Dean Weingarten has a good find at Ammoland.
Judge Eduardo Ramos, the U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, has issued an Opinion & Order that a ban on stun guns is constitutional. A New York State law prohibits the private possession of stun guns and tasers; a New York City law prohibits the possession and selling of stun guns. Judge Ramos has ruled these laws do not infringe on rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Let's briefly…… [read more]
If the Panel Opinion remains, Black is meaningless, because there will always be “more” available to any police officer. Even if an individual has violated no law, they will be subject to detainment based on any speculative crime which generally could be committed by any anonymous person. A man walking in the direction of any woman might be a rapist, given that he would appear to have the physical ability to carry out a rape. Any driver of a car heading in the direction of any other human being might be a potential murderer, because they appear to have the physical ability to run-over people, should they so choose. The analogies could go on and on because, like the Michael Walker case, these scenarios are all generalized, rather than based on individualized reasonable suspicion.
Deputy Donahoe did, and claims to have done numerous other times, exactly that which Black forbade: to assume that being a felon in possession of a firearm was the default status; that, without more, he could detain and ID anyone he saw with a firearm. He admitted that he had no information that Walker may have been a prohibited person. (J.A. 162:5-8). Donahoe admitted under oath that had no indications that Mr. Walker was a threat to anyone, nor appeared to have any ill intentions (J.A. 167:1-4). Donahoe told Mr. Walker at the beginning of the stop, “At this point, I have the absolute right to see whether you’re legal to carry that gun or not.” (See J.A. 209 – Video of Incident).
I like the cut of his jib. Either the Fourth Circuit mans up and does the right thing, or else their decision in the Black case is meaningless (we’ve covered this case too having to do with Mr. Black and the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department).
I discussed this case with a Charlotte cop I know at length – I’ll reiterate what we discussed at some point again in the future. Needless to say, I was disappointed at the cop’s lack of concern over what the Fourth Circuit had decided, and equally disappointed in the rights he felt he had to detain people.
There are many of those. But this one is quite interesting, and I’ll repeat what I’ve said before: I don’t start my day without coffee, even if I’m on the trail. A better way of saying it is that coffee starts my day.
In this case, coffee may save your life one day on the trail in less than optimal circumstances. You can start fire with it.
I wonder if this works with flint and steel or a ferro rod? I guess there’s one way to find out.
On an FFP the reticle expands or contracts in conjunction with the magnification, allowing the gradations of the reticle design, whether milliradian (mil), minute of angle (m.o.a.) or bullet drop compensating (BDC) to remain proportional. With the high range of magnification possible on today’s optics, it is a true luxury to crank the power to whatever is ideal for the level of support, the field of view desired and the precision of shot placement, then simply hold on the correct reticle gradation for the range and begin to press the trigger.
[ … ]
Most AR shooting, in whichever role—whether sporting, competition or duty/defense—is done within the “sweet spot” of the .223 Rem. trajectory where the shooter can simply hold on the intended target and get the hit. With the common 50-yd./200-yd. zero the bullet’s path is within the margin of error out to about 250 yds. This lets a shooter enjoy a consistent reticle image that remains the same, regardless of the magnification, and is still bold and visible at the low end.
However, if the shooter has to hold over for the occasional long shot with the magnification topped off at the maximum, the reticle holds are “true.” Six power is a good compromise for visibility at distance but is still low enough that many shooters can use maximum power from an unsteady support without getting motion sick from the image and, thus, prone to snatching the shot off.
I think this is a pretty good article, explaining what you’re giving up with each choice. For FFP scopes and high powered rifles, the reticle adjusts according to magnification. This lets the shooter more accurately judge holdovers with extreme distance and magnification.
But that reticle looks mighty small on low power. For SFP scopes, there is no need to go to high magnification to make accurate judgments of holdovers because the reticle is always the same size. But for extreme long range shooting (as long as you can get with an AR), that reticle won’t adjust with magnification.
But the Supreme Court is filled with controllers and cowards. My prediction: they’ve heard the truth now, and they will ignore it, or find some way to whittle down the scope of the decision, or decide that the meat of the claims have no standing in their court because blah blah blah.
Let’s get this off to an educated start. Here’s a miscalculation for you. I’ve seen engineers do it before despite being taught better in engineering courses.
Let’s say you’re trying to get the cross sectional area of a tube in stress with an inner and outer radius. You cannot use this formula: pi() * (r2 – r1)^2, or pi() * (d2 – d1)^2 / 4. Because that’s not the same thing as pi() * (r2^2 – r1^2). That’s a miscalculation, and it’s the sort that can kill people (or over-design and cost money). I corrected the engineer I saw doing this.
Los Angeles police have admitted their bomb squad ‘miscalculated’ the weight of fireworks before a planned controlled explosion which went wrong last month, destroying the team’s armored truck and leaving 17 people injured.
[ … ]
The vehicle has an iron chamber which is designed to contain 25 pounds of explosives, and officers estimated they were putting in 16.5 pounds in to it, LAPD Chief Michel Moore said Monday.
But investigators later weighed the remains of the explosives and calculated that there must have been about 42 pounds of fireworks loaded into the device.
The resultant catastrophic failure of the armored chamber sent a plume of fire into the air, injured 17 people and shattered the windows of nearby buildings.
Chief Moore gave the update the investigation on Monday morning at the LAPD Headquarters and said an ‘apparent miscalculation’ and ‘human error’ led police to overload the containment truck.
“Apparent miscalculation.” He uses those words. I do not think he understands what it means, and it makes me wonder if these folks have ever calculated anything in their lives.
If they tried, could they drive the intelligence quotient of LEOs any lower than it is right now?
And why couldn’t they have driven the truck into the middle of a field rather than do this on a city street?
CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCBD) – The City of Charleston is making some changes to a few city ordinances regarding firearms as South Carolina’s new Open Carry with Training Act goes into effect on August 15th.
Monday, the Public Safety Committee voted to restrict open carry at all city permitted events. That includes, but is not limited to, parades, concerts, fairs, festivals, and, demonstrations. The act gives local municipalities the authority to implement such restrictions while staying within legal boundaries.
“We wanted to apply it across the board,” said Charleston Mayor John Tecklenburg.
The restrictions are all in the name of public safety, according to City Councilman Peter Shahid.
“Those who come to watch a parade, we want this to be a very safe operation and for those who are participating in a parade, we want them to be safe,” said Shahid.
Charleston Police Chief Luther Reynolds stated that he’s in support of the restrictions.
“I think it’s the right thing for all the right reasons,” said Chief Reynolds.
But of course you do. Public safety. Forget that those same guns could be carried concealed, and forget that you wouldn’t know the difference, or that the carriers may not be permitted.
This is a very well written and informative article. For those who are wondering, the M18 is the M-4/AR-15 variant with a typically shorter barrel, usually sporting a quad rail.
I see the need for this sort of weapon, given the focus on CQB in recent years combined with the fact that suppressors are now ubiquitous in the U.S. military, so a 10.5″ barrel isn’t really 10.5″.
But it does cause problems, including lug breakage, high pressures, etc. This article discusses some of the ways to mitigate those issues, including coated BCGs, adjustable gas blocks, and so on.
But just be sure to remember that when you go altering the design the engineer gave it, you introduce all sorts of unintended consequences. The machine will usually perform its best when unaltered from the original design, assuming the engineer is good.
Saying you dislike heavy recoil is kind of like saying you can’t drive a manual transmission. Everyone likes to say they aren’t bothered by recoil. Everyone lies. I know shooters who boast of their recoil tolerance but when I see them at the range they have 50 lbs. of lead stacked behind the rifle.
Fool me all you want, but don’t fool yourself. If you really want to find out, have a friend at the range load the rifle for you, leaving the chamber empty on occasion so you never know if the rifle is going to fire or not. When the firing pin clicks on an empty chamber after a string of live rounds, you’ll know. If you really can handle it the sight picture will remain steady. If not … I’ve seen people with both eyes closed, face pulled away from the stock and contorted in a grimace. If shooting offhand sometimes they’ll actually stumble forward a step or two.
I always look for the gun which can supply the minimum recoil and still get the job done I am asking it to. There is no virtue in unneeded recoil.
