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]
Our Founding Fathers never once said that the rights given to us by our Creator go out the door in the case of a viral pandemic.
In other words, the Constitution still exists and it still protects us from tyrants.
The Raleigh Police Department had the nerve to tell someone on Twitter that protesting is a non-essential activity.
[ … ]
Do you know why the Founding Fathers added the freedom of assembly into the amendment? The tyrannical English monarchy also did not find protesting or freedom to assemble an essential activity. Quaker William Penn faced charges for simply preaching in public in 1670. The jury found him innocent, but it made the citizens realize that they have a right to assemble.
Then right before the Revolutionary War, the monarchy made the British forces use their power to restrict protests after Parliament passed stupid taxes.
The British forces did just that. In 1770 these forces committed the Boston Massacre. The British army quickly ended protests in New York and *gasp* North Carolina.
It’s precisely in times like this that the bill of rights DOES apply. It’s easy to acquiesce to God-given rights when times are easy. When the .gox Ox gets gored is precisely the time those rights matter.
If those rights are dishonored when the .gov decides that it’s inconvenient, then the rights are dishonored all of the time.
And as I’ve said before, the circumstances in which we find ourselves has turned the lights on and instead of the cock roaches scattering, they’re fighting. They self-identified, and hopefully, Americans will remember.
You can bet on it. As regular readers know since we’ve discussed this many times before, you’re never in more danger than when the police are around. If you don’t get shot by one of them intentionally, you’re in danger of a trigger-happy boob sending a round down range by an ND or because he’s a scared little boy, or in this instance, you’re in danger of being arrested or ticketed for exercising your rights.
The debate over inertia-driven autoloaders vs. gas-operated semiautos has been going around the shotgun world since the conclusion of World War II. For more than a century, inertia guns have been in the hands of hunters, thanks to John Moses Browning’s Auto-5, and a Danish gunsmith, Christer Sjorgren, who created the inertia system Benelli and other gun manufacturers utilize. Gas-operated guns came about after WWII with the development of the M1 Garand, the battle rifle U.S. troops used in combat. Starting in the 1950s, Browning, Winchester, and Remington all began producing gas guns. The arguments amongst hunters and competition shooters over who did it best—inertia or gas—have swirled around late-night campfires ever since.
One system isn’t inherently better than the other, but there are benefits and drawbacks of both. And honestly, you shouldn’t pigeon-hole yourself into shooting gas or inertia. My three favorite modern 12-gauge shotguns are the Beretta A390 Silver Mallard, Winchester SX3, and Benelli Super Black Eagle 2. The first two are gas-operated, and the SBE2 is an inertia gun. I like using the guns for different times of the year and different shoots. The Beretta is for clays, ducks, pheasants, and turkeys. The Benelli is my go-to dark goose gun because it patterns so well beyond the edge of the decoys on fickle/stubborn honkers that don’t like to finish in the kill hole. For spring snow goose season, I wanted an affordable, soft-shooting autoloader, and the SX3 fits that bill.
There are few modern inertia-driven shotguns that have unmanageable recoil. Yes, they are going to pound you harder than most gas guns, and if you shoot a 2-ounce 3.5” turkey load out of an A5, it might well rattle your bones. If you hunt and shoot a lot, and you’re an old or smaller shooter, a gas gun might be for you. Two to three months straight of shooting is a lot for one shoulder to bear, and a gas-operated auto will soften some of the felt recoil.
There is more at the link.
I’m not a shotgun aficionado. But I do value lack of recoil would pay a premium for the pleasure of shooting a gun that has less recoil.
Readers who have more knowledge than I do may wish to weigh in on their favorite shotgun, and reasons why.
One of the first things I noticed when I began firing a red-dot-equipped pistol was my trigger control and grip were not as refined as I thought they were. I noticed the dot would ever-so-slightly dip or slide to the left during my trigger press, ultimately resulting in some 9-ring hits instead of 10- or X-ring impacts on an NRA B8 bull’s-eye at 25 yards. Feedback from the sight allowed me to focus on these shortcomings and make adjustments to my technique.
Dry-fire is the best way to shorten the learning curve, all in the comfort of your home. With the sight turned off (and the pistol empty, of course), practice framing your target within the window of your red-dot sight. On press-out, level the pistol as soon as possible, pick up the target through the glass, and ride it out to extension. Next, try this from the low-ready position, and then from the holster. Once this feels comfortable, activate the sight, and you’ll be surprised at how quickly you pick up the dot upon presentation. Speed and efficiency will come with practice.
I guess it’s like anything else – practice. But first, must get guns that have mount for optic. This means new guns in most instances.
The court granted the City’s petition. The court acknowledged that Lori could legally “walk . . . into any gun store and qualify to buy a handgun . . . and put [it] in that gun safe.” But it held that the City was nevertheless authorized to take the “low hanging fruit” of the guns the Rodriguezes already owned, irrespective of Lori’s ability to buy more, because of the danger that Edward presented. Stating that it was not “ignoring [Lori’s] Constitutional Rights,” the court concluded that it was not appropriate to return the firearms given the public safety concerns at stake.
Ah, those “low hanging fruit” guns.
The only thing low hanging about this is the moral compass of the fruits and nuts who made this decision.
Question from my wife tonight: “What is your opinion? Who has the authority to open the economy back up – the president or the governors? There’s a hot debate over that with the talking heads and MSM.”
Me: The premise of the question is false. You’re asking who has the authority to undo something no one had the constitutional authority to do to begin with.
This is why HR 6110, The Defective Firearms Protection Act, introduced by Representative Debbie Dingell, should be a very big deal. This very short bill, two pages long in its official form. It has two very short sections and counting the labeling of the section titles, it is all of 79 words long.
But these 79 words mark a monumental shift in power from elected officials that the American people can hold accountable to the administrative state, with grave implications for the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. It’s not what the law puts in place, it’s the restriction that it lifts which Second Amendment supporters should worry about.
Under 15 USC 2052, firearms of all types are not considered consumer products, and under 15 USC 2079, firearms are generally excluded from the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
“Because the Consumer Product Safety Commission lacks the authority to recall firearms, faulty guns remain on the market and pose a risk to public and household safety,” said Dingell in the release. She went on to press the nonsense claim that more is done to regulate products like highchairs and bicycles than firearms.
[ … ]
Imagine the CPSC telling Rock River Arms to stop making all of their modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms. The company would have to comply or face civil and criminal penalties. Litigation would also be much more difficult that in challenging a law.
I know folks at RRA and I don’t want them or anyone to have to go through this. The controllers never sleep. We can’t either. Oppose it by all means necessary.
I don’t think you understand how this works. You use these words, but I don’t think you really understand what they mean. You can’t just “remove” things from the internet. It’s available, and everyone who currently wants the files, has the files. If someone finds themselves wanting them in the future, they can find them at numerous places.
It’s sort of like when George Soros tried to get video of his interview off of YouTube with him telling stories of how he worked with the Nazis to round up Jews, and had no remorse for it. Even Soros’s money and Google’s power couldn’t remove the videos. Every time Google would remove one, users would add two more, and so on, until Google eventually gave up. Just go to YouTube and search for “george soros helped nazis round up jews.”
At a recent post by Glenn Reynolds, one commenter wrote “I suspect when the history of this virus is written this is going to be one of the very ugly chapters – the resistance to using the HCQ drug cocktail early in the process. The number of lives it would have saved will be staggering.” Another commenter wrote “As most know, the media/Democrat politicians/FDA want the use of the hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin/zinc combination to be restricted until late in the course of the infection, when the patient’s infection is well-advanced. As a physician, this baffles me. I can’t think of a single infectious condition — bacterial, fungal, or viral — where the best medical treatment is to delay the use of a anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, or anti-viral until the infection is far advanced.”
There is much more at the link. The comments are well worth the time to study them. Indeed, the chapter on this will be ugly, and will likely end in lawsuits, political consequences, and unnecessary deaths. I’ve had email exchanges with trusted readers on this issue, medical professionals, who are concerned about side effects for certain morbidity indicators. True enough, any medication must be administered by qualified personnel, but we know enough now to understand that it is a safe drug, and effective for the purpose of prophylaxis in this case.
There is actually much more than that, but you get the point. There is copious evidence of its effectiveness and relative safety. My daughter (surgical and ER NP) told me this long ago. There are certainly side effects for all medications, but of the many she has had to prescribe, this one is way down on the list of medications of concern.
But the bureaucracy still resists? Is there no prior evidence of its effectiveness and safety? Why yes, there is.
Chloroquine, a relatively safe, effective and cheap drug used for treating many human diseases including malaria, amoebiosis and human immunodeficiency virus is effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. The fact that the drug has significant inhibitory antiviral effect when the susceptible cells were treated either prior to or after infection suggests a possible prophylactic and therapeutic use.
This is a conclusion statement by a NIH study on Coronavirus (Covid-19 is SARs, Bat-SARs + some proteins that mimic HIV). This study, entitled “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread,” was completed and published on August 22, 2005, a study of which Dr. Fauci is certainly aware.
The truth about this effective and safe medication is far more sinister. For political reasons, the administrative state is opposing the very prophylaxis they recommended in 2005 for this disease.
The same bureaucracy is still selling the snake oil that this virus is zoonotic. The two videos below show, based on both genetic analysis and paper trail, this virus has an extremely low probability of being zoonotic. This virus has been studied at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in Canada, Harvard, and at the Wuhan institute. Actual biological material was stolen from the study in Canada, and the Obama administration actually stopped the funding for the study (apparently too late) when they saw the supercharging of the SARs virus that the researchers were pursuing – with the same visiting collaborating Chinese researcher in all instances.
The oath to “First, do no harm” apparently means little to nothing when it comes to the comparison of hatred for Mr. Trump. That oath will mean much more when they enter eternity.
Update: Welcome to Instapundit readers (thanks to Glenn for the link), and welcome again to WRSA readers. To readers, I appreciate your patronage.
