Post and Courier.

The S.C. House of Representatives approved legislation that allows adults to legally tote a handgun with no training required while creating a felon-in-possession crime designed to enable officers to charge more people who shouldn’t own a gun.

The bill approved 90-30 on Feb. 22 mostly along party lines would allow anyone 18 and older who can legally buy a gun to carry it around, whether openly or concealed, without needing a permit.

It does not change where guns are banned. Places where they remain illegal for almost everyone include schools, day cares, courtrooms, jails, hospitals, businesses that post “no weapons” signs, and city and county offices.

The bill adds clerks of court and public defenders to the list of exempted people — primarily, judges and prosecutors currently — who can carry where others can’t, but with one caveat. Public defenders still couldn’t take their handgun into a jail or prison.

Amendments approved during the debate encourage gun owners to get training without mandating it, and require them to report a stolen gun to local law enforcement within 30 days without setting a punishment.

Republicans argued the effort is about restoring a “constitutional right” in the Second Amendment that shouldn’t need government permission, while Democrats countered it’s a dangerous bill that will lead to more murders and accidental deaths.

[ … ]

Republican Rep. Alan Morgan of Greer, a co-sponsor, responded by citing statistics from the 25 states that have already passed so-called “constitutional carry” laws, arguing they haven’t led to a rise in gun-related killings there.

It’s the lack of predicted “Wild, Wild West” scenarios here over the last two years that changed some minds, said Rep. Bobby Cox, R-Greer, the main sponsor.

In 2021, Republicans pushed through a law allowing South Carolinians to openly carry their handguns, as long as they have a concealed weapon permit.

As I told you before, I listened to the entirety of the debate (a full day of it) when the S.C. senate passed open carry (the largest pill for the fearful and timid to swallow, mainly because of law enforcement).

“The majority of the state probably doesn’t even know we’re an open-carry state yet,” said Cox, an Army Ranger currently in the Reserve. “That goes against the Wild, Wild West argument we hear.

“People were very worried about guns being seen everywhere, especially in the tourist areas,” said the executive for Sig Sauer gun manufacturer. “I work in the area, and I’ve only seen one person carry.”

[ … ]

Charleston Police Chief Luther Reynolds said he can picture King Street, which attracts throngs of people to its shops, restaurants and bars, awash with guns.

“We are prevented and precluded — because they’re entitled to carry a gun — from even asking them if they’re illegally carrying it,” he said.

And you should be prevented from asking them.  It’s none of your business.

Law enforcement screamed long and loud about the wild, wild west when open carry passed two years ago.  Hopefully they’re adequately shamed now and they’re staying silent this time around, so that they don’t look even more ridiculous than they already do.

Baby steps.  I was delighted to see open carry pass two years ago.  I’ll be delighted to see permitless carry pass as well, but I predicted exactly this sequence of events if you will recall.  I told you that permitless carry was next in line and will pass at some point in S.C. (I gave it a year, it has taken two), but they had to see for themselves what every other state has seen.

The state doesn’t become a war zone and burn to ashes.  The manner of carry doesn’t change a man’s character.  I dream of a day when a man is seen for the nature of his character rather than the method of his carry.

Cowboy State Daily.

Jones was referencing Senate File 148, which would preempt any local firearms regulations that contradict Wyoming statute.

It’s done well so far. The Wyoming Senate passed it by a vote of 30-1 on Feb. 8. It passed its second of three readings before the Wyoming House on Wednesday.

“I think it will pass,” Jones said. “If it doesn’t pass, a municipality could feasibly implement their own gun control, as long as they exempt firearms manufactured in Wyoming.”

SF 148 clears up an oversight that’s created some confusion over gun policy in Wyoming, Jones said, adding that Wyoming has long had a “preemption statute.”

That means gun rights policy set by the state preempts those proposed by a municipality or other localized but essentially entity, such as the University of Wyoming campus, he said. Private property owners and privately owned businesses still retain the right to restrict guns as they see fit on their premises.

The Wyoming Freedom of Firearms Act was passed in 2010. That protects Wyoming gun or gun accessory manufactures from undue federal regulations, Jones said.

However, for undetermined reasons, the preemption statue wasn’t properly referenced in the Freedom of Firearms Act, Jones said. So technically, a municipality or other entity can pass its own additional gun restrictions – they just wouldn’t apply to guns made in Wyoming.

And since outside of a few custom firearm makers, firearms manufacturers are based outside of Wyoming, those local gun restrictions would apply nearly all commonly owned firearms.

SF 148 fixes that, making it clear that the preemption statue applies to all firearms, not just those made in Wyoming, Jones said.

SF 148 was prompted in part by a challenge to UW’s prohibition against carrying firearms on campus, Jones said.

In 2018, Lyle Williams of Unita County was ticketed for open-carrying a firearm in the university’s convention center during the state Republican party’s annual conference.

That citation was challenged on the grounds that both open and concealed carry are allowed by state statute in Wyoming. But in 2020, Albany County District Court Judge Tori Kricken ruled in the university’s favor.

In her decision, Kricken cited the fact that the preemption statute as cited in the Freedom of Firearms Act applies only to guns made in Wyoming, Jones said.

That’s a stupid reason for a judge to reach a decision like that.  There is no excuse for a lame judiciary who looks to the jot and tittle of the law but ignores the sweep and intent.

Anyway, this needs to pass so that residents of Wyoming can once again not have to worry with progressive do-gooders.  For example, Jackson, Wyoming is likely to try something similar in nature within city limits.  Have you looked recently at the makeup of the city council in Jackson?

Opinion on South Carolina Stand Your Ground, Source:

As a martial artist, I am passionate about the right of people to defend themselves. And in my years of teaching the martial arts, I have had a number of students tell me about how they have had to use force to protect themselves and loved ones from harm. But they always tried to avoid using force, because martial artists know how precious life is — even the life of an aggressor.

Martial artists believe that one should always walk away from conflict, if possible. This is why we only use force reluctantly and only as a last resort.

Also, if force must be used, we know we should use only the amount of force necessary to end the threat and allow us to get to safety.

These principles are dear to me, which is why I oppose stand-your-ground laws.

These laws allow those who use deadly force to be exempt from criminal prosecution, even if they could have easily and safely retreated from what they perceived to be a threat.

Before Florida passed the first stand-your-ground law in 2005, the United States legal tradition already protected the right to self-defense, but only after a person had done all that he or she could to avoid conflict, including backing away from the aggressor and attempting to retreat to safety.

Using deadly force to defend oneself in a public space was only allowed after one first tried to retreat or if retreat was simply not possible.

Stand-your-ground laws differ from what is known as the castle doctrine, which applies to people dealing with an intruder in their home. I do not believe anyone has an obligation to retreat from a home intruder.

The author uses a lot of the word but after claiming to believe in armed self-defense. His argument is, in one way, correct. Avoidance is always the best choice; avoiding crowds is solid advice. But he goes on to wrongly claim a difference between Castle Doctrine and self-defense anywhere. If you have the right to defend yourself in your home, you carry that right anywhere. It’s your right and does not belong to a location. Locations don’t have rights people do. We acknowledge here that the home has a degree of expected sanctuary in the Bible, but men also have to defend their life right anywhere they may be, thus the right.

The object of self-defense is to get the assailant(s) to disengage. If not being where you shouldn’t solves a threat problem, don’t go. If leaving solves that, then leave. Nothing in the Stand Your Ground Doctrine allows the offensive use of weapons or tactics, which is the argument against Stand Your Ground that always shows the ignorance of the man making the case. His opinion, as stated in this piece, is no different.

And he makes the proportional use of force argument. There’s no way to know what would have happened if X or Y, or Z. Proportional use of force is an impossible standard that will get people killed. But the evidence of either murder or self-defense can be determined. Proof is required, not a would have-should have. Arguments against Stand Your Ground also wrongly assume that turning your back is wise. It’s not; never turn your back on a threat.

Again, getting the assailant to disengage is the proper self-defense training standard to teach.

I just found out about these guys last night. The video has only one of them in it. Their humility is encouraging. They have the willingness to admit ignorance and seek necessary knowledge. They don’t have a catalog of videos yet, but they’ve indicated more to come.

A list of gear used in the video is here on the Dirty Civilian page.

Source:

As a progressive democrat, I generally try to avoid any set of ideas that smacks of conspiracy theory. That caveat being stated, I have followed gun control legislation and its failures, as have many ofus, for some time. Most of us are familiar with the words of the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The author may be “familiar with the words of the Second Amendment” but not the punctuation; there is but one comma, the second one in the above misquote. Nor can “krypton981” read English well.

It appears to me that the concept of a well regulated Militia would involve not only the government, for the purposes of regulation, but also entities such as the National Guard, rendering those entities entirely sufficient. The Republicans, however, appear to conveniently ignore the first phrase, and devolve interpretation merely to the right of anyone in this country to “bear arms”, (including underage children who may be “given”a gun). The right to bear arms is not, of course, mentioned in the amendment, although that phrase is vociferously used as an argument against gun control or even gun safety.

This should be a fun reminder to gun lovers everywhere. Let’s see:

“A healthy breakfast being necessary to the start of a great day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.”

Who or what has the right to keep and eat food? The breakfast, the day? Who has the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment language? The Militia, the State? No, it’s the people. Breakfasts and days don’t eat food, nor do Militias and States have rights.

And it’s no theory; it was a conspiracy to overthrow the crown of England that gave us the Second Amendment codifying God’s immutable right for the people to keep and bear arms.

In response to the headline: perhaps not, but homeschooling sure enough is.

Photo from the article: attributed, artfulblogger/Flickr/cropped/ CC BY 2.0

From the article:

The only thing more predictable than boys being fascinated with weapons is them eventually sketching one in class. But that’s not allowed anymore. What is it that makes a little boy — practically straight out of the womb — take an interest in weapons and emulate gun-toting, swash-buckling heroes? Even doctors aren’t sure. As one pediatrician told me about my then 16-month-old son who turned every stick into a sword, “We don’t know why. They just do it.”

Doctors don’t know why because they are almost exclusively Godless servants of money, turned agents of the State for profit. But “we” do know. In a post here at TCJ, Ignorance, Feigned or Real, we show that inherent sin is provable, both in nature and from Scripture.

Now, weapons are not evil, sinful, or a sign of sin, but necessary for living in a world overtaken by the results of the fall of man into sin. Sin entered into the world through Adam’s disobedience to God, and all men inherited this sinful nature from him (Romans 5:12). Seemingly, the Holy Bible being its own authority and believing what the Bible says about inherent sin upset some lurkers. Oh well. Jesus loves me; this I know because the Bible tells me so. If the Bible is good enough for God, it’s good enough for me. Where were we?

All men are sinners. As one does not have to teach a child to strike another child and steal his toy, so too, the very need for self-defense is evident, even inherited knowledge in an infant. If the child will commit assault and theft quite without any training in the matter, why should he not, evidently in his nature from Adam, recognize the need, yay, the divine right of self-defense to preserve life and immediately, even as an infant, undertake to train himself in this requirement? We see no discontinuity in the idea.

Even a heathen doctor could have told this mother; we do this because we are men, and we must keep you from harm. It is our duty. Seems simple enough even to somebody who’s never read the word of God. Now, as we know, this duty of men comes from God and is evident in nature. Woe to them who makes the State or women rulers of households and keepers of men as chattel.

You can read the rest of the sad tale of child abuse at the hands of government communists indoctrinating children in the ways of sinful effeminacy if you desire. Get your children out of government-run schools!

Richard Mann writing at F&S.

• 30-30 Winchester
• 357 Magnum
• 44 Magnum
• 45/70 Government
• 360 Buckhammer

[ … ]

The 30-30 Winchester and the 30/06 Springfield are often considered the two most iconic American rifle cartridges. They’ve withstood the test of time. But they’re not the oldest or the most versatile. The 45/70 was introduced in 1873, 21 years before the 30-30 and 33 years before the 30/06. Originally designed for the Trapdoor Springfield, the 45/70 gained its current fame in the lever-action, and it is arguably the most popular lever-action rifle sold today. By modern standards, original 45/70 ballistics are pathetic. Modern 45/70 loads are not. And when all the 45-70 loads are considered, you have what might be the most adaptable big game cartridge of all time.

There are essentially three power levels of 45/70 ammunition, which is a trait no other centerfire rifle cartridge can claim. Power-level-one loads replicate the cartridge’s original ballistics and launch a 405-grain bullet at about 1300 fps. Inside 75 yards they’ll work for many big game animals. Second-power-level loads are generally loaded with a 300-grain bullet and pushed to about 1800 fps. They can generate more than 2000 foot-pounds of muzzle energy and are sufficient out to around 200 yards for non-dangerous critters. And finally, there are the third-power-level 45/70 loads. These can generate more than 3500 foot-pounds of muzzle energy—with recoil to match—and are sufficient for spy balloons or any beast walking Earth.

He also discusses the other cartridges, including one of my favorites, the .44 magnum.

I always enjoy reading Richard’s work, but my goodness it seems way, way premature to include 360 Buckhammer in that list.  It’s brand new, and in my opinion will end up being a flash in the pan.  Basically it doesn’t really do anything that the 30-30 can’t with the heavier loads (e.g., I have both 150 gr and 170 gr sitting on my desk in front of me now, and ballistically, it’s not really proven that the 170 gr does any better than the 150 gr.).  It’s parent case is the 30-30, just with a heavier bullet.  It’s also not proven that the .35 Remington does any better than the 30-30.  I just don’t think there’s a void to fill with the 360 Buckhammer.  Prove me wrong with ballistics analysis.

But let me tell you where I think there is a void.  Between the .44 magnum and the 45-70.  The perfect cartridge to fill that void is the 454 Casull, and I have written both Henry and Marlin begging them to introduce a rifle chambered in 454 Casull.  Apparently, my protestations have been to no avail at this point.

Anyway, I expect 350 Legend to wane in popularity, and I don’t expect wide availability of the 360 Buckhammer.  It may be an item of interest at some point (“Wow, I haven’t seen one of those in a long time, it may be a collector’s items at this point”), but it remains to be proven.

The 30-30 will never go out of style or off the market, and there will always be a high demand for either a new release by Marlin or a legacy JM stamped 336 in 30-30.

But I demand that Marlin introduce a Model 336 in .454 Casull.  I’ll buy two immediately upon release.  And I’d be happy to write about 20 articles on a new 336 in .454 Casull for Marlin if they send me a prototype.

Listen to it all to learn about the changing tactics of the gun controllers – tactics that will lose before Judge Robert Benitez.  I always learn something by listening to Mark.

A leftist finally says the quiet part out loud; a government monopoly on force is their desire.

Article Source

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney (D) addressed the shooting death of Temple University police officer Christopher Fitzgerald and made clear his view that one cannot claim to back the blue if they do not back gun control.

Breitbart News reported that Fitzgerald was shot and killed while investigating a carjacking Saturday night. The alleged cop killer, 18-year-old Miles Pfeffer, was arrested Sunday morning without incident.

The Philadelphia Inquirer quoted Kenney reacting to the slaying, saying, “There’s too many [guns] and they’re too easy to get.”

Kenney added, “You can say you back the blue, but if you don’t back gun control and gun availability, you don’t back the blue. We owe it to them to do everything we can to stop this nonsense and stop this tragedy.”

Video H/T @greg_price11

James Wesley Rawles, at Survival Blog:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen decision (issued June 23, 2022) was a pivotal ruling.  Following up on the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and the McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) decisions, Bruen reaffirmed private gun rights, quite solidly. Up until those three decisions, the Supreme Court had conspicuously ignored taking up any Second Amendment cases, for more than 50 years. But now, the highest court has made it quite clear that the right to keep and bear arms is nigh-on absolute.

I’ve mentioned the Bruen decision before in SurvivalBlog. But today, I’d like like to examine it more closely.

The majority opinion for Bruen was written by one of my heroes, Justice Clarence Thomas. He had previously lamented that the Second Amendment had been treated as “a disfavored right.”  But in the 2022 decision, Justice Thomas set things write. He forthrightly wrote that the only gun regulations that can be deemed constitutional are ones that don’t infringe on conduct that is plainly covered by the text of the Second Amendment and that are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition.” This part of Bruen means that any gun law enacted at any level must have a demonstrable parallel in regulations that were in place at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights — meaning circa December, 1791. Thus, Bruen sets a very high bar for legislators to hurdle. If lawmakers cannot cite a similar law that existed after the War of Independence but before December, 1791, then any statute pertaining to arms of any description would be unconstitutional!

It’s an interesting rehearsal of some little known history, and with Bruen, history matters. In light of the decision, one has to ask by what authority does the F exist in ATF? Read the rest.