Archive for the 'Guns' Category

I published Colt: The Gunmaker Who Can’t Shoot Straight, and thought that would be the end of it.  Today Janes published this.

Colt Defense have unveiled their new CK901 assault rifle, chambered in the Russian 7.62 x 39 mm cartridge, at Eurosatory 2014 in Paris.

Speaking to IHS Jane’s , a Colt Defense representative stated that the CK901 has been ordered by the Yemeni Republican Guard to replace their existing AK-47s.

According to Colt Defense representatives, the CK901 was designed for military customers in countries that use the AK-47, or AK-47-based rifles, and therefore still utilise, manufacture or possess large stockpiles of 7.62 x 39 mm ammunition.

The distinctive feature of CK901 is that it can be fed from all types of standard and non-standard AK-47 pattern magazines. Colt has thoroughly tested the rifle on all available steel or polymer magazines to assure reliable feeding of cartridges, the company stated. The company also offers the weapon with a US-made 30 round magazine manufactured by US Palm.

The CK901 is a gas-operated rifle based on the existing Colt Modular CM901 multicalibre (5.56 or 7.62 mm NATO) weapon family debuted in 2010.

The firearm uses the direct impingement gas principle with a rotary bolt locking mechanism. The weapon is equipped with a monolithic upper receiver, fitted with an upper and lower M1913 Picatinny rail and side rail attachment points.

I don’t like the 7.62 X 39 mm cartridge, but that’s a matter of personal choice.  Frankly, if I were going to choose such a caliber for this type of weapon, it would be a 300 Blackout.  In the mean time, I’m quite happy with my Rock River Arms AR-15, 5.56 mm.  I’ll follow Eugene Stoner rather than Kalashnikov, and if I get another Stoner-style rifle, it’ll be a .308.

But even if you do like the cartridge, Colt has almost run itself out of business by sucking at the teet of government contracts, so much so that they lost all respect for QA in their product line, and jettisoned most products except what they were providing to the government.  When is the last time you saw a Colt Python for sale at a reasonable price?  As for that matter, have you forgiven Colt for dropping the manufacture of double action revolvers?

So if they can’t have the U.S. government contract for M4s, apparently they’ll go chase the foreign government market.  How sad.

Kurt Hofmann:

In other words, her use of the term “automatic,” rather than “semi-automatic” was intentional, and intentionally misleading.

That’s exactly what I thought when I heard her words.  Don’t think for a minute what one author wrote, that this was a “gaffe.”  If you do you’re not giving Hillary enough credit for obfuscation of the ignorant masses.

David Codrea:

Wait a minute: The AG making it known not to shoot innocent citizens for exercising their lawful rights requires a vote by politicians? What if they vote that it’s OK? And Ohio cops need “special training” beyond telling them not to?

There are some idiotic, violent cops in North Carolina too.  I’ve known some folks who had LEOs draw their weapons on them because of open carry, when North Carolina is a traditional open carry state.  Losing the mandate of heaven, I think it’s called.  They become nothing more than gang members with badges.  They certainly aren’t heroes, and their actions don’t constitute examples for young children as they might have 50 years ago.

In other news, we learn that criminals aren’t afraid of our guns, and so we shouldn’t have them, I guess.  That’s fine with me.  I don’t have guns to make people afraid.  I have them to shoot people who assault me.

Here is one for Mike Vanderboegh, who loves the M1A and M14 platform.  Exploring the humble beginnings of the M1 rifle.

Finally, some strange things with guns.  And more strange things.  I don’t want to do either of these strange things.

CBS Miami:

A police officer mistakenly fired his rifle Wednesday morning while in court in front of the judge.

A Miami-Dade Police Officer, according to police, was demonstrating a scenario to a judge on the 30^th floor of the Lawson E. Thomas Court House around 10:30 a.m. Wednesday.

After demonstrating, police say the officer mistakenly fired one shot from his police issued rifle, an AR-15.

The bullet hit the floor and there were no injuries.

Hey folks, forget what I’ve said about trigger discipline.  Remember that cops are highly trained, and are the only ones who can be trusted to own and use weapons.

The Supreme Court has decided the Abramski case with a 5-4 vote.  The reaction thus far has been fairly muted, but the implications of the decision are potentially far reaching.  Kagan, writing for the majority, spends a significant amount of painful time [painful for those of us who have filled it out many times] in the nuts and bolts of Form 4473 and what she believes must have been the intent of Congress when they crafted the Gun Control Act of 1968.  Scalia wrote a spirited dissent, and anticipating the objections, Kagan writes:

But Abramski and the dissent draw the wrong conclu­sion from their observations about resales and gifts. Yes, Congress decided to regulate dealers’ sales, while leaving the secondary market for guns largely untouched. As we noted in Huddleston, Congress chose to make the dealer the “principal agent of federal enforcement” in “restricting [criminals’] access to firearms.” 415 U. S., at 824. And yes, that choice (like pretty much everything Congress does) was surely a result of compromise. But no, straw arrangements are not a part of the secondary market, separate and apart from the dealer’s sale. In claiming as much, Abramski merely repeats his mistaken assumption that the “person” who acquires a gun from a dealer in a case like this one is the straw, rather than the individual who has made a prior arrangement to pay for, take pos­session of, own, and use that part of the dealer’s stock. For all the reasons we have already given, that is not a plausible construction of a statute mandating that the dealer identify and run a background check on the person to whom it is (really, not fictitiously) selling a gun. See supra, at 9–15. The individual who sends a straw to a gun store to buy a firearm is transacting with the dealer, in every way but the most formal; and that distinguishes such a person from one who buys a gun, or receives a gun as a gift, from a private party.⁹ The line Congress drew between those who acquire guns from dealers and those who get them as gifts or on the secondary market, we suspect, reflects a host of things, including administrative simplicity and a view about where the most problematic firearm transactions—like criminal organizations’ bulk gun purchases—typically occur. But whatever the reason, the scarcity of controls in the secondary market provides no reason to gut the robust measures Congress enacted at the point of sale.

If it seems that Kagan is making the judgment of a legislator here, you are not mistaken, and it isn’t a mistake that she spends so much time in her decision on the federal code.

Via David Codrea, attorney Joshua Prince says of the decision:

There is NO law enacted by the Congress regarding straw purchasers! This was made up in whole cloth by the ATF! This is a FAR worse decision than anyone is comprehending. NOW, administrative agencies can enact criminal laws, which have NOT been enacted by the Congress!

David Workman also weighs in at Examiner:

Nelson Lund, a constitutional scholar and Second Amendment expert at George Mason School of Law, had this to say: “Five members of the Supreme Court have decided to make it a federal crime for a lawful gun owner to buy a firearm for another lawful gun owner. No federal statute says any such thing. The Justices are once again legislating from the bench, which violates the Constitution, and enacting a retroactive criminal law, which is even worse.” His comment came via e-mail.

In his dissent, Scalia notes that there is evolving history in how the ATF has applied and enforced the Gun Control Act.

After Congress passed the Act in 1968, ATF’s initial position was that the Act did not prohibit the sale of a gun to an eligible buyer acting on behalf of a third party (even an ineligible one). See Hearings Before the Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, 118 (1975). A few years later, ATF modified its position and asserted that the Act did not “prohibit a dealer from making a sale to a person who is actually purchasing the firearm for another person” unless the other person was “prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm,” in which case the dealer could be guilty of “unlawfully aiding the prohibited person’s own violation.” ATF, Industry Circular 79–10 (1979), in (Your Guide To) Federal Firearms Regulation 1988–89 (1988), p. 78. The agency appears not to have adopted its current position until the early 1990’s.

Then Scalia offers up this zinger.

In the majority’s view, if the bureaucrats responsible for creating Form 4473 decided to ask about the buyer’s favorite color, a false response would be a federal crime.

He has put his finger on a core problem with this decision [and other such rule-making inside the beltway].  As I’ve noted before:

Laws are passed by the Senate and Congress.  But after laws pass, thousands of lawyers inside the beltway go to work writing regulations based on those laws, or not, using the law as a pretext for further regulation that Congress didn’t specifically intend.  At times, Congress has even had to pass laws undoing regulations because the regulations don’t meet the intent of the law, and yet the executive branch won’t stop enforcing that regulation (or class of regulations).

Regulation is passed merely by entering them into the federal register, allowing a waiting time for public comments (which are nothing but a chance afforded to the authors of the regulations to ignore them or write sarcastic rebuttals), and then after the waiting period, it takes on the force of law including prosecution, fines and imprisonment for failure to follow them.

This happens every day, all over the nation, and in the DOT, NRC, EPA, DOJ, ATF, DHS, and other departments and agencies that the reader cannot even name and didn’t know existed.  Any law giving the executive branch the authority to further regulate firearms will be an opportunity for abuse, overreach and exploitation.

I’ve seen it in my own line of work.  Regulations take on the force of law after comments responding to entries in the Federal Register are summarily ignored by the agency doing the regulating.  It makes little sense to respond with comments when the regulator’s mind is made up.  These regulations frequently far surpass the law in breadth, scope, depth and magnitude.

One such example on Form 4473 might be the following.  My own son was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps, but knew of one poor soul who became inebriated the eve of his discharge and was caught for DUI on base.  This Marine was dishonorably discharged.  According to the wording on Form 4473, he will never be able to legally purchase a gun even if a judge agrees with him because the USMC won’t revisit its discharge and thus he won’t be able to answer – truthfully – on Form 4473 about discharge from a branch of the service.

[I don’t mean here to exonerate the ridiculous GCA for its requirement that gun transfers across state lines go through an FFL.  I have gifted a firearm to one of my sons this way, and in order to fulfill this part of the law (he couldn’t legally carry it with him on the airline even by following TSA regulations since he didn’t own it), we had to pay the exorbitant cost of shipping the gun air express to an FFL and then a transfer fee in his home state.  It had the effect of escalating the cost of the whole affair, and I’m convinced that this was part of the intended effect by Congress.]

To me, this kind of regulation seems onerous compared to what Congress wrote, but it is latitude given (and taken) by the federal regulators.  If there is a problem with legislating from the bench, there is even a worse problem with regulating by the executive branch from inside the beltway.  The problem will continue (and grow) as long as the public abides the abuse.

Kurt Hofmann:

That means, of course, that there is no vitriol too foul, to his way of thinking, to fling at groups like Open Carry Texas, for their campaign of openly carrying rifles and shotguns into places like restaurants and retail stores (although he may not have made the comparison between such activists and child rapist/murderers–yet). Of rather greater concern than the vitriol, though, is Malloy’s stated intention to try to get open carry activists shot and killed. Ah–another “non-violence” advocate.

It’s yet another installment on the logical inconsistency of the gun control movement, like claims that guns don’t save lives or that they create more danger than they abate – which they cannot truly believe because they never advocate taking guns away from the police.

David Codrea:

It’s part of a long-standing and not particularly successful attempt by the “progressives” to chill dissent by making gun owners fear to speak out lest they be tarred with the brush of extremist. Perversely, those who want them to feel that way have been known to come up with extremist advocacy positions like ‘Isn’t it time we started rounding up promoters of hate before they kill?”

David and Mike have already been painted with that brush.  So have I.  Care to join the club?  And speaking of extremist, Mike explains just what he really believes.

It is for this reason that the collectivists — the domestic enemies of the Founders’ Republic — are made somewhat angered, if not deranged, by the Gadsden flag. Its sentiment is plain — it cannot be polluted or corrupted or co-opted. They must therefore do their best to demonize it, to discredit it, to profane it, and to lie about those who fly it. We have seen that very clearly in their reaction to the Miller meth-head murderers’ misuse of the Gadsden flag in their Nevada rampage. The flag is itself “anti-government” they proclaim and proof that the Millers represent the rest of us “anti-government types.”

Now I don’t know about you, but I’m not “anti-government,” although the Southern Poverty Law Center has been calling me that for two decades now. I am in fact pro-government of the kind the Founders would recognize. I am pro small government, safe government — a government of limited powers — a government that supports the rule of law AND OPERATES WITHIN IT.

It’s important to distinguish between advocates of constitutional government and anarchy, the brush our opponents would choose for us.

And finally, Mike asks the question, has the Department of Homeland Security become America’s standing army?  Yes.  Next question.

I won’t wade into the recent debate over rifle-toting folks going into stores and restaurants, except to say that I’ve never done it and don’t intend on doing it.  I don’t buy the explanation that there is no safe way to observe muzzle discipline with a rifle, but I also don’t buy the notion that a rifle is the preferred weapon (and I don’t buy other things, like the notion that I’m safe when I get on the road in an automobile).  If your state doesn’t allow open carry, then replace the legislators until they do.

But there was a moment of honesty about open carry (of any weapon) displayed in a recent dustup over the issue that deserves your ponderance.

“We’ve had a tough time over the years promoting Lake Ozark as a family area,” said Alderman Larry Buschjost, who voted for the ban. “We want you on the Strip with families, everywhere in Lake Ozark with families. We want you to bring your kids down here and let them loose. For the life of me, I don’t understand why I would have to carry any type of gun, concealed or otherwise. “

As with collectivist South Carolina Senator Larry Martin (who needs to be replaced and defanged as soon as possible), when a legislator objects to open carry, he or she is rarely objecting solely to open carry.  It’s the very idea that you would have a weapon at all that they don’t like.  The good part is that if you let them talk long enough, they’ll often tell you exactly that.

David Codrea:

I see some people don’t like it. Well gosh. Others don’t like my writing for Examiner because they refuse to learn how to navigate the internet with a reliable and easy to activate pop-up blocker. Still others don’t like my other outlet of gun magazines, because they’re perceived as beholden to their advertisers. I notice no one is providing alternative options. Most never even share my GRE links.

Well, I certainly do.  Many people hate me.  I have never let it bother me.  Go by and congratulate David on the new gig at CheaperThanDirt.  I criticize the NRA almost with out ceasing, but I’m still a member.  Listen, folks.  If you wait to find an organization that agrees fully with every one of your views, you’ve found yourself.  Not even your spouse agrees with you 100% of the time (perhaps not even 50%).  It’s similar to church attendance or membership.  You have to learn to get along and accept it when you disagree with folks, or you’ll be alone.  I have criticized Smith & Wesson repeatedly on their refusal to stop the supply of firearms to California LEOs in light of the most recent gun laws.  I am still unhappy with the response.  Yet my most recent gun purchase (no more than two weeks ago) was a S&W.  You know, because they make good stuff.  We all have to get along, I’ll just pull the plug if, say, S&W begins to flirt with gun control, for example, or compromises with the evil masters in the White House.

Mike Vanderboegh:

A new bartering economy has emerged with ammunition rather than dollar bills as the currency.

I’m buying as much as I can, as quickly as I can.  Time.  We need more time.

Kurt Hofmann:

But wait a second. Who would these people be? Technically, of course, that depends on what one judges to be “just unbelievable damage,” but if he is concerned about guns in the hands of people who can do such damage, rather than those who will do it, then he just announced that his “biggest frustration” is his inability to disarm just about everyone.

Never, ever get into a logical debate with Kurt.  And as for what Obama meant, he isn’t as good a lawyer as Kurt.  He wouldn’t for example, disarm SWAT teams (even those who shoot innocent people) because he is a collectivist.  Obama’s communication problem is that he says too little and says too much.  We all know what he really thinks.

USA Today:

President Obama said Tuesday the nation should do “some soul-searching”: over its epidemic of deadly gun violence and “should be ashamed” it has been unable to address it.

“We’re the only developed country on Earth where this happens,” Obama said during a question-and-answer session on the social media website Tumblr.

“And it happens now once a week,” Obama added. “And it’s a one-day story. There’s no place else like this.”

[ … ]

His “biggest frustration” as president, Obama said, has been that “this society has not been willing to take some basic steps” to keep guns away from people who “can do just unbelievable damage.”

The president again criticized Congress for blocking a proposal to expand background checks for gun buyers and said too many lawmakers are “terrified” of the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups.

While “our levels of gun violence are off the charts,” Obama said, the American people themselves have to demand new laws: “If public opinion does not demand change in Congress, it will not change.”

Opponents of various gun control proposals said they would be ineffective, and some threaten Second Amendment ownership rights. They also said shootings are a mental health issue, an argument that Obama disputed.

“The United States does not have a monopoly on crazy people,” Obama said.

We’ve discussed this before at length, how the mentally ill are no more prone to violence than those who are not mentally ill, and how crime is a moral choice.  Again, those killings where idiot commentators talk about how “crazy” or “mentally ill” a person is are pointers to evil, not sickness.

Obama either knows better or actually believes that there is no such thing as evil except as created by society.  He is a liar, but in purveying his lie, he managed to lump mentally ill people, most of whom are peaceable, loving folk, into the same category as mass killers.

As a reminder to all those who were in the sandbox doing the bidding of the country, do not ever allow yourself to be diagnosed as PTSD.  And this goes for any reader anywhere, not just Soldiers and Marines.  Do not be lumped into the category of mentally ill.  You’ll never get off the list.

But in spite of his stupid insult to the mentally ill, there is (in the words of C. S. Lewis), a deeper magic that we who are watchers and learners know.  The witch Obama couldn’t care less about mass shootings, or crime in Chicago, or anything of the sort.  He wants to confiscate guns because he is a totalitarian.  Totalitarians must destroy the will and ability to resist.

And God hates totalitarians.

Mike Vanderboegh:

Chicago Police and ATF Form Intelligence Center To Fight “Three Percenters”

Right.  Like the three percenters are the problem in Chicago as opposed to say, the gangs and black-on-black violence.  I’ll tell you what.  Drop by, you Chicago police officer (“Dr. Suess”) who argued with me over e-mail about how I was going to beg for your help one day to “protect me,” and tell me who commits crime in Chicago?  And tell me why you aren’t out running down the gangs, you coward?  This is all a ruse, a smokescreen to send money to Chicago, the home of criminal Eric Holder.

David Codrea:

True to form and right on cue, “progressive” pundits who feed themselves pushing citizen disarmament and other ways of subverting true egalitarian power sharing are out in force, blaming everyone outside their collectivist echo chamber for the actions of two misfit killers.

Of course they do.  And be sure to read David’s rundown of the couple’s ejection from the Bundy Ranch.  As for the “pundit,” he doesn’t bother me a bit.  Only people who don’t believe in anything need the government to tell them what to think.

Kurt Hofmann:

Sunday evening, Nia Sanchez went from being Miss Nevada to accepting the crown for Miss USA … Ms. Sanchez, who has a fourth degree black belt in taekwondo, recommended that women learn how to defend themselves.

You mean someone has been named to this position who didn’t give the answers common to a sophomore in international studies at Dartmouth or American University?

I see that Eric Cantor has lost.  It isn’t just his treason concerning immigration and amnesty that concerned the people of Virginia.  Remember is gun control schemes.  Gun owners never forget.  Never.  And watch out, Paul Ryan.  You guys are two peas in a pod.  And perhaps you will suffer the same fate one day.

The Denver Post:

Ronny Flanagan took pride in his record as a police officer in Plano, Texas. He had an incident-free career. He took safety training regularly. He was known at the range as a very good shot.

Yet he killed a man when he was simply trying to press a flashlight switch mounted beneath the trigger on his pistol.

In a deposition, Flanagan expressed his remorse and made a prediction.

“I don’t want anyone to ever sit in a chair I’m in right now,” he said. “Think about the officers that aren’t as well trained, officers that don’t take it as seriously, and you put them in a pressure situation, another accident will happen. Not if, but will.”

Here’s what’s happening.  In order to depress the pressure switch, shooters (in this case, cops) are squeezing their third finger, and because they have no control over their sympathetic muscle reflexes, they are also squeezing their trigger finger at the same time.  Suing the manufacturers of flashlights is about as nonsensical as I can imagine.  That’s like suing a hammer manufacturer because I may choose to hit someone over the head with it.

But what does this also show us?  The astute reader says, “that cops are (a) using their weapon mounted light as a tactical light to see things in the dark, violating requirements for muzzle discipline, and (b) they have their finger on the trigger of their weapon, showing that they are violating requirements for trigger discipline.

Recall what I said about this?

My son was a SAW gunner in the 2/6 infantry, Golf Company, 3rd Platoon, during the 2007 combat tour of Fallujah and the pre-deployment workup.  The senior Marines had experienced a tour of Iraq, and wanted their SAW gunners to have a round in the chamber, bolt open (the SAW is an open bolt weapon anyway), and finger on the trigger.  They had seen combat and they wanted their SAW gunners with zero steps to shooting.  Their lives depended on it.  They also did CQB drills with live rounds, along with squad rushes.

My son had an ID (if I’m not mistaken it was during training at Mohave Viper).  He tripped and had a sympathetic muscle reflex, squeezing the trigger of his SAW.  He spent an extended period of time in the “room of pain.”  They wanted him trained to overcome that sympathetic muscle reflex (which can be done, but it takes hundreds or thousands of hours of drills).  He spent the time learning to overcome that reflex, and performed well during his tour.  He also tried to teach his “boot” Marines the same way he was trained, but the Marines had begun to change and focus more on cultural sensitivity training and other COIN tools.  He got out of the Marine Corps.

Why am I discussing this?  Because no matter who you are, no matter how much time you spend, no matter how earnestly you wish it, no matter how many directives you write, if you are a SWAT team member, you will never be trained in such a manner.  Never.  You will never be trained like a U.S. Marine who has spent every day for a year and a half in pre-deployment workup to do a combat tour of Iraq.  Because you will never be trained in this manner, your tactics are dangerous, all of the time, and in all situations.  I don’t care how many times you have inexperienced Soldiers spend a week with you doing CQB drills.

As for cops, if they obey the same rules as we do, this kind of thing won’t happen.  And I don’t care how sad Ronny Flanagan is over this.  The shooting is his fault.  Period.

If you keep your booger hook off of the bang switch, the gun won’t go boom.  And for the sake of everything that is sensible, good and righteous, don’t use your weapon mounted tactical light as a flashlight so that you can see things in the dark.