable and removed from inventory to alleviate safety concerns. Inspections will continue to ensure the unserviceable M4 carbines are repaired or replaced for reintroduction into the field. No further information is available at this time.”

[ … ]

Prather believes removing some of the rifles maybe politically motivated. He says he was told that many of these guns are being removed for issues that are easily repaired like the firing pin and bolt.

He broke down a M4 as he spoke.

“This weapon is designed to be able to be in a battle situation, changed out rather quickly even so fast that modern weapons have areas to hold spare bolts,” he said.

That makes him suspicious that the agency could be disarming its agents.

The U.S. government has enough surplus weapons that every local yokel Sheriff’s department gets machine guns and armored vehicles on your tax dollars.  But the Border Patrol agents are getting their rifles confiscated by the Border Patrol.  It sort of makes you think that the administration is trying to cause an invasion, no?

So it’s worse that sending weapons South of the border to criminal cartels in an attempt to shore up the case for a demand letter to FFLs.  Now we want to ensure that agents who want to stop the criminals aren’t armed.  There’s your administration and your tax dollars at work.

From Handguns Magazine, here is what I consider to be a very good video on low light defensive pistol tactics.  It’s well worth the time to study the advice and watch the demonstrations.

David Codrea:

“The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general,” Alexander Seitz-Wald wrote unbelievably in a Salon hit piece, as if that made it all OK then, because non-threats to the regime could still have them. And it wasn’t just guns forbidden to “persecuted classes,” as a JPFO analysis of the November 11, 1938 (the day after Kristallnacht) law reveals.

[ … ]

To those who would “whistle past the graveyard of history,” deny that brutal tyranny could ever happen here, and call talk of armed defense against it unsupportable and even treasonous, where in history is any civilization guaranteed stasis? Has not despotism and mass destruction plagued every civilization that preceded ours? Is it not, in fact, still commonplace throughout the globe? By what suspension of reality, by what denial of the observable and the probable, by what art, device or magic are we sheltered few immune from catastrophe?

Yea, I’ve discussed the silly notion too that gun control wasn’t part of the stock and trade of the Nazis since they allowed their supporters to have guns.  The salient point is that gun control isn’t gun control if it forbids every one from having guns.  Someone always has guns.  The point of gun control is to make sure that only certain people have guns.  You understand that, don’t you?  By arguing like they do, the collectivists fall into our trap and stipulate to our definitions.

As for the final paragraph I’ve lifted, this is David at his best, waxing philosophical.  This prose is just that good.  If you don’t read anything else today, go over to David’s place and read this piece.

Kurt Hofmann:

In other words, the heat and pressure that previously had to be contained by the plastic barrel and breech of a printed gun is now instead contained in a thick steel cartridge case. Moreover, although, as the article acknowledges, the cartridge cases require some painstaking machining, they can be used over and over. Crumling is not manufacturing ammunition for sale, as doing so would require a federal license, although he has said that he would be willing to obtain such a license if there is sufficient interest in the rounds. If he sold only the steel cases themselves, without loading them with a bullet, the propellant powder, and the primer, the license would be unnecessary.

I had wondered what they were going to do about the high chamber pressures for such a firearm (approaching 55,000 – 60,000 psi).  Now you know.  Kurt is doing a great job of watching this issue.  I sense frustration with the ATF, like there is someone or something somewhere they don’t control.

Via Mike Vanderboegh:

Or in other words, the federal government stole the property of a peaceable and law abiding businessman.

David Codrea:

The point I was trying to make is the Bill of Rights gives and grants no rights. It merely defines some, but not all rights, which the Founders correctly viewed as preexisting to the government they were establishing. That understanding was further solidified in the 1875 Cruikshank decision (and repeated in the 2008 Heller decision), when the Supreme Court noted, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

For having the cheek to point that out, along with citing the debate between the Federalists and anti-Federalists on the need for a Bill of Rights in the first place, I was called “a Trojan horse” a “clown” and an “idiot.” I “sound[ed] like an anti-gunner.” Even if I was right, I shouldn’t have written what I did, because it might somehow tip off the anti-gunners to use the information against us, and “if this kind of article or information appears again, refund my money and cancel my subscription.”

Sorry, but I’ve got to do it once more, and this time risk being labeled a Begala puppet, to boot.

The Second Amendment does not “give” us the right to rebel against civil and military authorities. Focus on the word “give”.

Well, if people are too stupid to read with their brains in gear, then ignore their dumb ass comments.  David’s point is important.  Yes, I believe that the second amendment stipulates certain things, and that it speaks to the states as well.  But in focusing on the second amendment I believe that we ignore the important things to our peril.

I have always said my rights are granted by God.  I believe in God, not the second amendment.  My beliefs are not subject to the vicissitudes of judicial interpretation or the latest trends in literary deconstruction.  Read all of David’s piece – with your brain in gear.  I’ll mention one semi-related thing about Ms. Joni Ernst.  I have heard twice now that she endured and commanded a “combat deployment” in Iraq.  Her political opponent may have been a putz, but according to the record, she commanded a logistics group who moved supplies from Kuwait to Baghdad.  I’m sorry, but there’s a huge difference between what my son did in Fallujah and what Ms. Earnst did in wherever she was at the time.  For me to believe that she had a “combat” deployment I need to see the Army equivalent of the Marine Corps Combat Action Ribbon.

Kurt Hofmann:

These developments have prompted AWR Hawkins, writing for Ammo Land, to ask, “Are Millionaire-Funded State-Level Initiatives the Next Phase of Gun Control?”  If so, it’s a very dangerous new phase for gun rights advocates, because it would take the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and hold it hostage to the popularity contest of the vote. We live not in a “democracy,” as we’re so often told, but in a republic, in large part because the Founding Fathers had the wisdom to take certain policy options off the table–off limits no matter how popular they are. As John Adams reminds us …

And you have to go visit Kurt to see what the great John Adams said.  Good on Kurt.  No innate right – and I claim my rights are granted by God whether they are recognized by the state or not – should be left for a vote.  See my take on holding rights hostage to favorable statistical outcomes, and also see Kurt on that same subject.

David Codrea: “Just a chest full of ammo makes the medicine go down … medicine go doowwwnnn …, but David doesn’t sing it for us.  I don’t know about you, but I have a problem with that.

David asks, is Facebook deleting gun pages?  Could be, but I wouldn’t know for sure.  I deleted my Facebook account.  When they asked me why, I told them Mark Zuckerberg is a horrible person.  I haven’t heard back from them.

Mike Vanderboegh posts concerning Fast and Furious.  We all knew it – that the program wasn’t a “botched operation” as the talking heads and pampered class likes to say – that it was designed all along to justify a demand letter on long gun sales, or better yet, what I really think, more laws from a Congress too damn stupid to know what was really going on.

Charles C. W. Cooke passes on the fact that recently elected Greg Abbot in Texas said he will approve a Texas open carry bill when it crosses his desk.  So what are you waiting for, Texans?

By the way, in the same Cooke article linked above, Charles says concerning I-594, “This will presumably be touted as a great victory. But it’s really not. For a start, universal background checks represent the most modest of all the Left’s aims in this area. This was not a ban on “assault” weapons, which remain legal in Washington. It was not a reduction in magazine sizes. It was not a ban on open carry. Instead, it was a law that requires residents of the state to involve a gun dealer when they transfer a weapon to another resident within the state. (Transfers between immediate family members and between spouses or domestic partners are exempt.) I’m against these rules because I think that they are pointless and because they seem invariably to ensnare innocent and unaware people. Nevertheless, the significance of Washington’s having adopted the measure should not be overstated.”

Ahem … um.  Charles.  Dude.  What the hell is wrong with you?  As recently as October 2, you thought differently.

I think there are two big threats at the moment. One is the continuing attempt to criminalize firearms that look a certain way, these so-called assault weapons. I have an AR-15. It looks like a machine gun, but it’s not. It’s no different than my hunting rifle. It’s just lighter. It’s more customizable, and it’s easier for my wife to shoot because of that. That gun has, in some states, been banned for those reasons. There’s no material difference whatsoever. The second threat is, I think, from these universal background checks.

I disagree with the November 5 Charles C. W. Cooke, but I agree with the October 2 Charles C. W. Cooke.  I too think that universal background checks pose an extreme threat to our liberty.

So now.  Would the real Charles C. W. Cooke please stand up?

News and views from the North:

The Second Amendment had been obsolete and inconsequential for more than a century. But in the last half a century, the Second Amendment is viewed as a sacrosanct document by the National Rifle Association leaders and gun advocates. Many regard it as their 11th Commandment.

[ … ]

The NRA leadership say it does not tolerate “infringing.” However, the federal government in the 1930s, passed the National Firearms acts with the assistance of ( hard to believe) the NRA. These laws “infringed” upon the Second Amendment and the right of the people to have submachine and military type arms. Who is to decide what are military guns — the NRA or the U.S. government? The NRA claims the AR-15 is not a military weapon. Nonsense!

We must step back, and realize that we are quite fortunate that our rights are being “infringed” upon. What kind of world would it be if we did not have laws to control our right to travel, to drive a car, to drink liquor, or smoke tobacco, or the right of freedom of speech in a crowded theater?

Gun rights also need to be “infringed.” It’s hard to find one right that isn’t. We want and need our rights to be infringed for the security and safety of ourselves and our children.

The writer is a resident of Sandy Hook who apparently wants his freedoms to be curtailed, and since he must endure this for the sake of his sense of security, he wants you to endure it too.

I agree with him.  It’s ridiculous to define the AR-15 in such a way as to conclude it’s not a military weapon, if only they would give us selective fire capabilities, huh?  But as for what defines a military weapon, he wants to know who gets to decide?  Well, I can answer that question so that we won’t sit around and squabble over trivialities.  I get to decide.  Anything that has ever been or could ever be used in the course of fighting is a military weapon.  That means bolt action guns (the Army and Marine Corps still use bolties for sniping), shotguns (the Marine Corps used shotguns for room clearing in Now Zad, Afghanistan), cross bows, long bows, clubs, knives, handguns of all sorts (and I hate that I can’t find any examples of revolvers used recently in OIF and OEF, but I do like me some good revolvers), slingshots, and fists.

As for the fact that some kids were shot at Sandy Hook, that’s really too bad.  I didn’t perpetrate the crime, and I am in no way responsible.  If you want to move to a place that’s even more controlling than the U.S., I would suggest China.  I don’t know how long that will last.

Rifles and their advocates are in the news and blogs these days.  It doesn’t take a handgun to perform home defense.  A man using a rifle recently detained three burglars until police arrived.  It could have been any type of rifle.

Rifle Shooter Magazine recently did a piece on the best bolt action rifles of all time.  Brad Fitzpatrick covers a number of the ones you would expect to see, including the Remington 700, Winchester model 70, Weatherby and so on.  But he includes one interesting and noteworthy rifle.

There may be some who shake their heads at the addition of the Tikka to this list, but it’s impossible to ignore the rifle’s impact of recent bolt action trends. The Tikka has a two-piece bolt with a Sako-style extractor and plunger-type ejector, and it utilizes a one-piece machined action with a reduced ejection port for added stiffness and, in theory, better accuracy. The Tikka also has a lot of plastic parts, most notably the magazine, which causes some grumbling from purists, and it has a light, crisp, adjustable trigger.  When Beretta began importing Tikka rifles it became apparent that the design was capable of producing excellent accuracy in a budget rifle. Since that time, there have been many budget rifles that adopted the Tikka’s use of reduced-weight (and cost) plastics, a good trigger and the reduced ejection port. The Tikka started changing what shooters expected from budget-priced rifles, and in doing so it has become one of the most important bolt action designs in recent memory.

I agree.  I bought a Tikka T3 .270 and couldn’t be happier with it.  I bought it after becoming furious with the Remington 700 trigger problems (to which they all but refused to admit), and then Winchester for fabricating their parts in Columbia, S.C., at the FN plant who bought them out, and then shipping them to Portugal for assembly, creating a situation where no one knew when my rifle was going to come in.  Literally, there was no estimate of time because the distributor knew nothing whatsoever about availability versus every other rifle (which he knew something about).  My Tikka is a worthy competitor to any of the mid-range priced bolt action rifles.

Next is Lucky Gunner discussing Scout Rifles (via Uncle).  The most informative comment on this comes from Uncle’s post.

Cooper was very, very clear as to what a Scout rifle is and what it isn’t, and he wrote about this right up to 2004. Since he made up the term, the term is his and should be respected as such. Most of what’s talked about as a “Scout rifle”, he would call a “pseudo scout”.

For African hunting, he had what he called a “Dragoon” or a “Dragoon Scout” which was a Styer Scout in a heavier caliber. He described the Dragoon as the rifle that the Professional Hunters would see for the first time and say “What the hell is that?!” and after seeing it use throughout one safari, would ask, “Where do I get one?”

It is true that the “Scout scope” probably should have provisions for a sun shade at both ends, but then all of my deer have been taken either just after sunset, or in mid morning when the sun is high.

Also; Cooper was very clear on the point that a Scout rifle need not have a telescope on it at all, necessarily, to qualify as a Scout rifle.

So, although we sell several optic mounts as “scout scope mounts” we mean a mount that facilitates the attachment of a scout scope, as opposed to a scope mount for a Scout rifle. There is a distinction.

Now that Springfield sells an M1A “Scout” model (and Cooper commented on this rifle favorably, though he did not consider it a true Scout rifle) things have become somewhat confused.

Almost without exception, people I’ve talked with who consider themselves shooters, have balked at the idea of shooting well past 100 yards without magnification. This is proof positive that they’ve never tried it, at least not with a serious attitude. I usually use the example of High Power competitions, which start at 200 yards, standing, unsupported, with no magnification. The prone position is reserved for the 1,000 yard line, still with no magnification.

There is a world of difference between carrying everything you need on your person, on foot, ready to shoot within three or four seconds of identifying a target, and shooting at fixed targets at measured distances from a bench at your local 100 or 200 yard range with a buffet table of tools, ammo and accessories. The latter is for the purpose of load development and fisking out the performance of your equipment. The other is the real world which said fisking, along with much field practice using improvised positions on targets of opportunity at non-standard, unmeasured distances, was done to facilitate.

Sorry to steal your thunder Uncle.  The comment was too informative to pass up.  But perhaps the most interesting post comes from Bob Owens who is discussing the do-anything rifle.

Earlier today on Twitter I laid out my thoughts on what my “ideal” rifle would be (those of you who aren’t yet following me on Twitter can do so here), since I’ve been unable to find the “one gun” that would do everything that I would like a rifle to be able to accomplish (nor have I been able to find a unicorn).

In general theory, this rifle would be adequate as a hunting rifle for North American big game animals (deer, elk, bear, moose). It would also be useful as a self-defense/militia firearm, capable of running well in battle-rifle courses of fire.

These are the qualities I desire in this “do anything” rifle:

• A semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle.

• The “standard” magazine would be ruggedized and nearly “bombproof,” made of steel, and would have a 20-round capacity. 20-round magazines tend to work better in the prone position. Magazines of 5 and 10 rounds could be used for hunting and target shooting.

• The cartridge I want doesn’t yet exist. I desire a caseless 6.5-7mm cartridge firing bullets of 110-140 grains. I’d want sub-MOA performance, a practical barrel life of 10,000 rounds, and 1,200 meter range. Theoretically, the lack of a case would mean you could carry more rounds with less weight as opposed to brass-encased ammunition.Why caseless? No brass to litter the ground (or give away your firing position), no ejection port to allow in outside muck and mud, and no ejection cycle means no ejection-related malfunctions (a more reliable firearm).

• The rifle would feature an integral brake to reduce recoil to .223 Remington/5.56 NATO levels, and would port gases in such a way as to prevent creating a dust cloud that would give away the shooter’s position.

• Suppressor capable.

• The rifle would feature an integral 1x-6x variable power scope with an illuminated bullet-drop compensating reticle with range-finder.

• The rifle would be in a bullpup configuration to minimize overall length, while providing an optimal barrel length to maximize bullet velocity and reduce flash.

Bob later mentions the “short-comings of the 5.56 NATO.”  This is a recurring theme with Bob, who is no fan of the 5.56 mm NATO round.  The 5.56 has a number of detractors, but it’s important to remember that between the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, this round has killed hundreds of thousands of enemy fighters.

The 5.56 was deployed for a number of reasons, but the primary conceptual reasons for the assault rifle are as follows: (a) capable of selective fire, (b) fires and intermediate cartridge, and (c) has mild recoil.  The mild recoil allows rapid reacquisition of sight picture compared to heavy recoil cartridges.  In addition to the mild recoil, the corollary of this for the intermediate cartridge is that more ammunition can be carried by the infantryman.

This specific NATO round tends to yaw in flight, creating the tendency to fragment upon impact causing multiple wound tracks.  It is especially effective in close quarter battle, but it’s misleading to say that it is ineffective at longer ranges.  At Al Najaf Travis Haley was killing insurgents out to 600 meters.

Oh there are detractors, indeed.  TTAG has a lot of 5.56 mm hate going on in this post from someone alleging to have been in Fallujah using the M4 against insurgents.  Despite this evidence, my own son Daniel had a high degree of success with the same round, and in Fallujah fighting insurgents who were hopped up on epinephrine and morphine.

Furthermore, I’ll give you two more scholarly studies on the 5.56 mm lethality, one from The Bang Switch and the other from NATO Army Armaments Group, the later focusing on the ability of the 5.56 to penetrate plates and armor compared to the .308.  The truth of the matter is that the 5.56 mm is a fine round for CQB and medium range warfare, while longer range warfare is conducted better with a larger caliber like the .308 and a Designated Marksman (Daniel was also a DM and trained with the Scout Snipers, and still finds the 5.56 to be fine for its intended purpose).  It’s okay to prefer something else and favor a larger caliber if that’s what you want.  It’s not okay to be ignorant and call the 5.56 mm a poodle killer intended for women and children to shoot (as alleged at TTAG in the comments).

With all of that said, there are reasons to have a semi-automatic rifle chambered in .308 / 7.72 mm, even if I cannot find an AR chambered in my favorite large caliber, the .270 Win.  There are reasons for each of the rifles and calibers, and the main point is that I reject the premise that a single rifle can accomplish it all.  The better option is to select the best rifle type and caliber to accomplish the desired mission, whether it is performance and competition shooting, hunting game or hunting men.

Finally, you are aware of standard rifle break-in procedures, aren’t you?  I have followed a procedure closely approximating this one.  I can’t honestly say that I’ve noticed a huge difference after the procedure, probably meaning that I need to get better and more consistent with my shot groups.

There is no such thing as the perfect rifle.  There are rifles very nearly perfect for specific applications, which means that you need to have multiple rifles.  The best rifle is the one you have in your hands and with which you have trained.  But there are things that you don’t do even with the best rifles, like try to stick it in your pants.

As I’ve discussed before, I have never believed in holding rights hostage to favorable statistics outcomes.  See also Kurt Hofmann on this issue.  However, for the weaker among us who don’t believe in much (i.e., politicians), and for those who reflexively stick their finger in the wind to see which way it’s blowing, public opinion seems to matter.  And thus there is utility in information like this.

Less than half of Americans, 47%, say they favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, similar to views found last year. But this percentage is significantly below the 58% recorded in 2012 after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, spurred a nationwide debate about the possibility of more stringent gun control laws. Thirty-eight percent of Americans say these laws should be kept as they are now, and 14% say they should be made less strict.

The percentage favoring stricter gun sale laws in the two years since Newtown occurred has declined despite steady and tragic high-profile shootings in the U.S at schools, malls and businesses. This past week, shootings occurred at a Seattle-area school and of police officers in Sacramento and Placer County, California. Amidst events like these in 2014, and the resulting calls for stricter gun sale laws, the 47% who favor stricter laws is just above the historical low of 43% measured in 2011.

Ten years ago, three in five Americans (60%) said they favored stricter laws regulating the sale of firearms, but support fell to 44% in 2009 and remained at that level in polls conducted in the next two years. Days after the Newtown shooting, support for stricter gun sale laws swelled. Since 2012, however, Americans have retreated from those stronger attitudes about the need for more gun control, and the percentage of Americans who say the laws should be less strict — although still low — has edged up.

These findings come from a new Gallup Poll Social Series survey, conducted Oct. 12-15.

Universal background checks and waiting periods have never been associated with “reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates,” and readers know that I’ve never bought the idea that 90+ percent of the American public wants universal background checks.  It’s was a myth before and it’s a myth now.

So I don’t want to hear another damn word about how 90% of the public wants increased gun control at the point of sale, or trying to plug the mythical “gun show loophole” or “internet loophole” which are fabricated phrases for person-to-person sales.  Not another … damn … word.

Guns.com:

With the stroke of a pen Tuesday, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) turned a controversial bill into law that will allow third parties to sue municipalities over local gun codes stronger than the state’s.

The measure, added as an amendment to a metal theft bill, had passed the state legislature earlier this month by wide margins. It allows groups such as the National Rifle Association to stand in for local citizens in challenging gun city and county control ordinances stronger than the state’s own laws in court.

With Corbett’s signature, the new law will take effect in 60 days, potentially dozens of strict city and county firearms laws under the gaze of gun rights groups such as the NRA, who called the bill Tuesday, “the strongest firearms preemption statute in the country.”

Now for federal threats:

Members of Congress who want to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms will never give up. Fortunately, through our states we can effectively render any new federal gun laws powerless by using a legal doctrine upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

This is done by depriving the feds of any enforcement assistance by local law enforcement agencies in their state, a doctrine known as “anti-commandeering.”

Essentially, it provides that state legislation can prohibit state law enforcement from aiding the federal agencies attempting to enforce federal gun laws.

In other words, the federal government cannot require a state to carry out federal acts. The federal government can pass a law and try to enforce it, but the state isn’t required to help them.

Is this legal?

It is according to the US Supreme Court. For 150 years it has repeatedly affirmed the constitutionality of anti-commandeering laws.

Relevant court cases include:

* 1842 Prigg v. Pennslvania: The court held that states weren’t required to enforce federal slave rendition laws.

* 1992 New York v. US: The court held that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.

* 1997 Printz v. US: The court held that “the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”

* 2012 Independent Business v. Sebelius: The Court held that the federal government can not compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for Medicaid programs already in place.

What do you notice to be common between these articles concerning advocacy for state’s rights?  Answer: turning to the courts for moral and legal justification.

The new law in Pennsylvania would be impressive if only it had prepared the infrastructure to send state law enforcement after local authorities if they didn’t observe our rights.  Nullification of local regulations combined with spending some quality time in the hoosegow for the local politicians would send a strong signal to those who would ignore the law.  Frankly, I cannot imagine a weaker state government than one which passes a law only to have cities and townships ignore it, and then have to turn to the courts to tell the local authorities to obey the state laws.  It’s embarrassing and scandalous.

And turning to the federal courts to tell ourselves that it’s okay to ignore the federal authorities when their edicts violate the covenant upon which they are supposed to labor and lead is equally embarrassing.  More than simply not aiding federal authorities in their totalitarian measures, state law enforcement ought to be sent to arrest said federal authorities, throw them in the state penitentiary, and throw away the key.

Kurt Hofmann:

An interesting new concept in “smart guns” is now reaching technological maturity, according to All Outdoor. This device, made by Yardarm Technology, has a purpose significantly different from previous “smart guns,” and the idea (for now, at least) is to apply it only to cops’ duty weapons … Still, though, if cops can be forced to adopt this technology, laws mandating it for the rest of us are possible, too …

Yea.  Don’t think for a second that the control freaks will stop at law enforcement.  If it actually gives us proof of principle (and I’ll believe it when I see it), they will want to mandate it for all of us.  This I cannot abide.  Besides, the better option for cops that abuse their rights to self defense with people and animals (and even more animal abuse) should have their weapons confiscated, not re-engineered.

David Codrea:

The guy has proven time and again, oath to the Constitution be damned, his true allegiance is to unrestrained government. As presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, BuzzFeed noted, Walton “dramatically expanded the ability of the federal government to use controversial techniques to gather intelligence on Americans both at home and abroad that have outraged civil libertarians.”  Walton was appointed to that position by Chief Justice John Roberts (the guy who betrayed his backers on Obamacare).

I’ve run across this guy in my reading, and he is an enemy of the constitution and thus an enemy of America.  And Chief Justice Roberts is equally a traitor to the country.  But the damage that Walton has done on the FISA court is untold and will have to play out over decades, if not longer.

Also read David’s latest on the political terrain in Connecticut.

Via Uncle, free survival books.

Why are anti-gunners so violent?

Mike Vanderboegh has a sneak picture of a new facility Malloy and Lawlor have built for us.