Archive for the 'Guns' Category

World Policy Blog:

The U.S.’s lax gun laws are fueling a massive business of illegal arms trade through its southern border into Mexico. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), two out of every three illegal firearms found in Mexico originate in the U.S. In other words, each year, over 253,000 guns purchased in the U.S. are smuggled south of the border.

Why should we be concerned? For one, there is a direct correlation between gun ownership in cities and gun violence – as one increases, so does the other. But that’s true regardless of location. A paramount issue, specific to the U.S.-Mexico border, is the link between illegal guns and the drug trade. Outside of the one firearm store in Mexico City, there are no other stores to purchase guns in Mexico. And yet, the drug wars have claimed the lives of thousands.

Without firearms, the ability of gangs to acquire and smuggle drugs would be greatly weakened. And given the fact that the U.S. spends $51 billion a year on the war on drugs, reducing the proliferation of illegal guns flowing across our border is a security issue Capitol Hill cannot ignore.

Nonetheless, there is not one federal gun trafficking law in the U.S. …

Not one federal gun trafficking law.  Not a single one.  Except of course, for this:

The GCA does not require export licenses. However, most firearms and ammunition must be exported in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976. Regulations implementing this Act generally require a license to be obtained from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Department of State, PM/DDTC, SA-1, Room 1200, 2401 E St., N.W., Washington, DC 20037; (202) 663-1282.

The export of sporting shotguns and ammunition for sporting shotguns is regulated by the U.S. Department of Commerce rather than the State Department. An export license is generally needed to export these shotguns and ammunition. For further information, contact them at their nearest district office or the Bureau of Industry and Security, Outreach and Educational Services Division, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. & Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-4811.

When exporting NFA firearms, ATF Form 9 must be completed and approved by ATF prior to export.

Who do they write for, imbeciles?  It’s like the gun controllers don’t even try to hide the lies any more.

Continuing the rumor mill, Uncle reports that Remington may move operations to Tennessee.  We’ve discussed a potential Remington move several times, but I’m not so sure it’s Tennessee.

Gov. Cuomo’s tough new gun law has put a target on the state’s gun makers.

Cities, counties and states from across the country have been making lucrative pitches to New York’s firearms companies, urging them to relocate. Their argument: They have a gun-friendly atmosphere, and New York does not.

“They receive solicitations . . . on almost a daily basis,” said Lawrence Kean, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group.

“CEOs have told me they could basically move their factories for free.”

Cuomo pushed his new gun law through the Legislature a month after the deadly shooting rampage in Newtown, Conn. The law broadened the definition of what is considered a banned assault weapon, and it reduced the size of permissible gun magazines to seven rounds, from 10.

Since then, the state’s remaining firearms companies, including major employers like Remington Arms in upstate Ilion and Kimber Manufacturing in Yonkers, have been wooed by officials from places including South Carolina and Texas.

Anthony Testa, general manager of Just Right Carbines in upstate Canandaigua, southeast of Rochester, said his company received at least a dozen offers from other states.

Just Right, which employs about a dozen workers and produces an assault rifle now banned under the state’s new law, has decided to stay put.

The owners, Testa said, have strong family ties to the region. “That’s the only reason they are not considering these things more seriously,” Testa said.

“You combine the high tax load along with the fairly restrictive and fairly anti-gun stance that the state has, it makes it difficult to do business selling a product that the state doesn’t like.”

Let’s be clear about this.  Cuomo is a Putz, and New York is a totalitarian state.  Furthermore, I haven’t said much about the union at Remington, but the workers simply can’t adopt collectivist practices and policies, forcing New Yorkers into collective bargaining agreements (as opposed to say, South Carolina which is a right to work state), and then gripe and complain because Cuomo institutes collectivist policies of his own.  You must be consistent.

Move South.  Ruger has already produced its first firearm at its new North Carolina plant, months ahead of schedule.  The workers are skilled and loyal, and the people appreciate firearms and their place in America.  What are you waiting for?

Prior:

Freedom Group And Remington

National Review On Remington

Should Ruger Be Planning For Expansion In North Carolina?

Maryland Set To Pass Sweeping Gun Control, Beretta Set To Move

Remington To S.C.?

It’s Time For Gun Industry To Move South

I am reproducing this entire post brought to you by AmmoLand because if I am not mistaken it is a release by the ATF and not unique to AmmoLand.

ATF has found that Federal firearms licensees are often involved in the disposition of National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms in estates of decedents.

As a result, ATF receives questions from licensees about the procedures involved to comply with the law.

Information regarding registered firearms is protected tax information and the release of the information by ATF is restricted. In general, the release can only be made to the executor (administrator, personal representative, or whatever term is used for the person appointed and tasked with disposing of any property in an estate).

ATF can respond to general procedural questions by the licensees, but, for specific questions, the response can only be to the person noted above.

Prior to the release of any registration information, the person requesting the information must provide documentation of their status to the NFA Branch.

The firearms must remain in the possession of the executor, until a transfer application has been submitted and approved. A transfer would include the disposition of an NFA firearm to a licensee for consignment or safekeeping.

Any unregistered NFA firearm(s) in an estate are contraband and there is no means by which these firearms can be registered. The executor should contact the local ATF office to arrange for the disposition of these firearms. The disposition of an NFA firearm to a beneficiary of an estate is on a tax-exempt basis (using ATF Form 5 to update the registry). However, in the case of multiple beneficiaries, ATF will request a release from any beneficiary who is not receiving the firearm. The laws of the State in which the decedent resided determine who is a beneficiary. The application for transfer to the beneficiary must include the beneficiary’s fingerprints and photographs.

The disposition of a serviceable NFA firearm to a person who is not a beneficiary is on a tax paid basis (using ATF Form 4). The disposition of an unserviceable NFA firearm to a person who is not a beneficiary is on a tax-exempt basis (using ATF Form 5). As noted above, the requirements of the NFA apply for these dispositions.

If the disposition is to a person in another State and the person is not a Federal firearms licensee or a beneficiary, then the firearm must be transferred to a Federal firearm licensee in the recipient’s State. After approval of the transfer and receipt by the licensee, the licensee would then apply to transfer the firearm to the purchaser.

Good grief.  None of this would be an issue if the Congress had not passed the NFA (and you know my position, i.e., that the Second Amendment frames in the federal government and restricts their actions, making all gun laws passed at the federal level unconstitutional).  Furthermore, none of this would be a problem were it not for the ATF, which in my opinion is an illegitimate arm of the federal government given the way I see the Second Amendment.

But here we are, with armies of lawyers trying to figure out ways to comply with the regulations, with armies of lawyers inside the beltway trying to figure out ways to make it hard to comply with the regulations.  This is what happens when the federal government is too big and powerful, which is exactly what our wise founders tried to avoid.

Guns in parks … it’s complicated:

Two months ago, as the busy summer season was winding down at Yellowstone National Park, 3-year-old Ella Marie Tucker found her father’s gun and shot herself.

Park rangers tried to resuscitate her. But Ella died, the victim of the first fatal shooting in the park since 1978.

Her death came almost four years after Congress passed a new law allowing loaded guns in national parks. At first, the tragedy seemed a realization of critics’ worst fears: a child’s death, all because guns were allowed in the quintessential embodiment of America’s backyard.

The reality is much more complicated.

Officials at parks throughout the country say the law change has so far affected little, beyond complaints from visitors surprised to see an assault rifle openly carried on a visitor’s shoulder or a handgun secured to a belt. Statistics from the National Park Service show no clear spike in crime, violent or otherwise. The parks had 282 million visitors last year, and police investigated six homicides. On the whole, parks appear safe.

In 2011 I filed a FOIA request to supply me with the NPS data on crimes in national parks after guns were legalized in 2010. The data can be found here.  We are missing the metrics from 2011, but the overall trend for homicides can be summarized (redacted) as follows:

1. 2005 – 17
2. 2006 – 11
3. 2007 – 9
4. 2008 – 5
5. 2009 – 4
6. 2010 – 15
7. 2011 – not included
8. 2012 – 6

It isn’t complicated at all.  Guns in National Parks doesn’t in the least lead to the catastrophe predicted by the gun control lobby.  We can close the books on another fear mongering collectivist lie.

Prior:

Brady Campaign Lies About Guns

Backpacker Shoots Grizzly In Denali, First Life Saved Since Firearms Legal

David Codrea:

Invoking Lee Harvey Oswald to produce a calculated emotional effect while showing total disregard for laws on the books, “reporter” Dan Freedman of the Hearst Washington Bureau made his case for so-called “universal background checks” Saturday in a “gun control” propaganda piece presented as straight news …

Were Freedman to make good on his assertions and demonstrate the equivalency he would have readers believe exists, he would next demonstrate how he can “buy” a gun online and have it shipped to him through the mail. But he knows he can’t because that would be against the law.

Of course it’s against the law.  And even if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t prove his case for universal background checks unless he could demonstrate that there was no other way for a perpetrator to obtain guns.  Read all of David’s piece.

Kurt Hofmann:

Over the past year or so that 3-D “printing” of guns has become a hot topic, one entity that would seemingly have a major interest in the subject has for the most part been surprisingly quiet. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has said very little about this transformative–and rapidly evolving–technology. Until now. National Public Radio reports that the BATFE has decided that now is the time to frighten the ill-informed public:

“When these 3-D firearms are manufactured, some of the weapons can defeat normal detection such as metal detectors, wands, and it could present a problem to public safety in a venue such as an airport, an arena, a courthouse,” says ATF assistant director Richard Marianos.

Marianos, of course, did not bother to mention that security scanner technology has advanced a long way since the days that non-metallic objects were invisible to scanners, or that effective metal-free ammunition does not appear to be particularly imminent.

This isn’t about firearms.  The ATF is yelling about something that may threaten their monopoly on control.  You can’t make it through most scanners today with a penny in your pocket without setting it off, and the ATF knows it.  Read all of Kurt’s piece.

Mike Vanderboegh links this piece, which provides interesting results.  As I said earlier, don’t tell me that we can simply substitute steel for brass and be just fine.  By the way, take note of the AR-15 grip used in this photo.  This brings me to Mike’s next post on AR-15 furniture.

The evolution of the AR rifle grip began not long ago when shooters realized they no longer fired their weapons using stances developed in the 1960′s. Back in the day, armorless shooters were taught to use the bladed stance and a high elbow. But today, body armor and enhanced understanding of body mechanics during shooting and weapon manipulation has lead to changes in how a rifle is shouldered. Emerging doctrine now teaches us to shoot with shoulders squared up to the target and elbows tucked in for stability–and to keep from getting shot in the arm.

While I had shot firearms for years, I had not purchased an AR-15 until my son Daniel went into the Marine Corps.  This is the way the Marines taught him to shoot, and thus it’s the way he taught me to shoot my AR-15.  As a sidebar comment, the high grip on the forend of the AR-15 in the picture I linked comes from the 3-gun and gaming community, adopted by Special Operations for its utility in target acquisition because it increased stability when moving the rifle.

Star Tribune:

Howard Kidder has traveled to Egypt, Pakistan and places all over the globe on medical aid missions, but the 90-year-old got the scare of his life right outside the St. Paul church where he earned his Boy Scout badges and has worshiped for 78 years.

Kidder was making one of his regular trips to Mounds Park United Methodist Church on the East Side about 12:30 p.m. Thursday when a suspect donning a Halloween mask from the hit horror movie “Scream” accosted him and asked for money. The confrontation escalated within seconds, and the suspect flashed a gun at Kidder.

“I doled out a five dollar tip and told him he had a spectacular costume, or words to that effect,” Kidder said Friday with a laugh. “Things deteriorated at that point.”

The suspect, whom Kidder believes is a teenager, took the $5 and pulled up his shirt to reveal the butt of a handgun protruding from his pants pocket. Kidder, a retired Honeywell electrical engineer who knows a thing or two about guns, didn’t toy with the suspect.

“Well, it got my attention right away,” Kidder said with a mix of humor and seriousness. “I backed off right away because I was afraid I was going to be shot.”

Kidder threw his billfold to the ground and the suspect fled with it, joined by two plainclothes teenagers who had been standing off to the side.

“It was pretty obvious to me that they knew the character in the mask,” Kidder said of the two teens. “We didn’t introduce each other.”

The wallet contained more cash and two credit cards.

The crime is especially egregious, said those who know Kidder, because Kidder has served as a cornerstone of the community and church, and has spent his life giving back to causes that benefit the less fortunate. Kidder lives in his childhood home just blocks from the church, and has been a member longer than anyone else.

“He brings me flowers all the time,” said church secretary Kaite Knack. “He brings me lunch. He’s too sweet a guy for something like this to happen to.”

But criminals and bad people don’t care.  This is yet another case study for carrying guns to church.  Church as a gun free zone – whether by law or voluntarily – enables this sort of thing.  We’ve discussed this before, how in Colonial days men were required to carry guns to worship.  We should resurrect this practice, and crime around churches would drop to virtually nonexistent frequency.

David Codrea:

The prevalence of guns in the Philippines is complicating efforts to bring relief to survivors of Typhoon Haiyan, the diplomatic correspondent for The Daily Telegraph asserted yesterday.

[ … ]

He appears to be getting those numbers from GunPolicy.org, a project of the Sydney School of Public Health that “promotes the public health model of firearm injury prevention, as adopted by the United Nations Programme of Action on illicit small arms.” It’s hardly an endeavor sympathetic to private gun ownership, but nonetheless provides a useful resource for unwittingly showing the utter failure of globalist citizen disarmament edicts at living up to their promise of a safer world. And as with other countries this column has reported on that used the website as a resource, a summary of gun laws for the Philippines is instructive.

“The regulation of guns in the Philippines is categorised as restrictive,” the policy assessment reports, but adding “In the Philippines, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted.”

That would seem to exclude rifles …

Read the rest of David’s piece.  When the report came out I looked at what they’re citing as the rate of gun ownership, and concluded that this couldn’t possibly be the cause of the problems.  The problem is that this is on the other side of the world, they should have evacuated people before the storm, and the government is inefficient (what government is efficient?).  Guns have nothing to do with it, or so I concluded.  It’s just another chance to bring up personal freedoms and stomp on them if they can.  Oh, and by the way, I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea of using what used to be the most effective and violent fighting force on earth, the United States Marines, for missions of benevolence.  We need to find another way to conduct relief efforts.

Kurt Hofmann:

LA Times columnist George Skelton nevertheless takes Governor Brown to task for not being anti-gun enough, because one of the vast number of models of rifle the vetoed bill would have banned is supposedly the one used in the LAX “gun free zone” killing. From the LA Times:

Not that it would have mattered for Gerardo Hernandez, 39, the TSA agent who was murdered. The bill would not have taken effect until Jan. 1. And Paul Anthony Ciancia, 23, the disgruntled, alleged assassin, could have kept his semiautomatic rifle by registering it.

And, yes, he also could have armed himself with a handgun and probably inflicted the same damage.

Yep–Skelton admits that the incident he is using to bolster his argument condemning Brown’s veto would not have turned out any differently if Brown had signed the bill …

Kurt is doing what he does best.  He’s undermining the arguments of the gun controllers by examining their inconsistencies.  Gun control, like control of everything else, doesn’t work.  A person bent on killing will always do it, even if he has to learn to fabricate the tool himself.  The Texas tower shooter, Charles Whitman, used primarily bolt action rifles to inflict most of his damage.  The best option is always deregulation, i.e., get rid of gun free zones.  Gun free zones are for killers and their protectors, the lawmakers.

On another front, I didn’t know that we have U.S. federal agents doing the bidding of the Polish government?  I guess they don’t have anything else to do.

Chris Christie:

“If you look at what we’ve done in New Jersey, we want to control violence,” Christie told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. “And some of that may involve firearms, but a lot of it doesn’t.”

Just reminding you again of what we’ve already discussed.  Chris Christie is an anti-gun nut from way back.  There could almost be no better reason to stay home during the next presidential election than if the GOP were to nominate him for office.  There isn’t a dime’s worth a difference between Hillary Clinton and him.  The former is a cackling, collectivist, totalitarian control freak, the later is the same thing except with a loud mouth.

Here I discussed my good experience with Springfield Armory.  It looks like I’m not the only one.

Michael Bane has some interesting comments:

… we have been having a “dialog” about the role of firearms in American society at least as long as I’ve been alive. IMHO, the “dialog” ended when the war began.

Let me say this again…we are at war with a segment of society whose sole goal is total civilian disarmament. We are not in a dialog. We are not in a debate. We are not in a healthy give-and-take in the Cornell University academic lounge. The primary weapon used by our blood enemies is the Big Lie.

It works like this…our enemy states a Big Lie, and I could list dozens, and we run around like little bitty chickens with our heads cut off, marshaling our arguments, footnoting our learned responses, bullet pointing our facts…and after the whole charade is over the enemy repeats the Big Lie, the lapdog media reports it as truth, and WE LOSE AGAIN!

Look at the thoroughly discredited “a gun in the home is 43% more likely to harm rather than protect the homeowner.” Probably more words have been written debunking that fake piece of trash than all Shakespeare’s plays and the complete transcribed Wikipedia, yet 2 weeks ago I read it presented as gospel truth in a daily newspaper website.

During the fight on the Colorado gun laws earlier this year, thousands of us came with our carefully prepared remarks, charts, studies, bullet points, facts — real honest to goodness facts. Our blood enemies, most notably Michael Bloomberg, shipped in a parade of liars…heads of fake organizations created by Bloomberg, a presentation of “polls” that wouldn’t meet even the most basic rules for polling, etc. We had the “indisputable” facts; they had the Big Lie. Who won?

Hint: It wasn’t us.

Good points all around, Michael.  But then, I’m not sure sure about this from Michael!  By the way, concerning Metcalf’s position that I discussed here, I don’t back down one bit from my position that the state is the right level for regulation of any kind, including firearms.  Of course, that’s not to say that there should be onerous regulation of firearms even at the state level.  Recall our previous discussions where I have said the fight is at the level where the founders wanted it, i.e., near the people and not with a centralized government.  The state constitutions, all of them if I am not mistaken, recognize the right to bear arms, although Illinois was late to the game (and some states are stronger than others).  The corollary to my position, of course, is that all laws made at the federal level are unconstitutional.  All of them.  Every last one.  When the states are weak, voters need to fire the politicians and put in honest men.

Josh Horwitz:

By now, it’s clear to most Americans that dangerous, suicidal individuals like Ciancia have ready access to military-style firepower because of the lobbying of groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA). They might not be aware, however, that the pro-gun movement is also equally responsible for disseminating violent, anti-government rhetoric, much of it aimed at the TSA specifically.

[ … ]

Pro-gun bloggers have follow the NRA’s lead and directed their own attacks at government agents, including the TSA. Robert Farago, a blogger at “The Truth About Guns,” called TSA agents “blue shirted goons” after Nugent’s wife was arrested for illegally carrying a gun into a terminal at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in August.

Mike Vanderboegh, the former Alabama militia leader and Fox News commentator who made national headlines after calling for the offices of Democratic Members of Congress to be vandalized during consideration of the Affordable Care Act, referred to TSA agents on his blog as “nanny state fascist perverts.” Pro-gun activist Andrew Johnston chose a similar slur, describing TSA agents as “filthy perverts.” And so on…

Oh good grief.  There he goes again blaming the big ole’ bad NRA.  Frankly, I’m deeply offended that he didn’t mention me for my coverage of TSA and TSA Ineptitude.  But I would have thought the major animus against the TSA had to do with the facts that their programs don’t do one thing to help transportation safety, and the department being a jobs program for ne’er-do-wells, abusers of the elderly, child molesters, ignorant hicks and uneducated morons who cannot find productive work any other way.

I guess you learn something every day, including the fact that you’d better watch your six (and twelve, and three, and nine) when the TSA gets hold of guns (via Glenn).

During this day at the range in Pickens, S.C., the range officer that day, a gunsmith named Donnie Lostraglio, noticed that the discharged casings from my Springfield Armory .45 XDm were scorched on one side.  He felt that the barrel was possibly out of round, and pointed this out to me and recommended that I take the gun by a gun shop where I live.  I had put perhaps 2000 rounds through the weapon and either I hadn’t noticed this or the issue developed over time.

Several weeks later I took the weapon by Hyatt Gun Shop, where the gunsmiths are excellent.  They measured the barrel to be 4 mils out of round, and recommended that I send it back to Springfield Armory to see if this might be an issue covered by warranty.

I began interacting with Mr. Robert Dominacki of Springfield Armory, and I noticed that it did take several e-mails to flush out exactly what I should do.  Springfield wanted my entire weapon as opposed to just sending in the barrel in order to see if any other part of the gun was malfunctioning.

In order to make this happen, Robert issued a return merchandise authorization to have the Springfield technicians examine my gun.  Springfield paid for the shipment through FedEx, both to the factory and back to me.  While Robert told me that it could be up to six weeks, I received it back within a week of receipt by Springfield with a new barrel, tested by their technicians to function just fine with the replacement barrel, a match grade 4.5″ .45 ACP just like I sent to them.

My interaction with FedEx wasn’t so precise.  The shipment back to me was made in such a manner that it could not be held at the FedEx hub because it is a firearm.  Furthermore, when you call FedEx you cannot reach their hubs, you can only reach their national number.  I started an account with FedEx in order to hold my shipment at the shipping hub but that option wasn’t allowed for this shipment.

FedEx attempted to deliver the package once and left a door tag because I wasn’t at home (I have a job).  I just happened to be at home when FedEx made the second attempt so I got my package.  Had this been attempted three times by FedEx I’m not sure what would have happened (would it have gone back to Illinois?).

I have complaints about FedEx being unreachable and unwilling to work with me on shipment of the firearm.  I have absolutely no complaints about Springfield Armory.  Some readers may complain that the barrel was out-of-round to begin with, but with that many firearms being made, some issues will be found.  I don’t expect manufacturers to be perfect.  I expect them to make good on their promises.  Springfield Armory did exactly that, and I continue to enjoy my fine firearm from them.  All around, this was a good customer experience.

David Codrea, discussing the firing of gun writer Dick Metcalf:

From a strictly human point of view, it’s a tragedy. Being a professional gun writer is a specialized craft, and opportunities to earn a living at it are few and far between. Devoting oneself to that as a career, getting it right most of the time and suddenly becoming not just unemployable, but widely excoriated, is a terrible outcome.

It’s fair to ask if some of the concerns raised by writer Bob Owens might soften demands for Metcalf’s head, and the uproar also raises inevitable comparisons to the way gun owners have reacted in the past to similar major foul-ups.

Bob Owens makes the following statement:

A modern well-regulated militia—one that is smoothly functioning and in proper working order as an irregular small unit militia force of the kind the John Mosby and Max Velocity train—requires blood, sweat, and tears. It’s hard work. It’s exhausting duty. It’s a promise to future generations that you ready, willing, and able to fight and live (any unprepared idiot can die) to preserve liberty for posterity.

On the other hand, “shall not be infringed,” taken without any responsibility, is a hedonist’s choice. It implies no responsibility, obligation, or duty. It is the cry of, “Why, we should have anything and everything, just because!”

Some of us are very selective in cherry-picking which parts of the Second Amendment we want to support, aren’t we?

I’ll speak to the subject of tactical training viz. Max Velocity and John Mosby later.  I don’t have that difficulty because of my methodological approach.  The Second Amendment circumscribes the power of the federal government, and its limitations are complete and comprehensive.  The Second Amendment doesn’t speak in the least to the power of the state, and we’ve discussed this before (please don’t slip in an argument over the fourteenth amendment at this point without reading the history of that subject here at this web site).

The State does indeed have the right to regulate firearms just like they have a right to regulate traffic laws, and this places both the authority to do so and the ability to remove those leaders from office who abuse that authority, right where it should be, near the people.  For example, the State has a right to expect that I will secure my weapons in such a manner that they will not become a danger to the neighborhood children should they come over to play (while at the same time no one has a right to illegal search or seizure to inspect my home “just because“).  The State also has a right to prohibit drunk driving.  I have never argued, nor will I ever argue, for anarchy or having everything I want just because.  God gives me rights, and the state recognizes those rights.  If it does not, I must hold the state accountable because God says I must.  All of life is a covenant, and the government is just as much in covenant with me as I am with it.  The wise founders left the centralized government out of this conversation as they should have.

As to the issue of gun owner reaction, to me this is simple.  Gun owners have the right to expect what they want in publications, and to refuse to purchase products if they don’t get what they expect.  Do consumers of other products not have that right as well?

Kurt Hofmann continues the conversation we engaged here concerning the closure of the last lead smelter plant in the U.S.

This could carry dire consequences with regard to availability and price of ammunition, prompting some to speculate that the anti-gun Obama administration’s EPA is motivated less by the claimed concern for “cleaner air” than by desire to squeeze private gun ownership from a new, less obvious angle.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but regardless, the squeeze is likely to be felt quite keenly by gun owners. All the more keenly because of longstanding federal law banning the use of many other materials in the construction of bullets used in “handgun ammunition.” If lead is unavailable/unaffordable (and now verboten, to California hunters), and if a great many other possible bullet materials are illegal, the remaining options are both few and of limited utility.

Yes, and that’s why this may be problematic as we discussed.  It isn’t as simple as substituting steel balls for lead, copper for brass, or steel for anything else like casings (which can tear up chambers).

Mike Vanderboegh reminds us yet again why it is an awful idea to talk to the police.  I know that some people have a hard time considering the exercise of their right to silence, but you need to watch all of this video again.  Please.  Watch it all.  And don’t ever talk to the police about anything.  They are an arm of the court, and exculpatory evidence discovered during questioning is inadmissible because it is hearsay.  Again, watch the entire video.  So have you watched the video, or just listened to me talk about it?