Archive for the 'Guns' Category

Via David Codrea, N.C. Sheriffs on purchasing weapons:

The North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association (NCSA) is pressuring both House Speaker Thom Tillis (R, Mecklenburg, GRNC ****)  and NC Governor Pat McCrory (R, GRNC-***) to oppose GRNC’s repeal of the antiquated pistol purchase permit system that has been in place since 1919. As part of omnibus gun bill HB 937, which contains restaurant and limited campus carry, the purchase permit law would be repealed IF the House votes to concur with Senate improvements to the bill and IF Gov. McCrory doesn’t veto it.

The purchase permit law slated for elimination through HB 937 was designed to grant discriminatory power to NC Sheriffs and enable them to subjectively deny handguns whoever they consider “undesirable.” To this day, several counties abuse the permit system in ways that make it difficult for law-abiding citizens to rightfully obtain handguns.

Ironically, as documented by The Charlotte Observer, the law sheriffs defend is  letting untold numbers of felons bypass background checks to buy guns. Why? Because the untrackable slips of paper issued by sheriffs after background checks can’t be repealed and are good for 5 years. Eliminating the system would mean that checks using the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) would be done at the point of sale.

I don’t want to turn this conversation into one on open carry of firearms, but it’s relevant.  I’ve discussed before that I openly carry a weapon from time to time, mostly when I am trying to avoid sweating my weapon and don’t want to carry IWB.  The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police respect that choice, and smile and wave when they see me.

But it isn’t like that everywhere.  Even the CMPD has to be reminded of our rights.

Sean Sorrentino notes an instance where the 4th Circuit had to reprimand the Charlotte Police for using openly carrying a weapon as a reason to stop an individual, even someone who later turned out to have been guilty of a crime.  Even worse, I know individuals who live around the Lake Norman / Huntersville area (North of Charlotte) who openly carry, and one particular individual has been stopped by both local and state police.  Both times the law enforcement officer unholstered his weapon and pointed at my friend for doing nothing more than walking on the sidewalk.

Note to law enforcement in North Carolina.  The answer above by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police (“not breaking any laws …”) is the right one.  You cannot lawfully detain or arrest someone for openly carrying a weapon.  It is legal in North Carolina, as North Carolina is a traditional open carry state.  LEOs need to know and understand the law.  If you continue to unholster and point your weapons at someone who is behaving legally, an innocent person will eventually be harmed or killed and you will be responsible for it.  Don’t be ignorant.  Be thinking men and women.

Isn’t it ironic that the only ones who want final say over who can carry a weapon are some of the very ones who will unholster their weapons and point them at law abiding citizens?  I would be arrested and charged with brandishing a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon (assault can mean perceived intent), and a host of other things if I did that.  But then again, I don’t get to argue in front of the court that I wanted to make sure that I “went home at the end of the day.”  Only LEOs get to do that.

Local LEO approval of firearms purchases is a throwback to Jim Crow laws, plain and simple.  Their approval does nothing that form 4473 doesn’t accomplish.  And LEOs who point their weapons at law abiding open carriers should be prosecuted for crimes in court.

David Codrea:

An elementary school toy gun “buyback” conducted Saturday in Hayward, Calif. offered children a chance to win bicycles in exchange for violating a school policy that does not authorize exceptions.

“Playing with toys guns, saying ‘I’m going to shoot you,’ desensitizes them, so as they get older, it’s easier for them to use a real gun,” Strobridge Elementary Principal Charles Hill maintained in a Mercury Daily News report, with absolutely nothing to substantiate his ignorant, offensive and absurd claim.

“If we want older kids to not think guns are cool, we need to start early,” Hill proclaimed, revealing his interest is manipulating the way children entrusted to his care perceive and react to issues, that is, by adopting the beliefs that agree with his. In other contexts, this would rightfully be perceived as educational malpractice and psychological child abuse.

I am proud to report that my two year old grandson already knows that papa has guns, and he wants to look at them.  We are already teaching him that guns are cool.  As soon as he is able to handle it, he will be the proud recipient of a .22 rifle and he will learn all about the rules for gun safety.

Because guns are cool.

Read the rest at Examiner.

According to one doctor, this becomes something more than you and your children.  Listen carefully.

In the middle of a routine well-child visit, my 4-year-old patient started creating a ruckus in the exam room. Johnny systematically opened all the cabinets, pulled out any loose bits of paper he could find, and tore them up. He then got on the exam table, picked up my expensive ophthalmoscope, and almost took a dive to the floor before his dad stopped him.

Knowing that unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death among children, I used this opportunity to educate Johnny’s parents about safety at home.

Do you have your medicine cabinet locked? Are detergent bottles kept in the top shelf? Do you have working fire alarms? Do you have guns in your home?

While a routine part of well-child checkups, that last question has come under scrutiny lately. Why do I ask?

The data are clear: Gun violence is a public-health threat to children.

Now, it occurs to me that gun owners must consider what they might say when asked by their doctor about guns.  I could say something like the following.

“Well doctor, I’ll answer your questions about guns, but first you must give me verbal and written agreement that you’ll also respond to my questionnaire, and that I can publish the data (if you refuse to answer any specific question the answer reverts to the default answer in the data bank).  I have a web site with a page rank of 5, and after I publish your name and the Q&A session, I’ll own the Google search results on your name within 20 minutes of the page being indexed.  Yes I own guns.  Now for your questions.  First, do you still sexually abuse your wife?”

But I don’t have to do that.  I am good friends with my doctor, and I would respond (I’ll assume that his name is Michael), “Why yes, Michael, you know that I do.  You’ve been shooting with me before.  Why would you ask me?  How much pressure is the new Obamacare paperwork putting on you, and how late do you stay up doing it?  Is there something you need to tell me?  Why are you being forgetful like this?”

But take note of the reasons for the doctor’s questions.  Guns are a “public health concern.”  Doctors have been trained to treat “social ills” for the collective.  This mentality is alive and well among the totalitarians in the most recent attempt to encroach on firearms and related information.

Experts laid out a broad plan for firearms research on Wednesday, saying data is needed on who owns guns, where they keep them, how likely a gun is to be used to hurt someone else, whether having a gun keeps you safer, and whether there are ways to make guns any safer.

“There is no question that this is a public health issue,” says Dr. Alan Leshner, who chaired the Institute of Medicine panel that issued the report. “We have no political agenda.”

[ … ]

“Basic information about gun possession, acquisition, and storage is lacking. No single database captures the total number, locations, and types of firearms and firearm owners in the United States,” the report notes.

This work was commissioned by the totalitarian in chief, Mr. Obama himself.  And of course they’re “experts.”  And of course they want more information.  And of course they want to know everything about all people who own firearms.  And of course they intend to push so-called smart guns.

And if Mr. Obama cannot get the Senate to pass his gun legislation, maybe he can convince everyone that guns are a public health concern worthy of engagement by physicians who need to know everything about you and your guns.  This is the argument du jour.

It’s just totalitarianism masquerading as public health, and there is no doubt that state universities all over America teach it to doctors and in MPH courses.  There is nothing new under the sun.

Paul Markel writes a fawning piece at AmmoLand on the AR-15 being the king of home defense.

What is the most effective tool to engage and defeat these vermin as rapidly as possible? Handguns are carried for convenience, not power. No handgun, regardless of caliber or configuration, can produce the same effect as a centerfire rifle.

This is not opinion, this is physics. Crunch the numbers and even the mighty .44 Magnum pales in comparison to the 5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm. Many years ago an instructor friend of mine offered that “a handgun is simply a rifle waiting to grow up”.

Also, it cannot be denied that a long gun (rifle or shotgun) as a tool is much easier to aim and index on a target than a handgun. Again, this is simply physics. A rifle has four points of contact with the body and a long sight radius. By comparison, a handgun has only two points of contact, the left and right hand, and a short sight radius. Rifles are infinitely more forgiving of slight errors in sight alignment and body movement than are handguns.

As a practical matter, during the panic and adrenaline dump of a life threatening attack, the rifle will be inherently easier to index on target and as an added benefit transition to additional targets more quickly than will any pistol, regardless of make, model, or caliber. While you might desire to argue this point, your energy might be better served elsewhere.

Here is a quick number crunch for the doubting Thomases in the audience. The following numbers come directly from Hornady. The Hornady .44 Magnum 180grain FTX load generates 610 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. By comparison, the 5.56mm 75g. BTHP generates 1410 FPE and the 6.8mmSPCII cartridge with a 110g. BTHP bullet produced 1588 FPE.

To be sure, I like the AR-15 for home defense, and I’ve written so before.  But it’s more complicated than Paul makes it out to be.  I recommend (as I have before) that you send your wife and children to the movies one night, turn the lights out, and practice turning corners and developing your sight picture in rooms with a rifle and tactical light.  I have.

I also carry my weapon from room to room with me at night.  One of my handguns isn’t sitting too far from me as I write.  So I recommend that in order to get the full effect of using a rifle exclusively for home defense, you tote your AR-15 from room to room with you at night.

You see, there are legitimate reasons for handguns, portability being one, maneuverability being another.  No one argues that a rifle will deliver more punch due entirely to muzzle velocity.  But don’t tell me that a .45 caliber 230 grain fat boy won’t deliver enough punch to handle most situations.  And don’t tell that to John Basilone.  Toward the dawn of the battle, Basilone fought Japanese soldiers using only a .45 pistol.

Via WRSA, Max Velocity has an interesting article up on the inability to obtain fire superiority.  The whole article is worth reading, but this part struck me.

So back to the bolt action rifles in the original question: there is no reason why such weapons cannot be used to suppress the enemy, particularly if their very nature means you have to be more accurate with them. This exposes the weakness of automatic weapons: if you face someone with uncontrolled automatic weapons, they could be hosing down your general area but not effectively, while you can put one through their eye with your bolt action rifle. That does not mean all automatic weapons are bad, it depends on the operator: a good operator with a SAW firing short controlled burst will kill/suppress well.

Similarly with semi-automatic weapons with thirty round magazines, like AK or ARs, these can be devastatingly effective but in the wrong untrained hands can be next to useless. So a lot of this comes back to quality of the individual and the level of training and experience they have. Once the adrenalin stacks up in a contact situation it is very easy to look over your sights and fire into or towards the enemy, rapidly pumping rounds downrange in the excitement of the contact. You have to mentally get a grip of yourself, re-focus to get a sight picture and get more accurate.

So far I have basically said that you can use a lot of different types of rifles to be effective so long as you are trained to do so, and conversely even if you have the best equipment none of that will help you if you are just a tacticool goon. Yes, a well-trained team will be more effective if they have better equipment, but I am telling you not to give up hope if you have just bolt action hunting rifles. The advancing German Army at the beginning of the First World War thought they were up against machine gun battalions as they pushed the British Expeditionary Force back to the English Channel. No, it was the fire power generated by the British infantryman with his bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle.

Shotguns are a different matter in my opinion, (mentioned in the original question). At least with bolt action rifles you can try and adapt your tactics to take advantage of range and accuracy if terrain allows, but with shotguns you lose range, volume of fire and also accuracy. Useful for close range contacts in close country, historically carried by point men in the Jungle; I’d prefer an AR.

In many of the scenarios we have discussed here I would never even think to equate having a bolt action rifle as being inferior to having an AR, except for CQB.  Recall also what Travis Haley accomplished with the use of an AR at long distances.

So even using an AR, a scope, deliberate, methodical fire, and a trained shooter is superior to “tacticool” operators.  Furthermore, it seems to me that if concealment didn’t work and you find yourself potentially facing CQB, my 3-e’s are always important if you want to stay alive: egress, evasion and escape.  In any of the scenarios we have discussed over the pages of this web site, a bolt action rifle and a good revolver might be more valuable than any other commodity.

David Codrea:

Daniele Perazzi, president of the Italian Perazzi Shotguns firm, was taken into custody yesterday by Adams County Deputies [see update, below] along with several prototype shotguns. The executive was picked up in the parking lot of the Denver Merchandise Mart, hosting the high-end Colorado Gun Collectors show this weekend, after a taxi driver, likely reacting to a suspicious activity reporting outreach program conducted by law enforcement, told authorities he thought he could be transporting an armed “foreign speaking” terror suspect.

Continue reading to find out why the Sheriff asked him to leave town despite the fact that he had done nothing wrong.

Kurt Hofmann:

… the Personalized Handgun Safety Act of 2013, mandates within two years that newly manufactured handguns be equipped with the technology that allows the guns to only work in the hands of their owners or other authorized users. Manufacturers that do not meet the standards could be held liable. And individuals or businesses selling older handguns must have them retrofitted with personalization technology within three years after the bill is enacted, at the expense of the federal government.

This bill has little chance of passing, but even if it did, the author isn’t even smart enough to exempt LEOs, who won’t endorse it without that exemption.  Kurt discusses the law enforcement take on such laws.

Both of these issues fall into the category where I advocate letting the market decide who wins.  Colorado has made their bed and must now lie in it.  They will eventually repudiate their onerous laws when enough industry leaves, enough industry won’t consider coming, and enough gangs begin to terrorize the state, but the rich part is that they will learn by doing rather than by being told what to do.  If I was Mr. Perazzi I wouldn’t waste one more dime or second on Colorado.  I’d never return, and I’d do my best to ensure that my wares were never sold in that state.  We need not fill in the gap for the intentional failures of others.  It interferes with the learning process.

As for smart guns, as I said before, I advocate at least one manufacturer investing significant resources to develop the technology and see how the market treats their brainchild.  Will it be alive and kicking, or stillborn?  Perhaps the Obama administration should spend a billion dollars on such technology.  Will we be able to track another Solyndra in the making?

I’ve already inveighed against smart guns, saying that I’ll buy one when hell freezes over.  Are there enough people out there to make this a worthwhile investment?  In particular, I strongly recommend that H&K be the first one out of the gate.

Prior:

Manufacturers Dabble In Smart Guns

More On Smart Guns

Pushing Smart Guns

I predicted it.  Now, the L.A. Police have found a sniper rifle in the city.

Thanks to a push from local faith-based organizations and an assist from the Pasadena Police Department, 135 guns were taken off the streets Saturday at the Pasadena Area Gun Buyback and Peace-source Fair.

Likely it was a bolt action rifle with a nice scope, 5.56 mm, or .243, or .270, or .308, or .338.  And rather than it being considered a hunting rifle, or a target shooting rifle, it was a “sniper rifle.”

Make no mistake about it.  The press doesn’t know the difference between a magnifying glass and a rifle scope, or a detachable magazine and a flash suppressor.  They got this stuff from the LAPD, who “repurposed” the weapon to something they wanted.  The LAPD told the press that they bought a “sniper rifle” in the buyback.  Unfortunately, the police are still controlling the narrative.

I had previously asked the question of a purchase at Walmart, “If someone had purchased a really nice bolt action .308 with expensive glass, what would the press have done if this had gotten into criminal hands?  Perhaps call it a “sniper rifle?”

No.  It doesn’t have to be in criminal hands at all.  It just has to be a bolt action rifle with a scope.  But make no mistake.  The only time it will really be a sniper rifle to most civilians is if the police ever try to confiscate such firearms.  If they do that, millions of people will “repurpose” their guns just like the police did.

Real Clear Politics:

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) on states nullifying federal gun laws: I mean, let’s look at the context of nullification. Nullification was last used by Southern states to try to eviscerate Civil Rights legislation, to try to prevent states from basically enforcing desegregation and frankly, I think history will look back on this round of nullification as kindly as it did on the last round.

It is laughable also because it is a total bastardization of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is not an absolute right, not a God given right, always had conditions upon it like the First Amendment has. The idea that the Second Amendment was put in there in order to allow citizens to fight their government is insane.

Now, let’s quote Dr. Douglas F. Kelly in The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World concerning Huguenot religious revolutionary texts.

As far as the development of political thought is concerned, the most important thing to come out of these struggles was a group of Protestant tracts justifying revolution on an old yet new basis.  They taught concepts of religious liberty flowing from a divinely ordained covenant structure of society, as well as a concept of popular sovereignty, giving the people of the nation power to make and depose kings.  Although the Protestants lost the struggle militarily, these concepts became internationally influential long after the fight for freedom was lost in the French nation.

As far as the use of nullification to eviscerate civil rights, Murphy has it exactly backwards (and read here and here).  But it stands to reason.  If you get idiot senators on idiot talk shows being led by idiot talk show hosts, both of whom are ignorant of history, you’ll come away with idiotic conclusions.

There is an increasing number of charges that the recent gun control legislation was rejected because of slippery slope arguments.  One such charge was leveled by the loser himself, Joe Manchin.

Think gun control failed in the Senate because of gun-clutching extremists? Or because of fanatical radicals who want to abolish the Second Amendment? Senator Joe Manchin, who’s been at the heart of the effort, says it’s nothing of the sort. In fact, the central problem really has nothing to do with firearms at all — it’s about trust.

When he speaks to gun owners, “they’re scared this is the first step” in a massive government overreach, said Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat. He made the remarks during an interview with Margaret Carlson at the New York Ideas Festival, a daylong conference sponsored by The Atlantic and the Aspen Institute.

“When you say universal background check, the first thing that comes in the mind of a gun owner is that means registration, and registration means confiscation. ‘I haven’t broken the laws, why do you want to know everything?'” he said. According to Manchin, even in gun-loving West Virginia, constituents he spoke with repeatedly told him that if the bill did only what it said it does, they would wholeheartedly support it. (“There’s a lot the NRA likes in this bill,” he added.) The problem is, they’re skeptical that the bill will in fact go farther than it claims. That means the effort to pass it on a second try will require emphasizing, for example, the harsh penalties associated with keeping records past a certain period.

He portrays gun owners as pitiful sheep, “scared” of anything and everything.  The reality is much different.  But then there is Cass Sunstein, who thinks he is much smarter than we are.  You can read his entire piece, but this is the money quote.

Illuminating though it is, Hirschman’s account misses an especially pernicious example of the rhetoric of reaction: the slippery-slope argument. According to that argument, we should reject Reform A, which is admittedly not so terrible, because it would inevitably put us on a slippery slope to Reform B, which is really bad.

But the problem is that this criticism neglects to consider – or maybe intentionally ignores – the real presence of intentionality.  I have never made the case that the proposed gun control law should have been rejected because it is a slippery slope and could lead to more pernicious or onerous things.  I don’t know another gun rights blogger who has made that case.

The case that I have made, and repeatedly so, is that a system of universal background checks is a precursor and necessary prerequisite to a national gun registry.  I have never charged that it would be some accidental feature of overbearing governance.  I have charged that it would be intentional, and that universal background checks would have no effect on gun crime.

Furthermore, I have pointed to progressive arguments for that very system, showing that this is the real goal of every progressive.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it.  The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.

In the end, Manchin’s proposals were rejected because the people didn’t like his ideas, and Cass Sunstein isn’t as smart as he thinks he is.  Gun control laws such as universal background checks may in fact end up a slippery slope because the federal government is a micromanager and even if there is opposition to a national gun registry one may develop anyway.  But the reason to oppose them has more to do with intentionality, not accident.

Finally, there is another reason to have opposed Manchin’s proposals.  We simply didn’t like what he proposed.  Or in other words, we like the idea that we can buy and sell guns to each other without having to go through a federal firearms license and pay a transfer fee, and we like the idea of gifting guns to each other without telling the federal government about it.

David Codrea discusses the opposition to the opening of a gun shop in Twinsburg, Ohio.

That none of the complainers need prove they know the first thing about guns, gun shops, gun shop clientele and the statistical significance of nearby hoagie shops, bars, day care centers, school drop-offs and houses to create any kind of public safety concern, other than what their own prejudices conjure up, has not been questioned. Their unprovoked anger is entirely self-created, and to imply their peaceable neighbors will lawfully patronize a gun store and then do something evil because a tavern or a day care are nearby is, frankly, insulting, and not worthy of a response except to return such disrespect in kind. If they don’t like what a store has to offer, they don’t have to patronize it.

They may not like what the store has to offer, but in the end it doesn’t matter.  They are swimming against the current.  We will win, battle after battle after battle.

Notice that David also discusses second amendment purists who don’t believe that the second amendment has anything to do with duck hunting.  I think my readers place me in that category.  But recall sporting purposes?

While ATF lawyers might disagree, for something to have a “sporting purpose” means nothing more than it can be taken to the range and operated by the owner to his or her entertainment or training.  The shooting skills – whether for official competitions such as IDPA or 3-Gun, or for unofficial activities such as regular range visits for the purpose of betterment at the science of firearms operation – are sports.  All of them.  Period.  This is non-negotiable.  If it is a firearm, it has a sporting purpose.

So if they take my definition of sporting purposes, the issue solves itself because every gun has a sporting purpose.  If they don’t, they’re in denial of the real reasons for the second amendment.  Either way, we win based on logic, just the way it should be.

Read it all at Examiner.